FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Caleb Smith - SDCC

Cameron Winchel - Concordia-CA

n/a

Darren Burdett - SDCC

David Berver - Palomar

n/a

Devin Darcey - Mesa

Edwin Tiongson - IVC

EDWIN TIONGSON: IRVINE VALLEY COLLEGE Background of the critic: I'm one of the Co-Directors of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when it was in its infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been a part of the coaching staff where IVC/SOC won the community college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. However, I haven't been to NPDA’s national tournament since it was at USAFA in 2008. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events, but not so much Parli. When it comes to Parli, I can get novice debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to our more advanced debate coaches: Gary Rybold or Eric Garcia. Regardless, I've judged numerous rounds and I consider myself a decent parli critic.  Miscellaneous info: I competed in Northern CA for Diablo Valley College & UOP from 1995-1999 in Parli, platforms, and interp. I’ve coached at CSUN and IVC in all events in Southern CA since 1999. Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): I'm more of a stock issues judge or a comparative advantage judge.  Either approach is fine. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy rounds. I'm open to making a value or fact round into a policy round as long as it’s justified and worthy of my attention.    Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making: I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going too fast. I will yell out clear if I’m annoyed.  Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. “Sounding pretty” will help you with speaker points, but I’ve voted on low-point wins before. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making: I believe that OPP should make on-case refutations.  Don’t assume the GOV’s case is unworthy of your attention. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in the GOV's case.  I’m open to Topicality and Kritiks but don’t put all your eggs in those baskets. Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate; do what you like but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. Any additional comments: This season I’ve judged zero parli rounds at a tournament (I’ve been working the backroom for them) and a handful of practice rounds.  I’ve been working extensively with getting IEs up and running since we have enough debate coaches who have more experience.  If you get me as a critic, assume I want the “easy out.” Tell me where to pull the trigger on voting for the round.  All MGs & MOs better maintain the structure; typically it falls apart in those two speeches.  Signposting is a must; tell me where you are on the FLOW.  All rebuttals better paint that picture and weigh out what I get in “OPP-LAND” and what I get in “GOV-LAND.” In other words, paint me a picture.  I don’t time road maps but want them.  Ask questions if you want or ask my two students who are here.

Emily Schaffer - PLNU

n/a

Gary Rybold - IVC

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold   <h1>Retired Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College</h1>       I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I coached for 25 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judged over 25 rounds.  Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). I view myself primarily as an educator in this activity.  My great respect for academic debate comes from a traditional approach to coaching, judging, and following the rules. However, I will try my best not to prejudge your specific way of debating. Although I will listen to new ideas, please do not think I will necessarily like/understand them. Merely uttering a term and assuming its impact or how it functions will not be your best strategy in the round. This is what I would like debaters to know: PREFERENCES – I hold that there is value in debating various types of propositions (not just policies).  I think that most fact propositional debates are misplaced (and may require me to activate my knowledge to provide a check on the evidence for the positions advanced).  I also feel that as a community we have lessened (perhaps intentionally) our ability to effectively debate value propositions.  Still, I will try to start my evaluation of the round on the basis of stock issues, dependent on the type of resolution, as they function in the round.  The key term for every team is justify.  At all levels should you want me to accept your interpretation of the topic, definition, criteria, decision rule, plan, contention, or debate theory you should explain the superiority of your position.  I love teams that refute before providing their rationale – clash is essential for high points. Therefore, the burden of rejoinder is the key element of my decision. I will listen to topicality should the government be unprepared to defend their interpretation (although it pains me to vote on trivial technicalities when there is little ground lost). Stellar delivery will get you extra points.  I crave solid organization. I desire wit and a demonstration of knowledge from the debaters.  Ultimately, I will vote on the basis of critical thinking skills exhibited in the round based on what you impact on my flow sheet.  I will like your round more if you avoid: rudeness, ignorance, destructive verbal/nonverbal aggressiveness, shiftiness, Ninja-like tricks, whining, style over substance, viewpoint discrimination, profanity, politics DAs and extending numbers not arguments. I know that there are too many topic areas and a limited preparation time, but please try not to utilize a distorted interpretation of the empirical dimensions of reality; it really puts me in a bind on decisions. CRITIQUES - A special note for those who care about critiques: I am probably a few years behind the trends. I disapprove of the tactic of pushing automatic privileging of any postmodern theory as the superior position, possessing the moral high ground over all other arguments (especially since I am a Christian). Therefore, please explain your position with solid justification. Let me know how the argument functions in the round (hopefully more than a non-unique DA). Trying to silence a team, because their language is boorish, seems antithetical to good debate and the first amendment. I have yet to hear a pre-fiat argument that changed me in a round (making pre-fiat just as illusionary as fiat for me).  Should you want to take the discourse to a micro level, please be advised, I will activate my own voice through the ballot. SPEED – I understand you may want to go really fast. But most of the gut spread parli rounds I see just don’t allow for a genuine development of ideas. Often it seems like little more than unwarranted tags being thrown out.  So, while I know intervening may be considered a violation of our social contract, I will just stop flowing if I can’t understand you (>225 wpm). Please don’t expect me to yell “clear.” If it gets a little too fast I may not vote against a team because of dropped arguments. Please don’t make me make those choices. ULTIMATE GOAL - As a community college educator I hope for an optimal educational experience in each speech. As the debate culture changes we should also encourage discourse that allows the evolution to be rational and civil. Our community should encourage higher values.  My hope is that all debaters will respect the activity so much that they would try to reach a bit further in the rounds I judge, so we can all fulfill our educational mission.

