FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Krell - WWU

n/a

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

n/a

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.

Brandon Berg - Hired X

Brie Coyle - Whitman

Chris Pierini - UWash

Background: I debated 4 years in high school, 2 years LD, 2 years Cross X. I debated Parli at UW for 2 years. I'm now head coach at UW and been coaching the team for 5 years. This will be my 15th year involved with debate. In General: ·         My flow is strict and speed is fine. ·         I default “net benefits” if no other framework is engaged. ·        Read any textual advocacy twice (PMC plan, perm, K alt, CP, T violation, ect) or have your partner give me and your opponents a copy of the text during your speech. The last thing I want to judge is a theoretical argument predicated off of text I don’t have word for word. ·         I’m willing to do a “gut check” on absurd arguments to protect the academic value of the activity. If Gov makes an argument that a country does not exist to no link a relations DA that argument is not going to fly. I want to vote for intelligent and strategic arguments. ·         Terminal defense: Sigh…..at some point I guess defense can win you the argument/round. A “we meet” on T or 0 solvency because of a plan flaw, come to mind. 0 risk of a link is just hard to prove. Defense combined with offense is a much easier way to win my ballot. In fact I think defense is undervalued in most debates. ·        If you and the other team have agreed to specific terms before the round like say “we will provide a written copy of CP text if they provide a written copy of plan text”. I must know about it before hand, those ethical debates are nearly impossible resolve. ·        I think debate is fun. Don’t put me in a position where it’s not fun.  ·         POO's: Call them but I'll probably just take them "under consideration".  ·         POI’s: You should probably answer a question or two. If a team can not engage your argument because it’s unclear (usually I’m thinking of a T violation or wtf the K alt means) and you refuse to answer a question….I'm probably going to give a lot a weight to any theory coming your way.  ·         If you have a question please ask, I’m more than happy to answer it. chris.pierini@gmail.com Section 2: Specific Inquiries  1.      Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? ·         26-29.5 standard range. ·         Points are awarded on the basis of strategic decisions made in round. ·         I will only go outside of this range if you are horrifically rude to me, your partner, or your opponents. 2.      How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? ·         The “level” at which the K operates is dependent on the framework. ·         Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? That’s for the debaters to engage or not. ·         Kritiks are like any other argument, they can be run poorly and they can be run well. ·         If you start throwing out hyper specific buzz words (especially in your alt text) OR a melding of 16 different authors it would be prudent to define/terms and explain your argument more than going for laundry list links and impacts. 3.      Performance based arguments… ·         I will evaluate every argument made in round.  Isn’t all debate a type of performance? ·         I will vote for performance based arguments…if you win the performance should win you the ballot.   4.      Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? ·         My threshold for pulling the trigger on a theoretical argument, I would not consider high or low. However, you must have all of the right components to warrant the trigger being pulled. Winning your interp and standards without winning a voting issue pretty much means I’m not voting for the argument. ·         Make sure you’re going for and impacting to the correct voting issues. You should probably have reasons why education/ fairness/ abuse/ jurisdiction/whatever is an impact-able argument. ·         I don’t require competing interpretations to vote for T but it’s probably helpful. ·         I don’t require in-round abuse but it’s probably helpful.   5.      Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? ·         CP’s they are an argument. ·         I have zero bias for CP theory. What arguments are run is purely a question of strategy. ·         I think solvency isn’t necessarily binary. You can solve better or worse in a lot of instances. This means CP vs Case solvency is really important for weighing impacts.   6.      Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ·         Absolutely   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?)? ·         Theory (either throw out the argument or reject the team) then I do straight net benefits: K or/and CP or SQ impacts vs Case impacts….in general. ·         If your losing a K framework without articulating how your K operates in the Gov framework I’m probably going to reject the argument as it no longer functions in a decision making calculus. ·         If you have specific scenarios, I’ll do my best to answer them but with the variety of how arguments interact I can’t reasonably explain every permutation possible.   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")? ·         Without argument interaction, PMs and LOs will be punished in speaker points ·         I have absolutely voted for positions like DeDev which went for value to life outweighing the nuclear war deaths and voted against when the warrants were not present. ·         If things are so diametrically opposed with ZERO argument interaction then my gut tells me I would default Gov as the Opp hasn’t presented a compelling argument to reject the Gov case. This has NEVER happened to me. Someone makes an argument which demonstrates impact interaction which I will evaluate because at this point judge intervention has become necessary to resolve the debate. I will intervene using arguments on the flow not my own personal bias. Basically, the better warranted or more logical argument will win out. ·          I give a lot of weight to specific scenarios vs generic impacts for reasons of probability.

