Judge Philosophies
Ashley Bernaugh - Hired
n/a
Brent Nicholson - McK
I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.
Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu
I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you dont have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I dont have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.
TLDR
My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and Ill always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments Ive seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and Im never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and Ill come along for the ride.
I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.
The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:
1.Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.
2.I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.
3.I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.
4.I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesnt appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.
5.I dont exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.
6.I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.
7.I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.
8.Give your opponents arguments the benefit of the doubt. Theyre probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.
9.Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.
10.In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.
11.All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesnt come up, but it can. Dont say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.
General
This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.
Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophys guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).
I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If Im flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I dont ask you to slow down, youre fine dont worry about it. I dont number arguments as I flow, so dont expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.
One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the pages of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, MAD checks on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.
In theory debates, Ive noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a no condo interp. Basically, if the aff says you cant do that because it is bad and the neg says it is not bad and, in fact, is good I do not think the neg should have to say yes, I can do that (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think some condo interps instead of all condo).
I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But dont use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.
I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.
A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if youre neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.
NPDA
Im going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because theyre just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each others flows and into each others speeches. Seek out clash!
NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that authors position or the argument youve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that youre leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an even if argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and Ill do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesnt win evidence debates the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.
Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds were in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We dont just rely on someone else saying it we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, lets do that!
Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if youve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.
Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs dont always do that. I think risk of solvency only applies if I know what Im risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that risk on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain thats a presumption trigger because.
I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I dont see that contextualized well and is often just a risk of solvency type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.
*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a we meet so aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive) is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesnt work, read spec.
Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesnt necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably dont try to get me to judge kick, honestly.
I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between.At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).
Jason Edgar - Morton College
Make Logical, Rational Arguments and Speak with Conviction. Oh, and you can't spell debate with T.
Joe Blasdel - McK
Section 1: General Information
I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.
In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.
On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.
If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).
Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?
Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.
Performance based argumentsâ?¦
Same as above.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?
All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.
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?)?
All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.
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 tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.
KIrby Weber - Hired
n/a
Kaila Todd - SFCC
- not a fan of speed as a weapon or spreading the opponent out of the round. I will vote on speed abuse- let's keep debate an inclusive and equitable space, so slow down if your opponent calls speed.
My personal opinion about speed: Quality over quantity, persuade me. I can handle most speed even though I don't like it. If it is too fast, I will say clear up to 2x. If you don't slow down, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. If something isn't on my flow, it's likely not going to be taken into consideration when I make my decision.
- debate is an educational activity first, and I will vote on fairness/ education voters especially with proven abuse.
- Counterplans: (1) CP shifts presumption. If you are running a CP, it needs to be competitive or I will not vote for it. (2) PIC's are rarely persuasive to me. I will vote aff on the perm 95% of the time if neg runs a PIC.
- T should be used to check aff, and not as a time suck. Really not a fan of clearly throw away arguments. Debate is a game, but there are more goals than just winning :)
- IMPACT CALCULUS. Please. Weigh the aff world and the neg world, and do the work of comparing them for me.
- Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case) After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo.
- Framework : Establish a clear framework for the debate and come back to that FW frequently. If you don't provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.
- (for evidence based debate) : I only pull up documents that are shared if there is evidence that I need to check. I flow the round based on what is said in the round. Don't depend on me reading and re-reading your case/evidence to understand it and make the arguments for you- you should present it in a way that I can understand it, and that persuades me.
- Extensions : don't just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and compare your impacts. Extend dropped arguments asap and explain their role in the debate. Don't wait until your last speech to bring up subpoint E that hasn't been talked about for the whole debate.
- Narrative : Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case. **Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don't know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning. This is a communication event.
- Flow judge - So PLEASE provide clear verbal organization for me during your speech.
- In your rebuttals, tell me exactly where to vote. I'm a fan of "Judge, pull [the internal link/ framework/ subpoint B] through and put a star by it. You're voting for aff/ neg here because XYZ".
- HAVE FUN! Learn something each round, and most importantly- be you :)
Kyle Smith - McK
n/a
Laurel Kratz - Hired
n/a
Rebecca Postula - McK
Hello! I am Rebecca! I graduated from McKendree University (2017-2021) and debated all four years, mostly in Parliamentary Debate however I also did NFA-LD for two years on and off and have some limited speech experience (mostly extemp). As a debater I solely ran policy based arguments on the affirmative however I was more varied on the negative in terms of critical arguments however my experience is limited to mostly Marx, Nietzsche, Biopower, and some Thacker.
Advantages/Disadvantages:I love case debate, this was my bread and butter as a debater and am more than comfortable judging policy based rounds. I prefer these arguments to be set up as uniqueness, link, internal link, and impact however you do you in terms of how you want to set these arguments up. I am totally down for politics disads and love hyperspecific advantages and disadvantages to the topic.
Ks:I will be upfront and say I am not as comfortable in a critical debate as a policy debate, however I do not want to use this to discourage your teams from running these arguments, however I do need some top level thesis explanation of what the world of the K looks like versus the world of the affirmative (or if it is a K AFF what the world post-aff looks like) these will help me to better contextualize your arguments and how they interact with the rest of the debate. I am very comfortable with Marx or any critiques of capitalism but beyond this I am not aware of the literature.
Theory:In terms of topicality please run it, I need a clear interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters at the end of the debate in order to vote for it. Beyond that I am not a huge fan of spec but run it if you must, however be warned that I will not be happy if you go for it.
Framework:As it is my first year out I am not 100% sure on how I vote on framework vs K AFFs, however as I debater this is an argument I ran frequently and am familiar with the argument broadly. However the direction I vote in these debates varies debating on the strategy teams deploy and comes to a question of what the world looks like depending on if I vote for Framework or the AFF.
Speaker Points:27-30, obviously don't be mean and do not say anything offensive.
Overall do you have fun, again this is slowly evolving and will likely change as the season goes on and I gain more experience judging.
Sarah Nail - SFCC
n/a
Sarah Reando - Hired
n/a
Stacy Bernaugh - Hired
n/a
Taylor Corlee - SBU
n/a
Tyler Jensen - Hired
n/a
Zoe Rollins - Hired
n/a