Grant Tovmasian - CSULA

Grant Beeson - PLNU

n/a

Ian Sharples - PLNU

Ian Sharples Fall 2012 DEBATE EXPERIENCE - 2003-2006: Mostly LD and Parli at Centennial High School in Bakersfield, CA. I also did Congress and one tournament of Public Forum. - 2006-2011: NPDA/NPTE Parli and NFA-LD at Point Loma Nazarene University in San Diego, CA. - Currently Coaching at PLNU JUDGING INFO - My general philosophy could be described as 'argumentative anarchy': if you can justify it, you can go for it. But, like everyone, I still have biases, which is what judge philosophies are for. - I am willing to vote on any argument that is made in the round, but I have no problem ignoring things that are not arguments. - My basic threshold for an argument is that it must be warranted, internally coherent and have a terminalized impact. - Overall strategic choices almost always have greater influence on my decisions than line-by-line details. Knowing how you are going to win the round before it starts will go a long towards a ballot in your favor. - Most debates are lost in the LOC/MG or won in the MOC/PMR. The first scenario is far more common. - Most of the rounds I watch are in PSCFA. I have noticed that 'National circuit' teams generally do a better job of using strategy and warrants compared to 'PSCFA/Com' teams. Problems with internal coherence apply to both circuits. - I haven't seen too many rounds this year between really good teams that are evenly matched, so I am still learning how I evaluate those situations. But for the rounds I have seen, line-by-line is more important, because they tend to be doing the basics right. POSITION SPECIFICS - Framework debate is important, but I usually resolve it by evaluating case and K on the same level. The exception is when teams give clear and justified prioritization. - I think all positions are conditional all the time, unless otherwise stated. - On topicality: I go for an abuse/fairness paradigm in Parli, and competing interps in LD. The difference has to do with changing v. stable resolutions. - For other procedurals/theory: Out of laziness, I tend to default to an abuse paradigm, because that is what I am used to with T, but I am extremely vulnerable to competing interps, so just say it. The reason has to do with the implications of this theory debate on future parli rounds. - I like the strategic value of critical arguments, but I still think most K lit is not very good. I will listen to it in round. - I like positions that play with the boundries of argument, or radically reimagine what a competitive debate round could be. I enjoy good theory debates. OTHER STUFF - Points: 27 = should break at this tournament, 29 & up = top tier for this tournament. I use half points. - PSCFA has a rule that you can't tie points, and I've gotten in the habit of following it. Apologies in advance if this inadvertently screws you out of a speaker award. - Physical limitations on flowing: I cannot hear in my left ear, and my typing speed is ok but not super fast (but still faster than I can write). Super fast and intricate rounds (which I love) will give me problems, sorry. - Like: Aristotle, Locke, Mill, Foucault / Dislike: Marx, Kierkegaard, Lyotard, Derrida / Entertaining: Nietzsche, Friedman, Hitchens, Zizek - Things I am currently interested in: Neuroscience, Political Psycology, Cities, Early Modernity.