Denise Vaughan - Bellevue

General information: I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA.  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. 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. 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.

Devin Weitzman - Reed

Emily Santee - Lewis & Clark

Jimi Durkee - Whitman

n/a

John Julian - Hired X

JOHN N JULIAN, SR<o:p></o:p>   Head Coach: Newport High School<o:p></o:p>   Years Competed in Policy: 6 (CEDA, NDT, NFL-CX)<o:p></o:p>   Years Coaching Policy: 20+<o:p></o:p>   Years Judging Parli: 1<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Background: <o:p></o:p>   Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University (Aerospace Engineering), CSU Fresno (Mechanical Engineering), Portland State (Systems Engineering/Computer Information Systems). 15 years as a professional consultant for Fortune 500, Government, and Military customers. Professional instructor in Information Technology. Specialization in large (> 10 TB) databases, System Architecture, Business Intelligence, Data Modeling, Predictive Analysis. Currently employed as the Senior Data Engineer for Amazon.com's Global Payments Business Intelligence Team, writing predictive analysis software to mine Amazon's payment data for trends and metrics to predict customer buying patterns and behaviors in advance of purchases - you get email saying "we think you might like 'X'" - yeah, I'm THAT guy. And when I'm not doing that, I coach high school debate 4 hours a day.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Intro: <o:p></o:p>   I'm a relative newcomer to the college Parli debate circuit, but not to debate as a sport. I am what many would call "old school" in many of my paradigmatic expectations. I'm probably the closest thing you'll get to a lay judge on the circuit... and many teams choose to treat me that way. Be advised: I'm sharper than that.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Argumentation: <o:p></o:p>   In practice, I evaluate policy by the stock issues standard. That said, I know many teams have a fetish for running all sorts of frameworks, kritiks, theory, and other types of off-case arguments. I ultimately will evaluate the round by the following heirarchy:<o:p></o:p>   1) a priori arguments - these are arguments that must be evaluated before ANY other issue can be evaluated. If any other issue can be net-competitive with what you think is an a priori argument, then it is not a priori. Many Kritiks are a priori. While I'm not opposed to Kritiks, they have to be well executed and deeply developed in order to win on my ballot. Half-hearted attempts at a K usually fail with me.<o:p></o:p>   2) Topicality - T is evaluated first among the stock issues. I expect a clear standard and well-defined violation. If the Gov case is remotely close to topical, I'm unlikely to find for the Opp on T alone.<o:p></o:p>   3) The remaining 4 stock issues - SIG/HARMS, SOLV, INH, and ADs/DAs - Gov must win all, Opp only one. Counterplans sacrifice INH and HARMS in favor of going for SOLV and A/DAs. I like counterplans (hint). Let's see how many people will actually read this.<o:p></o:p>   4) Performance - In the event that the round becomes so muddled that a logical decision cannot be reached in my mind, I default to performance - meaning oratorical style, decorum, respect for the opponent and the event, preparation, etc. Don't make me go there. If you do, expect a right proper nuking of your speaker points.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   If you choose to run an argument outside this general framework... expect to explain it to me, in detail, if you want my ballot.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   Performance:<o:p></o:p>   I expect an oratorical, extemporaneous style. I do not like speed for speed's sake. Sometimes rounds develop in such a way that speed becomes necessary. When that is the case, enunciate and project. Bottom line: If it ain't on my flow, I never heard it, and it doesn't count.<o:p></o:p>   Furthermore, decorum is a voter. Normally it is a tie break (as stated above). If rudeness becomes a factor, I will make decorum an a priori voter. The best way to know that it has become a voter is when I have to intervene in a round by telling someone to knock off the rude behavior. If I get involved, you won't like it. Be nice, play nice.<o:p></o:p>   <o:p> </o:p>   How best to win my ballot (Now we'll see how far people really read these things): <o:p></o:p>   I tend to vote for the team that makes my job easy for me. Walk me through your logic - explain to me WHY I should vote for you (don't just tell me that I need to and expect me to build your case in my own mind). The more work I have to do on your behalf, the less likely I'm going to vote for you. Don't like that? Get used to it... it's the way business is done all over the globe. You get one shot to win me over - make the most of it.<o:p></o:p>

