Dena Counts - Abilene Christian University

Saved Philosophy:

 I am the DOF at ACU.  I have been coaching Parli for the last 5 years.  For those last 5 years, I have judged on average 65 rounds per year.

 

I vote with the better quality of argument. When I say better quality, I am looking for depth of arguments and warrants behind your claim. I attempt to remove my individual biases from the round and make debaters tell me where and why to vote. I understand that biases do seep into my judgments, but I do feel that I should make decisions based upon your argumentation – not my worldview. Probably, I’m more of a game player when it comes to a decision maker.  Love new and unique strategies. I really think almost anything goes in this thing called debate. I say "anything" as I don't like cursing, nakedness, or slurs, but strategy wise, you can do what you need to do to win. Know that I’m very expressive in my nonverbals. If I am getting your argument, you’ll know. If you’ve lost me, you should know from my nonverbals. I have only been coaching for five years, so there are times that super speed (not typically speed) can lose me. Again watch my nonverbals, and I’ll let you know. I flow, judge on the flow, and don’t do the work for you.  Use your rebuttal to tell me why you win and where on the flow your arguments overwhelm the teams.

 

 

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)?  25 to 30

 

 

2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   Kritiks are great from both Aff and Neg. Explain your framework, impacts and give me a realistic alternative.  I do think you need an alternative and it shouldn't bite your story.  No I don’t think when you run other negative arguments they should be contradict other neg positions unless through the running of those positions you are trying to make a point.

 

3.     Performance based arguments…  Great.  Just tell me how I should interpret them, how they function in the round.

 

 

4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?   I will vote on T but would rather vote elsewhere. To pull that trigger in -round abuse is typically necessary. Also, competing interp is necessary.
 

 

5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?  CP’s are fine. PICS are fine. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run argumentation of why PICS are bad though. Yes, ID the status of the CP. PERM the CP every which way you can. If you can think of a new way to PERM that would be super fun.

 

6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)  Yes that’s fine.

 

 

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?)?  Topicality is first.  Then I look to Criteria or Framework to tell me where to go.  Usually it is impacts or turns on case.  I REALLY like rebuttals that tell me where to vote and WHY to vote.

 

 

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")? If you don’t tell me WHY your impact outweighs their impacts on timeline, magnitude or probability, then you are in the right place (Reno, NV) as you are a gambling person.  I would probably go with concrete impacts over abstract ones.

 

 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I vote with the better quality of argument.  When I say better quality, I am looking for depth of arguments and attachment of theoreticals to the topic in-round.  I attempt to remove my individual biases from the round and make debaters tell me where and why to vote.  I understand that biases do seep into my judgments, but I do feel that I should make decisions based upon your argumentation – not my worldview.  I’m fine with T, DAs, Ks, CPs, etc.  I really think almost anything goes in this thing called debate.  I say "anything" as I don't like cursing, nakedness, or slurs, but strategy wise, you can do what you need to do to win.  Know that I’m very expressive in my nonverbals.  If I am getting your argument, you’ll know.  If you’ve lost me, you should know from my nonverbals.  I have only been coaching for four years, so there are times that super speed (not typically speed) can lose me.  Again watch my nonverbals, and I’ll let you know.  I flow, judge on the flow, and don’t do the work for you. 

 

On speaker points, I typically give 24-30 speaker points, only giving 29-30 to those whom I think are super. 

 

Kritiks are great from both Aff and Neg.  Explain your framework, impacts and tell me what to do with the ballot.  I do think you need an alternative and it shouldn't bite your story.

 

I'm fine with performance. 

 

I will vote on T but would rather vote elsewhere.  To pull that trigger in -round abuse is typically necessary.  Also, competing interp is necessary.

 

CP’s are fine.  PICS are fine.  That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t run argumentation of why PICS are bad though.  Yes, ID the status of the CP.  PERM the CP every which way you can.  If you can think of a new way to PERM that would be super fun.

 

 

 

 

 




Annie Berry - Azusa Pacific University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

4 Years Debate

 

2 Years Judging

 

For the most part, you can do what you want in front of me. Make sure you explain your arguments with warrants, tell me why the argument you're making matters, and finally how it interacts with the other arguments being made in the round.

 

The biggest caveat: you must demonstrate actual, prominent, and substantial abuse in order to win a ballot on a theory argument. I find answers like "we concede probabilistic links and debate normal means, so there's no abuse" persuasive on theory.

 

Don't feel compelled to fill time: repeating yourself a third time won't help you. However, if you would like to spend leftover time adding warrants and weighing impacts I’d be happy to hear your whole speech. 

 

As a side note, I have a pretty expressive face which will clearly communicate whether or not I am following, or buying, your argument. 

 

Last, please don’t be rude to your opponent. It's entirely unnecessary. 



Joey Mavity - Azusa Pacific University

Saved Philosophy:

 

Notes collected over the 2012-2013 season

most up-to-date version at http://bit.ly/myrfd

 


I fundamentally approach debate from a principle of charity: I assume the best arguments that can be made are the arguments you make. This makes it fairly easy for me to make my decision based on what you argue rather than what I think about an issue.

Thus, while I speak at length on my biases and preferences, I’ll vote on an argument even if I think its bonkers. When I say something like, “the negative shouldn’t,” it’s not an absolute rule.

I probably over-value clever and snarky. I don’t value taking it too far.

Argument Quality


Increasingly I’m reaching the point where too many unwarranted arguments mean I simply don’t flow them. I understand one or two or even 10 over the course of the debate. But 10 in a row, I’m just going to peace out and probably start flipping my pen. This has not happened in the ‘11-’12 year, but it did twice in ‘10-’11. If you don’t respect co-participants enough to make an argument, I have a hard time feeling compelled to push buttons on my laptop. I think I have a much higher threshold here than some people.

Competition/Plan text

My default perspective is that the affirmative has broad access to parametric limits on the advocacy they present. This means if the resolution is, ‘Pass X piece of legislation,” you must pass all or part of that legislation. I tend to think passing something not in that legislation is probably going beyond the scope of the resolution.

As a result of your choice, I think you’re responsible for the consequences of your plan text. More plainly: I tend to think “textual competition” is a silly standard. If you didn’t want to defend the extent of your actions, you should have written a different plan.

“But the resolution made me do it!” is probably one of the most asinine claims ever.

CP text

Don’t read CP/alt text and not take questions. CP/alt in the last minute is absurd and has often been a voting issue in years past (though this practice is less common today).

Neutral concerns

I don’t flow points of information unless you tell me to. POIs are binding.

It’s difficult for me to vote on RVI’s.

Points of Order

I expect you to call points of order if an argument is new in a way that will affect my decision. For the one objecting, this consists of a clear articulation of what argument you think is new and why you think it is new. For the respondent, this consists of a clear articulation of why the violation identified by the opposing team is incorrect. For instance: “Their argument that death trumps ethics is a new argument that radically alters the impact calculus of the round by mooting our critique,” is a good point of order. “This argument is new,” on the other hand, is not. When responding, “We answered this in the MG,” is a fairly vague answer. I’m not willing to look through every word of the MG and guess which line you think was a response. Instead, “Our #2 on the alternative is that ethical obligations find their ultimate expression in the preservation of human life. That’s a wordy way of saying ‘life trumps ethics’ and hence is not new.”

Impact analysis

Arguments about how to evaluate and weigh issues in the debate are themselves arguments and should be presented early and often.

Past RFDs

I’ve made every single RFD since Fall 2010 available at http://bit.ly/myrfd. I think that gives you a much more detailed feel for my judging philosophy than this will because you can see what my recurring complaints are.

Time use

Don’t feel compelled to fill time. If you’ve won, end it. If you need the time, use it. Effective time management, though, can only help you. Saying “let me review all our arguments” and then spending 3 minutes repeating what you’ve already said can only hurt you.


















 

 


 

Coloring Book Edition

Special thanks to Mike Allen


 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Introduction


I fundamentally approach debate from a principle of charity: I assume the best arguments that can be made are the arguments you make.

Purpose

The purpose of this document is to acquaint you with my views of debate. It’s an outgrowth of all rounds I’ve watched since July, 2010. While I speak at length on my biases and preferences, I’ll vote on an argument even if I think its bonkers. When I say something like, “the negative shouldn’t,” it’s not an absolute rule.

Background

I’ve made every single RFD from the year available at http://bit.ly/myrfd (if you’re reading this online, you’re already here). I think that gives you a much more detailed feel for my judging philosophy than this will because you can see what my recurring complaints are. I’ve tried to distill some of my biggest frustrations and put them in this document.

I spend more time reading philosophy than polisci.

I probably over-value clever. I don’t value stretching it too far.

Argument Quality


Increasingly I’m reaching the point where too many unwarranted arguments mean I simply don’t flow them. I understand one or two or even 10 over the course of the debate. But 10 in a row, I’m just going to peace out and probably start flipping my pen. This has only happened once or twice this year, but if you can’t respect other people enough to make an argument, I have a hard time feeling compelled to push buttons on my laptop. So I think I have a much higher threshold here than some people, but I’m not going to try and copy down a dozen claims that aren’t substantiated.

Additionally, I've reached the point that I think it's an advocate's responsibility to speak truth, not their opposition's responsibility to confront lies. The way this works usually ends up being a sliding scale where the magnitude of the lie and it’s centrality to your argument is proportional to the response. Did you get the date wrong on when France switched to the Euro on a fairly minor tangent? Not a big deal. Did you say that France doesn’t use the Euro in order to no-link the disad? A substantially bigger problem. Modal qualifiers do a great to help protect you if you’re unsure. “I think France joined the Eurozone in 2000” is better than, “France has never joined the Eurozone.”

Aff concerns

Competition/Plan text

My default perspective is that the affirmative has broad access to parametric limits on the advocacy they present. This means if the resolution is, ‘Pass X piece of legislation,” you must pass all or part of that legislation. I tend to think passing something not in that legislation is probably going beyond the scope of the resolution.

As a result of your choice, I think you’re responsible for the consequences of your plan text. More plainly: I tend to think “textual competition” is a silly standard. If you didn’t want to defend the extent of your actions, you should have written a different plan.

Miscellany

“But the resolution made me do it!” is probably one of the most asinine claims ever.

Neg concerns

CP text

Don’t read CP/alt text and not take questions. CP/alt in the last minute is absurd and has often been a voting issue in years past (though this practice is less common today).
 

Neutral concerns

I don’t flow points of information unless you tell me to. POIs are binding.

Points of Order

I expect you to call points of order if an argument is new in a way that will affect my decision. For the one objecting, this consists of a clear articulation of what argument you think is new and why you think it is new. For the respondent, this consists of a clear articulation of why the violation identified by the opposing team is incorrect. For instance: “Their argument that death trumps ethics is a new argument that radically alters the impact calculus of the round by mooting our critique,” is a good point of order. “This argument is new,” on the other hand, is not. When responding, “We answered this in the MG,” is a fairly vague answer. I’m not willing to look through every word of the MG and guess which line you think was a response. Instead, “Our #2 on the alternative is that ethical obligations find their ultimate expression in the preservation of human life. That’s a wordy way of saying ‘life trumps ethics’ and hence is not new.”

Impact analysis

Arguments about how to evaluate and weigh issues in the debate are themselves arguments and should be presented early and often.

Time use

Don’t feel compelled to fill time. If you’ve won, end it. If you need the time, use it. Effective time management, though, can only help you. Saying “let me review all our arguments” and then spending 3 minutes repeating what you’ve already said can only hurt you.

Speaker points

I haven’t yet tracked my speaker points. I will begin tracking them so I can give an accurate report of my point averages. I tend to give 27, 27.5 and 28.

I will punish you if you ask for speaker points.



 



Daniel Elliott - Biola University

Saved Philosophy:

 

Experience:

1)      Competing: I was trained for CEDA though our small school did not have the time or funds to keep up with the research so I did Parli for two years back when Parliamentary Debate was just getting started in the west, 1996-1998.

2)      Judging: I have since = judged in many different tournaments as an assistant coach. I took a couple of years off to get married and now I am back as the Director of Forensics at Biola University. I have judged too many rounds to sit down and try to do the math. I have been around a while.

Decision making:

1)      I first make my decision according to my flow. I could totally disagree with you but if you say something is important or critical to the round I will write it down. If there is no response from the other team then that argument might win the round.

2)      I make my decision according to logic. I do not believe in tabula rosa. I will look at the arguments, especially in a round of a lot of clash, and decide what is supported with the best evidence and what makes the most sense.

3)      I accept procedurals. You do not need to prove abuse to run a T. You can run solvency presses, specs, Kritics, and tricot. I will listen to them all. I do not buy the risk of solvency arguments. If you have a plan that is likely not to solve that is the place where I will pull the trigger for the neg.

4)      Finally on Kritics, I do not like Kritics that are really nonlinear disadvantages in disguise just dressed up like K’s so that you can kritic the mindset. They K itself is nonlinear. The harm is already in the status quoe. There is no bright line to suggest that the rhetoric will make it worse. So save yourself the trouble and do not run them because I do not want to hear them.

Presentation:

1)      I think speed is antithetical to debate. Debate is about persuading your critic. Debate is supposed to train you for real world debates. How does talking at 200+ words per minute train students to argue in the real world? It robs debate of Ethos and Pathos which are just as important to logos in Aristotle’s paradigm. Logos is the most important of the triad but I want to see the other two.

2)      So please rise and speak if there is a lectern available. If not then you may speak from your seat.

3)      Be as professional as you can. It makes you more credible as a speaker. The more credible you are the more persuasive your arguments will seem. There is plenty of great research to support this.

On Case arguments:

1)      I like on case arguments. I don’t want the debate to become like two ships passing in the night.

2)      I do not want the Aff to spend 30 minutes of prep only to spend the hour of our lives listening to Neg’s off case positions. Since logic is very important to me I would advise Neg teams to try case turns and presses in addition to K’s and DA’s It can only help you.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Experience:

1)      Competing: I was trained for CEDA though are small school did not have the time or funds to keep up with the research so I did Parli for two years back when Parliamentary Debate was just getting started in the west, 1996-1998.

2)      Judging: I have since then judged in many different tournaments as an assistant coach. I took a couple of years off to get married and not I am back as the Director of Forensics at Biola University. I have judged too many rounds to sit down and try to do the math. I have been around a while.

Decision making:

1)      I first make my decision according to my flow. I could totally disagree with you but if you say something is important or critical to the round I will write it down. If there is no response from the other team then that argument might win the round.

2)      I make my decision according to logic. I do not believe in tabula rosa. I will look at the arguments, especially in a round of a lot of clash, and decide what is supported with the best arguments and what makes the most sense.

3)      I accept procedurals. You do not need to prove abuse to run a T. You can run solvency presses, specs, Kritics, and tricot. I will listen to them all. I do not buy the risk of solvency arguments. If you have a plan that is likely not to solve that is the place where I will pull the trigger for the neg.

4)      Finally on Kritics, I do not like Kritics that are really nonlinear disadvantages in disguise just dressed up like K’s so that you can kritic the mindset. They K itself in nonlinear. The harm is already in the status quoe. There is not bright line to suggest that the rhetoric will make it worse. So save yourself the trouble and do not run them because I do not want to hear them.

Presentation:

1)      I think speed is antithetical to debate. Debate is about persuading your critic. Debate is supposed to train you for real world debates. How does talking at 200+ words per minute train students to argue in the real world? It robs debate of Ethos and Pathos which are just as important to logos in Aristotle’s paradigm. Logos is the most important of the triad but I want to see the other three.

2)      So please rise and speak if there is a lectern available. If not then you may speak from your seat.

3)      Be as professional as you can. It makes you more credible as a speaker. The more credible you are the more persuasive your arguments will seem. There are plenty of theories to back this up.

On Case arguments:

1)      I like on case arguments. I don’t the debate to become like two ships passing in the night.

2)      I do not want the Aff to spend 30 minutes of prep only to spend the hour of our lives listening to Neg’s off case positions. Since logic is very important to me I would advise Neg teams to try case turns and presses in addition to K’s and DA’s It can  only help you.



Tim Milosch - Biola University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.


Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Here are my basics when it comes to debate.

1. If you ask me what my judging philosophy/paradigm, etc is in the round and I tell you, my expectation is that you will do your best to adapt your style to my request. Nothing is more frustrating as a critic than to have you ask, me explain, and then have multiple debaters ignore what I just took several minutes to explain.

2. As a former CEDA debater back in the early 90's, I consider myself to be a stock issues judge. What this means to me is that you be well organized, tell me where your issue arguments apply to the flow and impact them out for me. Please do not expect me to do your work for you. If you say amazing things and I am not told where to apply it in the debate or on the flow, I am not going to look for it. That is your job.

3. Back in my debate days as a competitor, speed was not acceptable and I consider that still relevant today. If you are speaking so fast as to not allow my writing to keep up, you'll probably see me set down my pen as a visual aid to you that you need to slow it down. Remember, it isn't always the quantity of arguments, but the quality that can win rounds.

4. Speak well. Remember, each of your constructive speeches, points of information and rebuttals are like mini-persuades. That means to me that you need to structure them as such and persuade me as to why your argumentation is superior and why I should buy your reasoning. Style points count here as well! Nothing to me is more impressive than debaters who have great arguments to make and sound good doing it!

5. Finally, play nice in the sandbox! When adrenalin is pumping in the heat of competition, I will punish you if the debate takes a nasty turn. It is one thing to disagree with the points of your opposition. It is quite a different thing to make those attacks personal. I have dropped teams solely on decorum. Debate should be congenial and constructive. If you can't follow these basic rules of engagement, then I would suggest finding another event to enter, like UFC or the WWE.

That's it; pretty simple and straightforward. I'm a pretty easy going guy. I believe debate is a game that we play with our friends. I enjoy forensics and spending time with all of you that work so hard to compete with distinction. Have fun, speak well, and be smart!



Grant Tovmasian - California State University, Los Angeles

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Background Forensics:  My participation in Forensics centered primarily on Debate and Limited Prep Events, which I did for as long as I was allowed to debate; Parliamentary Debate, but also LD and NFA-LD with Impromptu and Extemp along with a fair number of Platforms.  I tried to stay away from Interp for as long as I can and whenever I could. I coached Parliamentary and NFA-LD debate for Glendale Community College for one year. Currently, I coaching for California State University Los Angeles and teaching Communication 150 classes.  I am in charge of the Parliamentary and NFA-LD Debate along with limited prep EI’s.

Education:

Philosophy:

I prefer good on case argumentation over near useless procedurals that are simply run in order to avoid on case thorough analysis.  I firmly believe that speed kills, as such the first team that uses it as an offensive or defensive tactic will get a loss in that round.  Critics, i.e. K’s are to be run only when one or the other side believes that it is more important then whatever else is happening on case.  As such, they should be willing to commit to it wholeheartedly and most important at the top of everything.  For example, if you truly believe that the other team is promoting cultural genocide, seriously do not speak to me about agricultural benefits or disadvantages of the plan first, because then I think you cheapen both the critique and your whole line of argumentation.

That aside, I am open to any line of argumentation as long as it is complete.  Example: I will not do your work for you, no link no argument, no impact no argument, no warrant NO ARGUMENT PERIOD.  I want to hear fun, constructive and polite debates.  Have fun and let the best team win. (I always prefer cordial and educational rounds with elements of quick wit and persuasive argumentation over Nuclear Holocaust, which I really do not care for, especially when it results because of US not buying used car parts from Uruguay.) 



Geoffrey BrodakSilva - California State University, Los Angeles

Saved Philosophy:

My comments in this paradigm should be understood as the horizon from my point of view--not dictates.  I love debate because it allows teams to argue about what they feel is important.

I have been active in debate for over 20 years at both the high school and the college level.  In that time, I have watched as 2 documentary film crews followed two separate teams on mine (1 high school, 1 college).  I have worked several summer institutes, coached in the Northwest and Southwest, started an English Language Debate League in Mexico City and continue working with the LA Metro League.  I am currently the Director at Cal State LA and have judged about 15 rounds this year.

Many years ago I wrote an article about why I think the tricotomy, while conceptually helpful, fails to provide a fair and debater centered approach to topic interpretation.  I feel much the same way about the stock issues, where inherency plays the role of fact, harms the role of value, and solvency playing policy.  Like most of the policy-maker paradigm, I see significance and topicality as derivative of the coordination of other three.  That is to say, I will use my real-world experiences both in and out of rounds, and therefore cannot feign ignorance of their import.

I do not feel that the ability to speak quickly is even close to one of the most significant things I have learned from forensics.  I can flow fast debate because I have been trained to, not because I enjoy the tactic.  I do not feel that rate is a substitute for making strategic choices.

I believe that the negative has the burden of rejoinder and, as such, must respond to the substantive arguments of the affirmative.  I dislike the 1-off LOC because while tactical choices are made, it also necessitates a “going for everything” strategy that does not necessitate making strategic choices.

I rarely vote on procedural arguments because they are usually pale shadows of a more important substantive issue.  There have been times when there is clearly articulated in-round abuse; but it goes without saying that the procedural argument trades off with another actual position, not a potential position.

A counterplan needs to test the solvency of the affirmative’s advocacy, which is to say, it competes with the plan on the level of net benefits.  Both textual and functional competition have the possibility of fulfilling this standard, if they can demonstrate an opportunity cost.  Since uniqueness can be counterplanned, the status of the advocacy need not be unconditional.  A permutation is the plan plus any part of the counterplan--“Do both” is not a permutation.

Kritik is a label to describe arguments that do not easily fit into either the stock issues or the policy maker paradigm.  Teams should feel free to use “framework” to ease this disparity, but not as a substitute for demonstration of an alternative.  However, I do believe it is possible to defend rejection as such an alternative.

Points of order should be called if you are worried that a rebuttal argument is not being understood as new.  I will protect teams from arguments that create a new strategic field once rebuttals have begun.  In preliminary debates, points of order will be well taken or not; in out-rounds, points of orders will be taken under consideration.

At the end of the round, the best arguments win.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

In every round, I will be looking for the nation’s best argument.  Presentation is very important to a persuasive performance because it is impossible to alter the form of a presentation without changing its content and vise-versa.  For me, the best debates are sharp, have witty performances, and invite discussion as opposed to shutting it down. The proposition should have excellent on-case analysis, likewise, the opposition should spend time responding to the excellent points their opponents make.  Thus, I tend to dislike it when the LOC has “one off” and no case debate.

I understand some cling to differences between a fact, a value, and a policy; but I do not think the trichotomy is productive all three have important implications.  As such, evaluation of one does not exclude evaluation of the other two for me.  I feel equally comfortable using stock-issues or net-benefits terminology to frame the debate.  Regardless, I will be weighing the advantages versus the disadvantages of the competing advocacies in the round.

I love debate’s ability to open up new possibilities.  However, as should be clear from above, I do not like strategies that; (1) ignore the offensive arguments of their opponents; (2) fail to advance substantive offence themselves; (3) fail to preserve clash; (4) are dull and without the vitality of life; (5) treat style as if it were irrelevant to performance and persuasion; (6) ask me to abandon my role as critic to become the more docile judge; (7) treat propositional justification as unilateral decision; (8) use rate of delivery as a substitute for warranted analysis.  This list is a guide to my preferences but does not overwhelm my belief in debate as a place where competitors get to decide on what topics they want to speak.

Overall:  strive for balance; give arguments the time they are worth; assume your opponents make some valid points; characterize your opponents’ arguments in their strongest version—then answer that back; if you have questions ask; and oh yea, the best argument wins.

 

 



Bill Neesen - California State University-Long Beach

Saved Philosophy:

Bill Neesen
Cal. State Long Beach/IVC

Years Judging Debate: 22+
Years Competed in Debate: 7
What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton

Section 1: General Information

I think that debate is up to the debaters in the round. They the privilege of defining what debate should look like, but also the responsibility to defend that interpretation. I like Case debate (this is a lost great art), CP, DA, K and performance (but I really hate performance that is bad). I will listen to and vote on theory but you have to make it clear. Other than that I would say that debate is a game and I always play games to win and would expect you to do similar things. Also while I do not think that any judge can be truly non-biased and not intervene at all, I think intervention is a bad thing that the judge has a duty to try to resist as much as possible.

Other things to think about: some people think that I am a hack for the K. While I have coached many great K people (or performance) I was a CP/DA/Case debater. This really does mean I love to see it all. I am a very fast flow.

I hate lying in debate and would suggest for people to try to get facts straight. I do not vote against people who lie or make bad arguments (I leave it up to the other team to do that) but your points will reflect it.

Well I do not mind critical arguments and think everyone can run them no matter the side. I treat them the same as every other argument. If they have a framework argument I will start there and see how I should frame the debate (and do not think I default crazy, many great debaters have won policy making in front of me). Once I decide how to frame the debate than I use it to evaluate the debate.  As far as contradictory K positions with counterplans I do not like it if the K works on a level of discourse as a reason to vote for the k. I have a hard time with the whole language is most important and what we learn in debate is best, followed up by someone using bad rhetoric and saying the other team should not use it. I do not just vote for it but I do find the whole you contradicted it so either you lose or the K goes away persuasive.

I would give some warning before I talk about Crazy in debate. 1. There is a winner and a looser in each debate, just because you were doing something crazy does not mean you get to avoid it. I have very few things I get to do and I enjoy the power (I give winner, looser, and speaker points). 2. Bad performance is not only horrible to watch (which kills speaker points) it also is easy to turn if the other team know performance or makes simple logical arguments. This means that it needs to be prepped and practiced it is not normally something that just comes to you in prep and if it does you might want to resist it because they go bad on the fly. Having said all of it I have seen some amazing performances over the years and it was cool when they were good.

I have an old school approach to T. I do not mind it and while it does not have to have in round abuse it is always better to have it.  To vote on it you need to win that there is a reason why what they did is bad and in the round the best thing would be to drop the AFF. As far as competing interps go I have a little rant. I do not know what else there is but competing interp. I mean both sides have their interp and the standards they use to justify it. In the end to win T you would have to prove your interp is the better one (hence the winning interp from the competing interps) and that topicality is a voting issue. I have no idea why people say t is about competing interps (because it always has been and will be) and I have no idea what that argument gets them in the round.

I love counterplans. I have heard very few counterplans that are not pics (and they were really really bad). Topical counterplans are the best for debate and policy making because they are honestly the heart of most of the literature.  If you plan on kicking the CP I would put the status in the cp because otherwise you run the risk of the PMR getting angry about the kick and it is always messy for the judge at that point. Perms need to have text unless it is do both (because the text is literally both). Types of competition are interesting text seems a little weaker than functional but both can be good and lame too. I want to remind you here that even though I have told you about what I think about theory arguments I still vote on them all the time.  Even the silly argument that you only get one perm and it is always advocated (Yes cheesewright I am insulting you :P). I also think conditionality bad is a smart argument even if I don’t always get to vote for it.

MPJ:

My recommendation for teams is to pref me based on the people they are debating that weekend. I see people who are not fast or cannot handle the K (or defend policymaking) well and that is sad because they ranked me an A. You should rank me biased on what is most likely to win you rounds and I would never be offended by this.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Bill Neesen
Cal. State Long Beach

Parli Debates judged this year: 20+
Non-Parli Debates judged this year: Policy 1+
Years Judging Debate: 17 (both highschool +college)
Years Competed in Debate: 7
What School Competed at: Millard South/ OCC/CSU- Fullerton

Making Decisions: 'My decision is based solely(as much as that Is possible) on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible. It is your round. choose how you want it to happen and then defend it. I should also note that just because I coach crazy people it is not the only style of debate I like.

Decision-making Approach: It is up to you and you can do whatever you want. I decide who wins based on what you say in the round. So it is up to you pick a style and defend it. '

Assessing Arguments: 'I am addicted to my flow but drops only become important if you tell me they were dropped and why that makes them important.'

Presentational Aspects: 'Speed is ok I would be amazed if you went faster than I can flow but if your not clear that might happen. I hate offensive rhetoric and if it gets bad so will your speaks. That is the one place I get to input what I think and no matter what I will retain control of it, this means that a 30 speaker point arg is silly.

Strong Viewpoints: 'No I see debate as a game. I have defended some pretty scary shit. So I would not punish you for doing it but you better be able to defend it.'

Cases, DAs, CPs, Ks, T, etc.: 'I like all of what is listed. My advice is to make some arguments and then defend them. I really don t care what they are.'

Other Items to Note: 'I might have a higher threshold on T and similar args. I have also been told that I am a K hack even though I never ran them and was a CP debater. '



Nick Russell - California State University-Long Beach

Saved Philosophy:

Nick Russell
CSU, Long Beach

Years judging: Too many
Rounds on the topic: 10

My background is in policy debate, in which I competed for four years in high school, four years in college (go Sun Devils!), and coached for two years as an MA student at CSULB. I took a break from policy debate for 5 years during my PhD program at Utah (where I ran with Mike Middleton a Parli/Public Debate squad). Since I've been back at Long Beach, my goal has been to re-establish a successful policy program that built off our successes in the early 00s.

Given that, I view debate as a transformational learning environment in which students are empowered as agents of social change. While I understand that debate is both strategic and a game, my interest in the gamey aspects of debate have long ago been replaced with an appreciation for what this activity can do for its participants. Debate is a revolutionary practice and should be embraced as such. What does this mean for my judging philosophy?

First, it means that, left to my own devices, I evaluate arguments that address power, discourse, and the subject before I evaluate consequential impacts of the case. You can make your best "leverage the 1AC impacts against the K" arguments or "weigh our disads against their impact" arguments all that you like but, in the absence of COMPELLING arguments to that effect, I think the way that our language and communication shapes discourses about subjects (and subjects themselves) is a prior ethical question to whether or not a cross-strait conflict with China will erupt in the near term (in large part because that war's already begun and already bearing out on the bodies of oppressed people in China, Taiwan, and the United States).

Second, left to my own devices, I tend to find arguments that address structural inequalities (and oppressions) in debate much more persuasive than arguments about US Federal Policy. Perhaps this is because I identify most closely with oppositional queer movements (and we ain't talking about marriage equality), who have provided a perspective that shapes my view of political engagement. Ultimately, I think you have to have a political purpose to debate, otherwise it devolves into the worst type of Sophistry.

Third, I think that debate is first and foremost a public sphere activity, meaning it is an activity designed to enhance the quality of public dialogue about issues and to engage students on public-sphere issues. Ultimately, this means that you need to check your biases at the door.
1. If you think the "COSTCO" approach to debate is a good one (e.g., more is better), I'm probably not the judge for you.
2. If you think it's fun to bully people and push them out of debates, I'm probably not the judge for you.
3. If you think debate should connect itself to radical, oppositional feminist, anti-racism, queer, anti-classist, or other struggles, you should invite me to your round.
4. If you dig in depth discussions of critical theory (in the Frankfurt School tradition of critical as liberationary), please invite me to your round.

Finally, a couple things you should keep in mind.
1. I only call for cards that are referenced in the 2NR/2AR and that are analyzed by the debater.
2. I do not reconstruct the round for you; I will make my decision in about 20 minutes or less.
3. I assume that all speakers start with 27.5 speaker points and earn or lose points based on actions in the rounds. I only use half points, not tenth points. My speaker points over the past three years average out to about 27.
4. I study 19th century literature. Really. I dig it. So I think using literary devices in rounds is probably a good idea.
5. I use the 2NR and 2AR overviews to evaluate the debate. Really. That's where I start. The more direction you give me, the less I will intervene.
6. I think debate should be fun. If you enjoy enacting privilege and machismo, being a jerk, or generally have an unpleasent demeanor to others, I'm probably not the judge for you.
 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Nick Russell

Judge Philosophy Statement

Name: Nick Russell | School: CSU, Long Beach | Years Judging: 8 (5 policy, 4 parli) 

 

General comments

First, I view debate as an oral activity. As such, I think it is the responsibility of the debaters to conduct the debate in such a manner that it is accessible to all audience members. This means you ought to adapt to your audience, including but not limited to your judge. Second, you should note that my background is not in parliamentary debate. I competed for eight years in policy debate. Since then, I have coached three years of high school and two years of collegiate policy debate. Do not read this as a wholesale endorsement of the cultural politics of policy debate. The most valuable thing I learned in my policy training were important argumentative modes of contesting the politics of domination. Things like art, hip-hop, spirituals, micropolitics, dada, theater of the oppressed, etc.

 

Topicality

I treat topicality as a competition about the best way to interpret the resolution in such a way as to create the most fair debates possible. I view topicality as analogous to a plan/counterplan debate in which each team discusses the net benefits of their interpretation. 

 

Disadvantages

General

I do not buy arguments about the risk of a link. In my mind, negative teams need to win a link. Once this burden has been met, I will assess the risk of the impact. 