Jin Nakama - Mesa

~~As a baseline, I might best be characterized as traditional debate theorist and an ideologue-critic with a symbolic touch. My views can and do change, but there are some things you might like to know about me how I approach debate as an activity… I take a good flow, but I won’t allow my flow to bind me. I will vote on and off the flow in whatever way I think will allows me to render a true and fair decision. As debaters, your role is to debate the resolution and my role is to determine the outcome of a round. I take a humanistic view to debate, and I expect arguments and cases presented are done so in a manner that connects with our experiences. The process of argumentation and evaluation does not happen in a vacuum, it happens within the context of experience. This does not mean that arguments must conform to my worldview, but rather, that arguments should be grounded in the world around us. If you’re going to paint a picture of a different world, that’s fine too. In general, it should just make sense within the narrative you choose. #Policy Where the resolution stipulates a call to action, I adopt a stock issues paradigm and artificial presumption. Stock issues answer the questions needed to resolve questions regarding the adoption of the resolution—and so, the Affirmative team must affirm all five stock issues (Inherency, Significance/Harms, Solvency/Advantages) in order to secure the round. Failure to bring a prima facie case, will result in my defaulting to the Opposition team on presumption. Because of the nature of parliamentary debate and its limited prep, my thresholds aren’t as stringent as they are in traditional policy formats, but please know that the less time you spend laying out and defending each stock issue, the weaker they will be and the easier it will be for the Opposition team to negate them. You need only lose one to lose the round. Absent a specific call to action, I will look to Framework first before I look to line-by-line argumentation. The Resolution should remain the focus of the debate, and any impacts on cause should be both reasonable and probable outcomes. Extremism, terminal impacts or arguments that are morally bankrupt hold little sway over me, however, if you think you can argue these points with success, I will listen to what you have to say, albeit with a raised brow. Whether or not the Affirmative team has met their burden upholding the resolution will determine the outcome of the round. #Fact/Value In F/V rounds, I look to the body and quality of arguments and weighing analysis. Arguments should go to the probative and have a clear link to the criterion and how that proves or disproves the resolution. Remember, facts and examples are not arguments. They should be used to support your arguments. #Procedurals I look here first as these are a priori issues. Generally, these should be employed as a means of demonstrating in-round abuse, though if you think you have good enough reason to run it based on competing interpretations, by all means, go for it. I vote on issues of fairness before the impacts of case because fairness as a practice extends beyond the round while the impacts of case are limited to just that round. #Speaker Points Speaker points and ranks are determined based on style and conduct. I was taught to debate traditionally, and I proceed accordingly. When the round begins, address me directly and not the other team during -all- points of interaction. Please stand when you speak.  Partner-to-partner communication is strongly discouraged, however you may pass notes. I value etiquette very much and I am likely to punish any perceived hostility by deducting speaker points with liberty. #Speed I view debate as an art and practice in persuasion. Parliamentary debate provides little justification to speak at nigh unintelligible speeds. Speak to me as you would your grandfather, though please not so much as though I were a golden retriever. #Final Thoughts I believe judges have three major functions in this activity; Educator, Adjudicator, and Trustee. As Educator, a duty to help guide and provide perspective on the event; as Adjudicator, the task of deciding the outcome of a round; and as Trustee, the responsibility of preserving and protecting the integrity of the activity as a whole. So, even if you win on my flow, but I find you sorely lacking in good conduct, you will lose on my ballot. I have a great love for this activity and oral tradition. I will judge your round with enthusiasm and give you my very best, without exception. My request of you is that you please give me yours. I’m delighted by good company, so if you see me wandering around during tournaments, feel free to say hello and have a chat! Happy debating and good luck!