Korry Harvey - WWU

Background/Experience I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.   I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.   Unique consideration I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.   Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.   Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.   That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.   Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.   Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.   Openness to critical/performative styles of debating See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.   Topicality/Theory While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.   Parliamentary procedure While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.   I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

Kyle Kimball - Lewis & Clark

Lewis Silver - Whitman

n/a

Luke Gering - UWash

Luther Landry - Willamette

n/a

Megan Schrader - Hired X

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

n/a

Michael Belcher - Hired X

Mike Meredith - Whitman

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Paul Bingham - WWU

n/a

Rachel Mosley - Puget Sound

n/a

Rachelle Harris - Puget Sound

n/a

Rob Layne - Hired X

Robby White - Hired X

Sam Timinsky - UWash

Sarah Hamid - Oregon

History/BG 1         Academic: I completed my undergraduate degree with a double major in Literature (focus on Gender Criticism and Theory) and Post-Colonial Studies, minor in Art History, Gender Studies, History, and Film Studies. I am currently an MA candidate in Media Studies at the University of Oregon’s School of Journalism and Communication. My research interests include nation branding, anthropology of the state, and “globalization”. 2         Debate: I am in my third year of coaching at the U of O’s Parliamentary Debate/Policy Debate program. I also direct our fledgling IE program. As a competitor, I spent 3 years in the NPTE/NPDA circuit, 2 of which were spent debating for the University of the Pacific in Parliamentary Debate and NFA-LD. 3         Judging: This will be my third NPTE/NPDA, and the conclusion of my third season of judging. 4         Topic Areas: I was heavily involved in the research of all 3 topic-areas, though am most versed in science/technology and the Latin America resolutions. I am comfortable evaluating deep, well-researched debates on all resolutions.   Global I believe hard, educational debate is good debate. I like to see strong research ethics, clash, and a willingness to engage a variety of methods and arguments. I do not like to see blips, claims, lies, and attitudes that seek to exclude. I recognize the participatory disparities in this activity – the diminishing voice of representation from 2-year institutions and the ever present absence of debaters of color – and tend to approach rounds with the kind of ferocious open-mindedness that will allow as many people to participate as possible.   Local 1         I have no hang-ups about voting for any ‘type’ of argument, regardless of manner of delivery or genre of argument. I have voted for and against all arguments. 2         Rate of delivery is rarely a problem; I keep a neat flow and will audible for clarity with little hesitation if needed. IMO, ideal rate of delivery is determined by what is most conducive to the pedagogic value of the round. 3         Order of operations (unless convinced otherwise): (1) framework/theoretical legitimacy, (2) solvency or “solvency”, depending on nature of advocacy and (3) impact comparison. 4         I will not vote for an argument I do not understand. I am perfectly comfortable disregarding arguments that fail to meet a basic threshold of sense and explanation. 5         Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, rejecting the argument should solve your impact. 6         Permutations are a demonstration of non-competitiveness, not an advocacy. 7         Framework is not a voting issue – that does not make sense to me. 8         “No warrant” is an observation, not an argument. Gee wiz, I can flow too. 9         More often then not, link controls the direction of the link. I am not compelled by uniqueness ‘dumps; with no cohesion of comparative claims. 10      I do not ‘believe’ in any theory argument. I enjoy watching multiple conditional negative advocacies, and do not consider counterplans that rely on normal means for competition to be ‘cheating’. That’s silly. 11      I don’t really understand what the distinction most teams draw between ‘potential’ or ‘articulated’ abuse on procedurals, and rarely see a demonstration of abuse at all, so don’t care about how ‘articulated’ your abuse is. This ought to be resolved via impact calculus. 12      I don’t believe fairness takes primacy. I don’t believe being topical entitles you to anything. I believe that should be debated and resolved in round. 13      Terminal defense exists and I will evaluate it. 14      I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. 15      I don’t care if you call points of order, but will only allow 1 response before I deliberate. 16      Don’t split the block.   Flowing I flow Kritiks on one sheet of paper, flow the LOR on its own sheet of paper, and tend to flow answers/MG/MOC arguments next to where I am directed to do so. I am a flow-centric critic as I find this helps me check subjective bias, so will not disregard the flow unless you provide a compelling reason to do so.   RFDs This is NPTE, so I believe you can all flow and find explaining the nature and weight of every single argument that was conceived of during the debate to be a waste of time. I will do my best to clearly explain why I evaluated key arguments that helped resolve the debate for me the way that it did. If you would like to me reflect on how I felt about a certain argument, or why certain arguments did not weigh into my decision, the onus is on you to ask.   Theory You should strive to create as much of a distinction as possible between your opponents’ and your interpretation; case lists that demonstrate the nature and depth of the ground at stake are helpful. I err on competing interpretations absent being told otherwise, and will vote on the interpretation that provides the most offensive justification in its defense. I don’t care how little your interpretation/violation relates to the topic, and have no gut-checks on fairness and theft of ground. I don’t enjoy watching asinine debates, so just ask questions for clarification and avoid the spec debate entirely.   Disads Fine, no qualms.   Kritiks Fine, no qualms. Although, don’t assume I’ve read, agree with, or care about your authors.   Counterplans Fine, no qualms.   Speaker Points I am ambivalent to the practice of allocating speaker points. I have no problem with giving straight 28s. I usually range from 28-29, and will hand out a 30 every couple of tournaments if I see a particularly clever deployment of strategy.   I reserve the right to: 1         Ask for any and all texts after the round. 2         Audible when something is unclear. 3         Deliberate on all points of order, even on a panel. 4         Deduct from speaker points if your language is offensive. 5         Deduct from speaker points if you have nothing interesting to say besides generics on a given topic area; this is nationals, do research.