 

Politics 

I have not yet voted on a politics disadvantage in parliamentary debate. Teams who choose to run these arguments in front of me are fighting an uphill battle, as I think that in the absence of evidence link stories become quite difficult to evaluate. This is particularly the case with politics (as compared to other disadvantages) because of the constantly changing nexus of American politics. If you choose to run a politics disadvantage in front of me, it is your burden to prove a) a specific link story (e.g. winners-win, political capital, olive branch, bipart, etc.) that b) identifies specific political factions (and NOT one or two senators that you remember from the news last night) that c) will be influenced by specific actions of the plan. I have yet to see this level of specificity occur, and in its absence I am unpersuaded by this genre of disadvantage.

 

Critiques/Kritiks

I view critiques in a very similar way to a disadvantage. As I see it, negatives must win a clearly articulated link to the plan (grounded in the language and actions of the affirmative) and a specific impact scenario that clearly articulates a way in which “the state” redeploys itself, “capitalism” causes violence or genocide, etc. If you do not articulate an alternative, I will assume you are defending the status quo. Sadly, in the world of the squo, the state still exists, capitalism is everpresent, and we are all doomed to ontological damnation. I do, however, quite frequently vote for the critique when teams present a positive vision of the world (e.g. an alternative) and explain how that vision will create positive social change. When answering critiques, government teams need to develop offense as negative teams have a HUGE advantage at the link level. To me, the two most persuasive government responses to critiques are 1) a turn to the alternative or 2) offensive counter critiques (e.g. using Butler to respond to feminism).

 

Counterplans

If you choose to run a counterplan, you need to solve for the case harms and win a disadvantage. I think that affirmatives need offense in these debates, as I find myself voting more and more on disadvantages to the counterplan and less on theory arguments. This doesn’t mean you cannot win dispo, conditionality, or PICs bad in front of me. It does however mean that I will not vote on quick blippy theory arguments without application. Much like topicality debates, you must win that your interpretation is best for debate. Also, please slow down on theory arguments. I’m old. I write slowly. You need to help me out here.

 

Speaker points

In general, I assign speaker points that range from 26 to 27.5. Really exceptional speeches (with high levels of analytic detail, lots of specificity, high levels of application, and attention to detail) will get a 28 from me. I reserve 29s and 30s for speeches that move me as an individual. You should also note that I do not tolerate language that excludes or belittles a person on the basis of their race, gender/sex, sexuality, physical or mental disability status, body, nationality, religion, ethnicity… etc. For each occurance of exclusionary or belittling language, I will deduct a speaker point. If your language distracts from the overall quality of the debate, I will deduct a majority, if not all, of your speaker points. If you are really worried about your ability to watch your language, by all means strike me. It is not my intention, however, to cause you to strike me because of my speaker point politics. Instead, it’s my way of saying “check your biases at the door.”



Cassie Owens - Cameron University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I am a graduate student from Abilene Christian University and this is my first year to be involved with parliamentary debate. I do flow and judge on the flow. If you make an argument I like to be told why it is important and how it impacts out. Because I'm new at debate I don't always follow speed well. I'm not a stickler for presentational skills but I do want to be able to understand the arguments and what you are saying. I like critique's but if you run a critique I like to have an alternative. On-case arguments are important and are voting issues. I will vote on whoever makes the best argument and whoever proves that their argument outweighs the other one. 



Peter van Elswyk - Carleton College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

BACKGROUND

I am the coach and critic for Carleton College for the 2012 NPDA. I am currently finishing a master's in philosophy at Northern Illinois University. Before that, I helped coach parlimentary debate and lincoln-douglas debate at Azusa Pacific University from 2010 to 2011. Before that, I also coached high school lincoln-douglas debate at Harvard-Westlake from 2008 until 2011. Before that, I competed in parliamentary debate at Biola University from 2005 until 2009 where I also completed a bachelor's in philosophy. Before that, I competed in high school lincoln-douglas debate at Rogers High School. Before that, I was arguing with my parents. I haven't judge any parliamentary debates this year. I have judge numerous high school lincoln-douglas debates. My total number of rounds judged ever is higher than I would like to admit. 

DECISION-MAKING

Non-intervention is the primary principle that guides my decision-making. There are no arguments I won't vote on and I don't have arbitrary "thresholds" for types of arguments. I default to net-benefits unless I am given a different metric for evaluating the round. I am to make neutral decisions and, if necessary, I will flip a coin if there is no way to choose a winner without intervening. There is one major exception. If you win that I should intervene, i'll intervene. Non-intervention is the paradigmatic stating point for my judging, but I won't impose that on you. If you win that I should use a different principle, say, for evaluating a performance or project and that principle is interventionist, then I will use this other principle to guide my decision-making. In short, argue how and what you want to argue and I will attempt to judge the round as fairly as possible. 

You should call your own points of order. An argument is new if it does not extend or rejoin an argument from a previous speech. Let me give some examples. Impact weighing is new if the weighing includes new arguments about your impacts. For example, if you quantify your impacts for the first time to explain how they outweigh in magnitude, then this is new. Impact weighing is also new if it consists of a new answers to your opponents weighing that could have occured in a previous speeh for you. Cross-applications are new if cross-applying gives the argument a new in-round function. For example, it would be new to  cross apply link arguments in a disad in the PMR to make a "we meet" argument on topicality.

Presentation and communication skills never determine the winners or losers. Arguments, however, do determine the winners and losers. I think a good argument is one that is deeply warranted and which is accompanied by a clear explanation of its significance (i.e. impact weighing, implications). Nevertheless, your presentation will influence the speaker points I assign. See the section below on speaker points.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. 

SPEAKER POINTS

I begin the speaker points at 27. If you do something impressive, then you receive .5 more. If you do something unimpressive, then you lose .5 points. So the person who earns a 30 is someone who has repeatedly impressed me throughout the round. Similarly, the person who earns a 20 is a person who repeatedly offended me during the round. I can be impressed by the quality of your arguments, the intricacy of your strategy, the thoroughness of your refutation, the persuasiveness of your speech, and other such factors. I can be offended by extreme rudeness, disparaging remarks about certain demographics (e.g. race, gender, class, sexaulity, religion), lying, and strategies I take to be intellectually or pedagogically subpar. I generally give one 30 each tournament and rarely give more than two. I've never given points lower than 24. 



Amanda Taylor - Carroll College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Amanda Taylor

 

EDUCATION

·       Undergrad degrees in chemistry, English, and secondary education at Carroll College.

·       MA from the University of Chicago focused on early modern literature and critical theory

·       Current Ph.D. student in English literature and critical theory at the University of Minnesota

 

EXPERIENCE

·       Competition: Four years of NPDA.  One year of NPTE after which I decided not to subject myself to three national tournaments in a row for the sake of my sanity, health, and academics.

·       Coaching: Four years coaching high school LD and four years coaching speech and debate at Carroll College. 

·       Judging: Between 20-40 rounds in 2008-09, 20-40 in 2009-2010, 40-60 in 2010-2011, and about 20 this year at UPS and Mile High.

 

OVERVIEW

I’m open to any specific questions before the round begins.  I’ll try to be as thorough as possible, but I’ll inevitably forget something, so feel free to ask.  I guess my pet peeves are really what I’d like to discuss in this section.  I don’t like lying, and if I know you’re lying, I’m not going to count that argument even if the other team doesn’t call you on it.  You may call that judge intervention, but I call it good academic practice.  I don’t have a problem with speed.  If you’re going so fast you become unintelligible or I can’t type fast enough to keep up with you, I’ll say “clear.”  Otherwise, do what you want in the round.  I do, however, have a problem using speed to prevent another team from gaining access to the round.  This is particularly an issue for me when one of the teams is obviously less experienced.  I’d appreciate it if you slow down a little bit and make the round more fair.  I don’t care for rudeness.  I like some humor and sarcasm and most of all to watch a round where both teams are having fun.  I understand some people have history and some rounds get heated, but please do your best to stay civil.  I will reflect undue rudeness in your speaking points negatively.  On that point, average speaks for me are usually 24-26.  Good is 27-ish.  Great is 28-29 and pretty damn flawless is 30.  If you are more than a few minutes late, I will penalize your speaking points.  I prefer if you give your opponents (and me) a copy of plan text, CP text, and K alt, and if you’re not going to give copies, read the text at least two times so I can get it down as close to what is on your paper as possible.

 

TOPICALITY

I will vote on T.  That said, I’d like to not have to vote on T in every round.  Use T (and other arguments) strategically, but kick it in the MO if you don’t think you’re winning hands down on such a blatant violation that a partially deaf grandmother would vote for you.  Of course, should the aff drop something like your interpretation and standards, well, you might as well keep the argument for me to vote on.  I want to see counterinterpretation, a good standards debate (preferably you turning their standards and  giving me counterstandards), and clash on the voter level.  If the aff interpretation solves for education and fairness and those are the impacts on the voter level that would necessitate me to vote on T, then I’m going to buy that the aff interpretation is not abusive.  I like to see some semblance of in-round abuse, but running a really bad DA that really wouldn’t link probably to any topical interpretation of the res isn’t going to count as abuse for me when the aff de-links from it.  I find K of the T interesting, though as an English major who adores grammar, it’s going to be hard to get my vote here if there is a grammatically justifiable explanation of a violation. 

 

SPEC

 An offensive O spec will likely make a spec debate a wash for me unless there is some egregious lack of specification that really does eliminate quantitative neg ground.  Otherwise, I’m going to see the spec debate as more of a strategic decoy.  As in the case of T, if the aff really messes up on that strategy and doesn’t get enough on the spec to make it a wash for me, go for it neg and I’ll vote there, but I’d rather not.  Unless I can see the impact the lack of specification is having on the round in terms of fairness or education, I’m probably not going to buy your abuse story.  If you do go for spec, you should impact the argument and specify why it matters in this round with this resolution.  I probably won’t vote for a generic shell. 

 

COUNTERPLAN THEORY

I really like CP debate.  I am inclined to believe that CPs in parli should be unconditional due to the lack of backside rebuttals.  That said, I’m not going to vote against a conditional or dispositional CP on the basis of that belief unless the aff wins the theory argument about why a conditional or dispositional CP is bad.  I also think that in parli with the lack of extra speeches, dispositional CPs are pretty abusive since you’re not going to be able to clearly articulate for the aff and me the situations in which it is okay for you to kick your CP.  I enjoy hearing theory debates about CP fiat, multifactor fiat bad, delay bad, PIC bad, etc., and I think that a CP should have some kind of theory defense that follows the text to function as spikes to some of those positions.  I believe this is essential since there is so much less time for a CP theory debate to happen in parli absent the extra rebuttals.  In terms of the actual CP v. case debate, I think CPs are an opportunity cost to plan, so if the aff can show me why this cost won’t happen, I’m inclined to believe that the CP really goes away, much like a DA with no link.  However, a perm alone is usually not enough to convince me that CP goes away.  I’d always like some offense to the CP.  This can come in the form of a DA, solvency deficit, turns, or net benefit, but evaluating whether the CP can accrue case advantages as well as the aff plan or interrogate the same uniqueness scenario (aka harms) is a good place to generate some of that offense.  I think a CP should always be paired with a DA or some substantial case offense that shows why CP is preferable on a NB framework.  In my ideal plan v. CP round, both teams would have offense and aff, even if showing how a test perm would make the CP go away in terms of good old fashioned mutual exclusivity, would show me why plan alone is still the most preferable option.

 

DISADVANTAGES

I like them.  I prefer straight up case debate to bad theory debate any day.  PTIX DAs can go either way for me.  I think that you have to win the uniqueness story in order to control the direction of the link.  While this is generally true for all DAs, I think this is particularly true for PTIX positions, so the more specifics you have about which senator or house person is going to win or lose what election for what reason, the more likely I am going to be to buy your story.  I think that people underutilize impact uniqueness.  Extinction claims resulting from the government buying flu vaccines will be pretty effectively eliminated in front of me with a good debate about impact uniqueness (i.e., we’ve bought flu vaccines before and no one has gone extinct so plan, which is similar in form to previous policy actions, will not cause these impacts either).  Please don’t link turn and impact turn the same DA.  It’s embarrassing.  I really like warrants, so please use good old Toulmin and pair your claims with warrants.  That will construct a logical chain for me that makes a solid DA I can weigh against case.

 

KRITIK

I really love a good, emphasis here on good, K debate.  I don’t want you to spit names at me and expect me to invoke most or all of a said theorist’s literature for you.  You should provide an understandable overview or explain the specifics as you go along, especially in the framework and links, so that everyone in the round has a basic understanding of your argument.  I think K has to be post-fiat; otherwise, how do you fiat your K alt?  I would like argumentation about why some parts (all?) of the K should precede case debate.  I think solvency is a big downfall for a lot of the K debates I’ve watched, so I’d like you to articulate solvency for me.  Particularly if you claim giant impacts, isolate for me how your alt can solve for, at least in some way, these impacts.  Aff, I like to see offense on the K alt.  Vagueness/spec positions are legitimate, in my opinion, because a lot of times the alt is pretty vague and broad.  I also like the aff to leverage offense in terms of a defense of their underpinning ideology (Why is cap good?  Why is the state good?  Why is free trade good?) and turning that into an offensive attack on what happens when that ideology is wholly rejected.  I think some K rounds could do with a DA to the K since if the K debate isn’t won in the framework, it will often come down to a question of solvency, so I begin to treat it much like a CP debate.  I like a neg team to do some case debate in a K round, and I especially appreciate a K with a clear link to the round that goes beyond “the aff talks about econ so they link to our cap K.”  There is a lot of sophisticated theory in the world, and I like to see some of that in debate, but given that my MA and Ph.D. incorporate a lot of work with theory, I don’t like to see this theory butchered either.  Clarity, faithfulness to the original argument, and relevance are key components of a good K debate for me.  Please ask if you have additional questions.

 

IRONY

I don’t love this position; in fact, I don’t even like it.  This is because I think that irony by definition depends upon an assumed understanding on the part of the audience that you can’t guarantee exists, and when you break character to enlighten the audience, you undermine the very point of irony.  This means that I’m probably not the critic who will vote for you just because you’re being creative and novel.  To win this position in front of me, you need a sophisticated defense of this rhetorical technique as well as an explanation of how framing irony in a non-ironic context is educational or somehow advantageous.  Tell me how to evaluate competing types of irony; basically, give me a clear framework.  If you’ve put a lot of work into developing this position and have the rhetorical theory to defend your interpretation, then you can run this position in front of me and I’ll be inclined to vote for you.  However, if irony is your thing that you run every round and it doesn’t grow and evolve to fit the resolution and issues it invokes, I’m probably not your critic.

 

PERFORMANCE

I think that art and performance are inherently valuable, so it is really important that you have a framework that tells me why me evaluating art in some objective manner isn’t going to have negative consequences for the inherent value of art.  I’m not a Kantian objectivist who thinks that some ideal form of art and beauty is possible, so I can’t pick the best performance by weighing your recitation of poetry against your opponent’s dance by comparing them to the ideal forms.   This means you have to tell me how to evaluate and why that evaluative process is fair and educational.  If you haven’t done that kind of work to frame your performance in the round, I’m probably not your critic.

 

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES

I want them to link to the resolution.  I’m all for alternative frameworks and for deontologically oriented impacts, but I’m going to want a clear framework for how to evaluate competing claims.  If you are just critiquing the res or a position/rhetoric you anticipate the neg will make/use, I’m biased against critical affs because I think that the neg can’t have possibly done anything that warrants aff criticism before they even enter the round.  While I’ll vote for them if the neg just loses the round or if the critical aff has a compelling justification for their critical interpretation, if this is what you like running all the time, I might not be your critic unless you link to the resolution and are simply using an alternative approach to affirmation.  If that’s what you’re doing, I’m game.

CASE

I like things straight up.  I like clear definitions and a topical interpretation.  I like structure and organization.  I like an explanation of your evaluative criterion, particularly if it isn’t NB, and what that means the neg needs to do and how I should be evaluating.  I like a clear plan text that is as specific as possible.  Solvency is important for me, so I would prefer it be a separate contention.  It doesn’t have to be, but if neg takes out solvency and pairs that defense with just a little bit of offense, I’m likely to pull the trigger neg.  Go for fewer advantages with well-developed stories of uniqueness, link, and impact rather than lots of shells.  Pack your PMC with offense and spikes for the MG.  Terminalize impacts for me.

 

MEMBER SPEECHES

Be strategic.  I like MGs that generate offense and MOs that know how to cover and condense.

 

REBUTTALS

Please weigh things for me.  Tell me what I get when I vote for one side or the other.  Be objective when comparing positions you think you’re winning to your opponents.  Tell me how big a risk there is of your DA or case happening.  I like to see impact calculus on probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and I like that analysis to be specific not just “we outweigh for risk of magnitude.”  Do the work for me so I don’t have to weigh saving puppies against killing babies.  Tell me which is worse/better. . .and if you don’t, I’ll vote for puppies every time ;)

 

UNDERVIEW

Recent trends influenced by the move to parli from policy have encouraged the dump approach.  I tend to not like this as I flow in lines and want you to connect your arguments to the other team’s arguments.  I won’t drop you if you do use the dump approach, but please be extra attentive to signposting as you move down and between positions since I flow on my computer and have to change tabs.  Have fun.  We all like debate. 

 

Amanda Taylor

 

EDUCATION

·       Undergrad degrees in chemistry, English, and secondary education at Carroll College.

·       MA from the University of Chicago focused on early modern literature and critical theory

·       Current Ph.D. student in English literature and critical theory at the University of Minnesota

 

EXPERIENCE

·       Competition: Four years of NPDA.  One year of NPTE after which I decided not to subject myself to three national tournaments in a row for the sake of my sanity, health, and academics.

·       Coaching: Four years coaching high school LD and four years coaching speech and debate at Carroll College. 

·       Judging: Between 20-40 rounds in 2008-09, 20-40 in 2009-2010, 40-60 in 2010-2011, and about 20 this year at UPS and Mile High.

 

OVERVIEW

I’m open to any specific questions before the round begins.  I’ll try to be as thorough as possible, but I’ll inevitably forget something, so feel free to ask.  I guess my pet peeves are really what I’d like to discuss in this section.  I don’t like lying, and if I know you’re lying, I’m not going to count that argument even if the other team doesn’t call you on it.  You may call that judge intervention, but I call it good academic practice.  I don’t have a problem with speed.  If you’re going so fast you become unintelligible or I can’t type fast enough to keep up with you, I’ll say “clear.”  Otherwise, do what you want in the round.  I do, however, have a problem using speed to prevent another team from gaining access to the round.  This is particularly an issue for me when one of the teams is obviously less experienced.  I’d appreciate it if you slow down a little bit and make the round more fair.  I don’t care for rudeness.  I like some humor and sarcasm and most of all to watch a round where both teams are having fun.  I understand some people have history and some rounds get heated, but please do your best to stay civil.  I will reflect undue rudeness in your speaking points negatively.  On that point, average speaks for me are usually 24-26.  Good is 27-ish.  Great is 28-29 and pretty damn flawless is 30.  If you are more than a few minutes late, I will penalize your speaking points.  I prefer if you give your opponents (and me) a copy of plan text, CP text, and K alt, and if you’re not going to give copies, read the text at least two times so I can get it down as close to what is on your paper as possible.

 

TOPICALITY

I will vote on T.  That said, I’d like to not have to vote on T in every round.  Use T (and other arguments) strategically, but kick it in the MO if you don’t think you’re winning hands down on such a blatant violation that a partially deaf grandmother would vote for you.  Of course, should the aff drop something like your interpretation and standards, well, you might as well keep the argument for me to vote on.  I want to see counterinterpretation, a good standards debate (preferably you turning their standards and  giving me counterstandards), and clash on the voter level.  If the aff interpretation solves for education and fairness and those are the impacts on the voter level that would necessitate me to vote on T, then I’m going to buy that the aff interpretation is not abusive.  I like to see some semblance of in-round abuse, but running a really bad DA that really wouldn’t link probably to any topical interpretation of the res isn’t going to count as abuse for me when the aff de-links from it.  I find K of the T interesting, though as an English major who adores grammar, it’s going to be hard to get my vote here if there is a grammatically justifiable explanation of a violation. 

 

SPEC

 An offensive O spec will likely make a spec debate a wash for me unless there is some egregious lack of specification that really does eliminate quantitative neg ground.  Otherwise, I’m going to see the spec debate as more of a strategic decoy.  As in the case of T, if the aff really messes up on that strategy and doesn’t get enough on the spec to make it a wash for me, go for it neg and I’ll vote there, but I’d rather not.  Unless I can see the impact the lack of specification is having on the round in terms of fairness or education, I’m probably not going to buy your abuse story.  If you do go for spec, you should impact the argument and specify why it matters in this round with this resolution.  I probably won’t vote for a generic shell. 

 

COUNTERPLAN THEORY

I really like CP debate.  I am inclined to believe that CPs in parli should be unconditional due to the lack of backside rebuttals.  That said, I’m not going to vote against a conditional or dispositional CP on the basis of that belief unless the aff wins the theory argument about why a conditional or dispositional CP is bad.  I also think that in parli with the lack of extra speeches, dispositional CPs are pretty abusive since you’re not going to be able to clearly articulate for the aff and me the situations in which it is okay for you to kick your CP.  I enjoy hearing theory debates about CP fiat, multifactor fiat bad, delay bad, PIC bad, etc., and I think that a CP should have some kind of theory defense that follows the text to function as spikes to some of those positions.  I believe this is essential since there is so much less time for a CP theory debate to happen in parli absent the extra rebuttals.  In terms of the actual CP v. case debate, I think CPs are an opportunity cost to plan, so if the aff can show me why this cost won’t happen, I’m inclined to believe that the CP really goes away, much like a DA with no link.  However, a perm alone is usually not enough to convince me that CP goes away.  I’d always like some offense to the CP.  This can come in the form of a DA, solvency deficit, turns, or net benefit, but evaluating whether the CP can accrue case advantages as well as the aff plan or interrogate the same uniqueness scenario (aka harms) is a good place to generate some of that offense.  I think a CP should always be paired with a DA or some substantial case offense that shows why CP is preferable on a NB framework.  In my ideal plan v. CP round, both teams would have offense and aff, even if showing how a test perm would make the CP go away in terms of good old fashioned mutual exclusivity, would show me why plan alone is still the most preferable option.

 

DISADVANTAGES

I like them.  I prefer straight up case debate to bad theory debate any day.  PTIX DAs can go either way for me.  I think that you have to win the uniqueness story in order to control the direction of the link.  While this is generally true for all DAs, I think this is particularly true for PTIX positions, so the more specifics you have about which senator or house person is going to win or lose what election for what reason, the more likely I am going to be to buy your story.  I think that people underutilize impact uniqueness.  Extinction claims resulting from the government buying flu vaccines will be pretty effectively eliminated in front of me with a good debate about impact uniqueness (i.e., we’ve bought flu vaccines before and no one has gone extinct so plan, which is similar in form to previous policy actions, will not cause these impacts either).  Please don’t link turn and impact turn the same DA.  It’s embarrassing.  I really like warrants, so please use good old Toulmin and pair your claims with warrants.  That will construct a logical chain for me that makes a solid DA I can weigh against case.

 

KRITIK

I really love a good, emphasis here on good, K debate.  I don’t want you to spit names at me and expect me to invoke most or all of a said theorist’s literature for you.  You should provide an understandable overview or explain the specifics as you go along, especially in the framework and links, so that everyone in the round has a basic understanding of your argument.  I think K has to be post-fiat; otherwise, how do you fiat your K alt?  I would like argumentation about why some parts (all?) of the K should precede case debate.  I think solvency is a big downfall for a lot of the K debates I’ve watched, so I’d like you to articulate solvency for me.  Particularly if you claim giant impacts, isolate for me how your alt can solve for, at least in some way, these impacts.  Aff, I like to see offense on the K alt.  Vagueness/spec positions are legitimate, in my opinion, because a lot of times the alt is pretty vague and broad.  I also like the aff to leverage offense in terms of a defense of their underpinning ideology (Why is cap good?  Why is the state good?  Why is free trade good?) and turning that into an offensive attack on what happens when that ideology is wholly rejected.  I think some K rounds could do with a DA to the K since if the K debate isn’t won in the framework, it will often come down to a question of solvency, so I begin to treat it much like a CP debate.  I like a neg team to do some case debate in a K round, and I especially appreciate a K with a clear link to the round that goes beyond “the aff talks about econ so they link to our cap K.”  There is a lot of sophisticated theory in the world, and I like to see some of that in debate, but given that my MA and Ph.D. incorporate a lot of work with theory, I don’t like to see this theory butchered either.  Clarity, faithfulness to the original argument, and relevance are key components of a good K debate for me.  Please ask if you have additional questions.

 

IRONY

I don’t love this position; in fact, I don’t even like it.  This is because I think that irony by definition depends upon an assumed understanding on the part of the audience that you can’t guarantee exists, and when you break character to enlighten the audience, you undermine the very point of irony.  This means that I’m probably not the critic who will vote for you just because you’re being creative and novel.  To win this position in front of me, you need a sophisticated defense of this rhetorical technique as well as an explanation of how framing irony in a non-ironic context is educational or somehow advantageous.  Tell me how to evaluate competing types of irony; basically, give me a clear framework.  If you’ve put a lot of work into developing this position and have the rhetorical theory to defend your interpretation, then you can run this position in front of me and I’ll be inclined to vote for you.  However, if irony is your thing that you run every round and it doesn’t grow and evolve to fit the resolution and issues it invokes, I’m probably not your critic.

 

PERFORMANCE

I think that art and performance are inherently valuable, so it is really important that you have a framework that tells me why me evaluating art in some objective manner isn’t going to have negative consequences for the inherent value of art.  I’m not a Kantian objectivist who thinks that some ideal form of art and beauty is possible, so I can’t pick the best performance by weighing your recitation of poetry against your opponent’s dance by comparing them to the ideal forms.   This means you have to tell me how to evaluate and why that evaluative process is fair and educational.  If you haven’t done that kind of work to frame your performance in the round, I’m probably not your critic.

 

CRITICAL AFFIRMATIVES

I want them to link to the resolution.  I’m all for alternative frameworks and for deontologically oriented impacts, but I’m going to want a clear framework for how to evaluate competing claims.  If you are just critiquing the res or a position/rhetoric you anticipate the neg will make/use, I’m biased against critical affs because I think that the neg can’t have possibly done anything that warrants aff criticism before they even enter the round.  While I’ll vote for them if the neg just loses the round or if the critical aff has a compelling justification for their critical interpretation, if this is what you like running all the time, I might not be your critic unless you link to the resolution and are simply using an alternative approach to affirmation.  If that’s what you’re doing, I’m game.

CASE

I like things straight up.  I like clear definitions and a topical interpretation.  I like structure and organization.  I like an explanation of your evaluative criterion, particularly if it isn’t NB, and what that means the neg needs to do and how I should be evaluating.  I like a clear plan text that is as specific as possible.  Solvency is important for me, so I would prefer it be a separate contention.  It doesn’t have to be, but if neg takes out solvency and pairs that defense with just a little bit of offense, I’m likely to pull the trigger neg.  Go for fewer advantages with well-developed stories of uniqueness, link, and impact rather than lots of shells.  Pack your PMC with offense and spikes for the MG.  Terminalize impacts for me.

 

MEMBER SPEECHES

Be strategic.  I like MGs that generate offense and MOs that know how to cover and condense.

 

REBUTTALS

Please weigh things for me.  Tell me what I get when I vote for one side or the other.  Be objective when comparing positions you think you’re winning to your opponents.  Tell me how big a risk there is of your DA or case happening.  I like to see impact calculus on probability, timeframe, and magnitude, and I like that analysis to be specific not just “we outweigh for risk of magnitude.”  Do the work for me so I don’t have to weigh saving puppies against killing babies.  Tell me which is worse/better. . .and if you don’t, I’ll vote for puppies every time ;)

 

UNDERVIEW

Recent trends influenced by the move to parli from policy have encouraged the dump approach.  I tend to not like this as I flow in lines and want you to connect your arguments to the other team’s arguments.  I won’t drop you if you do use the dump approach, but please be extra attentive to signposting as you move down and between positions since I flow on my computer and have to change tabs.  Have fun.  We all like debate. 

 

 



Brent Northup - Carroll College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Brent Northup, 66

Carroll College of Montana

Judging Philosophy

 

High school policy debater, Seattle

College policy debater, Whitman

Coached high school policy for 10 years at Kinkaid School, Houston, TX

Coaching college since 1989 (policy until 1995; parli since 1995)

 

I love smart debaters who still know how to be gracious under pressure. Really, folks the “future of your life” is NOT at stake in this round. OK, you say, but this round DOES determine if your college debate career continues for another day: Not a problem. Smile, relax, keep brain engaged, keep integrity in tact – your mom will love you even if you lose. Coincidentally, nice people win more break rounds than rude ones.

 

I believe in a balance of style and substance, but I rely heavily on the flow in making decisions. I believe that policy argumentation is superior to value debate because it more often produces a clearer round. Value debates tend to become very muddled.

 

Issues of interest:

 

Topicality: I favor government on T, wanting to accept the link providing is not too unreasonable. I believe opp should stretch to accept the case and debate it, rather than to try to win rhetorical battles over what “is” is. I will, however, vote for T if the government is abusive: perhaps running a “micro case” in a small area of specific knowledge; perhaps fleeing from the topic area in order to run a canned case from another area of knowledge. But, 11 rounds out of 12, I dismiss the opp T arguments and move on to the flow, in essence demanding that the case be debated rather than evaded.

 

Speed: I’m comfortable with a fast round, so long as it is audible and clear. No gasping, spitting or mumbling. If the opp spreads the government, I am sympathetic to government and will allow “lumping and dumping” in the PMR. I am NOT going to decide the round on a small dropped point in a high-speed line-by-line debate. I’m more of a macro judge than a micro judge.

 

Rudeness: Don’t be rude. It’s a voter for me.

 

New arguments: No new positions in member or opp, please. Government simply needs to point out the newness in the PMR for me to dismiss those arguments.

 

Exotic theory including K and topical counterplans:  I am very skeptical about K because many “K teams” basically are maneuvering to “be government” in every round…their K debate becomes the only topic discussed in every single Opp round. Pretty interesting strategy: we never have to know anything on opp except the details of our own K. Sorry, folks, but the government gets to be government in this round. Debate the case! As for performance debate or other supposed “make the round more real world” I’m not buying them. I believe that most who use them are doing so as a strategic tactic, not as a selfless endeavor to lend a hand to the oppressed. It’s wholly strategic, and quite often, insincere. Even when sincere, it is often in response to a lack of knowledge on topic areas. If the topic is desperately bad, make that your overview – and I’ll listen to your suggestion that judges take the topic’s bias into account. That’s best.

 

As for topical counterplans, I’m old fashioned: I’m not buying most of them. In fact, it’s my belief that when the Opp pulls out a counterplan, the odds of a Gov. victory are greatly increased. Why? Because most teams throw out incomplete, badly conceived, theoretically-confused CPs and don’t have a clue how to structure and defend them.

 

Performance Debate: The same principle applies: If a team uses a strategic tactic to avoid knowing something about the topic, I lean against that tactic. I view most performance as diversionary and strategic, rather than a passionate defense of a principle. As such, I lean against such strategies. It’s possible with K and with Performance to complete a tournament without ever mentioning the topic assigned for each round. Nobody can convince me that’s why debate is part of a college curriculum. We are educators first and foremost – and we should reward well-educated debaters – not game players.

 

Briefs: Prefab disads and other fully briefed positions that are forced into a round, policy style, will always be viewed with suspicion by me. If you can link it tightly, great. But you better spend lots of time cementing that link – or I’ll dismiss the position quickly if the other team challenges the link.

 

Rebuttals: I believe that what opp drops in its rebuttal is gone forever. So all Govt needs to do is to address the LOR voters to win the round. Do that first! I don’t believe in Government “voters”: only the opp has voters, i.e. potentially fatal arguments that, by themselves, will decide a round. IF the opp torpedoes miss the government submarine, government wins simply by pointing out that the ship ain’t leaking.

 

Badly written topics: Bad topics are tough on everyone. I will listen to a reasonable “reinterpretation” of a bad topic that allows for fair grounds for both teams. In one round, the topic asked government to prove that Enron was “primarily” responsible for the economic downturn. Few economists would dare to single out one single cause as the “primary” cause of a downturn. Therefore, if government suggests that “primary” might better be interpreted as “a significant cause” rather than “the only cause” I’m going to be sympathetic. I’m going to try NOT to let the topic committee decide a round.

 

Please look both ways before crossing the street: David Hanson of Gonzaga is my all-time favorite debater. He won CEDA Nats in the early 1990s. He started his first negative speech, Columbo-style – thinking out loud, mulling over what he’d just heard. More often than not he’d “stumble” on a “little problem” that just might be fatal. And within two minutes, he’d turn that debate into a runaway. I love philosophical beginnings that think before flying into line by line. Similarly, Government can often dismiss blocks of attacks with analysis – lump and dump, elegantly.