Jon Sonoda - PLNU

n/a

Josh Cangelosi - SDCC

Background: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Current parli coach and philosophy, communication, and English instructor  ·      Past collegiate parli debater Preferences: <o:p></o:p>  ·      Debaters who present their ideas with passion, personality, spirit, spunk, liveliness, affability, respect, and conviction.  ·      Anything you want to do is fine with me! I will make my decisions based on the arguments in the round and don’t have any preconceived dislikes of any debate positions or strategies.  ·      Big-picture voting issues that weigh everything out for me, not line-by-line analysis, in the rebuttals.  ·      I’d love to see some performance debates and critical affirmatives; just be clear rather than opaque and abstruse in the theory/story you are telling. I like critiques as well, but again it’s important that all the theory make clear sense instead of being a bunch of impenetrable jargon.  ·      I vote for clear arguments that I can understand, which is why the big-picture reasons why I should vote for you are so important.  ·      Some speed is okay, but I vote for convincing arguments, not blips on the flow.  ·      Have fun, and be creative. I like out-of-the-box debating, so I’m the judge for running that crazy case you’ve always wanted to run. Just don’t be boring!  ·      If you are a novice, relax and have fun. The most important thing to remember is that debate is an educational and social event, so just do your best and enjoy yourself. In the end, it’s all about the skills and friendships you develop.

Kay Flewelling - PLNU

n/a

Kelly Kehoe - IVC

Kristy Veal - Concordia-CA

n/a

Mark Dorrough - Cypress

Matthew Swanson - Palomar

1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? A+ 30, A 29.5, A- 29, B+ 28.5, B 28, B- 27.5, C+ 27, C 26.5, C- 26, D+ 25.5, D-/F 25, piss me off 20, do something really offensive 1.   2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?  K's are cool.  Every aff is critical of the status quo.  "The neg just has to say the aff is wrong" is probably copout, but it seems to work for me.   3. Performance based arguments… All debae (and everything in general) is a performance.   4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? I require articulated abuse most of the time.  However, with topic areas such as the NPTE I may be persuaded to think potential abuse should be enough.  I do not require competing interpretations but I think they are probably a good idea.   5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition? All CPs are a pic; probably means they are good.  Opp does not need to identify the status of the CP but should answer if prompted by the Aff (this should not count as their "1 question").  On Perms make your arguments.   6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) ...yes.  You can share whatever you want.  Key word is want.   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?)? Procedurals, K, Case/DA & CP strats.   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")? Death probably outweighs dehumanization absent a framework/impact prioritization.  However, one death vs one kajillion instances of dehume (think effects of war minus death) probably means I should vote for the dehume impact.   Dodd's doctrine:   Opening comments about self: I like debate.  I was not good at it.  I am probably a worse coach than a competitor somehow. Background knowledge on: USDA: Nukes: Latin America: Science/Tech: Topic areas for students to do research not me.  So, I know a lot of "debate-ready" stuff on the USDA and Nukes topics, a good deal on L/A, and next to nothing about science. Judging Philosophy on: Topicality: i like T more than you think I do. The Aff should be topical. Counter-plan theory: Is fun, I love me some theory.  However, I don't like boring theory debates that have been rehashed.  Try something new. Other theory: Defense and offense: offense wins championships.  You should explain the implications of defense on the round.   Counter-plans and competition: see above Critiques and their alternatives: see above Performance AFFs and topic avoiding critiques of debate: see above Wrong forum and other frameworks: Framework is fun.  wrong forum makes my soul cry. What would your ideal debate on the following topics consist of? Not the ideal strategy you’ll send your teams in with, what do you want to listen to? i want to listen to your best argument.  I don't care what it is.  If you are going for T and Framework that is as viable to me as a k or cp/da debate.  Politics is probably a lie but so are the ks we run.