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

n/a

Tom Schally - Oregon

Schally Doctrine TL;DR Version (NPTE '13) I've been told this is my year to be most preferred critic, so I'll keep this brief. Coach at Oregon 4 years parli/policy. I make an effort to thoughtfully evaluate and reward good debate, and help you improve it. I expect a lot but if you want your hard work rewarded then I am a probably a good critic to prefer. Thanks for reading. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula: • In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality. You want to read two counterplans? Make it rain. Read a poem? Frost me. • I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. • I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it. • Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify failures and correct them. • Rule 1 of winning debates is control the frame: is conditionality good/bad to be decided on education or fairness, is timeframe or magnitude more important, is social welfare or maximizing liberty more important? . . . These meta-level comparisons, or arguments that resolve arguments, are more important than smaller line-by-line issues in 11 out of 10 debates. • I like jokes. Even mean jokes, but not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. It's a matter of risk/reward. I enjoy competitive debates that illustrate that this is a collegial activity. This activity is very intense, but recognize that everyone present feels the same pressures. Enjoy what you do. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter.  STOP HERE! You're better off spending your time researching, but if you'd like to proceed, here's last year's NPTE philosophy. 2012 NPTE: <a href="http://www.net-benefits.net/showpost.php?p=233088&postcount=3" target="_blank">http://www.net-benefits.net/showpost...88&postcount=3</a>   Schally Doctrine NPTE 2012 Director’s Cut   Even the best classic works occasionally require modernization to match the times, yet other observations simply grow finer with time. So, here’s the new update everyone, thanks for reading.   E-harmony Blurb: This is not a game that someone wins, but rather a form of play that is successful the more people get to play, and the longer the game is kept going. I approach judging as a constant challenge for personal betterment and make a genuine effort to thoughtfully evaluate and reward good debate and help you improve it. I want to be preferred at tournaments and see the very best debates. I think that debate is unquestionably one of the best games ever crafted and embrace its eccentricities with a fair amount of jest; yet recognize its value is determined by our collective expectations and willingness to be challenged. If you demand a lot from yourself and want your hard work and practice rewarded, then I am a probably a good critic for your to prefer. Debate/Academic Pedigree: I am in my third year of coaching and judging both policy and parliamentary debate for Oregon. I have judged at approximately 12 parli and 5 policy tournaments this season and rarely get a break. I competed for three years at Western Kentucky University (don’t read into it) in both NPTE/NPDA Parliamentary and NFA Lincoln-Douglas debate (strike two, I know). I also competed in CEDA/NDT as a freshman with Macalester College. As an undergraduate I studied political science (mostly comparative and international relations) and gender studies/philosophy. Now as a graduate student at the University of Oregon, I study public policy and my major research areas include ethical philosophy, security studies, and environmental issues. About This Philosophy: Proceeding with the adage, “the only bad judging philosophy is a dishonest one,” I have made a noteworthy effort to reveal my known predispositions. Of course, (requisite judge philosophy qualifier ahead) these are purely my opinions and I can be dissuaded from them unless explicitly noted. Since no one is tabula rasa, here are some of the things that are on my tabula. Read and then get back to researching. GLOBAL THOUGHTS: • In front of me you are almost always better off doing what you do well rather than attempting to cater to my partiality. You want to read two counterplans? Make it rain. Read a poem? Frost me. • I will not vote on an argument as “dropped” if it is intuitively answered by another argument in a speech. • I am perfectly comfortable passing judgment. If an argument does not rise to a minimum threshold of sense and/or explanation, I will disregard it. • Debate is a communication activity and good debaters recognize that fact – time pressures and all – they can afford to explain, be funny, and identify communication failures and correct them. The Schally Doctrine addresses my musings and jest on