 

Ethics. Losing a round is less troubling than losing your reputation. Don’t fabricate facts. Admit when you don’t know something. If challenged, admit you dropped an argument. Don’t shift for strategic gain. Don’t run T to hide ignorance. Don’t whine about losses and challenge judges afterwards. Do be a pleasant person. Know that sportsmanship is handling disappointment with grace. Winning establishes talent, losing establishes character – it’s your character, not the loss, that goes with you for life. Laugh at yourself now and then! You are a great debater, but – news flash – you’re not quite perfect yet. Nor am I! Combine the sense of humor of Dean Gundlach with the honesty of Steven Hunt and the world’s your oyster. Fry the oyster and enjoy the meal.

 

My theory of how judges decide rounds: I believe that judges enter the round looking for a way to justify a decision. Somewhere during the round, a pivotal moment comes when the debate “turns” and one team seizes a lead. Defining that moment is the art of debating – and reading the judge’s mind in order to tell what he/she most wants to hear is how debates are won and lost. Think. Adapt. Mind read. Win.

 

END



Brandiann Molby - Cedarville Univ

Saved Philosophy:

 

Name: Brandiann Molby

School: Cedarville University

 

Section 1: General Information

 

My debate experience is in NPDA, first as a student and for the past several years as a judge and coach. 

 

I will listen to any argument as long as it is reasonably well-structured and well-thought out; I have no prejudices against any particular argumentation.  I have arguments I like better than others, but all are valuable tools in this game.

 

Section 2: Specific Inquiries  

Please describe your approach to the following.

 

1.Speaker Points:  I typically give speaker points in the 20-30 range, with 20 being extremely poor novice debate (which we will not see at NPTE), and 30 going to the most accomplished speakers.  My average range for experienced debaters is 25-29 points.

 

2.Critical Arguments:  Critical arguments are a fantastic, increasingly neglected strategy in debate.  As an off-case position, I weigh it before case debate.  Affirmatives are able to run critical arguments on the resolution, should the wording of the resolution warrant it; however, K is most effective when Aff or Neg use it as part of a larger strategy that informs their other positions.

 

3.Performance-based Arguments:  Performative arguments should be used sparingly, although I will hear them as I will any type of argument.

 

4.Topicality: Topicality is a contest of competing interpretations; simply crying "abuse" does not do nearly enough work to address the complexities of this argument.  Argue proven abuse by all means, but it must be predicated on the inadequacies of the Aff’s interpretations.  You must prove all aspects of your interpretation and its consequences for the round.

 

5.Counterplans:  PICs are fine, but Neg needs to demonstrate clearly why changing only a portion of the plan is preferable.  Any CP works best in conjunction with a cohesive Neg strategy.  I do believe PICs need to be substantively competitive from the original plan, but whether that is on a functional or textual basis, or both, depends on the particular round.

 

6.Sharing Flowed Arguments:  Partners should be able to share whatever flowed information they have; however, I think it is unnecessary for flows to be shared with the opposing team.  If teams require clarification, they can ask for it.

 

7.Order of Evaluating Argumentation:  I prefer to have debaters weigh the round themselves and demonstrate the ability to think critically about their own argumentation.  In the absence of this very necessary analysis, I evaluate critical argumentation first, then procedurals like T, and finally look to the case debate and any advantages or disadvantages.

 

8.Weighing Arguments not Weighed by Debaters or Weighing Conflicting Claims:  In a comparative advantage context, I tend to prefer probability over strict magnitude.  I find it difficult to determine whether genocide is preferable to nuclear winter, and generally look a little further up the flow to more realistic impacts.  I often prefer concrete impacts over abstract ones, but I will vote on either type depending on its context in the round.  That said, impact calculus usually devolves into the world of fallacy, and while I will entertain any argument, I prefer to see a more sophisticated, substantive analysis from the debaters. 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Although I have had exposure to LD and policy as a judge, my background is in parli, with two years of debate experience as a student and three years as a judge. I attempt to be as tabula rasa as possible, preferring to weigh the arguments as presented to me in the round, regardless of presentation. I will vote on anything that is properly warranted, impacted, and logically consistent within the world of the round. I see fact, value, and policy as inherently distinctive and equally valuable platforms for discussing issues--policy is not the only answer. I believe the best teams are able to critically evaluate the argumentation and communicate why theirs are the most persuasive--as voting issues. I also believe that on- and off-case arguments need to be held in tension with each other and that addressing both case and off-case demonstrates the adaptability and flexibility in the face of different perspectives which is one of the challenges of parli. Finally, I believe that excessive speed is fundamentally unpersuasive, and obnoxious. 


John Price - Central Michigan University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Experience:

 

I debated 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years of NPDA and LD debate in college at Central Michigan University. For the last two years I have coached the CMU speech and Debate team.

 

i vote on the flow as much as i can, i hate judge intervention and will do my best to find an out where i dont have to.
tab judging does not exist, what i want from your as a debater is tell me how to weigh the issues, and what frame work i should be operating from if you don’t tell me what frame work i regress to policy. i will attempt to be "tab" but realize its not all encompassing, much like if they drop your argument "shazam i should win" I'm not going to vote there....


Topicality- weigh your analysis of the standards and how they access your voting rational better vs the cd/cs. Again I'm flow if they drop a standard and your voter it makes it very easy for me to vote there. tell me why to vote on the education voter or fairness or why t is aprio etc. give me the necessary tools so i can vote for you not just blips. rvi's are offense and if they go dropped and the aff sits on them easy way for me to vote. also competing interpretations as a voter IS BAD its not a voter its a framework for viewing t.

Specs and the like- same as for t, articulate your ground/abuse scenarios makes things easy for me to vote. Potential abuse is hard for me to rationalize as a voting issue your going to have to do a good amount of work if their responding to it to get my vote. On tricot, I will listen to it and vote on it if the flow takes me there, but I think the standards debate for that kind of position is very much in favor of whatever side is arguing for a policy resolution.

Kritiques- the more specific the better, k's should have an alternative and alternative text. Establish a frame work and explain how it functions, just saying dento good does not establish a framework you need to point out how the kritique functions inside of the frame work and why you then access the ballot.

CP- on dispo, define it in round other wise I am going to assume its conditional, again theory debates are more then welcomed. I consider a perm a test of mutual exclusivity unless told other wise.

On-case – Impact calculus you need to use it!


performance- honestly never seen one, so if your going to run it be warned I'm inherently biased vs it. Might want to strike me if you love performance.

speed- i can flow any speed, be clear is all i ask. If your not being clear i will tell you multiple times b4 i stop flowing. if i cant understand what you are saying it's kind of hard for you to extend and expand in the next speech.

speaker points- 25-29 most times i give good speaks for tactical decisions, good use of questions, speaking style, unique arguments.

don't be a complete ass to your opponent, its not necessary and i will doc speaks. besides that go at it



Justin Harris - Concordia University Irvine

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

The Overview: If you do not want to read any further/are pressed for time, these are the highlights of my notions concerning debate and judging:

1. I prefer policy arguments (including counterplans, plans, kritiks, disads, spec, T, etc) to value and fact debates.

2. I am a flow judge, which means I am hampered by my desire to see logical arguments explicated for me in a logocentric manner. I invite you to criticize this approach…but in the end, I think you’ll still want me to evaluate your flowed arguments.

3. All advocacies should be written out and repeated at least once.

4. If you’re funny, be funny. I love sassy, quick debate.

5. I find that debaters are more likely to spread themselves out of the round then other people.

6. I have readz some K stuff, I think I get it. If you are running a K in front of me don’t just assume that I know/understand the lit or who the author is, I need explanations, warrants, etc.

7. Disadvantages should be unique and have thoroughly developed links. Impacts should be well constructed and warranted.

8. I will adapt to you, or at least I will try to on most things. I am, however, not interested in hearing arguments on why Israel is bad.

9. I probably have the quickest trigger in the judging pool on dropped RVI’s IVI’s

10. If collapsing to a procedural, make sure there are zero drops.

11. I don’t protect args in anyway, just like I won’t vote down a team because I don’t think they are topical, unless you run T, I will not kick new args out of a rebuttal without a POO.

12. References of Jim Wyman and his Godliness will always garner extra speaks.

13. I did spend two years being schooled by Clancy, consider that when running your T or not not slowing down for your interp.

Theory: Theory arguments are an important tool in parliamentary debate and are critical to negative strategy. I do not like to vote on theory arguments of any flavor, unless a few conditions are met: there must be demonstrated or articulated abuse or a reason as to why the theory they are violating is anti-educational without abuse or has some other discursive impact, the theory argument must not have shifted (especially at the interpretation level), and voters must be clear. All the theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, standards, and voter.

Kritiks and Other Exciting Positions: Unlike the rest of my philosophy were I used Max as a springboard, here I am straight ripping him off, with a major caveat, while I enjoy a good K debate, I don’t know most of the lit which puts you at a disadvantage if your K is not well warranted/easy to understand. (1) Kritiks should have some semblance of a framework. They are inherently a deviation from traditional parli norms and, as such, require a frame of reference for evaluation within the context of a policy round. (2) Kritiks should have an alternative. It is my belief that kritiks are often nothing more than a philosophical indictment of a methodology or a linear disadvantage without an alternative. Please, change my mind by explaining why “reject” is enough! But I would prefer that the Kritik have a stable alternative if you cannot. (3) Kritik alternatives require clear and interesting solvency. If you are doing a movement, please explain to me how your movement is started, continued, and where it will go. If the ballot is important, explain why. If your language is all the matters, tell me how that works. (4) I believe that a kritik is just like any other argument and does not have a “special burden” of proof. If your kritik outweighs the benefits of the plan, and you prove the link, then the kritik wins!

Disadvantages: Disads should have uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts. Shocking, I know. I think that defense is critical to responding to disadvantages and is often a round winner. I do not believe the only way to win against a disad is to have a link turn. Terminal defense on disads or ads is good for me, a .00000001 percent chance is not a reason to vote. As I was once told, Voting on magnitude absent probability is paranoia. 

Counterplans: Counterplans can be run unconditionally, conditionally, or dispositionally. I do not believe that any advocacy is necessarily unconditional. I’m fine with all types of counterplan. Permutations are tests of competition or advocacies, tell me what you are and why you are such. Counterplans should be textually and/or functionally competitive. You should take questions and write down the text of your counterplan. Blippy one liners about why you can’t perm are basically useless args to me, what does any perm is severance mean? Make thoughtful argumentations about why they can’t perm your counterplan, you already know what your counterplan and their plan are.

Speaker Points: I look at Colorado College cums and I think I gave out higher speaks than any other judge. I like debate, and debaters and I think speaker points are dumb, I tend to give high speaks.

 



Konrad Hack - Concordia University Irvine

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I look at EVERY judge's ballot in the tournament, then I declare a winner.



John McCabe - Concordia University Irvine

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Judging Background/Philosophy: I participated in college parli for last 4 years for the University of Oregon and did policy debate for 3 years in high school. I have also judged a fair number of high school policy tournaments in my time going to college.

Preferences and stuff: Above all else, I want to see warranted arguments in debate, I will not vote on tagline debate and will not vote on the unexplained “nuclear war causes extinction”, just cause you extended it through the round. I enjoy policy debate and as such like to see debates structured around a plan text or advocacy. Do not run tricot in front of me. I enjoy almost every argument that can be run in parli with few exceptions.  If you run a kritik make sure you know what you’re talking about. Same goes for CP and theory arguments.  Any pace of speaking is fine, slow down your speaking if your opponent asks you too. You do not have to speak standing up. You do not have to rise for a question, just raise your hand. Do not be rude and interrupt the other team. Call points of order when you see them. Don’t hate. You will get high speaker points if you teach me something new about science.  Also, the argument that nuclear war causes extinction from blocking out the sun is asinine, do not run it in front of me if you do not want a 25 for speaker points.



Jess Jensen-Ryan - Indiana University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

It’s not what is True it is what you can win with warranted arguments in a given round. I prefer well-argued and explained arguments over reading a series of one-line poorly warranted cards. Overall, I think debate is about internalizing and synthesizing information that is presented in argumentative form, rather than simply laying out arguments for the critic to sift through.
Overall I very much believe you should do what you can to win the debate. I don’t refuse to consider any particular argument but things need to make sense to me for me to vote for them. I did 2 ish years of policy debate and 5ish semesters of parli. I was a second-round in 07 and a first-round in 08 for the NPTE. I was a coach for the University of Wyoming for two years.
Speed- Go as fast as you like, I will tell you if I can’t understand by saying CLEAR.
Theory- I enjoy theory debates. I was never above going for a cheap shot so I don't expect you to be. Biggest problem is probably pen/keyboard time you need to be clear enough for me to get the args the first time. There is also a threshold of what qualifies for an argument so if doesn’t make sense don’t expect a vote.

Disads- are great. Risk of a link is a reason to prefer a cp that solves case. Offence is always better than defense.

Counterplans- are wonderful. Need to compete. Need to win it is theoretically legit. Needs to have a net ben. Process/Consult CPs are fine. Say Yes/No is especially important in these debates.
The K- is sweet. I think I would usually prefer the team that has the best concept of what the k does and doesn't mean for the Aff. Generic links are probably ok. Have a good alt and explain why the k does more wonderful things than the aff does.
Performance- ... have fun but tell me why i vote for you don't make me guess... don’t assume anything, make the arguments in one way or another so that I can understand them.
Framework- is important. How does my ballot function? Do I vote on just framework args? What is the role of the ballot in framework debate? If you win the other team is cheating by running a K I would generally reject the argument, not the team. If you win that the other team is cheating by excluding a particular type of argument same thing. I won't enforce set notion of what debate is/should be until a team wins one in the round.

Topicality- If I have any bias at all it would most likely be something like. "umm... I probably think you should be topical." That being said I would run very non-t affirmatives as well as allow affirmatives to be non-t and just answer their args.... as well as make and go for T arguments.


Brian DeLong - Indiana University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Background: I've debated, coached, and judged primarily NDT style policy debate since 2002. This is my second year judging/coaching NPDA style debate at Indiana.

My biggest pet peeve for this activity is the wasted time/space that is the negative rebuttal. I can't count how many times I've looked up to the joyous rebuttalist elaborating on how great their partner was in the speech that I just heard, while the affirmative takes four minutes of prep time to write their speech. Briefly I appreciated the four minutes of dead air... After the first round however I find the rebuttal in need of a purpose. I'll leave it at this: Make the rebuttal substantial - if you are spending most of your time listening to the second negative constructive instead of prepping your speech, a strategic error (and a judging irritant) is occurring. 

Voting issues: I have a slightly higher threshold for voting issues than the typical cheep shot: They're conditional, debate is now hard, That's a voting issue (apriori). If your argument fails to meet the argument laugh test, you may be surprised by my ballot. Theory debate is fun, can be highly valuable, and should exist in debate. 
 
My typical assumption about counterplans: They're conditional. Status quo is an option. If you think this is entirely out of touch with how parli debate theory should be, have a in-depth, well articulated theory debate that relies less on drops and more on well constructed arguments. 

DA's: yes. 

K's: Framework debates are important for both sides. The "role of the ballot" should be at least articulated by either side. My default typically is in the framework of the 1AC, which often (hopefully) is in the direction of a policy and its benefits. 


John Tao - Indiana University- Purdue University at Indianapolis

Saved Philosophy:

My background in debate has spanned six years now.  I started out as a high school policy debater on the national circuit (as I novice my partner and I took Little Lex by a 13-0 decision in our favor and I qual-ed for the NFL and CFL and broke to the out rounds at both during my senior year), before moving on to coach parliamentary debate at the collegiate level.  Currently I judge policy high school debate for the Chicago Urban Debate League and with that in mind, I have only witnessed a couple of parli rounds this year.

Due to my background I come into a round with a tabula rasa paradigm; however, I will factor real world information into a round.  If you misstate a fact which I know about I will not give you credence for the argument though it will, of course, end up on my flow.  An example of this: in a round I witnessed recently one team argued that there were seaports between the US and Mexico.  Of course if you advance an argument I "don't agree with" like an argument that we've made contact with aliens and then proceed to support it with logic and evidence, then by all means, we've contacted aliens.  I am a huge fan of organization, line-by-line, sign posting, and impact calculus.  Make the round easy for the judge and the ballot will likely go to your team.

I think presentation and communication skills are important in life, but I am a fan of playing the game and using all the tools you have.  I am used to speed and I can handle it well.  Be clear when you're speaking, that's all I ask for.  If you are mumbling I will clear you twice before I stop flowing (in the alternative, I keep flowing but the arguments I hear might not be the arguments you think you're saying).

On-case arguments are important, especially at a tournament where you can reasonably predict a good majority of the debate resolution topics.  Sometimes the other team will throw you for a loop though and on-case arguments are very tough to come up with during your speech.  I understand that.  I think it is important in Parli to not have incredibly canned off-cases which you run.  When you run an off case make sure you spin a really strong link story to the specific case.  Specificity is always favorable.

I like procedural arguments.  I'm an attorney, word definitions are important.  I like counter plans, but in a parli round I think it is important to discuss each team's burden when debating a counter plan.  Does it need to be untopical? What are the standards for running it?  Is it okay to be conditional?  etc.  I also like Kritiks, but I am not as well versed with the literature as I would like to be.  If you are going to argue a Kritik make sure you're not throwing philosophical jargon around or just name dropping.  Foucault does not mean as much to me these days as he did when I had his books nearly memorized.

Point of Orders are fine if you really feel the need for them but I'd like you to trust me as the judge to determine whether an argument is new or not.  If there's a pretty glaring issue then by all means Point of Order it, it won't hurt you.  If you call a Point of Order more than three times though then there's a problem (either with your excessive Point of Orders or with the way the other team is debating).  I am a fairly expressive judge, watch my reactions, and use your own discretion.

Debate is a game, it is a sport where competitors throw words at each other and build up fantastic worlds.  I think it is something which should be enjoyed, fun, and informative.  I think everything is pretty much fair game and that the speaker has the control of the room when speaking.  I haven't been involved with this activity an incredibly long amount of time (read: decades), but I am also no stranger to it, so do your best, make smart arguments, and compel me to vote for you. 

 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I come from a High School Policy Debate background where I debated on the national circuit.  I started coaching/judging Parli about three years ago in the Midwestern circuit.  This would mean I have been to about 24 tournaments and have a decent feel for the event.

I tend to stick to a tabula rasa paradigm; however, because of Parli's common knowledge format if there are blatant factual errors which cannot be supported by logic and reasoning I shall intervene when making my decision.  With that said, as long as an argument can be supported by logical arguments I shall give you a lot of flexibility.

I view debate as a game, and everything is fair as long as it may be justified.  If the sky is green, tell me why it is green (because the human eye is limited to the colors it can see the sky appears blue when it is in fact green to other animals), if there is a theoretical argument clearly state why.

I like good impact calculus.  Make it very clear why I should be voting for you and it reduces the risk of judge intervention from me and increases the likelihood of you picking up my ballot.

Because of my history with Policy I am fine with speed; however, I do believe it is partially the debater's responsibility to make sure I am flowing along.  If I have stopped flowing then you've done something wrong.  And, if something doesn't end up on my flow because you were too fast or unclear then that argument doesn't have weight in my decision making unless it was really compelling and stuck in my mind.  But at that point I'm likely to have flowed it.  I will ask you to be more clear if necessary.

With that said, I do believe that there is something to be said about the forensic component of Parli and I truly believe that if you are a good debater then speed is not a necessary weapon in your arsenal.  It's about quality and not quantity in my book.  Also, do not use speed to steam roll opponents.  While I will likely give you a win if you truly have presented better arguments if I feel you are abusing the other team with speed then your speaker points are likely to be docked.

Clash is always nice on case but, as I said, I view debate as a game, so bring whatever you would like and tell me how I should weigh it.  Theory/T/CPs/Ks/perf are all fine as long as there is a framework for me to evaluate it.



Gary Rybold - Irvine Valley College

Saved Philosophy:

 

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold

 

Co-Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College

 

 

 

I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I have actively coached for the past 23 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judge over 25 rounds.  Many years I coached both parliamentary and policy debate (but not since 2003). We are now doing more LD and BP formats. 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, regardless is NPDA, CCCFA, or Phi Rho Pi:

 

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 you 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.

 

 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Judging philosophy for Professor Gary Rybold

Co-Director of Forensics – Irvine Valley College

 

I debated for four years of high school and four years of college.  I have actively coached for the past 23 years (primarily at community colleges).  Typically, in an average year, I judge 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 and judging. 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, regardless if NPDA or Phi Rho Pi.

 

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 (since it 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 you 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.

 



Eric Garcia - Irvine Valley College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Judge Philosophy

 

Eric David Garcia, Irvine Valley College

 

I did LD value debate in high school. I did NDT debate for Cal State Fullerton for 4 years. I qualified for the NDT in 1992 and 1993. I’ve been coaching parli since Fall 2001.

 

I most often look to the dropped, impacted arguments first. If no criterion is given, I will default to net benefits.

 

I am more open to procedurals than most judges. I am open to voting on potential abuse and competing interpretations. I am open to theory debates. I tolerate critiques. My flowsheeting has atrophied since my policy days, but I can keep up with 80-85% of spread rounds. If not, I’ll yell “clearer.”

 

Please call points of order. I’ll probably catch the new arguments on my own, but it doesn’t hurt to call it.

 

For rebuttals, I value weighing likelihood, magnitude and timeframe. If the debaters do not do the analysis for me, I will default to my non-tabula rasa, real world bias. For example, if one debater says tax cuts are generally good and the other says tax cuts are generally bad and that is all the analysis I get, I will have to make a judgment somehow if the round hinges on that. In that case, I will have to interject my bias.

 

If my bias becomes important you should know that I am conservative Republican. I define that as limited government over bigger government, individual liberty over government imposed equality, E Pluribus Unum over multiculturalism, in God we trust over secularism. My conservatism is best reflected in authors Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Charles Krauthammer and Dennis Prager. If you automatically pigeon-hole me into the box that you see on Rachel Maddow or Keith Olbermann, chances are you have not heard many intellectual conservative arguments, merely strawperson arguments.

 

Being snippy will affect your speaker points. Constantly feeding your partner answers will affect their speaker points. Once or twice is ok, but don’t overdo it.



Brad Krupicka - Lewis & Clark College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Most importantly, have fun, be nice and I love you all for being who you are and for doing this activity.

 

Brad Krupicka

DOF Lewis & Clark College

6 years judging (LC and UO), 4 years Parli UO, 4 years HS LD

Section 1: General Information

 

I do not have any positions of which I will not vote on, I tend to vote for procedurals and kritiks as often as I don’t vote against them. I do not have any higher threshold for any of these positions as I would have for a fiat debate, although fiat debates seem to be easier to adjudicate than an alternate framework debate.

 

 

I consider myself tabula rasa. What does that mean? I will not interfere with personal knowledge. Although between two equally weighed and impacted arguments I may default to an argument I know is true. My default is that I will evaluate theory then procedurals. I will listen to arguments that say why I should not evaluate them first. Really explain the functionality of your arguments, especially in the rebuttals I like this and impact weighting is critical. I will vote on any argument that is made fully and effectively with the proper warrants, impacts and voters.

POO’s: I don’t weigh new arguments anyways but you should still point them out, because there is always the chance that I may have missed that it was new.

            Do not split the block in front of me, however. That’s one thing I am very decided on.

 

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)?

                                29.5-26.5, normally 29-27.5.

 

2.       How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

        I am open to any style or performance whether it is on the affirmative or the negative. Negatives can do whatever they want with as many positions in rejoinder unless the Aff is winning an argument that says otherwise. I was not a K debater but I feel fine with them.

 

3.       Performance based arguments…

I have no problem with them.

 

4.       Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

        I require you be at least winning your interpretation. In-round abuse is not absolutely necessary but I am highly persuaded by arguments that the Neg must show in-round abuse. The Aff must present a competing interpretation unless they are running offense as to why I will not evaluate T’s or procedurals.

 

 

 

5.       Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

        I am a fan of all forms of counterplans, but Aff theory arguments against them are as equally valid, and easier against certain counter plans (ie, delay counterplans). I do require a perm text, but any kind of perms can be run in front of me. Any kind of competition is fine with me.

 

 

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?)?

 

        I will evaluate the round any way the debaters tell me convincingly but my default is that first I evaluate theory arguments, then procedurals, then kritiks, then the fiat debate.

 

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")?

It depends, if the dehum argument is clearly laid out and impacted it can function as well. If there is a situation where all I have is 1,000,000 deaths vs. an unexplained dehumanization impact I may prefer the prevention of deaths. But don’t bank on that interpretation. If you do the work for me, I won’t have to do it for either team.



Joe Provencher - Lewis & Clark College

Saved Philosophy:

Joe Provencher – Lewis and Clark

 

The Quick hits for Prep time:

 

Unless told otherwise, I default to net-bens/policy making.

 

If you want me to evaluate topicality via competing interpretations, slow down a bit through your interpretations so I have the text exactly as you intend it. You should also probably take a question on your definition/interp if it's particularly long/nuanced/complex/crazy.

 

I used to tell teams I believed all advocacies in round should be unconditional. However, a lot of the conditionallity debates I saw were really terrible, and probably had PMRs going for the theory without really understanding it, and then expecting me to vote every time for the aff as a result of my philosophy. So I'll try my best to explain it more below, but for your quick evaluation of me now, know that I don't really think conditionality is necessary (maybe not even good), but will do my absolute best to be open to the theory arguments made in round.

 

I think that counter-plans must compete via net-benefits or mutual exclusivity. Other CP theory arguments are going to be an uphill battle for my ballot.

 

I don't think I'm biased one way or another on the kritik. I think good K debate is good, and bad K debate is bad (and good theory debate is good, bad theory debate is bad, etc, etc). Just get small in the rebuttals, one way or the other, and pick your winning argument. Like any argument, if you suspect I may not be 100% familiar with the literature you are using, then make the tag line very clear so you can read your warrants as fast as you want.

 

Take some points of information. Be cordial.

Call as many points of order as you want, but it should be limited to the individual calling the point of order, and a response from the opposing individual making the argument. There should never be a debate, or any back and forth, about whether an argument is new. Make your point, respond to it. 

 

 

Some further reading for your strikes:

 

On conditionality: I would never explicitly tell a team not to run a certain argument in front of me. However, out of all the reading I've done, and rounds I've seen, I can't imagine a world in which the MG puts out a good Condo bad shell, the PMR goes for it sufficiently, and I do not vote for it. Maybe the reading I've done is insufficient, but I'm not convinced yet, and the limited condo debates I've seen have been bad ones that only reinforce that opinion. However, I'm trying to stay open to furthering my education in the activity and would encourage anyone to come find me and talk (maybe outside of round) so we can keep the discussion going.

 

On topicality: I believe that T is a discussion to find the best definition of a word in the resolution. The standards debate is a debate about why a particular definition is very good. A lot of times, especially with teams yelling about ground to DAs they're supposed to have, I think that focus gets lost. If a plan doesn't link to your DA, it might not be because they have mis-defined a word. It might just be that the DA is not good. Consequently, the claim that NEG can read DAs is not a reason your definition is good. That just means they can run DAs. Most debaters are good enough to come up with some kind of offense on the spot.

 

In general: Good debate gets small at the end of the rounds. Rebuttal speeches should be deep and specific, and focussed around why I must prioritize a single given story. Do that, you win.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Joe Provencher

The Quick hits for Prep time:

Unless told otherwise, I default to net-bens/policy making.

If you want me to evaluate topicality via competing interpretations, slow down a bit through your
interpretations so I have the text exactly as you intend it.

I believe all advocacies in round should be unconditional.

I think that counter-plans must compete via net-benefits or mutual exclusivity. Other CP theory
arguments are going to be an uphill battle for my ballot.

The K is fine, but it has to make sense, be competitive, and solve. Kritical affirmatives can be run, if
done well, but I would be cautious. I am disinclined to vote for cases that can be reduced to "vote for us
because we spoke first". More often than not, performances seem to be extra topical.

A note on cases that "reject the resolution" and other variants. Rule #2 states that "The proposition
team must affirm the resolution by presenting and defending a sufficient case for that resolution." I
would find it difficult to be persuaded that rejection of the resolution would be a sufficient case for the
resolution.

Take some points of information. Be cordial.
Call as many points of order as you want, but it should be limited to the individual calling the point
of order, and a response from the opposing individual making the argument. There should never be a
debate, or any back and forth, about whether an argument is new. Make your point, respond to it.

Lewis and Clark

Some further reading for your strikes:

On conditionality: I would never explicitly tell a team not to run a certain argument in front of me.
However, out of all the reading I've done, and rounds I've seen, I can't imagine a world in which the
MG puts out a good Condo bad shell, the PMR goes for it sufficiently, and I do not vote for it. Maybe
the reading I've done is insufficient, but I'm not convinced yet, and the limited condo debates I've seen
have been bad ones that only reinforce that opinion. However, I'm trying to stay open to furthering
my education in the activity and would encourage anyone to come find me and talk (maybe outside of
round) so we can keep the discussion going.

On topicality: I believe that T is a discussion to find the best definition of a word in the resolution. The
standards debate is a debate about why a particular definition is very good. A lot of times, especially
with teams yelling about ground to DAs they're supposed to have, I think that focus gets lost. If a plan
doesn't link to your DA, it might not be because they have mis-defined a word. It might just be that
the DA is not good. Consequently, the claim that NEG can read DAs is not a reason your definition is
good. That just means they can run DAs. Most debaters are good enough to come up with some kind of
offense on the spot.

In general: Good debate gets small at the end of the rounds. Rebuttal speeches should be deep and
specific, and focussed around why I must prioritize a single given impact. Do that, you win.



Kasey Gardner - Los Medanos College

Saved Philosophy:

Gardner, Kasey

Los Medanos College

 

Experience: 9 years of Parliamentary Debate (Moorpark/Western KY/LosMedanos)

 

In order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance or super generic critiques (cap, state) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they can be defensible.  Feel free to use whatever positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly

 

Speed is typically not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole.  I will probably look at you with an inquisitive look if you are going too fast, unlikely but possible.

 

I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability.  I encourage the use of other methods or analysis too, irreversibility or systemic impacts as well.  What I am not interesting in is hearing bad dueling oratory about which –ism is the root cause of problem.  Be more specific.

 

I’ve found myself being very disappointed with the consistent use of generic strategies instead of any critical thinking.  Debating the case is a lost art that should be found.  I will evaluate your fism/states counterplan, but it’s not that great of an argument and the affirmative should defeat you on it.

 

Examples are the lifeblood of Parliamentary Debate.  Please use them!!  You should call points of order in front of me.

 

There are a few things I don’t find persuasive; excessive prompting and tooling of your partner, rudeness to the other team on a personal level as opposed to the argumentative level and not getting to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule judiciously.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Gardner, Kasey

Los Medanos College

 

Experience: 5 years of Parli Coaching, 4 Years of Competition (Moorpark/Western KY)

 

Feel free to use whatever positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly.  I don’t think it is the purpose of a judging philosophy to tell you what I will and not “like” in debate but rather how to discuss it.

 

Speed is typically not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole.  I will probably look at you with an inquisitive look if you are going too fast, unlikely but possible.

 

In order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance or super generic critiques (cap, state) but that doesn’t mean I don’t think they are defensible.

 

I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability.  I encourage the use of other methods or analysis too, irreversibility or systemic impacts as well.  What I am not interesting in is hearing bad dueling oratory about which –ism is the root cause of problem.  Be more specific.

 

I’ve also found myself being very disappointed this year with the consistent use of generic strategies instead of critical thinking.  Debating the case is a lost art that should be found.  I.E. I will evaluate your fism/states counterplan, but it’s not that great of an argument and the affirmative should defeat you on it.

 

Examples are the lifeblood of Parliamentary Debate.  Please use them!!

 

You should call points of order in front of me, but save them for instances that matter. If the round is a slaughter, let them go, you will be fine.

 

There are a few things I don’t find persuasive; excessive prompting and tooling of your partner, rudeness to the other team on a personal level as opposed to the argumentative level and not getting to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule judiciously.



Dave Zimny - Los Medanos College

Saved Philosophy:

~~ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA
BACKGROUND:  I earned my master’s and doctoral degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 40 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  This is my third year as an intercollegiate judge.  Over the last two years I have judged approximately 100 tournament rounds, including 16 preliminary and two elimination rounds at the NPDA National Championship Tournament.
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice.
PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  I will always try to rule on points of order rather than taking them under consideration, to minimize uncertainty for both teams.  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points.  I will award 24-26 speaker's points for competent presentation, 27-28 points for above average presentation, and 29-30 points for outstanding presentation.  I will never award fewer than 20 points.
PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques.
DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argumentation by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – substantive arguments hold my attention; “metadebate” bores me.  I believe that:
A counterplan may be either an actual alternative to the Government’s plan or a means of arguing competitiveness and opportunity costs.  If a counterplan is conditional or provisional, the Leader of the Opposition should announce that fact as soon as the counterplan is revealed.
The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.  I have no objection, however, to plan inclusive counterplans.
The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government.
Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.”
The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal.
PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins.
Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!
 