Melissa Lazaro - PLNU

Melissa competed a number of years ago for Point Loma as an undergraduate in both CEDA and early Parli, and in most if not all IEs.  She serves as the ADOF for PLNU and works mostly with IEs and administrative tasks, so please do not assume that she is especially fond of cutting edge creative approaches if they stray from good clean clash on topical issues.  As an IE coach she values presentational skills very highly, and insists on logical consistancy, organizational strength, and a high level of respect and courtesy.  She also worked for several years as a professional trainer/business consultant and appreciates the real world skills taught by the actiivty, so choose your strategic approaches with that in mind.  Clarity, structure, and comparing impacts cleanly are your friends in pursuing her ballots.  Not fond of hyperspeed rounds.

Paul Macias - Mesa

Roxanne Tuscany - Grossmont

~~I have been coaching and judging Parliamentary Debate for approximately 15 years, since it became popular in Southern California.  I started coaching IPDA last year, but have not judged it this year.  I have also coached and judged British Parli in China. As far as Parli is concerned, I have a lot of issues, so here goes: ïŠ Parliamentary debate is and has been a "communication" event. We are at a speech/debate tournament. I expect communication skills to be used as effectively as possible, and that we are following our disciplines' research that supports first impressions and good communication to be effective persuasive methods.  Therefore, stand when speaking.  When your partner is speaking, only discretely pass a note to them.  Never, speak for them.  I would also like to have you stand for Points of Information, and politely call out, Point of Information.  If you raise your hand, the speaker many times cannot see you. It is not "rude" to interrupt the speaker, it is part of parliamentary debate guidelines.   The debaters in the round, should be telling me, "what the most important criteria is in the debate".  I am listening and analyzing your debate according to what you, "the debaters", tell me what is important.  Therefore, your criteria for the debate should be very clear, and you should be reminding me throughout the debate why I should vote for your team. I would like to say that I am open to all positions/arguments and strategies. However, due to the current trends in parli debate, it probably isn't true for me.  What I don't like is whatever the current "trend" is.  What I mean by that, is that we see trends and for a year or two everyone follows that style.  I teach argumentation, and I know that there ARE 3 types of resolutions:  FACT, VALUE, AND POLICY. If you pick a resolution that is a fact resolution, it should be run that way, etc.  There are fact and value resolutions.  They may be more challenging, but they exist. Of course, you can argue that the team has incorrectly identified what type of resolution it is.  That is part of the debate. Also, there will be metaphors in these debates, and they could be in the form of a fact/value or policy. You need to identify this in your debate.   In a policy round, I do prefer stock issues format, rather than the current trend of comparative advantage. I also expect a complete plan. For the opposition, I expect you to listen to the affirmative case, and argue against their positions as directly as possible, rather than come in with your own case, that has nothing to do with what the government case is arguing.     Speed has no place in parliamentary debate.  For me, it has nothing to do with your judge being able to "flow" the debate.  It has to do with you being a competent communicator, in the real world.  If you can talk eloquently, with good enunciation skills, then I'm fine with you talking relatively fast, without it being a problem.  I don't believe a judge should have to yell out: "clear".  An audience should not have to tell the speaker, that we can't understand you.  Jargon should be used sparingly.  We are at a national tournament, where not every region uses the same jargon.  Therefore, don't assume we know your jargon.  Quickly, briefly explain your terms. Having said all this, you will have your own beliefs about me, as a judge.  I would like you to know that I love parliamentary debate, and have been judging for as long as it has existed in the western states.  I love to hear real world issues debated directly in front of me.  I hope you are up to this incredible experience and challenge of arguing real issues.  Enjoy!