substantive argument categories first and then matters of debate practice follow. Substantive Debate Issues: Rule number 1 of winning debates is control the frame: is conditionality good/bad to be decided on education or fairness, is timeframe or magnitude more important, is social welfare or maximizing liberty more important? . . . These meta-level comparisons, or arguments that resolve arguments, are more important than smaller line-by-line issues in 11 out of 10 debates. If you control the frame, you will almost invariably win. CRITIQUES: Providing a clear and persuasive explanation of your argument is vastly more important than advertising your mastery of a cultural studies vocab list. People seem to often lose sight of the fact that critiques are just arguments, so don’t strive to mystify your argument on either side. Don’t assume that I have read and/or understand your author(s)—this is generally a problem in K debates—where people assume that terms are packed with implicit meaning. Teams are usually better off attempting to engage the kritik than spewing down a list of “pomo ain’t good.” I would rather listen to smart analytical arguments than the standard curriculum of “not fair” and “ policy/realism good”. -Tips for Neg – Kritiks should typically provide an explanatory framework for evaluating the world or advocacy in a manner that deviates from the framework assumed by the other team. I am unimpressed by frameworks that seek to inflate the relevance of the Kritik by excluding the Aff. Kritiks should not literally exclude other impacts, but rather provide a specific mechanism for evaluating and prioritizing different types of impact claims and/or contains implications that logically make other impacts non-existent or irrelevant. Framework – Framework debates are much like theory debates to me. The explanation of your position on what debate should be, and the consequences to debate of a particular practice or position are just as important as winning specific claims. If you want to debate about debate, then you need to articulate an impact statement about what debate should be. That being said, I’ve voted both ways on most framework debates, so you should defend the debate practices that you feel most comfortable defending, and not worry about my views of debate practices. -Critical Affirmatives - I am inclined to believe that affirmatives should be tied to a topical advocacy statement. Beyond that I have no evident presumptions about critical arguments that are not equally true of the negative. -Contradictory/Conditional K’s – Although there are obvious exceptions, critiquing the thinking or representations of an advocacy do not seem exclusive with also questioning its political consequences (to me). An idea can be wrong for relying on faulty assumptions, making wrongful conclusions, or both. Similarly, it is possible to have both ethical and pragmatic objections to particular action. I can be convinced that conditional K’s are bad, but do not begin thinking they are any worse than a counterplan. -Performance – I don’t see a lot of performance in parli and when I have it was done haphazardly and mostly uninspired. I am happy to judge performance debates, but would like for the performance to be purposeful; that makes or enhances a merited argument. If you deploy an argument and debate it then you can definitely pref me, but if your intention is to be ambiguous and unhelpful with the hope that I will conjure an explanation of your argument and reason it beats the other team, you may want to stick to getting Cheesewright’s ballot. TOPICALITY: Obviously topicality is a question of competing interpretations, but it seems just as apparent to me that if the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact to topicality i.e. fairness or education, then there is no compelling reason to vote negative. So, if you win that your interpretation is marginally better in a relatively unimportant way, then you must justify why it is that I should reward you with the ballot. Within this framework if you do not “meet” any interpretation in the round then it is difficult to vote for you because you have not provided a justification for how you affirm the topic, so offer a counter-interpretation. Too often debaters neglect the “impact” of your interpretation and what their world of debate looks like, so get with it. -Topicality intuitively precedes consideration of the merits of the affirmative advocacy assuming no effort is made to change the conventional framing of these arguments (if T isn’t first, it’s last, right?). This principle does not apply to non-topicality arguments such as specification relative to theory, etc. -T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. COUNTERPLANS: I think that the “gold