 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

ZIMNY, DAVE – Los Medanos College, Pittsburg CA

 

 

BACKGROUND:  I earned my M. Phil. and Ph.D. degrees in political science from Yale University and have taught college courses in the social sciences for 37 years, so I should be fairly familiar with the factual and argumentative foundations of most parliamentary debate resolutions.  I was a high school and college policy debater before there was such a thing as collegiate parliamentary debate.  I have judged approximately 30 rounds of tournament parliamentary debate this year, my first as a collegiate judge.

 

 

JUDGING PHILOSOPHY:  I am a noninterventionist; I will not reject or accept any substantive argument on the basis of my own knowledge or values.  I function best as a judge when both teams clearly state the decision criteria they want me to use.  In the absence of well supported voting criteria from either team, I will vote on the stock issues.  I firmly believe in supporting assertions with evidence, even in parliamentary debate.  Examples and hard data will go a long way toward persuading me.  I prefer adherence to the trichotomy; if you choose to argue a value proposition as policy, be sure to justify your choice.

 

 

PRESENTATION:  Debate is a speech activity.  Unclear locution and garbled syntax will definitely cost you speaker’s points, and they could cost you my vote if I’m unable to understand your arguments.  Speed generally doesn’t bother me.  If I can’t follow your speech, I’ll let you know by saying, “Clear, please.”  Prompting your partner is allowable, but excessive prompting will reduce speaker’s points.  I have no objections to sitting while speaking.  As with any competitive activity, good sportsmanship will be much appreciated, and a touch of wit will definitely garner you more speaker’s points. 

 

 

PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS:  I am open to topicality arguments, critiques and counterplans based on logical analysis of the Government’s case, but I frown on generic arguments of all kinds.  I will treat topicality as an a priori voting issue, but I will vote on actual, not theoretical, abuse.  I am more open to assumption and reasoning-based critiques than to language critiques.

 

 

DEBATE THEORY:  Below are my personal opinions on some controversial issues of debate theory.  I will never apply these preferences preemptively without actual argument by the teams themselves.  I’m there to listen to your advocacy, not make your arguments for you.  That said, debaters that I judge should be aware of my opinions.  I am generally “old school” – I believe that:

 

A counter plan should be an actual alternative to the Government’s plan.  It represents actual advocacy, not an opportunity cost or a disadvantage of the Government’s plan.

 

The Opposition should not present a topical counter plan.

 

The mandates of a plan or counterplan should be limited to reasonably feasible actions.  This would exclude “utopian” plans and counterplans.

 

The Opposition should enjoy exactly the same fiat power as the Government.

 

Argumentation begins with the enactment of the plan or counterplan.  Neither team should base advantages or disadvantages on contingencies that precede enactment – e.g., particular voting alignments or bargaining in legislatures that might be required to enact a plan.  “Fiat turns the link.”

 

The Opposition should not "split" its 12-minute constructive/rebuttal block, with the Opposition Member's constructive presenting new arguments and the Leader's rebuttal responding to the Member of Government's constructive.  This practice puts an undue burden on the Prime Minister's rebuttal.

 

PLEASE NOTE:  I don’t claim to be familiar with all the recent developments in debate theory.  If you’re not sure about my knowledge of a particular theoretical argument, please ask me before the round begins.

 

 

Debate is competition, but it’s also an educational and social experience.  Let’s all have some fun!



Jeff Jones - McKendree University

Saved Philosophy:

 Jeff Jones Judging Philosophy

Section 1: General Information
I believe debate is fundamentally and, indeed, exclusively a game of academic competition in which you maneuver your pieces (ie. arguments) to convince a judge to circle your side of the ballot (or, I suppose, write A or N on an e-ballot). It may have ancillary benefits but I wholly reject the notion that it has any higher purpose or meaning, and I think you should not live your life assuming that debate will bring you to Truth or Understanding. Debate will bring you trophies if you're good, and if you're not, hopefully it brings you some fun and maybe a little education.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

Here's the deal with me and criticisms: I will vote for them if I can comprehend them. I don't find postmodern babble to be indicative of an argument, or even usually indicative of language. I have voted for many teams reading criticisms who I would consider to be very good and I find the common thread in those debates to be that those teams have gone in with the assumption that I am fairly to very stupid and explained critical arguments to me as such. I do fundamentally believe you must defend the implementation of your alternative, that your alternative should take a specific, describable action, and that the affirmative should have access to their advantages to weigh against the criticism. If your strategy relies on denying any of those things, you should at least not run a criticism in front of me, and probably not pref me at all because we likely view debates quite differently.

Performance based arguments…
The aff should be topical and the neg should grant fair access to the debate (as indicated above) and I very much doubt performance arguments would meet those standards.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
I do not believe in round abuse is necessary and do believe the affirmative must have a competitive interpretation. I believe the round begins with prep time, not with the PMC. Good interpretations are, for lack of a better term, functionally competitive in the same way counterplans are. Your interpretation should have a net benefit with an impact, like anything else, and if you do sufficient impact calculus I will not hesitate to vote on topicality. Note that topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue, and I have a very hard time believing it could ever be the internal link to any kind of structural violence. I think most SPEC arguments are pretty terrible unless coupled with a link argument on a substantive piece of paper. I have once voted for ASPEC in semi finals of what I would define as a national circuit tournament.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?
PICs are good if they have an impacted net benefit. Too frequently affirmative teams fail to mention that a miniscule PIC does not have a net benefit and I should affirm on presumption. This can be a pretty useful argument, given the proliferation of miniscule PICs, and the increasing frequency of that occurring at a topic area tournament. Absent identification of the status of a CP, I will assume it is conditional. I have no problem with conditionality, and think the MG should be prepared to be strategic and flexible. A permutation is always a test of competition and never an advocacy, but should also have some sort of net benefit. If there is a functional disadvantage to the plan but a functional advantage to the permutation, it follows to me that the CP is not competitive and the permutation captures sufficient offense. I believe counterplans must be functionally competitive and may be textually competitive, but think that the amorphous nature of texts in parli precludes a requirement for textual competition.

Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)
Yes. I will also note that I expect you to make a copy of any advocacy (plan text, CP, alt text) available to your opponents and preferably also to the panel. Texts of permutations can be necessary, but aren't always – Do Both is more than sufficient, for example, and I will not look favorably on teams complaining about a lack of text in that instance.

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 costbenefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Procedurals will be evaluated first, followed by a weighing of the impact debate. Absent framework arguments or impact calculus arguments to the contrary, I will weigh claims by magnitude. I view probability and timeframe as mitigating factors to magnitude.

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 is worse than dehumanization. To convince me otherwise would take a very clear win on that level of debate, or perhaps a concession of a uniqueness level claim (if we're all already dead, who cares if I kill everyone).




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

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.

Note first that my philosophy has been entirely re-written in preparation for the NPTE, and I ask that you read the updated version as it reflects ways I have been shaped after a year of judging and figuring out how I actually evaluate debates, instead of how I imagine myself doing so. When I cite statistics re: my judging in this philosophy, they reflect only prelim rounds in open at William Jewell, Colorado College, Washburn, GSL, Mile High and Webster. To wit, at those tournaments, I have a 16-25 aff/neg ballot split in prelim rounds.

I believe debate is fundamentally and, indeed, exclusively a game of academic competition in which you maneuver your pieces (ie. arguments) to convince a judge to circle your side of the ballot (or, I suppose, write A or N on an e-ballot). It may have ancillary benefits but I wholly reject the notion that it has any higher purpose or meaning, and I think you should not live your life assuming that debate will bring you to Truth or Understanding. Debate will bring you trophies if you're good, and if you're not, hopefully it brings you some fun and maybe a little education.

The NPTE provides a unique opportunity for the very best teams in our activity to display their talents in a setting that is most conducive to high level competition. I will expect hard debates. I will expect smart debates. I will expect well researched debates. I will expect people who want me to judge them to understand that competition at the highest level requires judging at as high a level as possible and will demand that they exceed my expectations.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries  

Please describe your approach to the following.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?

My average for the year is approximately 27.677. At the NPTE, I would expect this to be somewhat higher. The lowest points I have given in an open round is 24.5. I have given only two 30s, and those were both in the same debate and given to a team largely because their opponents were nonsensical and they at least made me laugh. Debaters who have received 29 or more points from me so far this year are John Henry Heckendorn, Miranda Morton, Josh Rivera, Nick Locke and Shiloh Rainwater. Most people I would consider very good to excellent have consistently received between 28.3 and 28.9 points. Note that I maintain extreme hostility shown before, during or after a round to me, the other critic(s) or your opponents will absolutely result in a severe (read: in half) cutting of your speaker points.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

Here's the deal with me and criticisms: I will vote for them if I can comprehend them. I don't find postmodern babble to be indicative of an argument, or even usually indicative of language. I have voted for many teams reading criticisms who I would consider to be very good – SIU RR, TTU DT, William Jewell DP to name a few – and I find the common thread in those debates to be that those teams have gone in with the assumption that I am fairly to very stupid and explained critical arguments to me as such. I do fundamentally believe you must defend the implementation of your alternative, that your alternative should take a specific, describable action, and that the affirmative should have access to their advantages to weigh against the criticism. If your strategy relies on denying any of those things, you should at least not run a criticism in front of me, and probably not pref me at all because we likely view debates quite differently.

Performance based arguments…

Is anyone doing this? Haven't seen anyone do it all year, but I very much doubt I'd like it. The aff should be topical and the neg should grant fair access to the debate (as indicated above) and I very much doubt performance arguments would meet those standards.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

I will be very interested to see how topicality debates proceed at a tournament with pre-released resolutions. I think interesting and creative interpretations should be a part of your pre-tournament prep. I do not believe in round abuse is necessary and do believe the affirmative must have a competitive interpretation. Good interpretations are, for lack of a better term, functionally competitive in the same way counterplans are. Your interpretation should have a net benefit with an impact, like anything else, and if you do sufficient impact calculus I will not hesitate to vote on topicality. Note that topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue, and I have a very hard time believing it could ever be the internal link to any kind of structural violence.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

PICs are good if they have an impacted net benefit. Too infrequently affirmative teams fail to mention that a miniscule PIC does not have a net benefit and I should affirm on presumption. This can be a pretty useful argument, given the proliferation of miniscule PICs, and the increasing frequency of that occurring at a topic area tournament. Absent identification of the status of a CP, I will assume it is conditional. I have no problem with conditionality, and think the MG should be prepared to be strategic and flexible. A permutation is always a test of competition and never an advocacy, but should also have some sort of net benefit. If there is a functional disadvantage to the plan but a functional advantage to the permutation, it follows to me that the CP is not competitive and the permutation captures sufficient offense. I believe counterplans must be functionally competitive and may be textually competitive, but think that the amorphous nature of texts in parli precludes a requirement for textual competition.

Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

Yes. I will also note that I expect you to make a copy of any advocacy (plan text, CP, alt text) available to your opponents and preferably also to the panel. Texts of permutations can be necessary, but aren't always – Do Both is more than sufficient, for example, and I will not look favorably on teams complaining about a lack of text in that instance.

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 will be evaluated first, followed by a weighing of the impact debate. Absent framework arguments or impact calculus arguments to the contrary, I will weigh claims by magnitude. I view probability and timeframe as mitigating factors to magnitude.

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 is worse than dehumanization. To convince me otherwise would take a very clear win on that level of debate, or perhaps a concession of a uniqueness level claim (if we're all already dead, who cares if I kill everyone).



Lewis Silver - McKendree University

Saved Philosophy:

-Three years policy debate at Puyallup High School

-Four years policy debate at Whitman College

-One year judging/coaching parliamentary debate at Whitman College

Decision Calculus:

Default Framework – The affirmative should win if the topical plan is preferable to the status quo or an alternative competitive with the plan. Apparently that wasn’t clear enough for some people last year, so…

 Definitions-

 -“preferable” means that I evaluate the consequences of hypothetical enactment; comparison is your job, but utilitarianism is presumptively good

 -“alternative” means a specific policy proposal enacted by a specific agent

 -“competitive” means offense/defense; the proposal should compete with both the text and the function of the plan

 Alternative Frameworks – Fair warning, these are quite an uphill battle in front of me. My default framework is a semi-rebuttable presumption. That said, if you’re technically sound enough to beat an opponent who is defending that presumption, it’s almost certainly easier (not to mention better for your speaker points) to just suck it up and beat them in a “straight-up” debate. Still thinking about reading your rendition of Zizek? I consider all of the following arguments to be “slayers” in a framework debate-

 -education about policy-making and government institutions is good

 -topic-specific research is good

 -being able to read the same critique every round is bad (lazy hippy fuck-ups should lose)

 -the politics disad is not the same as the critique (surprise-surprise, you don’t have to update a Baudrillard outline)

 Predispositions:

 Read my decision calculus (above)

 “Technique over truth, but truth makes me happy” -Aaron Hardy

 The following arguments will be accepted as true when asserted in front of me-

 -The counterplan must compete with both the text and the function of the plan

 -The negative may advocate one conditional counterplan and the status quo

 -The phrase “fuck off” is a sufficient MG answer to _____-spec (the only exception to this rule is a spec arg justified by particular resolutions, e.g.- those of you who have researched the judicial process even a little should know that “grounds-spec” is probably necessary on a courts topic)

 -Teams are responsible for the consequences of the policies they advocate

 -The phrase “reject the plan” is not an advocacy, and the only thing it solves is a round with abysmal speaker points (yes, you do have the power to punish your opponents by asserting this in front of me)

 The following claims are “uphill battles” to rebut in front of me-

 -Hegemony prevents vertical-escalation of regional conflicts

 -Economic interdependence prevents war

 -Capitalism is key to incentivize growth

 -Growth is key to technological advancement

 -Technological advancement solves scarcity/consumption/pollution/etc.

 -Nuclear deterrence is effective between bilateral adversaries

 You should be embarrassed to even attempt the following arguments, and your speaker points will reflect my feelings about them-

 -A Spec

 -Consult/Condition/Delay

 -Consequentialism/Utilitarianism Bad

 -Biopower as a stand-alone impact in any context

 -“Rejection opens up a space for ______”

 -“Economic decline causes the US to cut food aid” (not necessarily wrong, just waaay down the list of reasons that economic collapse would be bad)

 -“Dehumanization outweighs death” (okay for impacts like real genocide, but invoking this claim merely for a hunger/exclusion/sadness impact will warrant zero speaker points for the round)

 -“Rights outweigh war” (surprise-surprise, war involves the loss of rights)

 -"I'm just going straight down – It'll make sense…" (this is not a roadmap)

 Presentational Preferences:

 Absent a complete and total lack of intelligibility, presentation has nothing to do with my decision calculus.

 However, presentation and delivery will have significant effects on your speaker points.

 Arrogance is not ethos, and mistaking the former for the latter will not help your speaker points.

 There’s probably no risk that you’ll speak too fast for me, but slurring-words and raising-pitch will annoy me.

 Efficiency always beats words-per-minute, and I will reward efficient speakers accordingly.

Line-by-line is law, and “creative” flowing will not be tolerated. Separate arguments on different pieces of paper, and ALWAYS give an order. If you don't have a coherent roadmap, I'll assess that you don't care enough to organize your arguments, so I shouldn't either.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Lewis Silver – Judging Philosophy

Background:

-Three years policy debate at Puyallup High School

-Four years policy debate at Whitman College

-One year judging/coaching parliamentary debate at Whitman College

 

Decision Calculus:

1. Default Framework – The affirmative should win if the topical plan is preferable to the status quo or an alternative competitive with the plan. Apparently that wasn’t clear enough for some people last year, so… Definitions-

-“preferable” means that I evaluate the consequences of hypothetical enactment; comparison is your job, but utilitarianism is presumptively good

-“alternative” means a specific policy proposal enacted by a specific agent

-“competitive” means offense/defense; the proposal should compete with both the text and the function of the plan

 

2. Alternative Frameworks – Fair warning, these are quite an uphill battle in front of me. My default framework is a semi-rebuttable presumption. That said, if you’re technically sound enough to beat an opponent who is defending that presumption, it’s almost certainly easier (not to mention better for your speaker points) to just suck it up and beat them in a “straight-up” debate. Still thinking about reading your rendition of Zizek? I consider all of the following arguments to be “slayers” in a framework debate-

-education about policy-making and government institutions is good

-topic-specific research is good

-being able to read the same critique every round is bad (lazy hippy fuck-ups should lose)

-the politics disad is not the same as the critique (surprise-surprise, you don’t have to update a Baudrillard outline)

 

Predispositions:

1. Read my decision calculus (above)

2. “Technique over truth, but truth makes me happy” -Aaron Hardy

3. The following arguments will be accepted as true when asserted in front of me-

-The counterplan must compete with both the text and the function of the plan

-The negative may advocate one conditional counterplan and the status quo

-The phrase “fuck off” is a sufficient MG answer to _____-spec (the only exception to this rule is a spec-arg justified by particular resolutions, e.g.- those of you who have researched the judicial process even a little should know that “grounds-spec” is probably necessary on a courts topic)

-Teams are responsible for the consequences of the policies they advocate

-The phrase “reject the plan” is not an advocacy, and the only thing it solves is a round with abysmal speaker points (yes, you do have the power to punish your opponents by asserting this in front of me)

 

4. The following claims are “uphill battles” to rebut in front of me-

-Hegemony prevents vertical-escalation of regional conflicts

-Economic interdependence prevents war

-Capitalism is key to incentivize growth

-Growth is key to technological advancement

-Technological advancement solves scarcity/consumption/pollution/etc.

-Nuclear deterrence is effective between bilateral adversaries

 

5. You should be embarrassed to even attempt the following arguments, and your speaker points will reflect my feelings about them-

-A Spec

-Consult/Condition/Delay

-Consequentialism/Utilitarianism Bad

-Biopower as a stand-alone impact in any context

-“Rejection opens up a space for ______”

-“Economic decline causes the US to cut food aid” (not necessarily wrong, just waaay down the list of reasons that economic collapse would be bad)

-“Dehumanization outweighs death” (okay for impacts like real genocide, but invoking this claim merely for a hunger/exclusion/sadness impact will warrant zero speaker points for the round)

-“Rights outweigh war” (surprise-surprise, war involves the loss of rights)

-"I'm just going straight down – It'll make sense…" (this is not a roadmap)

 

Presentational Preferences:

 

1. Absent a complete and total lack of intelligibility, presentation has nothing to do with my decision calculus. However, presentation and delivery will have significant effects on your speaker points.

2. Arrogance is not ethos, and mistaking the former for the latter will not help your speaker points.

3. There’s probably no risk that you’ll speak too fast for me, but slurring-words and raising-pitch will annoy me. Efficiency always beats words-per-minute, and I will reward efficient speakers accordingly.

4. Line-by-line is law, and “creative” flowing will not be tolerated. Separate arguments on different pieces of paper, and ALWAYS give an order. If you don't have a coherent roadmap, I'll assess that you don't care enough to organize your arguments, so I shouldn't either.



Joe Blasdel - McKendree University

Saved Philosophy:

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University

Section 1: General Information

1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University.  After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so for the last eleven years.

2. 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.

3. 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 the topicality of their choice.  While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so.  I’m 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.

4. 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 you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

5. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block.  Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new.  Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR.

6. I’m 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 ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

7. I think people should take questions – at least one and preferably two per speech.  If you don’t take questions, I will reduce your speaker points and may be inclined to vote on a procedural if one is run.

8. There is no prep time in parliamentary debate.  You can get your papers in order, but you cannot strategize with your partner after the previous speech has ended.  If you steal prep, I will start your speech time.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 25-30, with an average of 27.5.

2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I tend to vote against them more than I vote for them.  I look at Ks as a sort of ideological counterplan.  As a result, it’s 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, I will likely be voting on topicality. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

3. Performance based arguments…

Same as above.  I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic.

4. 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 that’s 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 – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold.  I don’t vote on RVIs.

On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold.  Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec.  I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions.

5. 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), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change.  I think CPs should be functionally competitive (though I’ve voted on ‘must be textually competitive’ on a couple of occasions). Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

6. 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.

7. 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.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University

Section 1: General Information

 

  1. I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University.  After a three year hiatus studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so for the last nine years. 

 

  1. 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.

 

  1. 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 the topicality of their choice.  While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debate, I am open to people choosing to do so.  I’m 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.

 

  1. 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 you’re calling multiple POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

 

  1. I do not think the rules permit splitting the block.  Any responses in the LOR to MG arguments that were dropped by the MO will be considered new.  Additionally, it is rare that I will vote on MO arguments that are not extended in the LOR.

 

  1. I’m 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 ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

 

  1. I think people should take questions – at least one and preferably two per speech.  If you don’t take questions, I will reduce your speaker points and may be inclined to vote on a procedural if one is run.

 

  1. There is no prep time in parliamentary debate.  You can get your papers in order, but you cannot strategize with your partner after the previous speech has ended.  If you steal prep, I will start your speech time.

 

  1. I’ve only judged one national circuit tournament this year (William Jewell College).

 

Section 2: Specific Inquiries  

 

  1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

 

Typically, my range of speaker points is 25-30, with an average of 27.5.

 

  1. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

 

I’m open to Ks but I tend to vote against them more than I vote for them.  I look at Ks as a sort of ideological counterplan.  As a result, it’s 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, I will likely be voting on topicality. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

 

  1. Performance based arguments…

 

Same as above.  I’d be hesitant to run them with me as your critic.

 

  1. 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 that’s 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 – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold.  I don’t vote on RVIs.

On spec, I have a ‘high’ threshold.  Unless there is in-round ground abuse, I’m probably not going to vote on spec.  I would only run spec arguments in front of me if you’re using it as link insurance for another position and the affirmative refuses to answer your questions.

 

  1. 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), but am growing more frustrated with tiny PICs and other arguably abusive CPs – so this trend may change.  I think CPs should be functionally competitive (though I’ve voted on ‘must be textually competitive’ on a couple of occasions). Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particular strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

 

  1. 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.

 

  1.  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.



Kevin Cummings - Mercer University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Background:  I debated policy in high school and CEDA from 1990 to 1993.  I have coached programs with policy and parli at Regis University (1999-2003) and Mercer University (2003-2009).

 

Framework –   I am willing to listen to debates about how I should judge and how I evaluate specific issues.  Be clear about what criteria I should use and if you want to transform our activity be sure to explain how a vote for you will be meaningful.  If you want me to be a policymaker, then offer reasons for why that approach is best.  I am pretty open to considering widely differing judging paradigms and I’ll try to adjust my approach to judging to whichever criteria or framework wins.

 

Procedural issues and T – On T, good explanations are substantially better than a dozen blips.  Gov, offer a counter-interpretation or be sure you are meeting their definition.  Opp, I’m kind of old school and I like a violation and standards and voters.  I have a pretty high threshold for voting on non-T procedurals such as A spec. I generally only vote there if there is really serious in round abuse happening or if it is grossly mishandled by the gov. I’d rather you run the c/plan to prove the abuse than say how hypothetically they might have tried to avoid it. That noted, I do think running non-T procedurals is a fantastic way to leverage link ground.  They also work quite well as a time suck. Independent voting issues are a sore spot for me. I don’t like rounds where there are six or eight ivis on both sides and none have been explained beyond a tag or unpacked in any way.  If you go for an ivi, you should be spending a good chunk of time explaining in the final rebuttal why the ivi should decide the round. Does debate become more fair, educational etc. as an activity in a universe where you win the ivi?  I tend to prefer throwing out the argument over punishing the team so keep that in mind before you go all in on a multiple perms are evil strategy. 

 

Counter plans – I expect that by the LOR the negative strategy is cohesive. I am not particularly fond of having to do

evaluation work when both sides extend theory blocks without ever engaging the other teams arguments. I

have judged too many rounds when both sides are extending dropped arguments by the other side on PICs, Conditionality,etc. I am left in the position of comparing drops by both teams and that sucks for me. Engage the arguments made by the other team and if you expect me to pull the trigger on theory you better be ahead. I think cplan + disad is tried and true. If you capture most of case and avoid the disad you are probably going to win. Gov teams – generate some offense – explain solvency deficits – and if your gov is critical I’d spend a lot of time explaining if the cplan does not get the K part very well.

 

Kritiks – I evaluate them based on how they are developed in the round. If the K is really just a solvency mitigator

or linear disad then I would obviously not weigh it as a framework question. If you explain how the kritik functions prior to policy questions, then I will it prior to substantive issues such as solvency and disads. Framework arguments (as criticism) can be especially devastating. I usually take gov perms to a K as advocacy unless they are flagged as tests of competition.

 

Case Debate – What a funny question!  I could care less if there is a robust on case debate or not.  If you want the LO to have 8 minutes off case that’s cool.  If you have twenty solvency turns that’s fine too.  Whatever works for you. 

 

Style – I really dislike teams that string together eight or ten blips without any explanation after them. It makes

it impossible for me to get everything.  Speed is fine, but give me a little pen time.  As long as each tag has a sentence after, it should be fine.  But if you spew out ten tags with zero analysis don’t expect fantastic speaks.



James Stanescu - Mercer University

Saved Philosophy:

Background: I have a PhD in philosophy, focusing on critical philosophy. I have published on figures like Judith Butler, Michel Foucault, Giorgio Agamben, Jacques Derrida, etc.  I have been involved in competitive debate for 18 years. I was the assistant policy debate coach at Binghamton University from 2005-2009. I won the 2008 CEDA Northeast Critic of the Year Award. I coached NPDA debate from 2010-2013.

Like most judges, I strive to vote on what happens in the debate round. Take whatever I say as guidelines, instead of hard rules. I tend to default to judging all rounds as comparative net benefits (but, of course, that does not mean all benefits are body counts). I also tend to view everything in terms of offense and defense, so, terminal defense tends to be difficult to pick up my ballot.

Case arguments: Are fine, they are not necessary.

T/trichot/theory arguments: I am okay with strategic theory arguments for winning the round. If you win your theory objection, and win the impact for it, I will weigh it in the round. Important note specific for parli debate: I have a slight bias gov cases be reasonably topical. This is not a hard rule, but it will be easier for the opp to win T is a voter for me in parli debate, than in policy debate.

Counterplans: Should be competitive. I am predisposed to think of consult, delay, and study counterplans as being abusive. Which doesn’t mean you can’t run them, but you will start behind on the theory debate.

Conditionality: Important for parli debate: Due to the structure of the round, I lean against multiple contradictory worlds. This doesn’t mean you can’t run them, and I am not predisposed against limited conditionality.

Kritiks: I have a background in critical philosophy. I try not to let that influence me in critical debates, but of course, there is a limit to that. Feel free to run kritiks.

 

Disads: Generic disads with specific links are fine. Terminalize out impacts.

Performance debates: While I have judged a lot of performance rounds in policy, I have seen very few in parli. I am open to them. But you should know I do not know much about the parli community outside the Southeast of the US. That means performance rounds about the way parli constitutes itself in areas I am unfamiliar with will be hard for me to evaluate. 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 Background: I have been involved in debate in some form or another since 1996. Before becoming the debate coach at Mercer University, I spent four years as an assistant debate coach at Binghamton University, where our program was entirely policy-driven. I have now been coaching and judging parli debate in the southeast for two years.

Overview: Generally I tell people they should just do what they do best, and I will do my best to let the debate happen in the round, and not in my own head. I have no inherent view of how a parli round should look like outside of the basic rules. However, here are some guidelines and points to let you know a bit more about me.

Speed: To my knowledge I can still flow high levels of speed, but I haven't been put to the test in a couple of years. If for some reason I am rusty or you are unclear, I will certainly let you know. But I am pretty comfortable with speed.

T/Theory: My thoughts are that these arguments are part of the arguments of the round, they are part of the game. There is nothing about topicality that is inherently a voter, and nothing about an apparently topical case that makes it safe from a topicality argument. I vote on topicality and theory arguments, but they are won and lost in the round itself.

Counterplans: In general, I have nothing interesting to say about counterplans. Here are some points, though. (a) Consult counterplans are something that I tend to be easily convinced are abusive on the theory levels. Now, I have voted for them, and if you win the theory debate it isn't a problem. But I just realized that I was voting this way a lot, and figure you all should know. (b) Multiple mutually exclusive conditional counterplans: This was something I tended not to be bothered by when I was judging policy debate, but something about the format of parli (the less speeches and prep and what have you) has led me to view this practice with mistrust. This is not something against conditionality in general, but with this particular practice I tend to afford the aff some protection. (c) This will also be true for the kritik category, but by the LOR I expect there to be a coherent world to vote for.

Kritiks: I vote on critiques. I am fairly well versed in critical literature (I have published on such figures as Michel Foucault, Judith Butler, Giorgio Agamben, Jacques Ranciere, Hardt and Negri, and others). If you are running a kritik, by the LOR you should have a coherent world for me to vote for. Also, despite the fact that I am comfortable with kritiks, I am also okay with framework and theory arguments that try to limit them out of the game. As usual, I believe such arguments are part of the game, and won or lost within the game.

Case debate: I don’t care if there is, or is not, substantive clash on case arguments. That is up to the people in the round.

Frameworks/Criterion: You should tell me how to vote in the round, and if you are really clever, how you think I should be viewing the round in general.



Caitlyn Burford - Northern Arizona University

Saved Philosophy:

Burford, Caitlyn (Northern Arizona University)


Background:


This is my eighth year involved in parli debate, including four years competing in college and four years coaching. Please feel free to ask me specific questions before the round.


Specific Inquiries


1.         Speaker points

Good strategic choices and clear, concise arguments are the best way to earn high points from me.  Feel free to throw in some unique, nuanced analysis and good framing of the debate.


2.         General Overview

I think debate is a unique competitive forum to discuss issues within our rhetoric about the state, power, race, gender, etc. in a space that allows us to rethink and critically assess topics.  This can come through a net benefit analysis of a proposed government plan, through a micro political action or statement, through a kritik, or through some other newfangled performance you come up with.  In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical act that can be used creatively and effectively. Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many critical implications about state power and authority as a criticism of the state.  The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round. There are critical implications to every speech act.  Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there.  Thus, framework is imperative.  I’ll get there shortly.  You can run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something at some point.  (Give me a framework with your poetry!)  I’ll vote on Reject Alts.


3.         Framework

This often ends up as a crucial part of a lot of debates that often goes under covered.  If both teams are running with net benefits, great, but I still think there is area to weigh those arguments differently based on timeframe, magnitude, structural weight, etc.  This kind of framework can make your rebuttal a breeze.  In a debate that goes beyond a net benefits paradigm, your framework is key to how I interpret different impacts in the round.  Choose your frameworks strategically and use them to your advantage.  If the whole point of your framework is to ignore the case debate, then ignore the case debate.  If the whole point of your framework is to leverage your case against the critique, then tell me what the rhetorical implications (different than fiated impacts) are to your case.


4.         Theory

            It’s important to note that theory positions are impact debates, too.  Procedural positions, topicalities, etc. are only important to the debate if you have impacts built into them.  If a topicality is just about “fairness” or “abuse” without any articulation as to what that does, most of these debates become a “wash”.  So, view your theory as a mini-debate, with a framework, argument, and impacts built into it.


5.         Counterplan Debate

            This is your game. I don’t think I have a concrete position as to how I feel about PICS, or intrinsicness, or textual/functional competition.  That is for you to set up and decide in the debate. Just make your arguments and warrant them well.  Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge it to vote for the best advocacy.


6.         Round Evaluation

            Again, framework is important.  Procedurals, case debate, and critique debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality/procedurals, then the case.  Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team.  (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.)  If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case.  I will not weigh the case against the critique unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally.

            A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument.  A clear story with a calculated impact will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential impact.  (i.e. “15,000 without food” vs. a “decrease in the quality of life”). But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, awesome.  If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must.

7.         Speed, Answering Questions, and Other General Performance Things

            Speed is fine.   Just don’t use it as a tool to exclude your other competitors if they ask you to slow down a bit. If you don’t want the round to get frustrating and silly, I feel like you should answer a question regarding each text in the round (i.e. plan text, cp text, alt text) for purposes of clarification.

 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

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 in front of you. Please be specific and clear.

Because I think it is impossible to be entirely “tabula rasa” as we cannot ignore our previous knowledge, background, or experiences, I should state that I did parli at Point Loma Nazarene University for 4 years, coached and judged there for 1, and am now coaching at NAU.  While debating, I ran a lot of kritiks and am drawn to critical argumentation based off of what I find academically interesting (but I will obviously vote on non-critical arguments, too.)  My B.A. is in Philosophy and I have taken Master’s classes in Philosophy of Religion at Point Loma.  I am pursuing an M.A. in Applied Communication and a Master’s Certificate in Women’s and Gender Studies at NAU.  I specifically enjoy the study of rhetoric in social movements.  All of these things influence how I view debate.  Please feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

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):

26-29 usually.  If you are particularly offensive, it will be lower. 