Ryan Willey - PLNU

n/a

Sam Mercaldo - PLNU

n/a

Sarah Black - CSULA

Sherris Minor - Palomar

I would consider myself a flow critic I will listen to any round you would prefer to have.  Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefits paradigm.  I tend to not vote for fact or value debate and overall I prefer policy because I think the former encourage judge intervention.  I also do not find the “trichotomy” of debate particularly compelling unless it is used to justify policy debate.<o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "></o:p> <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter, most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become to much for me to handle. I haven’t had to do that yet this year. Clarity is a separate issue for me. This goes for both speaking and what is said. If I cant hear you because you are mumbling and I am missing things on my flow I will say clear.  If you are saying a ton of tag lines without warrants you will not win my ballot. The use of speed should not preclude you from making an actual argument. I shouldn’t have to wait until the LOR/ PMR to know how your arguments function. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Procedurals are fine to run in front of me, but I do not vote on potential abuse. I don’t tend to vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”   <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Condo, Overall, I believe all arguments in debate are conditional you choose to go for the ones you are winning and not go for the ones you are losing. If you want to run condo bad and impact out why their conditional cp/ alt is detrimental to the round go for it. I think it is all part of strategy. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate and I will always listen to them. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> CP/perm theory is anything goes until someone tells me why it is not ok. You need to explain your theory to me don’t just expect me to know what your perm means. Multiple perms are ok. I believe both perms and CPs should have a text. You should also explain how your perm functions in the context of the round. <o:p style="padding: 0px; margin: 0px; "> </o:p> Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run (for the most part).  I expect that your k, ad, disad has impacts and I want you to tell me how I weight them at the end of the round. Don’t be afraid to collapse to arguments you are winning, and be clear in what your case is and how it functions in the round.   <div> </div>

Skip Rutledge - PLNU

<h1>Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University</h1> 25 +/- years judging debate                                                    14+ years judging NPDA Parliamentary 6 +/- years as a competitor in policy debate (college and high school)   Academic Debate Background: Competed 6 years +/- in team policy in High School and College (NDT at Claremont). Then coached and judged at the high school level for a number of years as a part time volunteer.  Returned to academia and have coached since 1989 in CEDA, we switched to Parli in about 1995. In addition to coaching teams and judging at tournaments I have been active in NPDA and helped at Parli Summer Workshops to keep fresh and abreast of new ideas.  I have also tried to contribute conference papers and a few journal articles on debate.  I love well reasoned and supported theory arguments where debaters are aware of the foundational issues and prior research on topic.   Judging Paradigm: For lack of a better term, I embrace what I know of as the Argumentation Critic paradigm, but certainly not to the exclusion of appreciating strong delivery skills.  I encourage fewer, well-developed arguments with clear claims, reasonable warrants, and strong evidentiary support to back up those warrants, rather than the shotgun method of throwing lots of claims out, hoping something slips through the others’ defense.  That probably makes me more of a big picture critic, rather than one that gets fixated on the minutia. I do recognize too, that big pictures can be defined by small brushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to deep research, so spec arguments are not very compelling in many cases.  Disadvantages, solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political philosophy.  Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail just because someone happens to not respond to them.  While I attempt to minimize intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not become true just because it might be dropped (taken from an actual round).  I think your word is your bond.  If you say it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true.  If you are not quite certain, it is preferable to frame a claim in that manner.  The prohibition on reading evidence in a round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may advance your arguments. I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . .  I dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than engaging case straight up.  I will try to make the decision based the content of the arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points.  It is not uncommon for me to give low point wins.  I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of debate I prefer to hear.  If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such.  Additionally, I do not feel that there is only one way to debate.  I will not try to implement unwritten rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo.  They certainly should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not.  I think the resolution is key to the debate.  This does not negate Kritiks. It invites sound logic and framing of Kritiks and alternatives. I do have some a priori biases.  I believe the resolution is what is being debated. That has implications on counter plans.  My a priori bias is that they should not be topical and should be competitive.  Just because the negative team finds another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am though open to good theory debates, You should first know my beginning basis of understanding on this issue.  And although I enjoyed debating in NDT and CEDA, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants.  The absence of such evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, not provide opportunities to shotgun out many more, less developed arguments.  I believe the reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery and genuine consideration of case.  The gamey technique of negatives throwing out lots of flak, or obfuscating issues to throw off governments time use, only to collapse to a few key arguments, does not seem to advance strong argumentation development, a fair testing of the resolution, or solid speaking skills..

Stephanie Haas - PLNU

n/a

Xavier Gomez - Concordia-CA

n/a

2011 PLNU Free Fall Parliamentary Debate Tournament