standard” for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I tend to believe that counterplans that focus the debate on substantial elements of the plan are good for debate and counterplans that rely on ‘normal means’ for competition are not. Many of the assumptions about aff bias in choosing their case and having full/infinite prep are almost always untrue in parli’s current topic area => resolution procedure, so make theory forum-specific. I rarely see teams creatively counterplan away affirmative advantages or generate uniqueness and wish this happened more often. LOC Theory – I think that negative teams benefit greatly by including a theoretical defense of their counterplan in the LOC, otherwise the debate starts in the MG and I often have a difficult time figuring out how to reconcile new’ish PMR impact comparisons on these theory debates.                                                 Legitimacy – As a general guideline, I think CP’s shouldn’t contain a world where the entire plan could happen.     I am skeptical of delay, consult, small exclusion PICs of things unqualified by the plan.             Competition – I do not think that anything is “implied” by the plan. I prefer that counterplans compete both textually and functionally, however I can easily be made to favor solely functional competition. BTW, textual competition means a counterplan is competitive based off of something explicitly in the text of the plan. It does not mean what most debaters say it does in rounds…..(IE excluding a word counts) DISADVANTAGES: In assessing risk I tend belong to the ‘link first’ school of thought regarding disadvantages. To clarify, I find that if a disad is extremely unique then it obviously requires a high magnitude of a link to trigger the impact, but on the converse, if a disad is brink’ish then the neg has to win a high magnitude of a link to distinguish the plan from the conditions that created the brink. In either case, the question is the degree to which the aff causes the link. Uniqueness is, of course, very important however I find “we control uniqueness” to be code for “our link is terrible.” I do not believe in “1% of a link” and I am comfortable saying that there is not one, you should win your link and then you may assess risk of an impact. I think that if you “link turn” a disad and control the net-direction of the link but have no uniqueness answers that the risk of the disad is probably still zero. I think that intelligent defensive answers are under-utilized in most debates that I watch. THEORY: Does topic education outweigh analytic/process driven education? Does ‘judge intervention’ have a unique impact in relation to other theory impacts? You should answer these questions. I am likely to assume that rejecting the argument solves your impact, unless persuaded otherwise. I try my best to check my biases at the door, just recognize that some theoretical arguments make more sense (to me) than do others. Arbitrary interpretations are one of the stupidest trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team. I am likely to believe that plans that fiat a number of actors (especially private) are abusive. The argument that “the aff will be vetoed/rolled back by the Pres or Congress” is laughable. By this I mean that, on occasion, when I am depressed, I think about this argument, and I laugh out loud. Specification arguments may be dismissed with maximum flippancy. IMPACTS: Lately, I think that impact comparison is one of the least sophisticated levels of analysis in most debates that I watch, which is very unfortunate. I welcome creative ways of framing the importance of differing impacts and would like to see rebuttals employ more “tiebreaker” arguments. Defense – Smart defensive arguments are an invaluable part of any good impact debate. Impact defense is severely underrated, especially against particularly silly impacts.                                                      Silly Impact Turns – Arguments deemed “counterintuitive” are welcome, but before unloading your early 90’s backfiles you should recognize that most of these arguments are intellectually weak and require some finesse to pull off.                                                                                                                  