If you are clear and concise in your arguments, it will be higher.

2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I think there are critical implications to every speech act.  Affirmative cases, topicalities, procedurals, kritiks, and performances can all be critically analyzed if the teams take the debate there. Debate is a unique forum to discuss issues within our normative rhetoric about the state, religion, gender, etc. in a “safe” space.  In that sense, I think debate is a rhetorical performance that can be used creatively and effectively.  Running a policy case about passing a piece of legislation has just as many critical implications about state power and authority as a kritik of the state.  The differences between the two types just have to do with what the debaters choose to discuss in each particular round.

As far as contradictory arguments go, it’s up to the debaters.  If you are running a feminist kritik and use the phrase “You guys” I won’t vote against you automatically.  If the other team points it out and develops a really good argument about how it undermines your solvency, then I might vote against you.  Same goes for running a kritik and a contradictory DA, etc.

3. Performance based arguments.

You can literally run whatever you want as long as a) you have a theoretical justification for running the position, and b) you realize that it is still a competitive debate round so I need a reason to vote for something.  Just because you read poetry doesn’t mean I’ll vote for you.  If you tell me why it’s important though, I totally will.

This is where judging on “net benefits” can get tricky.  Explain to me who is winning the round and why.  I need impacts that I can calculate to decide the round no matter how you frame the debate.  This makes framework debate super important for me as judge to create a lens for me to compare impacts.

4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

I probably have a bit higher threshold on traditional topicality arguments than most because I don’t understand “unfair” arguments.  There is no intrinsic way for me to measure fairness and I don’t think debates are fair.  When weighing a topicality through fairness, I think there has to be in-round abuse.  However, if you run a topicality on the importance of language or the use of a particular word and its effects on education, that could be a really great argument.  I don’t want to say I require competing interpretations, because I think that limits the flexibility that a topicality can have on education, reclamation of language, etc.  At the same time, I will use a competing interpretations framework if you set it up that way.

5. Counterplans–PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms–textual competition ok? Functional competition?

I don’t think I have a concrete position on this.  I have seen really good PICS bad arguments and really good PICS good arguments.  That means that it all has to do with the context of the specific debate.  In one instance, a CP that is a PIC might be a terrible idea and the perm debate will be an uphill battle.  In another instance, a PIC might prove to have critical implications and function as an alternative to a kritik.  It is very round specific.  Just make your arguments and warrant them well.  This same idea goes for textual and/or functional competition.

Unless I am told otherwise, I will assume the CP is unconditional and my role as a judge is to vote for the best plan.

6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)?

Sure.

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?)?

In the rare case that neither team does any framing on the arguments, I will typically look at the Kritik, then topicality/procedurals, then the case.  Because the Kritik usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team.  (Again, this is only absent any sort of weighing mechanism for any of the arguments.)  If there is a topicality/procedural run without any voters, I won’t put them in for you and it will be weighed against the case.  I will not weigh the case against the kritik unless I am told how and why it can be weighed equally.

8. How do you weigh arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e., “dehumanization”) against concrete impacts (i.e., “one million deaths”)?

A concrete argument is always going to have a bit more weight than an abstract argument.  A clear story with 72 deaths will probably outweigh an uncalculated potential dehumanization impact.  But, if you calculate them out and do the work for me, then great.  If I have to weigh two vague abstract arguments against each other, i.e. loss of identity vs. loss of freedom, then I will probably revert to the more warranted link story if I must.



Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University

Saved Philosophy:

Dayle Hardy-Short - Northern Arizona University


Saved Philosophy:


Background:

I have been judging parliamentary debate recently, and I am doing my best to understand its nuances. My background is primarily in policy (NDT and CEDA).


On speaker points, I adhere to the old school model that speaker points include such things as analysis, reasoning, evidence, organization, refutation, and delivery (delivery being only 1 of 6 considerations I made for speaker points). Thus, I virtually never give low-point wins because if a team "wins", then it has done something better than the other team (i.e., like had clearer organization or better arguments).


Generally:

Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash. I will not do the work for the team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the responsibility to affirm the resolution and the negative/opposition has the responsibility to oppose the resolution or the affirmative. Such affirmation and opposition can appear in different forms. I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments--just because someone extends an argument does not mean it's new, and just because someone uses a new term does not mean the argument is new (they may be reframing a previously-articulated argument based on additional responses from the other team).


I prefer debates in which debaters clearly explain why I should do what they think I should do. This includes explaining use of particular jargon and/or assumptions underlying it (for instance, if you say "condo bad", I may not necessarily understand in the heat of the debate that you're talking about conditionality versus something you live in; similarly I do not understand what “fism” is—you need to tell me). Do not assume that simply using a particular word means I will understand your argument (argument includes claim, explanation, and evidence of some kind). Please consider not only labeling the argument, but telling me what you mean by it.


I will listen as carefully as possible to what's going on in your debate (I will try to adapt to what YOU say and argue). Do your debate, make your arguments, and I will do my best to weigh them according to what happened in the debate. I am not arrogant enough to think that I get everything on the flow, nor am I arrogant enough to claim that I understand everything you say. But if you explain important arguments, most of the time I can understand them. At least I will try.


Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that are ONLY about so-called abuse (indeed, I do not find them persuasive). I prefer that you focus on why the affirmative isn’t topical. Thus, I prefer in the round you explain why something is not topical (standards, alternative definitions, etc.), but you do not need to articulate abuse (which I define as "they're taking ground from us; they’ve ruined debate; or similar arguments”).


I will assume your counterplan is unconditional, and if you think it should be otherwise, please explain and justify that position. With an articulated counterplan, then my job becomes to weigh the best advocacy with regard to the resolution.


I certainly am not opposed to permutations, but please have a text that you can show me and your opponents.


I am not opposed to critiques nor performance debate, but please be very very clear about why they should win and what criteria I should use to evaluate them and/or weigh them in the debate as a whole.


Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight.


A final note on speed and civility. I don't have particular problems with speed, but clarity is essential--clear speakers can speak very quickly and I will get the flow. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being. I will think through your arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.

 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I competed in NDT (policy) for 4 years in college, coached NDT in my masters and doctoral programs, and coached NDT, CEDA (value), and LD (value) as a regular faculty member 20 years ago (in Texas). I have been listening to and judging parli for two years.

I have learned to "never say never." Generally, I am open to most positions and arguments. I expect the debaters to tell me what they think I should vote on, and why. I appreciate clash, and value arguments that are directly and closely linked to arguments from the other team. I believe that the affirmative/government has the burden of proof and that the negative/opposition has the burden of rejoinder (response or rebuttal); however, I also believe that fulfillment of such burdens can appear in different forms.

I prefer debates in which debaters argue deductively and not enthymematically. A claim is a conclusion, not an argument. If, for instance, the response to an argument is: "Turn. Next argument", then I view that as a claim, not an argument. I will not fill in the argument for you--I expect you to tell me why the turn applies, and how the turn occurs. Otherwise, then I'm doing your work for you. If you want me to fill in the blanks you leave, please strike me as a judge--I am terrible at filling in the blanks.

Finally, just so I'm really clear about this: I take slightly longer to process the debate than most of the judges you're used to. I try to be careful with my flow, and I try to keep up. But I also like to think some things through in relative peace, so my explanations immediately following the round are often not as clear as I (or you) might like them to be. So, I do write comments on the ballot, and hope that they are clearer than my oral explanations.

Generally, I am willing to listen to most positions, but I expect the affirmative to clearly link whatever it is doing to the resolution, and any alternative view of the resolution must be clearly explained. I am a traditionalist and believe that someone in the room has to uphold the resolution--this is the affirmative. I expect the negative to oppose the affirmative's interpretation of the resolution and/or to oppose the resolution. I will not make an argument for the team–the team must make it clear how I should interpret and weigh any arguments it offers. Teams should NOT assume I know as much as they do about the resolution (because, remember, I was prepping with some other team in some other room), but they should not assume I'll believe everything they say (i.e., a lie is a lie, and while I may not vote against you if you're lying, I certainly will NOT vote FOR you on the basis of a lie). Ultimately, however, the team must tell me/explain to me how I should interpret their arguments. I will not do the work for the team. However, I feel pretty comfortable in my understanding of whether or not something is a new argument in rebuttals, and I will not vote in favor of new arguments.

Topicality is a voting issue for me, and I listen to how teams set up the arguments. I have an extremely wide latitude in terms of what affirmative can claim as topical within the scope of any given resolution. I don’t like T arguments that focus on fundamental affirmative unfairness (affirmative isn't being fair to negative in terms of allowing it "ground"). Part of the blessing and the curse of parliamentary debate is that there is a significant level of unpredictability. Topicality should be about whether or not the affirmative is really doing something which is in the broad scope of the topic. There are few affirmative cases that are not vulnerable to topicality arguments, and there are few negative cases that can win by topicality alone. There are many debates which don’t need to raise topicality—but if it’s raised, then make it about something worth listening to.

The team that proposes a counterplan must defend its non-topicality and competitiveness, and of course, such a proposal shifts negative’s burden of rejoinder to burden of proof on the CP. The negative does not need a CP to win, and if the negative offers something else in addition to the CP in the debate, then the negative does not need to lose if it loses the CP. However, they do confuse things, and the affirmative does well to remember not to abandon its own position if a CP is presented.

Abstract impacts should be clearly demonstrated and explained, and concrete impacts need to have similar weight. Asserting a million deaths is little different than asserting dehumanization, and sometimes I think death really is better than dehumanization. But sometimes I don’t–depends on whose death it is. It all depends on the context, which debaters should make explicit.

A final note on speed and civility. I believe that debate is an important activity, both as an intellectual exercise and as a co-curricular activity in which we get to test classroom learning in a more pragmatic way (application and reductio ad absurdum), including communication skills and the extent to which arguments can go. The way we behave in rounds often becomes habit-forming. So show some respect for the activity, some respect for your opposition, and some respect for the judge. I'll try to keep up with you if you'll treat me like a human being (rather than a recording machine). I will think through arguments if you will give me arguments worth thinking through.



Jeannie Hunt - Northwest College

Saved Philosophy:

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of  intervention on my part.  That means a couple of things.  You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round.  I don’t care what that framework is, but I want one – policy making, critical, big picture, etc.  That framework is what I will follow, so please don’t set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end.  More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.  I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible for me to vote on.  Absent that, I have to intervene. 

 

There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another.  I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.  I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions.  If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about.  However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out…  This is true of any theory based argument you choose to run.  I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important.  If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don’t have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

 

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective.  I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K.  Make sure the framework is very specific so I don’t have to abandon objectivity all together.

 

Finally, make your own arguments.  If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago.  Prompting someone with a statement like, “go to the DA” is fine.  Making an argument that is then repeated is not.

 

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn’t mean you should have no style.  You should be clear, structured and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is team).  You can at least take off your hat. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.  Speed is not a problem if it is clear.  Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round - that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what coulld have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

 

Because I don’t want to intervene, I don’t appreciate points of order.  You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way.  Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn’t vote on new arguments.  I won’t.  If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill advised. 

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I want to be able to judge the round with no intervention on my part.  That means a couple of things.  You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round.  I don’t care what that framework is, but I want one – policy making, critical, big picture, etc.  That framework is what I will follow, so please don’t set the round up as a stock round, and then ask me to look at the big picture at the end.  More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.  I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, something tangible for me to vote on.  Absent that, I have to intervene. 

 

There are no specific arguments that I prefer over another.  I will vote on pretty much anything, and I am game for pretty much anything.  I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions.  If you run a k, you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about.  However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out…  This is true of any theory based argument you choose to run.  I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important.  If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don’t have to spend time flowing it.

 

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective.  I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K.  Make sure the framework is very specific so I don’t have to abandon objectivity all together.

 

Finally, make your own arguments.  If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago.  Prompting someone with a statement like, “go to the DA” is fine.  Making an argument that is then repeated is not.

 

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn’t mean you should have no style.  You should be clear, structured and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is team).  You can at least take your hat off and tuck your shirt in. Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.  Speed is not a problem if it is clear.

 

Because I don’t want to intervene, I don’t appreciate points of order.  You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way.  Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn’t vote on new arguments.  I won’t.  If you feel particularly abused in the round, and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill advised. 



Jacob Stutzman - Oklahoma City University

Saved Philosophy:

20 years in debate, HS policy, NFA-LD, but mostly NPDA (judging for the last 12 years).  This year I’ve been in tab a lot, so I haven’t judged many rounds.

I want the debaters to decide the form and substance of the round.  I’m not opposed to any particular argument or strategy that you feel fits the purpose of the debate. Framework debates are good, but rarely dispositive. Absent a specified framework for viewing the round, I default to whatever makes it easiest for me to render a decision. I get very frustrated by debaters who do not think their way through the round. This shows up when debaters don’t make connections between positions or go after obvious deficits in the other team’s arguments. If you can’t compare solvency of the plan vs. the CP or give me specific link analysis on the K, then something is wrong. On the flip side, debaters who do those things usually make it easy for me to vote for them. Smart debaters are the ones who take the easy ways out of the round. I’d like a copy of plan and CP/alt text. Perm text too, if possible. I tend to prioritize probability in impacts, so tell the better story on your positions. Regardless of how fast you’re going, I’ll let you know if you’re not clear. Please take into consideration the size and shape of the room and any other atmospheric factors that may complicate my hearing you. I prefer that you only call points of order on arguments that are likely to be very important to my decision. Calling points simply to disrupt the speaker or to contest minor arguments will be given very little leeway before I start docking speaker points. Absent punishment for that sort of stuff, exclusive language, or otherwise improper behavior toward your opponents, speaker points are usually 25-29, very rarely above that, and are decided based on the amount of enjoyment I get out of your participation in the debate round. Make smart choices and explain those choices to me well, and you’ll come in at the top of that scale. Don’t assume I know your lit on the K. Explain the warrants to me and make the links very explicit.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Background: parli since 1997, plenty of policy format experience, apx. 30 rounds judged this year (lots of tab this spring)

                Debaters should decide the form and substance of the round.  I will do my best to evaluate the round in whatever framework is specified, so make sure you are weighing through that frame.  Absent a specified framework, I default to a lens that seems appropriate.  I do not begin from the position that the resolution has a correct interpretation.  That includes the trichotomy, which creates false distinctions between topics, but can be a useful construction nonetheless.  On T, I default to competing interpretations, which simply means that I pick the best interp in the round and then evaluate whether the gov does or does not meet it.  Obviously, that means good standards and clear violations/we meets are key.

                Impacts are the result of clear stories.  When comparing impacts, I tend to default to the more likely impact rather than just the biggest, particularly because impacts often become more nebulous as they get bigger.  Don’t leave your impacts abstract; give me a way to conceptualize where your argument ends.  I’m don’t want to fill in the blanks for either team, so make sure your scenarios are complete.  Critical positions naturally carry the same burden.  Be specific in your links and appropriately detailed throughout the position.

                CPs need to be competitive.  Exclusion CPs are tough to win in front of me, consult needs a specific scenario arguing that plan will still happen, delay and agent CPs are legit as long as they remain competitive.  Blippy CP theory debates are , so put some substance there. 

                Spec positions are fine if you want to protect ground, but they’re tough to pull the trigger on.  If you want me to vote there, then you need to specify what ground was precluded.  My standard is higher here than on T because they don’t have the resolution to rest on.

                I expect a POI or three to be taken in each constructive.  I also expect POIs will not be used simply to disrupt the speaker.  POOs should be called on arguments that are likely to be very important to my decision in the round.  I will rule on a POO if I can do so quickly.  If I take it under consideration, it either means I’ll come back to it at the end of the speech when I see how the argument develops or it means that it doesn’t matter whether the argument is new.  You should be able to figure out which it is based on my nonverbal.  I will likely notice the new argument anyway, but it helps to know you’re still engaged in the round.  Speed is fine as long as you’re clear and loud enough.  I will let you know if either of those things is not true.  If you don’t respond to that, I’ll stop flowing.  If you offer plan/CP text to your opponents have a copy for me.

                Speaker points usually range from 24-29, with 30s reserved for really outstanding performances.  Finally, an argument isn’t complete when you’ve put everything it in that you can, but when there’s nothing else you can leave out of it.  Judicious, developed, good arguments will win over many arguments. 



Aaron T. Sherman - Pacific Lutheran University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Aaron T. Sherman Judging Philosophy:

 

Generally speaking, I will listen to and vote on any type of argument if you convince me to do so. The burden is yours as a debater to prove to me why any given argument is the reason you win. With that said, I understand the notion of “debate as a game” but hold highly the educational and informative aspects of debate.

 

Procedurals

I find linguistic and process debate compelling and as such have a fondness of sorts for procedural debate. However, it is a pet peeve of mine when standards don’t interact with voters and when your voters are the nothing more than the blippy “a priori, fairness, education” bits without any explanation as to what those things mean or why I should care. If you choose to run multiple procedurals, please do more than merely cross apply standards and voters. When you do this, it makes me much more likely to listen to time suck RVIs or discredit your position.

 

Kritiks

It is the burden of the opposition to provide a clear link scenario to the government’s case. I can appreciate the strategic value of running kritiks and really appreciate the change kritiks can tangibly bring about in our community and beyond. HOWEVER, kritiks are infinitely more compelling to me when they link well to the case and have very probable impacts. If you are running a kritik with low probability, high magnitudinal impacts you might as well have had a standard case debate to begin with. I will default to the standard net bens framework unless you tell me otherwise.

 

CPs

I’ll hear them, but I’ve never been particularly fond of CP theory debates because it is almost always the same rote arguments and responses with little place to go for either side. As for the substantive portion, PICS make for more competitive debate than alt actor CPs in my opinion. Conditionality is cheap. Please have a net benefit to CP.

 

Lastly, I will protect in the rebuttals if the argument is blatantly new but generally think you should call points of order to be safe.

 



Melissa Franke - Pacific Lutheran University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

 

1. Paradigm: I consider myself to be a policy maker. But I’m a policy maker who takes into consideration the critical implications of policy actions and the critical implications of the arguments for and against those policies. I appreciate clear framework explanations to resolve how to evaluate these arguments. (if we’re looking at both policy arguments and critical arguments) In other words, please explain how I am to consider different types of impacts and how to weigh them out against one another if the debate includes impacts on different levels of debate.


2. Points of Order: I don’t require a point of order for new arguments. I try to keep an eye on that kind of thing. Please feel free to call the point if you think I miss it or if calling it will allow you to articulate a particular explanation of why an argument is new.


3. Rebuttals: I appreciate debates that become more focused as the debate moves on. While I don’t want my judging philosophy to become instructions for debating, I find that I am more comfortable with my decisions when the debaters focus the debate rather than having me do it. (Collapsing in the block helps me lots.) ***While I evaluate the arguments in the whole debate, an argument needs to be present in the rebuttals for me to vote on it. Rebuttals MUST weigh arguments and impacts. I have had to judge too many rounds where I have to determine which impacts are most important.


4. Speaking: I’ve heard some rounds lately where I wish people would slow down a little bit. This has always been because the person speaking quickly is unclear or is too quiet. Some tips: start slower and then get faster rather than the other way around. (This allows audience members to get used to how you speak and it is easier to understand you once we know how you say words. Also, I probably won’t be able to vote on a T where I haven’t flowed the interp.) Speak up and don’t hold your papers in front of your mouth. (Sometimes I try to get some clarity by watching your face, which I can’t get if it’s covered up.) Keep an eye on me or have your partner keep an eye on me. A tiny pause between sheets of paper is also super helpful. I don’t want to control how you debate, I just want to make sure that I’m a responsible participant in the process and that I can make the best decision possible. I try to be really really careful and I want you to have enough information about me to feel comfortable and confident debating in front of me.


Some Specific Questions from an old NPTE philosophy:

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?


Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)


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?)?


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")?



Brandan Whearty - Palomar College

Saved Philosophy:

 

Brandan Whearty

Palomar College

 

 

Short Version: You Talk, I'll Listen

 

Long Version: I tend to view debate as a negotiation between the government and opposition over what will happen during the 45 minutes of engagement. This means that whatever parameters both teams agree on are ok. I will listen to fast technical debate, slow rhetorical debate, and alternate forms such as performance with equal interest. I will listen to Topicality, C/Kritiks, Vagueness, Value Objections, Resolutionality, etc. Remember that just because it’s a procedural issue it doesn’t mean tags will suffice. Asking me to drop a team on procedural violation requires a warrant or two, and I'm happy to listen to procedural level offense from the Affirmative as well.

 

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT I HAVE REPETITIVE STRESS INJURIES TO MY HANDS AND SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING, WHICH MEANS A TOP-LEVEL TEAM CAN SPEAK FASTER THAN I CAN FLOW. I CAN KEEP UP WITH 70%-75% OF TOP SPEED, PROVIDED THAT THE SPEAKER'S ARTICULATION IS EXCELLENT (SO I CAN CHEAT A LITTLE BY READING LIPS) AND THAT THE SPEAKER'S STRUCTURE IS PERFECT. IF NEITHER OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE TRUE, YOU MAY NEED TO SLOW DOWN MORE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU. Later in the tournament, I may need you to slow down even more as my hands fail. If you're losing me, you'll know immediately and loudly. Also, please avoid strategies that require me to fill sheets of paper with arguments that we all know will be discarded in the next speech. If there are more than 10-13 pages per debate, the burning in my hands starts to drown out your arguments.

 

Though I consider myself a flow critic, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by laundry lists of taglines filling in for substantial, warranted analysis. I think that the words, “because” and “for example” are important, and you should probably use them a lot.

 

Please call important points of order in both rebuttals, in order to save me from guessing which arguments you want me to intervene and discard. If both teams want me to intervene and throw out arguments I see as new, mention it in the round and I will defer to your collective judgment. Abusing Points of Order will destroy your speaker points and compromise your tournament seeding.

 

I collect ACTUAL TURNS. People use the word ‘turn’ a lot in parliamentary debate. This confuses me, because it is usually followed by an argument like, “They don’t solve enough”, “other bad things will still happen”, or “is not.” If you make an actual turn, I will probably pound happily on the table to let you know.

 

I appreciate lighthearted jabs, and heckling is fine as long as it is funny rather than rude. If you have ever wanted to run an extreme or bizarre advocacy, I may be your best chance to pick up on it. Enjoy yourselves,be nice, and speaks will be high.

 

A few more preferences that may help you win my ballot:

* Explain your perms and provide a clear text for each one. Otherwise, you may accidentally win the argument that your side should lose.

* It is way easier for me to vote for your procedural with demonstrated abuse in round. Potential abuse is almost impossible for me to evaluate without wondering about potential answers and potential turns.

* I am getting bored with delay/politics strategies. If you're going to run them in front of me, engage my interest with an amazing demonstration of this strategy's power and legitimacy. If you have a choice between delay/politics and a kritik debate, please choose the latter.

* Please make sure I understand what you're saying. If you want me to cast my ballot because "...durable fiat is instantaneous," you should probably make sure I know what you mean. I can *guess* at what you mean, but that's no good for either of us.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Long Version: I tend to view debate as a negotiation between the government and opposition over what will happen during the 45 minutes of engagement.  This means that whatever parameters both teams agree on are ok.  I will listen to fast technical debate, slow rhetorical debate, and alternate forms such as performance with equal interest.  I will listen to Topicality, C/Kritiks, Vagueness, Value Objections, Resolutionality, etc.  Remember that just because it’s a procedural issue it doesn’t mean tags will suffice.  Asking me to drop a team on procedural violation requires a warrant or two.  I will also listen to procedural level offense if FULLY warranted, so be careful with bad T.

YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT I HAVE REPETITIVE STRESS INJURIES TO MY HANDS AND SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING, WHICH MEANS A TOP-LEVEL TEAM CAN SPEAK FASTER THAN I CAN FLOW.  I CAN KEEP UP WITH 70%-75% OF TOP SPEED, PROVIDED THAT THE SPEAKER'S ARTICULATION IS EXCELLENT (SO I CAN CHEAT A LITTLE BY READING LIPS) AND THAT THE SPEAKER'S STRUCTURE IS PERFECT.  IF NEITHER OF THOSE CONDITIONS ARE TRUE, YOU MAY NEED TO SLOW DOWN MORE SO I CAN UNDERSTAND YOU.  If you're losing me, you'll know immediately and loudly.  If you make the strategic decision to ditch me on a panel, I won't hold it against you and I'll keep up as best I can.  That said, if you make that choice, you forfeit the right to be surprised by my decision.

Though I consider myself a flow critic, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by laundry lists of taglines filling in for substantial, warranted analysis.  I think that the words, “because” and “for example” are important, and you should probably use them a lot.

On points of order, I will not intervene to discard new arguments unless you tell me to.   That means if one team allows the other to commit highway robbery with a Mighty-Morphin’ Power Disad which suddenly sprouts Kritiky real world impacts in the LOR, I will not discard it unless Gov tells me to do so.  If both teams want me to intervene and throw out arguments I see as new, mention it in the round and I will defer to your collective judgment.  Abusing Points of Order will destroy your speaker points and compromise your tournament seeding.

I collect ACTUAL TURNS.  People use the word ‘turn’ a lot in parliamentary debate.  This confuses me, because it is usually followed by an argument like, “They don’t solve enough”, “other bad things will still happen”, or “is not.”  If you make an actual turn, I will probably pound happily on the table to let you know.

I appreciate lighthearted jabs, and heckling is fine as long as it is funny rather than rude.  If you have ever wanted to run an extreme or bizarre advocacy, I may be your best chance to pick up on it.  Enjoy yourselves, be nice, and speaks will be high.


Kristine Clancy - Pepperdine University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Kristine Clancy

Pepperdine University

I competed for Long Beach for two years in policy debate and two years in parliamentary debate, thus my views are heavily influenced by both types of debate. 

Essentially my philosophy is more work for you and less work for me. I expect that issues have impacts (global warming and economic collapse are not impacts – I don’t know why those things are bad) and that at the end of the debate you tell me how things weigh out comparing both magnitude and risk (yes extinction is a very big impact, but it is not very likely). Write my ballot for me, and be honest in your assessment, you are not winning every argument in the debate round so weigh things accordingly. 

If the debate does not involve a policy discussion then this task is much harder and you must have a clear criterion to evaluate all the different arguments in the round. I don’t know what is more important rights or security, so you had better have a way for me to figure it out, or in the end I can promise you will not like the way that I work it out.

A word of caution about theory, if you don’t know it or understand it, then don’t use it. Permutations must have a text, “do both” is not a text. The opposition is going to argue that the two are mutually exclusive so in order to demonstrate that they are not, you must provide an argument, you don’t just get to say they can. In terms of topicality, this argument is different than others in the debate because you are asking me to punish the other team and ignore all of the arguments they have made in the debate. I won’t do that by voting on topicality unless there is articulated in-round abuse. If the opposition runs topicality and doesn’t even make abuse a voter than the MG should have a very quick time with the argument. I will vote on a critical reason to prefer. Finally, most of the spec arguments floating around these days are garbage. I don’t believe you actually needed that information for your strategy, I think this is your strategy, and it is a terrible one. First, you must demonstrate that you want the information by asking a POI. If they do not answer or do not provide information that I should reasonably expect in a plan then run the spec (really vagueness) to protect your ground, otherwise slow down and leave the time suck out of the debate.

I am fine with critical arguments made by either team in the debate. I think your arguments generally need to be consistent with each other and critical arguments are no different. If your arguments are inconsistent it means you are missing the big picture in the debate and how the arguments relate to one another. You need to tell me why my vote is important and “the ballot as a tool” is getting old and I don’t generally like to reject things. Finally, if you are making a critical argument you need to make sure your link and impact operate on the same level. I am tired of hearing pre-fiat links and post-fiat impacts on critical positions. If fiat is illusory then you don’t get access to impacts outside of the debate round…and if you do, then so does the other team. For the last time, my ballot is not going to tear down capitalism!



Skip Rutledge - Point Loma Nazarene University

Saved Philosophy:

Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University

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..




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Skip Rutledge                                                                 Point Loma Nazarene University

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..



Ian Sharples - Point Loma Nazarene University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Ian Sharples – Judging Philosophy

March 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', in that 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 have watched this year have been in PSCFA. 'National circuit' teams generally do not have as much of a problem with strategy and warrants compared to regional/communication teams. Problems with internal coherence seem to be universal. This is just my general observation, and does not apply to any one team. Compelling arguments can come in any style.

- 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 becomes more important because both teams ten to have coherent strategies with competing warranted analysis.

 

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. Again, 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 tend towards not liking most of the critical theory lit base.

 

Other Things

- 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). I had the same limitations while debating so I tend to rely on short term memory, which I have found is generally adequate in rounds. 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, Hitchens, Zizek



Sherris Minor - Point Loma Nazarene University

Saved Philosophy:

Sherris Minor- PLNU

 I have been in and out of debate since 2003. I competed in parli for 3 years and have since coached parli/ LD for 4 years, this is my 3rd year coaching since I came back to the activity in 2010. My background is in political science, anthropology and philosophy. My current course of study is in conflict management (specifically conflict transformation) and the rebuilding process through a critical gender lens.  I have judged over 100 rounds of parliamentary debate this year and about 60 rounds of LD debate.

 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.  Framework is important to me because it sets up how you want me to evaluate the round and should help you prioritize what arguments you are winning and why that means I vote for you.

 Rate of delivery doesn’t really matter to me. Most of the time I can keep up with the arguments coming from the speaker. I will yell slow down if it does become an issue.  However, 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.

 

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

 Procedurals are awesome, but I do not vote on potential abuse. Please have a clear interpretation. I default to competing interpretations unless I am told otherwise. I don’t vote on RVI’s especially if the justification for it on T is “time suck they abused us.”  

 I think critical discussions are great within the context of debate. That being said you need to justify your framework for evaluating the round, and tell me how I vote using this framework. You need to explain your links don’t just say they link tell me how they link/ why that link is important. These discussions tend to get very convoluted it is your job to clearly explain your argument(s), I shouldn’t need an interpreter to understand what your k says.   

 Counter plans are a great strategy tool but they should be competitive and have some sort of net benefit to them beyond this doesn’t link to the disad. Don’t kick an unconditional counterplan in front of me I will not vote for you.

 Politics is a good strategy but please try to use a true or at least plausible scenario.

 Theory is awesome please explain to me why your theory/ interpretation of theory means you win the debate don’t just blip out any perm is severance/ or intrinsic. This is one not true but also doesn’t explain how your theory works in the context of this debate.  I believe all perms need to have a text. This helps to show me in a textual sense how your perm theory functions. Also it provides something stable in the round that I can look at when I am making a decision. I think for the most part that Perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy but if you have a compelling reason why your perm could be the latter please run it.

 I believe the debate should be smaller by the end of the round don’t be afraid to kick arguments. Issue selection is great because you can get more in depth on arguments you think you are winning.

 Warrants for your claims are awesome because that means your arguments are not just tag lines. I will not fill in the blanks for you so please give a clear tag and warrant for why you argument is true. This is critical in debates with competing uniqueness stories where the objective is for me to decide which scenario is the most true.

  Impact calculus and prioritization are important to me. It allows you to tell me where to vote and why I look there before I look at other arguments. Don’t expect me to do the work for you, you set the framework for the round I expect you to tell me how I vote in the world of your framework.

 Overall, if you do the work you should be able to win my ballot. I don’t care what you run.  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.  If there is anything I missed please feel free to ask.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Sherris Minor –Point Loma Nazarene University 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.”  

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.  



Cathy Glenn - Saint Mary's College of CA

Saved Philosophy:

 

 

 

In general:

I have a 4-year competitive background in CEDA/policy, and I've been coaching NPDA since 2006.

I consider myself a flow judge—I look there to evaluate the round. In other words, I look for evidence on my flow to justify my RFD. If it's not there, I can't use it. And, I won’t BS through an RFD just to pretend I could flow you.

 

My evaluation of the round starts with the weighing mechanism/framework best defended, and I go from there. Having better impacts (qualitatively and/or quantitatively) via that mech or f/w will earn my ballot.


Well-developed arguments can trump blipped taglines without (or with little) analysis/warrants, even if those outnumber developed arguments.


Relatively quick delivery is usually fine; be clear, well-organized, and structured. Slow down, though, if your position (procedural or otherwise) is theoretically or philosophically dense, or if the scenario(s) is(are) complex. Don't assume I've heard your position (or about it) before the round. 

 

I'm not a fan of dump and punt strategies.
 

I look to rebuttals to synthesize the round, especially dense ones. Slow down, make smart issue selection choices, and write my ballot.
 

Bottom line: make my decision easy with as little intervention from me as possible.

 

If you’re interested in understanding my RFD more fully, ask, and I’m happy to do my best to clarify my position for you.

 

In particular:

Critiques (Ks): I love well-developed and defended critical positions. Argue what you want; I won't intervene (that is, make arguments for the other side or dismiss an argument out of hand). From my perspective, a well-developed and defended framework, clear links to case or res, relevant implications, and a stable, viable alternative constitute the most effective critical positions. I expect to be moved--both affectively and intellectually--by your critical advocacy. Without appeals to both thought and feelings, your critical discourse simply rearticulates and reinforces masculinist rationality standards.

You should know that I get grumpy when a critical position that asks me to cast a ballot for critical purposes is kicked in favor of a games-paradigm strategy. I'm all for games (love them, in fact), but if you want me to engage at a criticism level, it's best not to violate my trust in your intellectual honesty or the intent of your critical advocacy. You fundamentally change my role in the round when you run a critical position.

 

It’s best not to make assumptions about who I am and what I believe and value based on the color of my skin. Please ask, and let me self-identify rather than impose your assumptions on me. Chances are, if you make superficial and stereotypical assumptions, you’ll be so far off base that you’re not even in the right field.

 

It’s best not to make assumptions about who I am and what I believe and value based on who issues my paycheck. Please ask, and let me self-identify rather than impose your assumptions on me. Chances are, if you make superficial and stereotypical assumptions, you’ll be so far off base that you’re not even in the right field.

 

It’s best to make sure I’m a part of the conversation (i.e., make sure I’m flowing you) if you ask me, in my role as a critic, to stand next to you in your advocacy. If I’m holding my pen in my hand and not writing, that’s a clue you need to adjust if you want to include me in your advocacy. Don't be surprised if my response to being excluded for 45 minutes is a strong intellectual and emotional statement. After you invite me to join in your advocacy, I am no longer trying to perform "objectivity" by bracketing my thoughts and feelings.

 

Running a critical position without self-reflexivity about your position of privilege in the round runs the risk of raising doubt in my mind about your understanding of critical theory and “the” critical project. In other words, if you compete for a program with massive material and discursive resources (i.e., multiple coaches, maybe even in the round observing or "policing" the RFD; sheer squad size; significant administrative influence; and, funding), you represent the top of the privileged, power hierarchy in this activity. Some self-reflexivity about that representation in relation to others in the room demonstrates you have more than a shallow understanding of the critical implications of your discourse. Privilege and power relations are fluid and they are always already situated in and constituted by specific contexts. This community is a unique context; so is each individual debate round.

 

Procedurals: I love meta-debate about interpretation and meaning, and I generally default to seeing these arguments as ground division issues unless they're presented differently. I tend to default to demonstrated abuse rather than potential abuse with respect to ground loss unless arguments in the round effectively advocate otherwise. (Competing interps Ts also need to demonstrate ground loss. I still haven’t been convinced to vote for potential abuse.)

 

Counterplans: I don't think perms are advocacies, but tests of competition. Other than that, I don't have any preferences, theoretical or otherwise.


Ask if you have other questions!




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Cathy B Glenn - Saint Mary's College of CA

In general:

I have a 4-year competitive background in CEDA/policy, and I've been coaching NPDA since 2006.

I consider myself a flow judge—I look there to evaluate the round. In other words, I look for evidence on my flow to justify my RFD. If it's not there, I can't use it.

My evaluation of the round starts with the weighing mechanism/framework best defended, and I go from there. Having better impacts (qualitatively and/or quantitatively) via that mech or f/w will earn my ballot.

Well-developed arguments can trump blipped taglines without (or with little) analysis/warrants, even if those outnumber developed arguments.

Relatively quick delivery is usually fine; be clear, well-organized, and structured. Slow down a bit, though, if your position (procedural or otherwise) is theoretically or philosophically dense, or if the scenario(s) is(are) complex. Don't assume I've heard your position (or about it) before the round. (Most of my judging this year has been local/regional.)

I'm not a fan of dump and punt strategies.

I look to rebuttals to synthesize the round, especially dense ones. Slow down a bit, make smart issue selection choices, and write my ballot.

Bottom line: make my decision easy with as little intervention from me as possible.

In particular:

Critiques (Ks): I love well-developed and defended critical positions. Argue what you want; I won't intervene (that is, make arguments for the other side or dismiss an argument out of hand). From my perspective, a well-developed and defended framework, clear links to case or res, relevant implications, and a stable, viable alternative constitute the most effective critical positions.

You should know that I get grumpy when a critical or procedural argument based on “language constitutes reality" warrants is cavalierly kicked in favor of a games-paradigm strategy. I'm all for games (love them, in fact), but if you want me engage to at a criticism level, it's best not to violate my trust in your intellectual honesty or the intent of your critical advocacy.

Procedurals: I love meta-debate about interpretation and meaning, and I generally default to seeing these arguments as ground division issues unless they're presented differently. I tend to default to demonstrated abuse rather than potential abuse with respect to ground loss unless arguments in the round effectively advocate otherwise. (Competing interps Ts also need to demonstrate ground loss. I still haven’t been convinced to vote for potential abuse.)

Counterplans: I don't think perms are advocacies, but tests of competition. Other than that, I don't have any preferences, theoretical or otherwise.

Ask if you have other questions!



Adam Key - Sam Houston State University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I tend to be both a tabula rasa and stock judge.  I will not intervene in the round if the argument is not made.  That being said, I love when points of order are used effectively.  If a new argument is made but the opposing side makes no point of order, the argument will be evaluated.  On propositions of policy, stock issues are veyr important.  Overall, I appreciate those who work line-by-line, but don't lost sight of the big picture.  Finally, I believe debate is first and foremost about persuasion, so persuade me.



Matthew Swanson - San Diego State University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Matthew Swanson

San Diego State University

Judging philosophy

 

Personal Overview:

I am a 2nd year GTA for SDSU.  I earned about 3 AAs while in my CC that I never applied for.  I did my BA in Communication with an emphasis in Social Change and Rhetoric at CSU Los Angeles.  My MA will also be in Communication studies.  I am currently applying to doctoral programs in Communication and Forensics related positions.  I like long walks on the beach and candle lit dinners, actually I don’t really like the beach.

 

Debate Background:

I did IEs and debate in high school and college.  I competed for about 3.5 years in high school in everything from congress (2 tournaments, not by choice) to policy.  I also did various IEs that I do not remember.  In college I competed off and on for 4 years in LD (which as far as I am concerned is 1-v-1 policy), parli, and platforms/limited prep events.

 

Judging:

I see my position as a critic in most debates as a “super” policy maker.  I am the USFG, UN, NATO, etc. - or some kind of heavenly body that can make decisions on their behalf.  When I sign my ballot I am putting into action the plan, a competitive counter advocacy, or sticking with the sqo.

 

Delivery:

I am a bit hard of hearing, a lot of rock music in my past, so I need you to speak up.  I can flow higher rates of delivery with little to no problem as long as you are clear.  I do not care if you stand or sit, thank me or your opponents, or wear a suit.  The debate should focus on the clash of ideas, not other things.

 

Points of order/information:

Please call points of order because I will not do it for you.  They are a tool of strategy as well as a check on the other team.  Each speech should take (at least) a question and actually try to answer it…

Each person should take a question in my opinion, but I am open to arguments that would indicate otherwise.

 

Theory:

I only vote on articulated abuse in 99% of debates.  The 1% is when the aff just is not topical (ie. the res says to increase relations with China and the aff wants to do shrooms and dance in the German forrests).  The aff must be topical.  I do need a clear interpretation for any theory argument.  The standards need to be leveraged as reasons to prefer the interpretation.  The voters should be impacted out; I do not know what you mean when blipping fairness and education.  RVIs are lame – end of story. 

 

Counter Plans:

I feel that all CPs are conditional unless the neg says otherwise.  I think condo is fine, obviously, but I am still open to arguments to the contrary; I also can be swayed by pics good/bad.  I am sure you have a different idea of what I think dispo is so I would appreciate it if you could tell me what you think it means in your speech.  I love a good plan vs cp argument.  Perms should have a text and some explanation of what the permutation world would look like.  Do not just say intrin/sev bad, I will not vote for that, explain why they are bad, too please. 


K:

I love the K, that means I like to see it run well.  If you feel you need a FW then make sure it makes sense.  You need to have a clear role of the ballot, explanation of your weighing mechanism, and static interpretation.  I know this is going to be put in your prioritization of (x) impact is more important that (y) impact, but you need to warrant that discussion.  Not doing so will result in me going for the other teams weighing mechanism if it is warranted.  The alternative should survive the tests from the other team via perms, solvency take outs etc.


New Arguments:

I do not like new sheets in the block unless they are absolutely germane to the debate.  Running the 1ac to bait the k in the mg is lame.  Running 3-5 procedurals in the MG is lame.  Debates are supposed to get smaller, not larger.  Defensive arguments are fine, but new offensive sheets are probably where I draw the line.  There are no backside rebuttals so I have problems with this strat.  I have gotten rid of most of my biases over time judging, but this is one I do not like.

 

Impacts:

You should be giving me terminalized impacts.  The economy gets worse is not an impact.  A numerical count of people dying is an impact. Qualitative impacts should be explained in comparison to quantitative impacts.

These should be a comparison of timeframe, magnitude, and probability - however you have decided that they matter.  This does not mean you take your argument and talk about it, it means you compare it to the other teams. 

 

Topic Specific Remarks:

I do not understand how the economy works.  I am getting better, but I need to sit in on some econ 1a classes.  If you run econ arguments you will need to explain what your market index reports are and what they mean.  I would also appreciate explanation any kind of IL story that uses economic theory besides Keynesian economics, but even that I do not know much about.  I used to read cards that explained it for me, but I never really paid attention to them.

Science, I am a communication major not a bio-chemist, if you are going to talk about science explain things. 

I never really ran Politics, I “read” it once or twice, but I do not keep up on it.  You will need to explain your warrants for the uniqueness.  I will understand your w/w w/l/ l/w l/l arguments, but you need to heavily warrant them.


I like each of these arguments to some extent, but they are not my favorites – hence I do not keep up on them.

If there are topic areas for a tournament do not assume that I have done the research for the tournament, I keep an eye on them but do not research topic areas anymore.

 

Clarity:

You need to clearly make your arguments, do not shroud them in secrecy and then surprise me later.  I probably will not get the surprise.  You need to clearly make your arguments or I will not vote for you.  This means if you tell me to ride the wave on the K and do not explain that I probably will not vote for you.  If you say endorse the NCAA-NCFIA for the CP and do not explain it, I will not vote for it because I do not know what it is.  Just explain things clearly.  I am generally smart enough to figure it out, but do not think I will understand it because you do.

 



Melan Jaich - Santa Clara University

Saved Philosophy:

I can flow.  I've coached debate since 1975.  I believe all Parli topics are policy or pre-policy.  I'm not interested in meaningless framework arguments that only serve to confuse your opposition.  I'm not sure what the LOR speech is for if the Opp cannot split the block. I will punish the team that uses Points of Order just to interrupt without cause.  I enjoy Parllamentary debate but I basically always see the ballot as a policy decision.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Coached since 1975 on the collegiate and high school level after doing policy in college and high school.  No preferences on style or what you do in a round. I can flow and don't have a problem with speed.  I'm open to exotic strategies and kritiks but don't care for over-claimed generic arguments that seem to be popular in NPDA Parli. I have and do vote on T occasionally.  Not sure what the LOR is for but I'm sure somebody in NPDA must know.  Don't make points of order just for fun; I can tell. 



Kevin Calderwood - Southern Illinois University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Kevin Calderwood

Southern Illinois University

Quick Notes:

---I prefer policy arguments. 

---You must take at least one question in every constructive.

---All advocacies in the debate are unconditional.

---All texts should be written down for the other team and repeated at least once.

---Framework is never a voting issue; it's a lens to view the rest of the debate.

---Topicality is always a voting issue, and is never genocide.  Spec arguments are never voting issues.  Permutations are tests of competition.

---Last year I voted negative more times than affirmative. 

---I will err affirmative on most questions of counterplan theory (delay, consult, conditions, normal means, textual competition etc.).  Ask, and I am sure I can clarify this for you.

---Although I do not have a predisposition towards these arguments in debate, I find that capitalism is typically the best and most fair economic system, and that the forward deployment of American troops and the robust nature of American internationalism generally make the world a better place.

 

Background:

I have participated in competitive debate for the last eleven years.  I have judged hundreds of debates in almost every format.  However, my approach to judging parliamentary debates is quite different,  based mainly on structural differences.  

As an undergraduate I studied international relations, and would classify myself as a hegemonist.   I study rhetoric, with a focus on environmental communication.  I have written most of my term papers dealing with the environmental justice movement, climate change rhetoric, democratic social movements, and Monsanto’s crisis communication strategies

I will default to judging the round as a policymaker, and I generally prefer these debates to critical ones.  However,  the best debates happen when debaters argue what they are best at.  If this means you are awesome at performance, then you are more likely to win than if you stumble through a CP/DA debate.  

Working hard is the easiest way to win in front of me.  This means working hard in your preparation before the tournament and during the debate.  I expect you to be well read in the arguments you are running.  Lazy debaters are more often than not those that intentionally obfuscate the debate to confuse their opponents.  I reward hard work, and it’s really not difficult to identify those that work hard.

I use should a lot in my paradigm.  This is a list of my preconceived notions, intended to help guide you in winning my ballot.   All of these considerations are how I think debate ought be, not what it is, so, they are obviously up for discussion.

 

Offense/defense: Defense is the most underutilized tool in debate.  However, I still believe that the uniqueness controls the direction of offense in nearly every instance.  This does not mean that you cannot nullify the disadvantage or reduce its risk with effective defense, but I do not believe that you will win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate.  There are two scenarios where I think you can win an offensive impact if you are behind on the uniqueness debate: (1) The impact to the disadvantage is systemic.  Poverty exists in the United States.  If you win that the plan increases the economy and decreases poverty, then this is a tangible, offensive impact.  (2) If you add a systemic impact as a part of your link turns.  If you lose the uniqueness debate on helping the economy where the impact is nuclear war, you will not win offense.  However, if you contextualize your link turn with an argument that any increase in the economy helps reduce poverty, then you can theoretically make the link turn an offensive argument.  Argument comparison is necessary in all debates, but I cannot stress how important they are in nuanced debates like I just described.

 

Framework: I find these debates boring and overly dogmatic.  Framework is a lens to view the rest of the debate; a filter for the judge to determine which impacts should come first and what their role is as a critic.  Framework, by itself, is never a voting issue.  It consists of three parts: (1) an interpretation of what your framework is; (2) what the role of the judge is (i.e. policy maker, intellectual, etc.), and (3) competing modes of impact calculus (i.e. utilitarianism, methodology, ontology, etc).   Debates are not won or lost on framework.  If you lose the framework debate, but win that the plan breaks down capitalism (link turn), or that capitalism is good (impact turn), you will still win the debate.  I find arguments like “fiat does not exist” quite sophomoric.  Most arguments placed in framework are really just hidden link/impact/alternative arguments that have no place in the framework debate.  Losing one framework argument most likely will not lose you the debate.  In fact, it is not necessary to have your own framework or even answer the other team’s framework to win.  Overall, I generally dislike “clash of civilization debates”, and prefer debates on the more substantive aspects of the criticism. 

 

Critiques: I voted negative on the critique last year quite a bit.  I am much more versed in critical theory now, but if your argument is something you do not think I would be familiar with, take care, slow down, and be sure to explain everything a little bit better.  I have found it much easier to understand things the first time I hear them as a judge, but it’s still an important consideration.  I am not in the “alternative doesn’t matter” camp.  Having a real world alternative is important, especially if you do not win framework arguments regarding language and discourse.  If you win those types of framework arguments, then alternatives that rethink/reconceptualize/problematize the status quo are more persuasive.  Critique debates are more likely won by isolating that the critique impacts/alternative solve the root cause of the affirmative impacts as opposed to winning a silly framework argument that unfairly seeks to exclude the other team.  

 

Counterplans: A counterplan or good case arguments are necessary to win.  Counterplans should be unconditional.  You should write a copy of the counterplan text for the other team.  You should take a question about the text of your counterplan.  Your counterplan should probably not mess with fiat (delay, veto/cheato, consult, etc.)  I believe I will generally err affirmative on counterplan theory in parliamentary debate (this is different than policy debate where the affirmative has more pre-round prep time, in-round prep time, and a literature base that limits down the number of predictable counterplans).   With that said, I am very much in the textual competition camp, largely concerning issues of fairness.  Case specific/topic specific counterplans are more effective, but I certainly understand the utility of agent/actor counterplans. 

 

Permutations: A legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan.  Intrinsic and severance permutations are bad unless you win their legitimacy through a lens of textual competition.  Permutations should never be advocacies.  Multiple permutations are fine because there are a finite combination of legitimate permutations.

 

Disadvantages: This section will focus mostly on politics because I do not have issues with any other disadvantages (that I know of).  Politics is generally boring and not well researched.  Links that are based on the process of the plan (i.e. focus, delay, using political capital) make no sense since fiat assumes the plan happens immediately.  Links based on the outcome of the plan (i.e. popularity, backlash, gaining political capital) are legitimate.  Defense is very important against politics disadvantages since they most likely contain small risk/high magnitude impacts.   Disadvantages alone are unlikely enough to win a debate, but those that both turn and outweigh the affirmative case are preferable. 

 

Theory: All theory positions should have a stable interpretation, violation, reasons to prefer, and voting issues.  I find most theory in parliamentary debate to be behind the times (no negative fiat, permutations should be advocacies, etc).  If it has an interpretation/is an advocacy you should read it more than once to ensure that I have it written down.  I will not vote on a speed criticism except in the event that you are markedly better than your opponents and are using it as a tool of exclusion as opposed to a strategic tool.  Reverse voting issues are for lazy debaters.

 

Topicality: This argument is probably not genocide.  It should be a voting issue.  I will judge this debate either through an evaluation of the standards debate or through a lens of reasonability.  Your interpretation should be grounded in a definition from the literature (or a dictionary) and should not be just an “interpretation” of the topic, like “back down = must be the WTO”.

 

Specification: These debates are better conducted through a discussion of what normal means is.  Instead of defaulting to lazy debate by simply “out teching” another team on theory, you should engage in a substantive debate about what the most likely normal means mechanism of the plan is.  This is what we call a link.  I will vote on these arguments, but if you look at any policy backfiles and memorize those answers I do not see myself voting on these ridiculous arguments.

 

Speaker Points: I will give you between a 25-30, unless you say/do offensive things (i.e. racist/sexist/homophobic, etc. language).  I start at a 27.5 and work my way from there.  My average was somewhere right around a 27.8 for the year.

As a final note, I really hate cheap shots.  I also dislike having to decide debates on dropped arguments.  Most parliamentary debates are won or lost on the technical aspect instead of the substantive aspect.  I think this is unhealthy for the activity as a whole, and I will reward debaters who are willing to engage in the debate at hand instead of cowardly sidestepping in favor of a cheap shot.  I can’t stand “knocking” and find it completely disruptive.   

Have fun, respect your opponents, and work hard.



Thomas McCloskey - Southwestern College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Section 1: General Information

 

I am looking for the easier possible “out” I can find in the round. Usually that's a dropped argument somewhere that gets extended/weighed well. To that end, I really enjoy speed and critical arguments because they tend to facilitate someone making a mistake that I can easily vote on. The best way to get my ballot it to not drop anything and weigh arguments well. Also, I've noticed that the teams who do the most work on positions tend to win those positions. Groundbreaking, I know. What this means is that I tend to reward teams that prepare and are smart. Also, show up to your rounds on time—I will enforce any tournament-forfit rule applicable.

 

 

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.

 

26-30. Tim West, I am not. :-)

 

  1. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

 

I love critical arguments! Critical affs are fine...I mean, come on—I coached at Long Beach! Everything else is negotiated in the debate. That means that if somone makes an argument like, “whhhhaaaa? You ran a K AND Spec position? You can't do that for offensive reasons X,Y,Z, etc....I will listen to it (and any turns put on it) accordingly. Also, I think a K alt should probably be more than “reject them/vote for us,” but I recognize that I'm probably in the minority on this one.

 

  1. Performance based arguments…

 

I haven't seen any performance arguments, though they sound fun!  Again, it's all negotiated by the debaters in the round.

 

  1. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

 

Here's the deal with T—I think to win on T, you need to win one interpretation, one violation, one standard, and one voter. Think of it as links in a chain—without any one of them, it doesn't work. That said, beyond that, I tend to have a fairly low threshold for procedural arguments (and, for that matter, theory arguments in general) because if someone tells me an argument comes before every other argument in the round, I believe them and will vote accordingly until someone argues otherwise. BTW, the same is true for RVI's. No one puts enough offense on T in the MG for reasons passing understanding. Here's my impression of 90% of debates I've judged this year:

 

PMC: Blah Blah Blah, case that won't actually matter.

LOC: Fairly crappy T, Spec, Case turns, DA, DA, maybe CP

MGC: Lots of answers and time (but only one  or two pieces of offense) on T/Spec, undercovered DA2/CP theory.

MOC: Woohoo, they messed up! Extend the we-meet on the procedurals/answer the offense there, collapse to the DA they undercovered and beat the hell out of them.

LOR: Weigh like it's my job (oh wait, it is).

PMR:I ummm....LOOK, a BEAR! (runs out of room sobbing)

 

All of this can be prevented with a little more offense on procedurals. Try it, I think you'll like it.

 

  1. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

 

The only thing I love more than K debates are CP debates. PICs are awesome and Opp should probably give everyone a heads-up on the status of their CP, buuuutttt, this is all negotiated by the debaters. Text comp is fine, I guess...same for functional competition. However, don't assume that because this is how I personally view debate that you can just say the tag line and move on without doing the work, thinking that I'll fill in the blanks for you. Intervention makes me mad, so I won't do it.

 

  1. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

 

Why on earth would anyone have a problem with this?

 

 

  1. 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?)?

 

Dear God, don't let it come to this. However, in the event that no one does any weighing or impact-calculus for me, this is my default ranking/prioritization:

 

1--Critical arguments, because they (hopefully) have out of round implications.

2—Procedural arguments, because they are “gateway issues,” or so I've been repeatedly told.

3—Whoever has the biggest piece of offense in the round. I think a smaller chance of a bigger impact beats a larger chance of a smaller impact any day.

4—Attire. Just kidding.

 

 

  1.  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")?

 

Ummm...again, please don't let it come to this. A very easy way to get my ballot is to pick 1-2 arguments and go for them (i.e. weigh the living daylights out of them) in the rebuttal. Don't make me wade into the muck that is a round with 15 pieces of paper. Tell me which one you're winning and why it matters more than the stuff they're winning, but please, don't go for everything! That said, I think dehumanization outweighs death, and lots of death outweighs less death, and death outweighs everything else. Again, though—this should hopefully get sorted out by the bright law students of tomorrow in front of me.

 



Eric Maag - Southwestern College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Eric Maag Judging Philosophy

 

I have been involved with debate for about 11 years now as a competitor and a coach/judge.  I have mostly been a policy debate person but have some experience in Parlimentary debate as well. 

 

Mostly I try to be a tabula rasa judge who lets the debaters decide all of the framework and voting calculus arguments.  I will do my best to only vote on the debate as it happens and will avoid intervention unless one of those rare debates occur where neither team really wins. 

 

I have a pretty good flow and can handle speed but am open to alternative debate styles.  I enjoy Critical arguments and da/cp strategies much more than I like procedurals however I will vote on them based on the debate that takes place.  I like technical debates as long as teams are organized and clear and I evaluate reasoning and logic every bit as much as dropped arguments and line by line debate. 

 

Overall I have been around long enough to have seen or heard most of the debate arguments around and am up to speed on most debate theory as long as it is explained. 

 

 



Jordan Mills - Southwestern College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Jordan Mills Judging Philosophy

 

Although I have judged a few dozen parli rounds in the last few years I am mostly a CEDA/NDT coach/judge. I try to stay out of things as much as possible. I might not be familiar with your theory arguments and jargon. But I take a pretty good flow, so if you explain yourselves you should be ok.  I might be predisposed to vote against teams that go for only defense in the final rebuttal.

 

 

 



Anantanand Rambachan - St. Olaf College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Debate Philosophy

Anant Rambachan

 

 I am a liberal arts college professor teaching in the departments of Religion, Philosophy, and Asian Studies for over 25 years. I have judged high school debate in Minnesota for over 10 years (classic debate, Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum) and serve as one of the advisors to the St. Olaf debate team. My approach to debate is influenced significantly by my liberal arts teaching which aims to develop critical thinking skills in my students. I value, above all else, a debater’s ability to identify the substantial issues connected with any topic and to offer reasonable arguments supported with credible evidence. I value also fair representation of the opponent’s views and thoughtful criticism and relevant refutation.

 

In evaluating a debate, I find it very helpful to be offered a well-organized case in which major and minor arguments are highlighted.  Similarly, a good refutation proceeds in a systematic manner to address the opponent’s case with precision and clarity (i.e. on-case is as relatively important as off-case). It will help your case when good organization is supported by fluency and strength in delivery. Content always trumps delivery, but the latter does count.  Rapid-fire speaking does not impress me. I do not think that there is anything inherently virtuous in a speaking style that makes it difficult for an opponent or a judge to properly grasp your arguments. Clarity and comprehension are more important than speed.

 

I am not impressed by verbal strategies in a debate that focus on problematizing the wording of a resolution or which seek to divert or distract from the issues of substance. Language is not perfect and the specific wording of any resolution may always be improved. This is no reason in debate to get stuck in querying the wording of a resolution as a way of avoiding the relevant issues.  I value a fair reading of any resolution and sincere efforts to engage the topic at hand. Debate is not word play; it is a serious inquiry into matters of concern for the public good. As far as the use of Kritiks and other policy strategies, if well implemented, I will consider them. Owing from my background as a philosophy and religion professor, I enjoy a good value/criterion debate as well.

 

It is also important to me that debaters exemplify respect for each other and are not rude, or impolite verbally or in body language and gestures.  You will win by the force and appeal of your arguments and not by demeaning your opposition.

 

I consider the judging of debate an honor and privilege. It is a common quest for truth and an invaluable training for civic leadership participation in a democratic society.  In listening to a debate, I imagine the same debate occurring in Congress and hope for high standards in content and presentation.  I treat it seriously and look to participants who likewise do.



Ken Troyer - Sterling College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

I have been involved with debate since the late 80s, both as a competitor and coach.  I participated in policy in high school and did 4 years of CEDA in the early 90s.  Since then, I coached high school policy for 12 years and have been coaching parli at Sterling College for the last 6.

I consider myself to be tabula rasa, however the limited time afforded in parli often precludes teams giving much attention to such a claim.  As a result, I have no problem going policymaker or stockissues as suggested by the nature of the round.  If no argumentation is made as to paradigm, I will default to policy maker.  However I prefer that the debaters provide a clear framework, limiting my need to intervene (as is typically the case when no framework is provided).  In other words give me a framework.

 

If you won't take questions during your speeches don't expect the favor to be returned.  If the point of the activity is education I fail to understand why teams might be unwilling to share knowledge.

It's always nice to have some degree of eye contact with participants, but that having been said, it is a non factor in terms of decision making.  So long as speed doens't preclude my ability to flow, I don't generally use presentation/communication as a factor in decision making.  Not that I mind anyone waxing poetic, but it probaly won't play a critical role in the round.    In terms of splitting the block or adding new arguments in the MG or MO, this seems a bit abusive, but if you think the opposition will allow it go for it.    Regarding time, it's parli not policy.  When you are up, you are up speaking, as there is no prep for a reason.  Same goes for running long, when time expires, so does my ability to flow.

Other information:

 

Speed: Becoming less and less a fan all the time.  I prefer quality over quantity.

DAs: Prefer a balance between uniqueness, links and impacts.  Big impacts don't overwhelm poor link and/or uniqueness analysis.

Counterplans: Open to most any approach in terms of CP/PIC, although I feel as though consult, delay, study CPs are a bit abusive, but such arguments must be articulated in round.  Not a big fan of conditional CP  if you run it  you go for it.

Kritiks: No problem with most Ks - but please do not assume we all share the same knowledge base - dropping a name and limited analysis is not enough.  Be sure to need to present justification for any position they take.  However, I stress the importance of an alternative (other than reject).  I prefer to vote for something, not simply against.  Consider running a CP that doesn't bite the K.

T and Theory Arguments: T is a strategic option, to be decided in round.  I have no personal beef with T or any positions connected (effects/extra/spec/vagueness), hence, whether I feel it is justified or not is relevant.    No matter what variety of T you prefer to run, I encourage teams to specify the abuse, show me (even physically) what you prepared pre round that has been lost due to Gov interp.  Overall, not a huge fan of procedurals.



Emily Graham - Sterling College

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, # of rounds judged, etc)

Cross Ex Debater for 4 years in High School

Competed in Parli for 4 years at Sterling College

Judged 1 college tournament since graduating


Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)

Tabula rasa – it’s your debate round, not mine, tell me where to vote. I have arguments that I am partial to, but if you provide superior argumentation (warrants, logic, examples, internal links), you’re going to win the round, even if I disagree with you.


Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making

Great presentations are fun to listen to, but if you are a pretty voice/person with nothing to say it won’t matter. Communication skills (for me) will always outweigh – get your message across clearly, don’t rely on me to do any arguing or summarizing arguments for you because you never know what I’ll end up thinking/doing.

 

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making

The Gov sets the round with their case, so I hope whatever arguments the Opp decides to make relate to it somehow. As far as on-case, I won’t punish you if you don’t run any because it’s your decision what to do in the round. Whatever strategy works for you is cool with me. I flow everything.


Other information:

I love flowing – I’m hyper organized on my flow and I like it when the debaters are too so I don’t have to waste any time cleaning it up on my paper. If you can tell me where to flow things you’ll make my life easier and your arguments won’t get lost. If you have any specific questions, please ask.



Rob Layne - Texas Tech University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

My last judging philosophy was outdated (having it for six years will do that). I thought I would make it easier for debaters to decide if I would be a “good” judge for them, by you investigating your own debate practices to see if you were a good match for me. These are all “yes” and “no” questions. Try to answer them honestly. 1. Do you typically compare warrants between contrasting arguments? 2. Do you frequently compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” etc.? 3. Do you know what a warrant is and use them in all of your arguments? 4. Do you run permutations with a text and an explanation as to what the perm means? 5. Do you use internal and external structure such as Subpoint A, 1. a. i., instead of saying next or stringing arguments together without breaks? 6. Are you typically cordial to other debaters in round, instead of being mean or spikey? 7. Do you prefer critics who take a careful flow? 8. Do you listen to other debaters asking you to slow down to prevent them from being excluded from the debate? 9. Do you enjoy creative argument that allows me to choose a winner at the end of the debate round? 10. If you run a procedural argument, is there typically articulated ground loss? 11. Do you refrain from calling points of order superfluously, understanding that I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals? 12. Do you have an alternative to your criticism or at least an explanation as to why you don’t need an alternative? 13. Are you on time for your rounds? 14. Do you typically compare standards if there are competing definitions? 15. Do you use terms like “we meet” in answering procedural arguments? 16. Do you frequently connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact with others being discussed in the debate round? 17. Is your delivery clear and understandable? 18. Do you typically kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments? 19. Do you understand the difference between offensive and defensive arguments? 20. Do you typically use more offensive than defensive arguments? 21. Do your PMRs’ answer key line by line items out of the Opp Block, while still illustrating the larger picture? 22. Do you normally avoid extending answer through ink and answer opposing arguments before making key extensions? 23. Do you extend arguments/case into the rebuttals via the member’s speeches? 24. Do you understand what a turn is and that not everything can be a turn? 25. Do you frequently have fun in debate rounds and try to use humor/persuasion to your advantage? If you answered “No” to 0-3 -- I’m probably a great judge for you. If you answered “No” to 4-7 --You’ll probably get lower speaker points from me, but there’s a good chance you might get picked up. If you answered “No” to 8-9 – You’ll have significantly lower speaker points, and a smaller chance that I’ll vote for you. If you answered “No” to 10-25 – I’m likely a terrible critic for you. Other little tidbits: 1. I have a low threshold for voting on procedural arguments. People do wanky stuff. If you can prove they shouldn’t be doing said wankiness and explain why I should vote against them, I’ll listen. 2. You don’t have to avoid certain types of arguments in front of me. I’ll listen to critiques, “fact” cases, ptx, topical counterplans, justification args, inherency positions, value affirmatives, etc. Just be ready to justify whatever you decide to do. 3. Give me pen time. People somehow think that a single sentence is suddenly an argument. It might be a good start but it rarely is enough. If that single sentence is an amazing turn/terminally defensive answer/etc, then give me enough pen time to get it down. I don’t tend to gut check my flow. If it’s not on my flow, it didn’t happen. I don’t tend to stop writing, so give me some pen time.