Buzzwords – Recent judging has made me irritated with the way any impact other than nuclear war is typically characterized. “That’s dehumanization, which is the internal-link to all violence,” has become a vacuous and lazy stand-in for every non-mass death or systemic impact framing. There are compelling reasons to value/prioritize actions that address racism or poverty, so argue this some integrity. This observation has also led me to make public my following inclinations. Things that probably do not negate personhood and/or erase life of meaning: • making difficult choices • lacking universal healthcare • Americans living in conditions that people elsewhere in the world already live in • abiding by laws or conventions Things that probably do negate personhood: • death • points of order • Soulja Boy                                                     Debate Practices HUMOR: I like jokes. Even mean jokes, but not cruel jokes. Actually, even most cruel jokes. But only if everyone can agree with that they are jokes. How do you know? Social skills. I know, not high on debaters’ list of talents, but it's a matter of risk/reward. It is refreshing to see debates that illustrate that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort. In particular: StarCraft jokes are good. Star Wars are better. Pokemon jokes (except Dewgongs) Franz Kafka College sports Hipsters and PUNS PARLI ODDITIES: Prep – All materials should have been written in prep time; apparently this is a necessary clarification. Questions – The “protected time” rule is outdated and irrelevant to me; you are welcome to accept/decline questions within your speech as you choose. Points Of Order – I do not require points of order to be made in order to exclude new arguments, however I understand the strategic utility of them and am unlikely to punish you for using something that is put at your disposal by the rules. Texts – I prefer that textual advocacies be written down in a legible and shareable format if you are not going to repeat them in your speech, so that I have a definite form somewhere. I will not however contribute to the proliferation of arbitrary procedurals concerning the “right” to a written copy of plan or counterplan; it’s a courtesy. Demand a copy of “perm: do both, perm: do cp” or any of the like and receive 26 speakers points. Ask me why and I will write you a text. Opposition Block – The LOR does not need to make explicit extensions from the MOC. However, expounding upon certain arguments can affect the relative strength of that argument when I evaluate it. I will also defer to the nuance of argument explanation and comparison offered by the rebuttals. I think that “splitting” the block is particularly unfair and probably heavily bias. If you want me to “box in” your opponents, then you should provide a good explanation of what you could not argue and why that was critical. That being said, I do not like sandbagging and I will exert close scrutiny on the rebuttals. Make better arguments and you wont have to be sneaky. New MG Args – I’m not really one to give the PMR “golden answers,” especially on the positions that came out new in the MG.  I’m perfectly willing to evaluate your arguments.  Going for something stupid in the PMR on the basis that the negative doesn’t get second lines is a bad strategy in front of me. FLOWING: I keep an excellent and detailed flow. However, winning for me is more about establishing a coherent and well-reasoned explanation of the world rather than extending a specific argument. An argument is not “true” because it is extended on one sheet of paper if it is logically answered by arguments on another sheet of paper or later on the line by line. In a close debate, I will evaluate the final rebuttal of the team I am voting against on a separate sheet of paper, to make sure I have sufficiently evaluated each argument. I also flow the LOR on a separate sheet.  I do a lot of comparisons between the PMR and the LOR.  I flow every distinct case contention and off-case argument on a single sheet of paper spaced out appropriate to what I expect to need for answers. I typically flow responses to those arguments from top-to-bottom unless explicitly told to do otherwise (and maybe even still because I likely know better). Any attempt to alter this should be purposeful. I will not move back up the page, I will write your next argument in the order it was delivered. For example, if your mg says, “framework, perm, aff outweighs” I will not move down to the alt to flow your perm and then move back and end up cramming things together. So you should reference arguments by their tag/content and respond to them in a logical order that follows the previous speech. p.s. I sometimes flow permutations on a separate page if I expect that debate to get big (i.e. if it’s “one-off”), but that shouldn’t affect anything. DECORUM: I recognize that this activity is very intense, but try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures. If you are decisively beating a team (particularly a younger or less successful team), then there’s no need to be rude. I suppose that honor is a bourgeoisie value, but I am a supporter. DISCLOSURE: I welcome post-round discussion—even if it is confrontational—it lets me debate again.

Judge Philosophies

Adam Krell - WWU

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Brandon Berg - Hired X

Brie Coyle - Whitman

Chris Pierini - UWash

Denise Vaughan - Bellevue

Derek Buescher - Puget Sound

Devin Weitzman - Reed

Emily Santee - Lewis & Clark

Jimi Durkee - Whitman

John Julian - Hired X

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kyle Kimball - Lewis & Clark

Lewis Silver - Whitman

Luke Gering - UWash

Luther Landry - Willamette

Megan Schrader - Hired X

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

Michael Belcher - Hired X

Mike Meredith - Whitman

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Paul Bingham - WWU

Rachel Mosley - Puget Sound

Rachelle Harris - Puget Sound

Rob Layne - Hired X

Robby White - Hired X

Sam Timinsky - UWash

Sarah Hamid - Oregon

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

Tom Schally - Oregon

Tom Hyatt - Bellevue

Will Chamberlain - Hired X

2010 Northwest Parli Warmup

Judge Philosophies

Adam Krell - WWU

Alec Baker - Lewis &amp; Clark

Ben Dodds - Oregon

Brandon Berg - Hired X

Brie Coyle - Whitman

Chris Pierini - UWash

Denise Vaughan - Bellevue

Derek Buescher - Puget Sound

Devin Weitzman - Reed

Emily Santee - Lewis &amp; Clark

Jimi Durkee - Whitman

John Julian - Hired X

Korry Harvey - WWU

Kyle Kimball - Lewis &amp; Clark

Lewis Silver - Whitman

Luke Gering - UWash

Luther Landry - Willamette

Megan Schrader - Hired X

Melissa Franke - PacificLutheran

Michael Belcher - Hired X

Mike Meredith - Whitman

Nick Robinson - Whitman

Paul Bingham - WWU

Rachel Mosley - Puget Sound

Rachelle Harris - Puget Sound

Rob Layne - Hired X

Robby White - Hired X

Sam Timinsky - UWash

Sarah Hamid - Oregon

Stephen Moncrief - WWU

Tom Schally - Oregon

Tom Hyatt - Bellevue

Will Chamberlain - Hired X

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

Emily Santee - Lewis & Clark

Kyle Kimball - Lewis & Clark