Kathryn Starkey - Texas Tech University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Judging Philosophy: Kathryn Starkey

 

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.

I debated at the University of Wyoming from 2006-2011, and I am currently coaching at Texas Tech University. As a debater, I tended to read policy-oriented arguments with the occasional cap-bad or constructivism K thrown into the mix. Debate is a game; be strategic. This is one of the most incredible educational activities out there. Treat it as such.

 

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Please describe your approach to the following.

 

1. 1. Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given.

So far my range tends to fall in the 26-30 category. I haven’t yet given a 30, but that’s not to say it isn’t possible for an incredible speech. Things to help your speaker points: strategy, intelligence, and wit. Adjustments will occur when debaters are inappropriate in round. Please be civil! I know that debates can become intense, but your speaker points will also be a reflection of your ability to treat your opponents with respect.

 

1. 2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions? 

I have voted k’s for them since I have stopped competing, but a word of caution: I am probably not as well versed in the literature as you. This being said, if you run a K in front of me, make sure to thoroughly explain your argument. Several unwarranted tags coupled with name-dropping authors isn’t going to be as persuasive as a thorough explanation of the thesis of the K. The alternative must be able to solve the mpx of the K, which make both the alt text and the solvency contention pretty important in my book. I’m not a fan of using the K to exclude the aff. It makes the discussion solely about the K, which I think takes away from the merit of parli. Despite this, it’s your debate.

The aff can run critical arguments, but there is a way to do so and be topical at the same time. The resolution exists for a reason.

As for contradictory arguments, it probably depends on your ability to defend conditionality as a beneficial thing in parli. I’m down with conditional arguments, but demonstrating why you are not abusive to the other team can be difficult and is your burden to fulfill. This also probably means you need to have a coherent strategy going into the block to deter possible abuse if you are going to run critical arguments that contradict other facets of the negative strategy.

 

1. 3. Performance based arguments…

Not a fan….. I’ll vote for whatever you tell me to vote for in a round, but I’m not going to enjoy listening to a performance if read in front of me. I’d like to enjoy what I listen to. J

 

1. 4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations? 

For the aff, you should probably be topical. Aside from this, I love T debates as long as they aren’t the generic, stock T debate that gets rehashed every round. Nuanced and educational ways to interpret the resolution tend to spur interesting debates, at least in my opinion. I’d prefer to have in-round abuse, but it’s not necessary. Without a specific weighing mechanism, I’ll default to competing interpretations.

To vote on T, it clearly needs an interp, standards and a voter. In a paradigm of competing interpretations, there must be a net-benefit to one interpretation that the other fails to capture. I don’t see T as a win-all for the Aff. I don’t think I’d vote for an RVI on T.

 

1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

With a substantial net-benefit, PICS are great. I welcome the theoretical level of the counterplan debate as well. That being said, it would be difficult to persuade me that arguments like PICS bad or PICS good are more than a way for me to view the round. I.e. Voting for the arg: PICS are bad, which means they lose. If a solid abuse story is established, I can probably be persuaded otherwise.

I also think the neg should state the status of the counterplan in the LOC. It forces the theory debate to begin later in the debate, making it difficult to evaluate the end of a debate in which the PMR goes for that theory. Why hide your status? If you’re going to read a counterplan, be ready to defend it.

Counterplans need to be functionally competitive, or there seems to be no point in running one. It must have a NB that the aff cannot solve. As for textual competition, I’m impartial. It probably helps to prove the competition of your counterplan, but it doesn’t seem as necessary to me, though I can be persuaded otherwise. Perms are tests of competition; they are not advocacies. If a counterplan is non-competitive, then it goes away, leaving the rest of the debate.

 

1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

Impartial. It’s probably in your best interest to make sure you flowed an argument as the other team stated it, but it’s up to you. Sharing texts is probably a good idea as well. I also don’t care if you ask the other team something during a speech (this isn’t a POI – it’s the other communication that occurs) as long as I can still hear who’s speaking. It seems to be a trend that’s picking up. Doesn’t bother me.

 

1. 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?)?

As a disclaimer: this is your job, not mine. Please do this for me. Procedurals come first, then usually other theoretical objections, impacts. It all still depends what kinds of arguments are in the round.

 

1. 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 would honestly prefer to NEVER have to do this, so please don’t make me have to do so! A thought, though: Extinction>dehume

 

Other Random thoughts J

-          I LOVE disads. Politics is probably my least favorite.

-          Please read texts and interpretations more than once. If you want it down word for word, please repeat it for me!

-          Speed is fine as long as it isn’t used as a tool of exclusion

-          POI’s: I’d like you to take one per constructive speech. Clarification on texts, especially, is sometimes necessary for a coherent strategy.

-          Spec positions are awful. I understand their utility to guarantee a strategy, but they’re not very convincing in front of me if you go for it.

-          Overviews are good; you should use them.

-          Please make sure to compare positions and give impact calculus throughout the rebuttals.

-          I’ll protect against new arguments in rebuttals. You should still call points of order in the event I may have missed something.

-          Any questions, please feel free to ask. I love this activity, and I love to talk about it.



Tiffany Dykstra - Texas Tech University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I consider myself more tabularasa than anything. I will vote on what you tell me is important, as
long as there is reasonable and sufficient justification. I will revert to policy making if no alternative
framework is defended. I like to vote for the most net beneficial positions.

Affirmatives must have a cohesive and complete case. I will listen to critical affirmatives. I enjoy
intelligent case debates.

I think counterplans are very strategic, as long as they are competitive. I will not vote for a non-
competitive counterplan and I will listen to arguments about why topical counterplans are illegitimate.

I am open to critical debate, however I will not vote for a critique without an alternative. I prefer
pragmatic alternatives.

Topicality and abuse arguments must be able to prove in round abuse. I will most likely not vote on
potential for abuse. I typically don't vote for RVI's.



Aly Fiebrantz - Texas Tech University

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Experience: HS/College policy & College parli mainly at Washburn.

General: Read whatever arguments you would like to read that you think are best appropriate for that round. I will not wholesale discount or credit arguments at face value. (Hint: just because I read K’s doesn’t mean I will wholesale vote for a K if it was read poorly, same goes for specifics like Fem debate) I also think people should be nice to each other. Debates should be civil. Debate is a game. You should play that game and treat it as such.

T/Theory: I think there is a place for theory in debates. I will most likely default to A Priori/competing interpretations unless told otherwise. I generally do not believe you need in round abuse to justify your theory position. I do generally believe that it is difficult to win a theory position unless you go all in on it. I’ll be honest as a new judge I am not sure what I do with MG theory that is gone for in the PMR, I haven’t experienced much of that so proceed with caution.

Disads: They exist? They’re your friend? Disads should probably have specific uniqueness, and a clear internal link to your impact. I am more likely to privilege specific impact scenarios over the general we’re all going to die because of extinction. Who fires on who and why are good questions to answer in your impacts. I am less likely to vote on defense on disadvantages unless it is coupled with offense somewhere else on the flow. Whatever the disad may be I don’t particularly care.

Counterplans: Counterplans status should be specified only if asked by the gov team otherwise I do not care. I do not have a personal stake in conditionality versus unconditionally. I think that is all up for debate, nor do I think it’s my place to tell you how to run your arguments. Specifics of the counterplan debate are open to interpretation and I do not have any specific bias against any type of counterplan. I generally feel that counterplan theory is reject the arg not the team, unless the MG argues otherwise.

Ks: Yes I read Ks. Does this mean you should read Ks in front of me and get an automatic win? No it does not. Like I said before do what you do. (get the hint yet?) Ks are valid strategies. I do not believe framework is necessary in most Ks that are read, but if you like framework you should read it. I am willing to listen to responses to Ks being hard right or hard left I don’t particularly care. However, I would be hard pressed to vote on Alt Vagueness or Vagueness positions in general. I do not think you need anything other than a rejection alternative but am open to hearing those debates with different alternatives. Explaining how Ks function in relation to the aff is important.

You should generally provide copies of Plans/CPs/Alt Texts to the other team upon request. But also re read them for me.

Underview: I like smart, specific arguments (but who doesn’t?) Case arguments are your friend. I think the LORs function is to explain the impacts/arguments of the Opp in relation to the Gov. You should call point of orders I think they’re part of the game. If you have any other questions If you are clearly winning an argument you do not need to take up all of your speaking time, in fact sitting down early gets your higher speaker points. I am open to a conversation just come ask!



Jerry Mooney - The College of Idaho

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

My judging philosophy is this: I think it is important that the competitors determine the round.  I don’t want to determine the value of arguments, the speed or style the debaters choose.   What I want is for  the debaters to realize they are in charge of defining the debate.  But, it’s a matter of the debaters to win the framework that I will be judging the arguments from.  So, in a way, I try to be tabula rasa.  However, I know it’s naïve to call myself a Tab judge, because I don’t come into the round completely blank.  For example, you would have a very, very difficult time convincing me that rape is good.  That being said, I can buy into (at least during the round), what seem to be counter-intuitive arguments.  I will vote on procedurals, but just like any argument, they have to be run well and won in order for me to vote on them.  Hearing that I’m a Topicality judge (from competitors) is maddening.  Don’t use the fact that I will vote on T, and appreciate a good T argument to run it when you’re bad at it or when you have no clue as to the violation.  I believe that discussing language is as important as discussing frameworks or comparing disadvantages.  Same goes for Ks.  I really appreciate clever strategy and execution in the round.  I don’t see any reason for the round to be rude.  Debate actually can be fun.  As a judge I like it, of course, when one team dominates the round so the decision can be easily made, but that isn’t always the case.  Usually both teams think they won and I will work very diligently to reward the team that won with the ballot.  Again, going in I try not to bring a lot of preconceived ideas into the round, but if you’re going to run zombie apocalypse will result from the aff case, at least have a compelling internal link story that gets me to this fantasy.  I flow.  I competed at a high level and I have coached national circuit high schools competitors as well as successful CEDA and now parli debaters.  I’m not interested in flowery speechs but I’m not interested in a race to the bottom either.  You probably know my teams run a lot of Ks.  I like K debate, but I think a good straight up debate is great too.  Although, I do really like a discussion of the essences of our problems over band-aid solutions, but this will not determine my ballot.  I tend to punish competitors that mischaracterize a position.  For example, if you interpret eco-fem as  binary fem or matriarchy your words will suffer resistance into my ears.



Julian Plaza - The Colorado College

Saved Philosophy:

Julian Plaza - The Colorado College

Question 1 : Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, # of rounds judged, etc)

I debated CX Policy debate for three years in Colorado. I debated NPDA Parli for Colorado College for three years and was in outrounds at NPDA Nationals and the NPTE both years I attended each tournament. I have held the position of Director of Forensics and Debate at Colorado College since 2011. I have been competing, judging, and coaching competitive debate since 2003.

 

General: Debate is a game of competing advocacies and frameworks. One wins this game, in my book, if one gives clearly articulated reasons and examples as to why their framework is good/legitimate, and why voting in that framework necessitates a vote for the advocacy itself. This game is won primarily through the record of arguments extended and made, the flow. I only take into consideration arguments extended throughout the round. For example, if a team drops uniqueness and the other team argues against it and does not extend their arguement throughout the round, I will consider it a non-issue. Similarly, I don't give grace periods at the end of speeches, once the clock stops my pen drops. Speech times in parlimentary debate seem to be the only concrete rules for debate, and I treat them as such.
 
Specifics:
1- Speaker points: I regret to admit that I don't know any clear criterion by which allocate speaker points. That aside, I typically give speaker points above 26, unless something offends me. Don't be racist, don't be sexist, etc. I give higher speaker points to debaters who make quality arguments (ex: a concise and clear claim with well warranted and analyzed empirics to back it up). Arguments that simply make a claim and assert its connection to a well known historical event will NOT win a debater high speaker points.
 
2- The K: As a philosophy major, I tend to enjoy critical debate, despite how often it bankrupts the ideas of geniuses. However, a successful kritik will have several key components. First, it will have an explanation of how the kritik views the world and the kritik itself. Second, the kritik must obviously link to the advocacy of the opposite team (ex: I will not listen to a Heidegger critique of technology on the internet). Third, it will have an efficacious alternative. I strongly oppose kritiks that don't have a prayer of solving the problems they isolate. I am strongly persuaded by oppositional arguments which take the format of procedural violations. I will vote for kritiks, but think that the format of parlimentary debate does not lend itself to quality critical positions.
 
3- Performance: I'll be honest, I understand performance debate very little. If a team is to attempt to win my ballot with a performance argument, they will need to explain it well.
 
4- Topicality: I believe that topicality is a game of competing interpretations. I think abuse is an impact of bad interpretations, which means simply claiming that another team unfair will NOT win my ballot. To vote on topicality I require a simple calculus: 1) Tell me why your interpretation is good for the debate round by using your standards as a measure; 2) Explain the warrants of your standards and why they are the best criterion to measure the aptitude of a given interpretation; 3) Explain why the interpretation and standards prove your interpretation is best, and why this justifies a vote for you position.
 
5- Counter Plans: As far as counter plan debate goes, I welcome any and every kind of counter plan. If a specific type of counter plan is abusive, it is up to the other team to establish what it is that is unfair and why it warrants removing that argument from the round. I typically like the condition of the counter plan to be read following the text. Again, if a condition is not immediately established, it is up to the other team to conjure up arguments why it's not cool to be remiss about the conditon of the counter plan. If I am to vote on a permutation, it must be competitive (textual competition is debateable), it must have a text, it must solve, and it must have unique reasons as to why it outweighs the case. I think that running perms "as a test" is generally a waste of time considering one can make arguments as to why a given counter plan is perhaps artificial in character.
 
6- Flow sharing: Obviously, don't start hijacking flows in-round, but I am a fan of teamwork. If you want to share flows, do it (within reason).
 
7- Argument scaling: In the absence of clearly won arguments, I evaluate based on the position of the argument along the trajectory of fiat. So, generally, kritiks and topicality/ procedural arguments will come first, because they claim pre-fiat status. These arguments are gates into the substance of the debate, and must be overcome in order for me to vote anywhere else on the flow. After, I will evaluate the plan vs. counter plan and disad debate. In this realm, I default to net-benefits in judging the terminal impacts of each position. I cannot stress the importance of scenarios. If there is not a specific scenario for your imact to occur in your imagination, then it's highly unlikely that your impact will hold up against a well warranted specific example/ narrative. I didn't know where to put my thoughts on conditional advocacies anywhere else but here, because I think the conditionality of advocacies absolutely effects the way I scale arguments. As a caveat, I think strategically runing multiple conditional advocacies in Parli puts one at a strategic disadvantage because of the number of new argument opportunities that this can generate for the PMR. Regardless of my personal views on the strat, I will always do my best to shield debaters from my own bias. If the strategy can be executed in a way that necessitates a vote for one or none of the conditional advocacies, I will. One last aspect, I think that runing pre-fiat and fiat-ed conditional advocacies together requires exceptional organization. So if you're planning on attempting this strategy and I'm in the back please, please, please be very organized and sig-post flawlessly. 
 
8- Impact Analysis: First, I can't stand dehumanization impacts. If something really is "dehumanizing," there are probably examples of it. Things like structural inequity create real problems, and I would rather hear about that. I have sat through too many rounds where some one simply asserts dehumanization and continues to repeat it, as if each time they do the image of famine babies becomes more real in my mind (it doesn't, it just makes the debater look more like a parakeet). Thus, absent a scenario, it is extremely unlikely that I will vote up a dehumanization impact. I will be honest that the lead up to the impact is as important as the impact itself to me. I like warrants and I like them specific. By the time a debater is done with the internal links, everyone in the room should have a good idea of what the impact is going to be. In the end, I will vote how the teams tell me to and will do as little work as possible to come to conclusions about the round. 




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

General: Debate is a game of competing advocacies and frameworks. One wins this game, in my book, if one gives clearly articulated reasons and examples as to why their framework is good/legitimate, and why voting in that framework necessitates a vote for the advocacy itself. This game is won primarily through the record of arguments extended and made, the flow. I only take into consideration arguments extended throughout the round. For example, if a team drops uniqueness and the other team argues against it and does not extend their arguement throughout the round, I will consider it a non-issue. Similarly, I don't give grace periods at the end of speeches, once the clock stops my pen drops. Speech times in parlimentary debate seem to be the only concrete rules for debate, and I treat them as such.

 

Specifics:

1- Speaker points: I regret to admit that I don't know any clear criterion by which allocate speaker points. That aside, I typically give speaker points above 26, unless something offends me. Don't be racist, don't be sexist, etc. I give higher speaker points to debaters who make quality arguments (ex: a concise and clear claim with well warranted and analyzed empirics to back it up). Arguments that simply make a claim and assert its connection to a well known historical event will NOT win a debater high speaker points.

 

2- The K: As a philosophy major, I tend to enjoy critical debate, despite how often it bankrupts the ideas of geniuses. However, a successful kritik will have several key components. First, it will have an explanation of how the kritik views the world and the kritik itself. Second, the kritik must obviously link to the advocacy of the opposite team (ex: I will not listen to a Heidegger critique of technology on the internet). Third, it will have an efficacious alternative. I strongly oppose kritiks that don't have a prayer of solving the problems they isolate. I am strongly persuaded by oppositional arguments which take the format of procedural violations. I will vote for kritiks, but think that the format of parlimentary debate does not lend itself to quality critical positions.

 

3- Performance: I'll be honest, I understand performance debate very little. If a team is to attempt to win my ballot with a performance argument, they will need to explain it well.

 

4- Topicality: I believe that topicality is a game of competing interpretations. I think abuse is an impact of bad interpretations, which means simply claiming that another team unfair will NOT win my ballot. To vote on topicality I require a simple calculus: 1) Tell me why your interpretation is good for the debate round bby using your standards as a measure; 2) Explain the warrants of your standards and why they are the best criterion to measure the aptitude of a given interpretation; 3) Explain why the interpretation and standards prove your interpretation is best, and why this justifies a vote for you position.

 

5- Counter Plans: As far as counter plan debate goes, I welcome any and every kind of counter plan. If a specific type of counter plan is abusive, it is up to the other team to establish what it is that is unfair and why it warrants removing that argument from the round. I typically like the condition of the counter plan to be read following the text. Again, if a condition is not immediately established, it is up to the other team to conjure up arguments why it's not cool to be remiss about the conditon of the counter plan. If I am to vote on a permutation, it must be competitive (textual competition is debateable), it must have a text, it must solve, and it must have unique reasons as to why it outweighs the case. I think that running perms "as a test" is generally a waste of time considering one can make arguments as to why a given counter plan is perhaps artificial in character.

 

6- Flow sharing: Obviously, don't start hijacking flows in-round, but I am a fan of teamwork. If you want to share flows, do it (within reason).

 

7- Argument scaling: In the absence of clearly won arguments, I evaluate based on the position of the argument along the trajectory of fiat. So, generally, kritiks and topicality/ procedural arguments will come first, because they claim pre-fiat status. These arguments are gates into the substance of the debate, and must be overcome in order for me to vote anywhere else on the flow. After, I will evaluate the plan vs. counter plan and disad debate. In this realm, I default to net-benefits in judging the terminal impacts of each position. I cannot stress the importance of scenarios. If there is not a specific scenario for your imact to occur in your imagination, then it's highly unlikely that your impact will hold up against a well warranted specific example/ narrative.

 

8- Impact Analysis: First, I can't stand dehumanization impacts. If something really is "dehumanizing," there are probably examples of it. Things like structural inequity create real problems, and I would rather hear about that. I have sat through too many rounds where some one simply asserts dehumanization and continues to repeat it, as if each time they do the image of famine babies becomes more real in my mind (it doesn't, it just makes the debater look more like a parakeet). Thus, absent a scenario, it is extremely unlikely that I will vote up a dehumanization impact. I will be honest that the lead up to the impact is as important as the impact itself to me. I like warrants and I like them specific. By the time a debater is done with the internal links, everyone in the room should have a good idea of what the impact is going to be. In the end, I will vote how the teams tell me to and will do as little work as possible to come to conclusions about the round

 

I competed in HS CX for 4yrs and assisted in coaching for 1. I competed in NPDA/NPTE Parli for 3 yrs and have assited or coached for 3yrs.



Patrick Muenks - The University of Texas at Tyler

Saved Philosophy:

 

Name: Patrick Muenks

School: UT Tyler

 

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.

 

I view debate as an educational activity that should supplement and enhance the collegiate experience of those who participate in it. As for my debate background:

-3 years competing @ Washburn University. (2005 - 09)

-4 years coaching @ Drury University, Washburn University, & UT Tyler. (2009 - 13)

 

Please slow down to roughly conversational pace and repeat any and/or all of these arguments: plan/cp texts, alternatives, perms, interpretations/counter-interpretations.

 

Always call points of order. I will protect in rebuttals, but I would rather have you error on the side of caution.

 

The term “default” in my philosophy. Default means that I will revert to that position or method of evaluating arguments in the absences of any arguments made to the contrary.  Default does not mean that I hold an attachment to these predisposition. For example - while I default to evaluating topicality through ground, I would vote for the gov if they won arguments about why evaluating topicality through education is best.

 

A couple of things to know about how I look at debate:

 

An argument = claim + data + warrant.

 

Depth is always better than breadth.

 

Debate is ultimately a strategic exercise.

 

Pen time & speed: In most instances, speed is not necessary. If you’re fast and unclear, I will start yelling “clear” until you become cogent. Additionally, making a lot of warrantless claims usually means I’ll miss something which will no doubt upset you when it comes time for the RFD. When you’re debating, make arguments as opposed to claims.

 

This ensures two things.

-I keep a much better flow because I can listen to an argument develop as opposed to trying to keep up with the ten claims you’re attempting to shell in 45 seconds. Ultimately benefits you, the competitor, since a better flow means I can better evaluate your arguments.

-You won’t sound informed and/or will sound under researched. I do not find underdeveloped arguments persuasive or compelling. If you’re disad turns case but you don’t mention that, I won’t do that work for you. 

 

When it comes to NPTE, I want to stress that while I have been researching and reading about the topics, it would be better for you to assume I know nothing. Just because I have been researching does not mean I’ve been examining the same material you have.

 

Section 2: Specific Inquiries 

Please describe your approach to the following.

 

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?

 

25 - 30.

 

27.5 = average performance. You made some arguments and did not do anything to “lose” the round.

 

28 - 29 = You made deep well warranted arguments. You made smart tactical and strategic decisions within round to defeat your opponents. Usually associated with some level of risk taking as opposed to “screwing up less” than your opponent.

 

30: I was in awe of your performance and will make a Facebook post immortalizing it.

 

If you receive anything lower than a 25 from me, you were a terrible person in round.

 

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

 

Critical arguments, projects, etc are fine. I default to evaluating critical arguments through net-benefits.

 

Critical affirmatives are fine.

 

Its fine by me if a team runs a critical argument and double turn themselves with other negative positions.

 

Performance based arguments…

 

Performance based arguments are fine. I default to evaluating performance based arguments through net-benefits. My only reservation to performance based arguments is I don’t think you should “win” just because you “preformed”. The performance should solve something.   

 

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

 

I default to requiring in round abuse to vote on topicality. I also default to evaluating topicality through a lens of ground. I do not require competing interpretations. The question of whether or not a counter interpretation needs to be deployed is a tactical consideration, not a necessity.

 

The above also applies to specification arguments.

 

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

 

I’m fine with all types of counterplans. The theoretical validity of a given counterplan is subject to debate. In this area, I try to be as open as possible and come in without any predispositions. I default to assuming theory is a reason to reject an argument, not a team.

 

Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

 

Yes

 

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?)?

 

I default to the following order:

 

Topicality/Procedurals

Net-benefits calculus of all other positions in the round

 

So unless the K framework sets forth arguments why it should be evaluated before the case, then I will default to weighing case versus the kritik.

 

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 default to body count over abstract impacts.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

Debate Experience

   4 Years High School (NW Missouri Circuit)

   3 Years College @Washburn University (NPTE & NFA LD)

   3 Years Coaching @Drury, Washburn, & UTTyler (NPTE)

 

SparkNotes Version

   Debate is an educational activity at its core. Its primary focus should to be supplement and enhance the educational experience of those who participate in it.

   Delivery: Slow down (conversational pace) and repeat any of the following: Plan/CP Texts, Alternative(s), Perm(s), Interpretation/Counter-Interpretation. Clarity is paramount and I’ll yell once as a warning.

   I come from a CP/Disad/Procedural background. I enjoy (and reward) well researched positions and T debates.

   I have a decent grasp most debate kritiks, but I’m not the critic to break you’re new project in front of.

   I treat Topicality/Resolutionality differently that specification arguments. I have a high threshold to vote for a specification arguments and an average threshold on topicality.

   I will listen to others forms of debate; AKA trichotomy. See below if you plan on braving such an endeavor.

   I evaluate policy debate via net-benefits (not stock issues!)

   Call points of order. I will attempt to protect in the rebuttals as best I can, but still call points of order.

 

Inherency:

   I will only vote on inherency if the affirmative plan is already enacted in the status quo.

 

Counterplans

   I default to assuming that counterplans compete via net benefits. It’ll would be an uphill battle to move me from this position.

   Consult Counterplans are okay in front of me, but you need to win arguments that normal means does not include consultation.

   Are multiple counterplans acceptable? No

   Conditionality: If counterplan is proved theoretically invalid, then it goes away. Otherwise, the negative is struck with it.

   PICs, Delay and Alt Agents are fine in front of me, but again, they need to be competitive.

   Perms are never an advocacy, they’re always a test of competition.

 

Theory

   If you read policy based theory arguments, I will probably laugh at you. Make parli specific theory arguments.

   Tell me what the function of a theoretical objection you have is. For example; if you run PICs bad  block/procedural and win does that mean the counterplan goes away or that I vote down the Opposition for running it? I default assume theoretical indictments are not a reason to reject a team.

 

Trichotomy

   If you’re going to run a case of fact there are two things I need

   First is an advocacy statement; the purpose of this is to provide a stable advocacy so the negative can test your resolutionality

   Second, the framework for evaluating arguments is net-benefits or impact comparison; nothing else.

   If you’re going to run a case of value you can run a policy case with a lens (aka value) by which I should evaluate the impacts.

 

Criticisms (The K)

   Kritiking out of the PMC is fine

 

Topicality

   The affirmative should be topical as a prima facia burden. This belief does not require there to be proven abuse.

   I will default to competing interpretations as a framework to evaluate Topicality.

   If you argue things like fairness and education are voters, tell me what that means or be prepared to subject yourself to what I think that means.

   RVIs... tis a silly argument and I will never vote on this (includes, Time Suck, Reciprocity etc.)

   T is always A priori

 

Procedurals

   If there isn’t a resolutional basis for the specification, I will treat the argument as a solvency press. Applies to things like funding spec, enforcement spec, agent spec... etc.

   If the resolution compels the government to pass a specific bill, it should be the most recent version.

 



Jordan Innerarity - The University of Texas at Tyler

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy for this year's tournament. Your philosophy should indicate what your SPECIFIC preferences for style (communication based, argument more important than style, etc), approach to the debate (tabula rasa, policy maker, hypo tester), and argumentative likes/dislikes (feelings about T, DA, CP, K, performance, etc).

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.

I competed in Parliamentary debate for four years at UT Tyler. I wound consider myself
a policy judge. I would rather listen to arguments such as a D/A or C/P rather than an
inherency argument. I don’t think stock issues arguments will work well for you with
me in the back of the room. I will listen to critical arguments but I will tell you now I
am not the best judge when it comes to critical arguments. I understand Kritics and how
they function but they are not my favorite argument to listen to. If you do run a Kritic I
ask that you explain the function of the K to my ballot. What does my ballot do for your
kritics and why should I prefer your framework to a policy framework.

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.

My range for speaker points starts around 26. If you speak well and explain your argument and
impact them out I will increase those points. Speed is not a factor when it comes to my speaker
points. I have no problem with speed. If you happen to speak to quickly I will ask you to slow
down.

2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can

critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?
As I stated before I am fine with critical arguments just make sure you explain them.

3. Performance based arguments…

To quote Chuck “Keep your Performance on the Street”. I am not a fan at all of performances
sorry.

4. Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you

require competing interpretations?
I am fine with T. I have a high threshold for voting on them. I will vote if they are truly untopical
in my eyes but I won’t vote you down for running a T. I do believe they are viable and necessary
opp arguments that will be used in every round. If you aren’t running a T or a spec I think you
are missing out on a necessary skill for the opp. If you run the T I do look for in round abuse. I
think it is the biggest voting issue on any T or spec.

5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms --

textual competition ok? functional competition?
Counter plans are another great tool of the Opp. If you run a PIC make sure you run the theory
behind the PIC. Make sure you tell me why they are legitimate argument. Same for PICs bad.
Run the theory. I do believe the OPP should state the status but it is the GOV’s responsibility
to ask. As far as textual competition I don’t think it is a good standard at all. Being textually

competitive does nothing for you. A perm only works if it is functional.
 

6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

I don't think that teams have to give each other their flowed arguments. I really don't think that you have the write to a written plan text. I think the gov is being nice when they give you a copy for the text.


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?)?

Procedural arguments do come before everything else in the round only if the debaters tell me that this should happen. If you tell me why your T or your theory arguments come before the substantive debate then i will evaulate them before the rest of the debate. You need to warrant why your T or Krtick comes before the rest of the round. Just saying it is apriori doesn't make it so.


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")?

If the debaters don't tell me why dehum is the biggest impact in the round i am more likely to look at the impacts of millions of deaths. Just saying nuclear war is bad doesn't lead me to the thought of millions of deaths. You have to warrant why these wars are going to lead to death. The same applies for Dehum tell me why it is bad. Make sure that you warrant out these arguments.



Tom Proctor - UCLA

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

 

General Info:


 

I did policy in high school (3 years) and NPDA parli for UCLA (3 years). I will try to stick with the flow and am generally fine with speed (but keep it clear), although emphasizing points you want to make sure I get is probably smart. The majority of what is below are my default positions that I'll take if that point isn't contested in the round; it does not mean those are the only positions I'll take – I'm completely fine voting for reasonability on T, conditionality bad and other random theory positions when they're won in the round. Generally speaking, if you are going to run a theory argument that you want me to vote on, for clarity's sake, please give it structure in your speech (like a topicality – interp/violation/standards/voters). Also, I hate intervening as a judge, so please do some impact analysis.


 

More specifics:


 

Speaker points: 26-30 range. 27-28 would be the average. Below 26 can happen for rudeness, terrible arguments and/or general offensiveness.


 

Kritiks: I won't flat out reject a critical framework from the Aff or the Neg. Debate the position, and tell me why I should vote for it. A framework section is also nice.


 

Performance/Projects – Same as above, I won't reject it on face. Debate the position, and tell me why I should vote for it. A framework section is particularly nice.


 

Topicality – My default position would be a competing interpretations standard for procedurals, so the superior interpretation is accepted with all the impacts related to that. By that standard, in-round abuse is not necessary. That is not the only acceptable position, just the one I take if the debaters don't contest the issue.


 

CP – Are fine. My default position is that conditionality and PICs are fine, but feel free to debate that. The only time you truly have to specify CP status would be when the Gov directly asks for it.


 

Sharing flowed arguments – I have no issue with teams sharing their arguments, and I'm not entirely sure how that could be an issue.


 

Order of evaluation (barring any direction whatsoever) – I mean, this should absolutely be done in-round. Discursive Ks (with actual in-round impacts) > Procedurals > Other Ks/Advantages and Disadvantages. That said, the distinctions between these arguments can be rather hazy (critical T standards!), so I reserve to change this in-round based on the specific arguments.


 

Impact weighing (barring any direction whatsoever) – See above, please don't make me intervene, compare your impacts. If there's absolutely nothing there, I'd likely go for the utilitarian policymaker paradigm.



Matt Strawbridge - UCLA

Saved Philosophy:

I competed in high school LD for 2 years, and I did 4 years of college parli, competing for Moorpark then UCLA. I also did some NFA LD. I now coach at UCLA while attending law school.

I am open to any type of argument you want to make, in any way you want to make it. I don’t want you to feel at all limited in what you can do. As much as possible, I’ll try to remove myself from the round and adopt whatever paradigm the debaters tell me to. With only a few exceptions, the following should be interpreted merely as suggestions and explanations of my default decision-making process, rather than rigid rules you must follow to win or get high speaker points.

Speed and Delivery
I’m fine with speed, although I don’t especially like it and often doubt its usefulness. I don’t really care about your delivery style, so do whatever is most comfortable to you, just make sure that everyone can hear you well. In the event that you’re too fast or unclear for me, I’ll let you know. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request.

Procedurals
For procedural arguments, I don’t have any default thresholds or requirements like “I won’t vote unless there is in-round abuse.” Feel free to make arguments one way or another, but I don’t have an inherent aversion to voting on T/specs/etc without articulated ground loss, or even without any ground loss at all, if you want to give some other justification for voting on procedurals. If you tell me to vote on it, I’ll vote on it, simple as that. It’s probably fair to say that I enjoy T more than most judges, so don’t be shy to run it (and go for it) in front of me.

Trichotomy
Unlike a lot of people, I don’t hate the trichotomy. If you want to interpret the resolution as a value, or even fact, feel free to do so in front of me. Likewise, if you want to run “this should be a value debate” on the opp, go ahead. I say this as only a notification that the trichot debate is not an uphill battle when I’m judging, in contrast to a lot of judges on the circuit. But you still need to win the argument, of course, and I certainly wouldn’t say you have an uphill battle if you want to argue against interpreting the resolution as value/fact either. As with topicality, don’t feel like your arguments need to be tied to ground, abuse, predictability, or the like. There are plenty of other interesting arguments out there on both sides and I’ll entertain any of them.

Counterplans and Permutations
Similarly, I don’t have any preconceived rules about which counterplans and permutations are “legitimate” and which aren’t. I’m fine voting on a PIC if it’s well defended, and equally fine voting against it if it’s not. By default, I interpret a perm merely as a test of competition, not as an advocacy.

Kritiks and Critical Arguments
I’m open to any type of kritik or critical affirmative. I ran a few K’s when I competed, and I was a philosophy major. But before you pull out your Zizek or Heidegger, keep reading: UCLA’s major is exclusively analytic philosophy, and it was off of that type of literature that I based my positions. I know nothing about continental philosophy or critical theory. This doesn’t mean you should be discouraged from running those arguments, just be sure to explain them clearly--as you should anyway, of course. Again, I don’t have any automatic requirements for kritiks (like that they have an alt other than “reject”).

Performance
Performance-based arguments are okay, but you might have a harder time winning those in front of me. I’ll probably be sympathetic to the other team if your framework is unexplained or unclear. I’m not sure this is entirely fair on my part, as I’m preferring more “traditional” arguments over performance, but I don’t know how to be fair in this regard. At least everyone is familiar with frameworks, and although it’s not ideal to force you at least to partially engage in that system in order to argue against it, that’s the best solution I have, especially since debate is adversarial and voting for your performance also means voting againstyour opponent. But that said, I don’t have any objections to performance per se, and if that’s what you run normally you should run it in front of me too.

Criteria and Impact Calculus
Most rounds have a blipped out “net benefits” criterion which goes conceded. I find that this can lead to problems in rounds when the teams are claiming different types of benefits, e.g. increased utility versus lives saved. The best ways to avoid this problem, I think, are to do a little bit more work on the criteria level by explaining precisely what you mean by the vague, ubiquitous “net benefits,” and to give really specific impact analysis about why your impacts are weightier than the other team’s (where “weight” = magnitude x probability). Absent a definition, I interpret “net benefits” to be a crude form of consequentialism, and will prefer utility over other desiderata. This means, e.g., that by default I would vote for a nuclear war impact over an equally probable dehumanization impact. But this won’t matter, obviously, if you tell me to look at the round another way. Feel free to run any criterion you wish, and I’m (more than) happy to listen to a discussion of non-consequentialist ethics as well. Along those lines, I’m not of the opinion that all disadvantages need to end with nuclear war, or even any people dying. Systemic impacts, linear disadvantages, and moral arguments are fine with me. I prefer depth of analysis over blippy high magnitude assertions. You can of course make your risk of magnitude arguments, just don’t expect me to make them for you. If you can go from the passage of a bill to the end of all life on Earth in 15 seconds, I don’t think your opponent needs to spend more than 15 (well-used) seconds to refute that.

Contradictory Arguments
I can’t really give you my concrete opinion about “contradictory” arguments in a vacuum. Certainly I think teams can argue contingencies and dilemmas (“Plan will have no effect, but even if it does, that will be bad because...”). This can, at times, cross into the “critical” aspects of debate too (I can imagine a team consistently running a certain type of statism K and then an “even if” state-actor CP). Other times, a critical position pretty clearly prohibits you from doing certain things (here I’m thinking linguistic K’s). It really depends on the specific arguments in question. But, all these are still up to the debaters in the round. I won’t vote down a team for being inconsistent, even with a language K, if the other team doesn’t bring it up.

Offensiveness and Unpopular Arguments
If you are rude or intentionally exclusionary, I will dock your speaker points, but it won’t affect the round outcome unless the other team wins that it should. The same goes for comments that are blatantly racist/sexist/etc. However, I don’t want you to interpret this as excluding any legitimate policy proposals, and don’t be afraid to run “unpopular” arguments in front of me. I know the circuit is pretty liberal, but that doesn’t mean every round needs to be a race to the left--if you’re given the “conservative” side of a topic feel free to argue it straight up. I don’t find it inherently offensive, for example, if you want to defend a libertarian position that would allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, and so on. It’s a real position, after all, held by several members of Congress, and I think discussing the merits and disadvantages of it is useful and educational, regardless of what one might personally believe. The same applies for arguments about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, a flat tax, whatever. I wouldn’t be involved in switch-side debating if I didn’t think exploring all sides of an issue was valuable. I think I’m pretty good at leaving my personal political biases completely out of the debate, so don’t feel limited to “popular” positions. Just take care to present the arguments in a respectful, sensitive manner.

RVI’s
As with anything else, I’ll listen to them with an open mind. However, I think these should be well-warranted when used. If the MG simply blips one out in two seconds at the bottom of a very average T debate, I don’t feel required to vote there. I’m not saying it has to be persuasive for me to vote on it, just that you need to provide some reason, and explain that reason. Even then, as long as the other team addresses it, it’s probably not going to win you the round. I’ve only seen a couple rounds in parli where I personally thought an RVI was justified, and those were unusual circumstances.

Order of Evaluation
I’m wary of giving a specific order in which I’ll evaluate positions if left on my own to do so. I don’t think I can say, irrespective of content, that T comes before K, or the other way round. Frankly, it depends on what T and what K they are, as well as the on-case arguments. I guess I’d say that in most rounds the critical arguments would come before the procedural, which come before the case? But don’t hold me to that. I hope, though, that none of my bias matters, and debaters will explain the order in which I should evaluate the different positions (and, I hope that explanation is warranted).

Labels and Unusual Arguments
As the above might indicate, I think that forcing common labels onto positions can be bad for the round. I don’t believe that all the standard labels exhaustively cover all the types of arguments you could make in a round; I used to run a position that was sort of like topicality but also sort of a kritik, and just calling it one or the other was misleading and caused confusion. I also think that this type of pigeonholing is regrettable because it often leads to very shallow, uninteresting theory debates. Instead of saying your opponent’s argument is a spec, and then reading generic theory about why specs are bad, I’d prefer to see you engage the specific position and tell me why it is bad. More generally, I really appreciate creativity, and enjoy seeing the common assumptions of debate challenged. If you have a new, unusual case or argument that you’re hesitant to run in competition just because it’s very different, I’m probably a good critic to try it out on.

Misc.
You should call points of order: normally I won’t strike new arguments on my own. I don’t mind if your extensions are “blippy,” as I see no need to reiterate every single subpoint that was dropped. Prompting your partner is fine, so long as they actually say the argument. 

I’m missing school, work, and my wife to be at this tournament. I remain involved in the activity because I believe it’s incredibly valuable and I want to see it flourish. I enjoy judging, but I don’t think I’m entitled to have you entertain me. Instead, in a very real sense, I’m working for you: I’ve been charged with adjudicating the round, and I take that role very seriously. I aspire to be an excellent critic, the kind that I loved having in the back of the room as a competitor. You have my undivided attention in the round, and I will do my very best to decide it in a way that is fair and pursuant to the principles described above. Please feel welcome to ask me about my RFD, and push me on it if you disagree. I’m totally open to being wrong (and I hope you are too). I think it’s much more productive and in line with the educational nature of this activity if we talk about our differing views rather than just walk away and dismiss the other as incorrect.

Have fun. Be yourself. It’s your round, not mine.




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I competed in high school LD for 2 years, and I did 4 years of college parli, competing for Moorpark then UCLA. I also did some NFA LD. I now coach at UCLA while attending law school.

I am open to any type of argument you want to make, in any way you want to make it. I don’t want you to feel at all limited in what you can do. As much as possible, I’ll try to remove myself from the round and adopt whatever paradigm the debaters tell me to. With only a few exceptions, the following should be interpreted merely as suggestions and explanations of my default decision-making process, rather than rigid rules you must follow to win or get high speaker points.

Speed and Delivery
I’m fine with speed, although I don’t especially like it and often doubt its usefulness. I don’t really care about your delivery style, so do whatever is most comfortable to you, just make sure that everyone can hear you well. In the event that you’re too fast or unclear for me, I’ll let you know. If your opponent asks you to slow down or speak clearer, I expect you to accommodate that request.

Procedurals
For procedural arguments, I don’t have any default thresholds or requirements like “I won’t vote unless there is in-round abuse.” Feel free to make arguments one way or another, but I don’t have an inherent aversion to voting on T/specs/etc without articulated ground loss, or even without any ground loss at all, if you want to give some other justification for voting on procedurals. If you tell me to vote on it, I’ll vote on it, simple as that. It’s probably fair to say that I enjoy T more than most judges, so don’t be shy to run it (and go for it) in front of me.

Trichotomy
Unlike a lot of people, I don’t hate the trichotomy. If you want to interpret the resolution as a value, or even fact, feel free to do so in front of me. Likewise, if you want to run “this should be a value debate” on the opp, go ahead. I say this as only a notification that the trichot debate is not an uphill battle when I’m judging, in contrast to a lot of judges on the circuit. But you still need to win the argument, of course, and I certainly wouldn’t say you have an uphill battle if you want to argue against interpreting the resolution as value/fact either. As with topicality, don’t feel like your arguments need to be tied to ground, abuse, predictability, or the like. There are plenty of other interesting arguments out there on both sides and I’ll entertain any of them.

Counterplans and Permutations
Similarly, I don’t have any preconceived rules about which counterplans and permutations are “legitimate” and which aren’t. I’m fine voting on a PIC if it’s well defended, and equally fine voting against it if it’s not. By default, I interpret a perm merely as a test of competition, not as an advocacy.

Kritiks and Critical Arguments
I’m open to any type of kritik or critical affirmative. I ran a few K’s when I competed, and I was a philosophy major. But before you pull out your Zizek or Heidegger, keep reading: UCLA’s major is exclusively analytic philosophy, and it was off of that type of literature that I based my positions. I know nothing about continental philosophy or critical theory. This doesn’t mean you should be discouraged from running those arguments, just be sure to explain them clearly--as you should anyway, of course. Again, I don’t have any automatic requirements for kritiks (like that they have an alt other than “reject”).

Performance
Performance-based arguments are okay, but you might have a harder time winning those in front of me. I’ll probably be sympathetic to the other team if your framework is unexplained or unclear. I’m not sure this is entirely fair on my part, as I’m preferring more “traditional” arguments over performance, but I don’t know how to be fair in this regard. At least everyone is familiar with frameworks, and although it’s not ideal to force you at least to partially engage in that system in order to argue against it, that’s the best solution I have, especially since debate is adversarial and voting for your performance also means voting against your opponent. But that said, I don’t have any objections to performance per se, and if that’s what you run normally you should run it in front of me too.

Criteria and Impact Calculus
Most rounds have a blipped out “net benefits” criterion which goes conceded. I find that this can lead to problems in rounds when the teams are claiming different types of benefits, e.g. increased utility versus lives saved. The best ways to avoid this problem, I think, are to do a little bit more work on the criteria level by explaining precisely what you mean by the vague, ubiquitous “net benefits,” and to give really specific impact analysis about why your impacts are weightier than the other team’s (where “weight” = magnitude x probability). Absent a definition, I interpret “net benefits” to be a crude form of consequentialism, and will prefer utility over other desiderata. This means, e.g., that by default I would vote for a nuclear war impact over an equally probable dehumanization impact. But this won’t matter, obviously, if you tell me to look at the round another way. Feel free to run any criterion you wish, and I’m (more than) happy to listen to a discussion of non-consequentialist ethics as well. Along those lines, I’m not of the opinion that all disadvantages need to end with nuclear war, or even any people dying. Systemic impacts, linear disadvantages, and moral arguments are fine with me. I prefer depth of analysis over blippy high magnitude assertions. You can of course make your risk of magnitude arguments, just don’t expect me to make them for you. If you can go from the passage of a bill to the end of all life on Earth in 15 seconds, I don’t think your opponent needs to spend more than 15 (well-used) seconds to refute that.

Contradictory Arguments
I can’t really give you my concrete opinion about “contradictory” arguments in a vacuum. Certainly I think teams can argue contingencies and dilemmas (“Plan will have no effect, but even if it does, that will be bad because...”). This can, at times, cross into the “critical” aspects of debate too (I can imagine a team consistently running a certain type of statism K and then an “even if” state-actor CP). Other times, a critical position pretty clearly prohibits you from doing certain things (here I’m thinking linguistic K’s). It really depends on the specific arguments in question. But, all these are still up to the debaters in the round. I won’t vote down a team for being inconsistent, even with a language K, if the other team doesn’t bring it up.

Offensiveness and Unpopular Arguments
If you are rude or intentionally exclusionary, I will dock your speaker points, but it won’t affect the round outcome unless the other team wins that it should. The same goes for comments that are blatantly racist/sexist/etc. However, I don’t want you to interpret this as excluding any legitimate policy proposals, and don’t be afraid to run “unpopular” arguments in front of me. I know the circuit is pretty liberal, but that doesn’t mean every round needs to be a race to the left--if you’re given the “conservative” side of a topic feel free to argue it straight up. I don’t find it inherently offensive, for example, if you want to defend a libertarian position that would allow employers to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual preference, and so on. It’s a real position, after all, held by several members of Congress, and I think discussing the merits and disadvantages of it is useful and educational, regardless of what one might personally believe. The same applies for arguments about abortion, gay marriage, immigration, a flat tax, whatever. I wouldn’t be involved in switch-side debating if I didn’t think exploring all sides of an issue was valuable. I think I’m pretty good at leaving my personal political biases completely out of the debate, so don’t feel limited to “popular” positions. Just take care to present the arguments in a respectful, sensitive manner.

RVI’s
As with anything else, I’ll listen to them with an open mind. However, I think these should be well-warranted when used. If the MG simply blips one out in two seconds at the bottom of a very average T debate, I don’t feel required to vote there. I’m not saying it has to be persuasive for me to vote on it, just that you need to provide some reason, and explain that reason. Even then, as long as the other team addresses it, it’s probably not going to win you the round. I’ve only seen a couple rounds in parli where I personally thought an RVI was justified, and those were unusual circumstances.

Order of Evaluation
I’m wary of giving a specific order in which I’ll evaluate positions if left on my own to do so. I don’t think I can say, irrespective of content, that T comes before K, or the other way round. Frankly, it depends on what T and what K they are, as well as the on-case arguments. I guess I’d say that in most rounds the critical arguments would come before the procedural, which come before the case? But don’t hold me to that. I hope, though, that none of my bias matters, and debaters will explain the order in which I should evaluate the different positions (and, I hope that explanation is warranted).

Labels and Unusual Arguments
As the above might indicate, I think that forcing common labels onto positions can be bad for the round. I don’t believe that all the standard labels exhaustively cover all the types of arguments you could make in a round; I used to run a position that was sort of like topicality but also sort of a kritik, and just calling it one or the other was misleading and caused confusion. I also think that this type of pigeonholing is regrettable because it often leads to very shallow, uninteresting theory debates. Instead of saying your opponent’s argument is a spec, and then reading generic theory about why specs are bad, I’d prefer to see you engage the specific position and tell me why it is bad. More generally, I really appreciate creativity, and enjoy seeing the common assumptions of debate challenged. If you have a new, unusual case or argument that you’re hesitant to run in competition just because it’s very different, I’m probably a good critic to try it out on.

Misc.
You should call points of order: normally I won’t strike new arguments on my own. I don’t mind if your extensions are “blippy,” as I see no need to reiterate every single subpoint that was dropped. Prompting your partner is fine, so long as they actually say the argument.

I’m missing school, work, and my wife to be at this tournament. I remain involved in the activity because I believe it’s incredibly valuable and I want to see it flourish. I enjoy judging, but I don’t think I’m entitled to have you entertain me. Instead, in a very real sense, I’m working for you: I’ve been charged with adjudicating the round, and I take that role very seriously. I aspire to be an excellent critic, the kind that I loved having in the back of the room as a competitor. You have my undivided attention in the round, and I will do my very best to decide it in a way that is fair and pursuant to the principles described above. Please feel welcome to ask me about my RFD, and push me on it if you disagree. I’m totally open to being wrong (and I hope you are too). I think it’s much more productive and in line with the educational nature of this activity if we talk about our differing views rather than just walk away and dismiss the other as incorrect.

Have fun. Be yourself. It’s your round, not mine.



Josh Seefried - United States Air Force Academy

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I debated 4 years at the United States Air Force Academy. Went to NPDA 4 years and NPTE 3 years, debated all through high school. Was the national student rep for NPDA my senior year.   Currently an Air Force officer in the financial field.

 

I think the most important thing in debate is judge adaption.  It’s about creating arguments that matter to your specific judge and winning.

 

I enjoyed procedural debate while I was a debater.  My calculation is first to look at procedurals and then move on to the arguments you tell me.  I believe debate has rules and the judge should act like a referee first and then move on to the other arguments in the round.

 

Warrants matter.  A tagline is not an argument for me. Other than that, you tell me what matters in the round. 

 

I don’t think you have to run “offcase” to win a round. 

 

It's about judge adaption.  If I'm the only judge, it doesn’t matter to me.  If I am on a panel and the other judges care, then adapt.   In my opinion this question should be asked before every round so people know the atmosphere expected and the teams should agree on how that atmosphere will be.

 

I think it depends.  The negative should decide how they want to try to win the round. 

 

Debate needs to be respectful. I also don’t think every round has to be a policy round. But I think it’s the right of the affirmative to define how the round will be and it’s the right of the negative to say it should have been a different debate.  

 



Gina Iberri-Shea - United States Air Force Academy

Saved Philosophy: n/a



Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I am open to all sorts of arguments and approaches. I have absolutely no pre set objections to a particular strategy. You can talk about whatever you want and I will attempt to evaluate your arguments fairly. Make sure I get plan/CP/alt text, don’t just blip it out and pass it to the other team- I want the exact wording on my flow too.

I enjoy well developed Kritiks but make sure the interaction with all arguments is understandable and that they are adapted to the particular round. Point out contradictions and tell me why that’s bad- I won’t vote against performative contradictions on face. I will easily vote on T- but don’t just throw it out as an idea and not a developed argument. I won’t vote against a plan because I perceive it to be not topical- you need to make the arguments. Please don’t make any assumptions about what I might think is a really bad thing- tell me why your impacts matter.  It is very important for both teams to tell me how to weigh the round- where you are winning and what you want me to vote on.  I will probably reward anyone who contributes to a fun round.



Than Hedman - University of Colorado-Boulder

Saved Philosophy:

I’ve been increasingly out of the game, so I know I’m an unknown quantity. I hope I judge debates most like Will Van Treuren, Jon McCabe and Corey Freivogel, so you are likely to do well if you debate like you would in front of them.

My flow is much faster since I switched to a computer, but I'm still the slowness. Repeating and/or reading your interpretations slowly on theory is necessary in front of me. Slowing down or inflecting to emphasize key warrants or arguments is a good idea in general but especially in front of me.

 I default to LOC theory being "a priori" and all theory being evaluated on competing interpretations. I definitely don't need articulated abuse on T. On spec, you should have either asked the question or have a reason you couldn't, or I'm disinclined to vote for you. Contextualizing standards to the actual round in question makes me inclined to vote for you. You probably need to take a question in each constructive speech if it's asked of you. I think multiple conditional advocacies are bad in parli, but I'm open-minded.

I value well-warranted defense more than most critics. I believe terminal defense exists--uniqueness alone is like thermodynamics alone: diamonds are theoretically less stable than graphite, but they aren't turning into graphite* because there's no easy pathway for that to occur.

I have a troubled relationship with the K. I am often ideologically sympathetic to the K but wary of ignoring the PMC and unable to see a relevant difference between the "realness" of the plan and alt. I am also as far from hip to the critical literature as one can get. The more esoteric your K the less likely I am to vote for it.

I believe, above all, in engagement. Spreading out a team not remotely on your level leaves me bored and frustrated. How will young/new/outside debaters learn if they are never able to meaningfully participate in rounds? I will reward teams for slowing down to engage their opponents. Similarly, I will be angry if you don't react to a "clear" from the other team. If this happens, you should probably go back and address your last argument, since I may have missed it too.

I will punish scientific claims that are patently false (as opposed to those that are a subject of current debate). This is somewhat true in other areas, but since I'm less confident there you have more leeway, probably. I don't think I could intervene in a decision on this basis, but I would probably give your opponent's arguments a lot more weight if you are blatantly wrong and may even drop your speaks significantly. I'm not Martin Harris, but I lean his way in terms of the intervention/facts debate.

I default to extinction being the worst, though I'm open on that question. Vague notions of dehumanization leave me cold.

*at any appreciable rate




Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

I don't know if this rises to the level of a philosophy, but here are some thoughts:

My flow is much faster since I switched to a computer, but I'm still the slowness. Repeating your interpretations on theory will help me. Slowing down or inflecting to emphasize key warrants or arguments is a good idea in general but especially in front of me.

I default to LOC theory being "a priori" and all theory being evaluated on competing interpretations. I definitely don't need articulated abuse on T. On spec, you should have either asked the question or have a reason you couldn't, or I'm disinclined to vote for you. Contextualizing standards to the actual round in question makes me inclined to vote for you. You probably need to take a question in each constructive speech if it's asked of you. I think multiple conditional advocacies are bad in parli, but I'm open minded.

I value well-warranted defense more than most critics. I believe terminal defense exists--uniqueness alone is like thermodynamics alone: diamonds are theoretically less stable than graphite, but they aren't turning into graphite* because there's no easy pathway for that to occur.

I have a troubled relationship with the K. I am often ideologically sympathetic to the K but wary of ignoring the PMC and unable to see a relevant difference between the "realness" of the plan and alt. I am also as far from hip to the critical literature as one can get. (Max Alderman once said: "Than may know more about atmospheric science than me, but I know way more about Foucault." This is true for almost everyone.) The more esoteric your K the less likely I am to vote for it.

I believe, above all, in engagement. Spreading out a team not remotely on your level leaves me bored and frustrated. How will young/new/outside debaters learn if they are never able to meaningfully participate in rounds? I will reward teams for slowing down to engage their opponents. Similarly, I will be angry if you don't react to a "clear" from the other team. If this happens, you should probably go back and address your last argument, since I may have missed it too.

I will punish scientific claims that are patently false (as opposed to those that are a subject of current debate). This is somewhat true in other areas, but since I'm less confident there you have more leeway, probably. I don't think I could intervene in a decision on this basis, but I would probably give your opponent's arguments a lot more weight if you are blatantly wrong and may even drop your speaks significantly. I'm not Martin Harris, but I lean his way in terms of the intervention/facts debate.

I default to extinction being the worst, though I'm open on that question.

*at any appreciable rate



Phil Sharp - University of Nevada, Reno

Saved Philosophy:

I competed in HS Policy and College NPDA. I was formerly the ADOF at WWU (3 years) and the DOF at Univ of Montana (2 years). I took two years off to go and teach debate in Korea. I am now the DOF at UNR (5 years).

I evaluate the round as a flow-based policy-making critic of argument. Not a fan of the original argument being nothing but a tag with no warrant and the PMR back-filling. I hold you to the arguments you made and as a critic of argument, I will evaluate the degree to which you have warranted and convinced me of that argument. If your argument did not make sense the first time you said it, it is not likely to win my ballot. At the end of the debate, all judges must do work to make their decision. I feel that I attempt to make my involvement in the decision something I am consciously aware of as opposed to pretending that debates somehow decide themselves. In the event that the decision is not clear-cut, I will attempt to use a standard and fair method. Some things that you should know:

1. I will weigh arguments through the frameworks the debaters provide. If a team wants me to vote on an Education standard on a T but they are losing an RVI on Education on the K, How do I weigh who has harmed Edu the most? Procedurals and kritiks are ultimately a request for me to employ a different paradigm in the debate (not post-fiat policy-making).

2. In the event of clash, I will side with the team who has the more reasonable story and articulates the best standards to prefer their argument. In the absence of standards, I will default to the team whose argument is most inuitive as presented.

3. In the event of dropped or under-covered arguments, I will vote based upon how well you warranted the argument. If a team drops a 20 second T that didn't make any sense, I won't vote on it. If you think your arguments are winners, make them sufficiently the first time you present them.

Additional Considerations:

1. I have a high threshold on procedurals and reverse/independent voting issues. The interp and violation must not morph at all. The standards must support the voters. Remember that standards debates serve to prove that your interpretation is better for the debate. The voters must be justified within the particular round. Competing Interps rarely work as a reason for me to vote on T. I DO think that an AFF should be an inductive proof of the res, but I also think that as long as they are reasonable, the NEG should be quick on their feet with arguments. I might not vote on T but I will consider how well a Neg team does when caught by surprise and give them the benefit of the doubt a little. I like creative and strategic movement within a topic area, AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOUR CASE IS A PROOF OF THE RES BEING TRUE. I prefer a policy, if the res allows you to do it.
2. I think that the current policy of blipping and back-filling is disgusting. I don't mind how fast you talk but I think it is intellectually bankrupt to simply spew out a bunch of buzzwords and taglines and try to win without actually knowing what your arguments mean or explaining them.
4. Organization is critical. ;)
5. A lot of debaters get lost in the minutia and don't understand the purpose of the particular argument they are making. Then they say something like, "The Uniqueness controls the direction of the link." Which is true but is NOT persuasive to hear in a rebuttal. Explain what you mean and how that affects the outcome of the debate. All arguments should be impacted to my decision.
6. Rebuttals should not be line-by-line repeatals. You must crystallize the debate and provide some guidance into my decision making given the negotiated frameworks. The less you do this, the more I have to figure out how to vote.
7. I really don't want to hear the K or your performance. I find them to be interesting (if people explain the critical perspective in a way that makes sense) but I find debate to be a problematic format for that. I will still vote for a K but I have a high threshold on the framework debate and I expect to see a Unique link in the debate with a functioning alternative. Case-turns from critical theory perspective often work better through the policy-making paradigm. Don't be surprised if I find a reason to vote against you on Framework, if you choose to run the K.
8. Over-reliance upon buzz words like dehumanization will not be persuasive to me. Explain what it is and why it is bad and don't say things like "Dehum is worse than death" unless you have a good reason that is true.
9. Your internal link story is more important than big, wanky impact stories.
10. I would like to be entertained in the back of the room. Judges all enjoy good intellectual throwdowns with solid clash and warranted arguments. Few of us enjoy the dry, combative, boring rehashing of theory blocks and race to the bottom that teams are choosing in an attempt to win.
11. Watch my freaking non-verbals. If you continue to say "we are the most limiting interpretation" and I am holding my hands up and shaking my head, I probably am looking for you to explain how your obviously under limiting interp is actually providing for better limits.
12. I am liberal. I will vote in as unbiased way as possible based on the arguments in the round and my predisposition on questions of debate theory, but I thought it was fair to tell you my political leanings. 
13. Don't be rude. Avoid sexism, racism, homophobia, general inappropriate behavior and all the other isms. Be a good sport. Some of the things you say are inevitably going to be less good comparatively. Don't act like you should win every single argument.


 





Question 1 : Please enter your judging philosophy.

Philip Sharp
University of Nevada-Reno
Years Coaching NPDA: 10
Rounds Judged this year: 60+


I was formally the ADOF at WWU (3 years) and the DOF at Univ of Montana (2 years). I took two years off to go and teach debate in Korea. I am now the DOF at UNR. I think IEs are fun, but burdensome and not significantly oriented toward the things I value most in debate (argument, analysis, evidence, organization, and strategy). I have seen and or debated in more rounds than I care to admit. While I acknowledge that your participation in debate ought to be a quest for the best speech ever, I will be quick to tell you the ways you fell short of that. Please do not mistake my harsh criticism for a dislike of you. If you want to improve at debate, I believe I will give you feedback that will aid you in that goal, if you choose to accept it.

I evaluate the round as a flow-based policy-making critic of argument. I will flow everything and I will remember the arguments well as I make my decision. I will remember the way you argued it in the member speech and how that compares to the way the rebuttal discussed it. I will remember when the original argument was nothing but a tag with no warrant. I will remember when the PMR changes the argument. I will notice that the violation on the T morphed from the LO to the block. I hold you to the arguments you made and as a critic of argument, I will evaluate the degree to which you have warranted and convinced me of that argument. If your argument did not make sense the first time you said it, it is not likely to win my ballot. At the end of the debate, all judges must do work to make their decision. I feel that I attempt to make my involvement in the decision something I am consciously aware of as opposed to pretending that debates somehow decide themselves. In the event that the decision is not clear-cut, I will attempt to use a standard and fair method.

1. I will weigh arguments through the frameworks the debaters provide. If a team wants me to vote on an Education standard on a T but they are losing an RVI on Education on the K, How do I weigh who has harmed Edu the most? Procedurals and kritiks are ultimately a request for me to employ a different paradigm in the debate (not post-fiat policy-making).

2. In the event of clash, I will side with the team who has the more reasonable story and articulates the best standards to prefer their argument. In the absence of standards, I will default to the team whose argument is most inuitive as presented.

3. In the event of dropped or under-covered arguments, I will vote based upon how well you warranted the argument. If a team drops a 20 second T that didn't make any sense, I won't vote on it. If you think your arguments are winners, make them sufficiently the first time you present them.

Additional Considerations:

1. I have a high threshold on procedurals and reverse/independent voting issues. The interp and violation must not morph at all. The standards must support the voters. Remember that standards debates serve to prove that your interpretation is better for the debate. The voters must be justified within the particular round. Competing Interps rarely work as a reason for me to vote on T. I DO think that an AFF should be an inductive proof of the res, but I also think that as long as they are reasonable, the NEG should be quick on their feet with arguments. I might not vote on T but I will consider how well a Neg team does when caught by surprise and give them the benefit of the doubt a little. I like creative and strategic movement within a topic area, AS LONG AS YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOUR CASE IS A PROOF OF THE RES BEING TRUE. I prefer a policy, if the res allows you to do it.
2. I think that the current policy of blipping and back-filling is disgusting. I don't mind how fast you talk but I think it is intellectually bankrupt to simply spew out a bunch of buzzwords and taglines and try to win without actually knowing what your arguments mean or explaining them.
4. Organization is critical. ;)
5. A lot of debaters get lost in the minutia and don't understand the purpose of the particular argument they are making. Then they say something like, "The Uniqueness controls the direction of the link." Which is true but is NOT persuasive to hear in a rebuttal. Explain what you mean and how that affects the outcome of the debate. All arguments should be impacted.
6. Rebuttals should not be line-by-line repeatals. You must crystallize the debate and provide some guidance into my decision making given the negotiated frameworks. The less you do this, the more I have to figure out how to vote.
7. I really don't prefer the K or performance. I find them to be interesting (if people explain the critical perspective in a way that makes sense) but I find debate to be a problematic format for that. I will still vote for a K but I have a high threshold on the framework debate and I expect to see a Unique link in the debate with a functioning alternative. Case-turns from critical theory perspective often work better through the policy-making paradigm.
8. Over-reliance upon buzz words like dehumanization will not be persuasive to me. Explain what it is and why it is bad and don't say things like "Dehum is worse than death" unless you have a good reason that is true.
9. Your internal link story is more important than big, wanky impact stories.
10. I would like to be entertained in the back of the room. A LOT of your judges have been complaining about the state of debate at the moment. We all enjoy good intellectual throwdowns with solid clash and warranted arguments. None of us enjoy the dry, combative, boring rehashing of theory blocks and race to the bottom that teams are choosing in an attempt to win. The rebellion is coming. If you get lucky and debate a team that you are out teching, you will win. If you debate another good team, as has been known to happen at the top of the bracket, I hope you are making good arguments not just a lot of them.
11. Watch my freaking non-verbals. If you continue to say "we are the most limiting interpretation" and I am holding my hands up and shaking my head, I probably am looking for you to explain how your obviously under limiting interp is actually providing for better limits.
12. I am liberal. Don't be rude. Avoid sexism, racism, and all the other isms. Be a good sport. Some of the things you say are inevitably going to be a little stupid. Don't act like you should win every single argument.



Matthew Hogan - University of Nevada, Reno

Saved Philosophy: