Stephen Ahal

Before diving into the specifics of my judging philosophy, let me say that you as the debater can do whatever you want. You will not be voted down for any particular argument style simply because you ran it. For example if you want to read a poem, a K, a CP, or just argue case, then do it. Just be wary of the other team running theory against you. Also, although I debated in college, I have not flowed let alone really listened to a debate round since 2015. What that means for you is that you should warm up to your top speed. I have been in fast and technical debates but that does not mean I am ready to jump back into the fire. Warming up and articulating your thoughts will not only help me but it will help your speaker points. I also love texts, so please give me a copy of your advocacy. That being said, here are some specific thoughts I have on debate:

Theory– I debated theory often in college and do enjoy these debates when executed correctly. If nothing by either team is said I default to competing interpretations. T is nearly always a priori unless there is a compelling critical argument as to why that is not the case (you should still actually say it is a priori though). I won't vote on RVIs unless the opposing team drops the argument. Although I do not need in-round abuse, it will certainly help your case and change how high of a threshold I have for your argument. Condo is fine within reason (I have a hard time seeing how 5 off LOCs are fair, but thats up for you all to decide).

K – I said this above, you can run a K in front of me. I generally think the K needs to have some sort of solvency for its own impacts and/or the other team's impacts. You may run it on either negative or affirmative. I am not extremely well rehearsed in all philosophical arguments, so make sure you give me a brief “this is what our K is about” overview. Just spewing 5 syllable words will not go very well you.

CPs – Run any CP you want. As long as you can justify it theoretically then do what you got to do.  I like well thought out and nuanced perms. I do not necessarily need a perm text but if it is not “perm do both” then please explain yourself.

I believe that covers most of the controversial issues folks want to know about. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me. 

Lance Allen

I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree University and have now coached for 7 years.

I think this means that I have a diverse background of knowledge for most types of debate. I am comfortable in quick K debates and also comfortable in more traditional rounds. I have experience in high level college LD rounds and I also have lots of experience with first year novice rounds. While am I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in a case/DA/CP debate. This means the K needs to be well explained. I tend to weigh Magnitude and Probability before timeframe until you tell me otherwise.

You should feel comfortable running any position in front of me! The most important thing is that it is well explained and well defended.

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 1/7/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (PF and LD) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, 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.

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 irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

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.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

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

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

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

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K 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, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

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

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position 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/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

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

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing 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.

Jared Bressler. My email is jbressl3@gmail.com if you are using an email chain or you want to email me a question (Include tournament name and debate in the subject line if its a pre-round question). I did LD debate for four years a very long time ago. I competed in then coached NPDA debate at Texas Tech for a very long time. I have also coached LD on and off for the last decade or so, some traditional some less so. I will go into my stylistic preferences bellow but there are a few things that apply no mater what style of debate you chose. Warrants are good, weight impacts, be nice to each other, I will evaluate the debate if front of me based on the arguments made to the best of my abilities. Also I am ok with speed (I know that should go without saying at a bid tournament but I also know that I am new here)

I am happiest judging policy style debates (I like to evaluate the aff plan vs either the sqo or a compitive CP). I have judged and am capable of judging any style of debate you chose (critical (identity or otherwise) traditional ect.) I will reward quality arguments with speaker points in a way I will not reward tricks.

Policy making: I will cover more of this in the theory section, but a few things. Offence is your friend, don't forget uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I really like heg and politics debate. Impact turn debates can also be fun.

Theory I judge all theory on competing interpretations. All that matter is the aff (or the neg) meets the best interpretations in the round as decided by weighting standards. I struggled with rather to give you my theory prepositions since they are not strong since a: they can be overcome with quality arguments and b: they were formed doing NPDA and policy which has different resolutions and times so I'm not even sure that these preconceptions are good for LD, but I think its good to have as much idea as where I am coming from so here they are. A good interpation provides predictable limits. The aff should be topical, CP should be textually and functionally competitive (they can of course be topical), all neg advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise (though if you want to go for condo bad you should clarify in CX). I am willing to vote on framework/wrong form arguments. Also make sure you share your theory interps (and advocacy texts) or if for some reason you can't read them twice at below conversational speed.

Critical debate. I ran this a lot as a debater, but have become less fond of them as a judge. My default is to weight the alt as a competing advocacy. I am cynical of ballot of advocacy but I have voted that way before. I am able to follow most critical litature as long as its extend properly.

Traditinal LD: I have judged a bunch of this and some of it has been pretty good. Remember that debate is still about impacts, saying my value is "..." dose not automatically make that important. I have seen too many rounds where half the speech time was spent arguing value/criteria in a way that was completely detached from the rest of the debate where the impacts were.

updated: October 24, 2019

Experience: 2 years of parliamentary debate at Northwest Community College, and did 3 years of NPDA and NPTE debate at Washburn University. During this time, I was semi-competitive at both levels. Many of my thoughts and upbringing of debate comes from a multitude of people from the community college circuit and the national circuit. I would say my views on debate though have been largely shaped by Jeannie Hunt, Steven Doubledee, and Kevin O’Leary.

General: Debate to me is a multitude of things meaning that it is an open space for a diversity of arguments. It still to me though is largely a game that is shaped by the real world and lived experience. I am fine with you doing whatever you please, but I am not saying that I will understand it, I will do my best to evaluate all arguments as best as I can. Make the debate yours, have fun, and compete, that’s what I believe.

--Defense (I love terminal defense, to me it is very underutilized)

--Ask for copies of texts or repeat them (ROTB, interps, or anything I will need word for word please read slowly and repeat)

--Partner Communication is fine

In general, I do not have a preference in the style of the way you debate, do you, and I will evaluate the best I can.

Theory: This is one subset of arguments that I wished I delved more into when I debated. I will not say I am the best at understanding theory, but I do not mind a good procedural or a strategic use of theory. Deploy it as necessary or as an escape valve, it doesn’t matter to me. I think having impacted out voters is nice. Although, the standards debate to me is the crux of the shell, gotta win a substantive standard to get the impact/voter. I probably would mostly default to competing interps, as well, to me it just makes the most sense.

Case: I love case debate. Good terminal case defense and awesome turns, to me, is an underutilized strategy. Aff’s be able to defend the case, sometimes as MG’s we get too bogged down prepping for the off case positions, just be sure to be able to defend your case. I think LOC’s should get to case to at least mitigate each advantage, but I understand time constraints and time management.

Performance: To me all debate is a performance, right? Like the judge is basically the audience and evaluates two opposing speakers, seems like a performance, but I digress.

- You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp).

- Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance.

- Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic.

- Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance

The K- I think a good criticism has framework, thesis, links, impacts, alt, and alternative solvency. The thesis allows the judge to be able to better understand the K itself, by giving a short synopsis of the K, the framework tells me how to evaluate it, is fiat illusory, should evaluate epistemology over ontology, etc. The links should be specific to the topic and grounded to the literature or if the aff is a critical aff then there should be good justifications for why you are rejecting the topic ( I will vote on framework). If the aff is a critical aff, if you are on the neg and don’t have good links to the aff and you prepped your k, and you are also going to read Framework, just make a decision and either go for framework or the K (I just think many instances framework contradicts criticsms so reading framework and a K seems to be contradictory to me unless they don’t contradict). The K should probably outweigh and turn the aff. I do not know all critical literature but the literature bases I do know are:

- Post Modernism

- Post Structuralism

- Whiteness

- Critical Race Theory

Don’t let this constrain you though, I love to learn new things and don’t mind listening. I will try my best to evaluate your arguments

CP Theory: Read whatever theory related to Counterplans you want, if you win it you win it. If you lose it, you lose it.

Permutations:

- Always and only a test of competition

- Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K.

- You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits.

- Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.

Speak Points: I will probably range from 26-30. 30 would be excellent, 29 is almost excellent, and so forth.

My background: I debated for 5 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit (2 years at the University of Texas at Tyler and 3 years at Washburn University) from 2012 through 2017. I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years. I have my BA in Political Science with a minor in Women and Gender Studies. I'm now an attorney so my involvement in debate has been rather limited in the past few years. However, I typically judge and coach at least a couple of college LD tournaments a year.

Paradigm framing update: I have lately transitioned into a career role that utilizes many portable skills from debate in real life. I am the General Counsel for the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, which enforces state campaign finance laws and conflicts of interest laws. Re-entrenching myself in government and legislative work has made me appreciate policy arguments even more. This does not mean that I do not enjoy critical arguments, quite the contrary actually. I would simply appreciate an explanation as to how your position interacts with the state. In my new position, I have directly used portable skills that I developed in debate, such as the ability to argue effectively and the ability to adapt to my audience. Sometimes my audience is a Commission consisting of attorneys, sometimes it is the legislature, sometimes it is a judge. I mention all of this because it frames my paradigm. Please read and consider this update in light of the remainder of my paradigm below.

Highlights: I think that debate is a game in which you should make use of all the tools that you can creatively deploy. I prefer debates that engage the topic and in an ideal situation utilize fiat to do so, but I will definitely listen to arguments that interpret the topic differently. I would prefer that you read advocacies unconditionally and I will vote on conditionality. Impact calculus is the most important thing to me as a judge. I want the rebuttal speeches to help me craft my ballot through the lenses of timeframe, probability, and magnitude.

Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I need a clear advocacy; it does not need to be an alternative, but make your advocacy clear (whether it be a poem, metaphor, alt, etc.). I need you to frame the debate for me through unique impacts you may garner from these type of arguments. I'm willing to listen to "role play as the state" framework strategies from the negative, but I think the biggest mistake neg teams make here is not answering the arguments on the aff proper and they end up being framed out. I do think that if you are rejecting the resolution then you need some sort of justification for doing so or a link to the resolution.

Flowing: Give me enough time to switch tabs on my laptop when you switch sheets. If I think you are too quiet, unclear, or fast I will let you know immediately. Additionally, please read tag lines for cards slower than the card itself and make a clear distinction when you are switching cards.

Texts and Interpretations: Slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and repeat it. I think this is very important during theory and framework debates.

Procedurals/Theory/T: I enjoy a good T debate and I default to competing interpretations, but this does not mean that I won’t listen to other frameworks for evaluating T. I am not a fan of RVI’s. I do not need real in round abuse, but an abuse story needs to exist even if it is potential abuse. I need procedurals to have clearly articulated interpretations, violations, standards, and voters not just blips in the 1NC of, “vote for us for fairness and education”. I view topicality similarly to a disad in that I view standards as being the internal links to the voters (impacts).

Disads: I enjoy topic specific disads. As a side note, I have higher standards for voting on politics than most others because I ran the argument so often. I need specifics such as vote counts, whose whipping the votes, sponsors of the bill, procedural information regarding passage, etc.

CPs: I am not prone to vote against any type of counter-plan. I prefer functional competition over textual competition because it is easier to weigh and more tangible to me.

Ks: I enjoy criticisms and I believe that they can offer a very unique and creative form of education to the debate space. If your criticism is complicated then I would like an explanation of what the alternative does. I really enjoy a good perm debate on the K and am not opposed listening to theory regarding the alternative/perms (floating PICs, severance, etc.).

I’m going to borrow a bit about alternatives directly from Dr. Lauren Knoth’s philosophy as it describes my feelings regarding complicated alternatives perfectly.

“***Important*** I need to have a clear explanation of what the alternative does, and what the post-alt world looks like. Stringing together post-modern terms and calling it an alternative is not enough for me if I have no idea what the heck that means. I prefer to know exactly what action is advocated by the alternative, and what the world looks like after passage of the alternative. I think this is also necessary to establish stable solvency/alternative ground for the opposing team to argue against and overall provides for a better debate. Good theory is nothing without a good mechanism with which to implement it, and I'm tired of this being overlooked.”

Perms: I really enjoy perm debates. I think that the text of the perm is critical and must be clear. Slow down, read them twice, and/or give me a copy of the text. You don’t have to read the entire plan text in K debates and instead it is sufficient to say, “do the plan and x”. My definition of a legitimate perm would be that they are all of the plan and all or parts of the CP/Alt. I think that perms serve as tests of competition.

I was a CX debater in high school (in the Dallas, TX circuit), and NDT/CEDA debater at ACU in college (we broke at CEDA nats several years), and now I coach Parli and Worlds at ACU.

I have been away from the debate world for the last 12 years while pursuing a Ph.D. and starting out as a professor. So, I understand the basics of all the arguments you will make, however, I might not always know the latest name for it. So, make sure you explain to me what it is instead of assuming I know.  

--Speed is fine. If I can't understand you, I will let you know. 

--T debates are fine. 

--Theory debates are fine.

--Critiques are fine. I used to run them all the time and enjoy a good critique debate

--Framework debates are fine. 

--Normal policy debates are fine.

--I'm iffy on performance debates, probably not a good idea with me.

I prefer a strong overview and/or impact analysis in the PMR and LOR. 

My default judging paradigm is utilitarian, but I will let you put me in a different paradigm if the argument is good. 

I am still getting reacquainted with the nuances of arguments that are popular now. So, you probably will want to ask me some more specific questions before the round starts.  

After reading through other judging philosophies, I realized I have to tell you that I won't vote for teams that are rude or actually abusive to their opponents. (what?!?, how is this not common sense??). Please use courtesy and be nice to each other, you can be assertive and make good arguments without being a jerk.  I am not impressed by big egos or people who need to make themselves feel stronger by being ugly/rude/offensive to others.  That is a good way to lose my ballot. 

My name is Keith Corley and I currently am the Assistant Debate Coach at William Jewell College. My experience in the activity is 2 years at Moorpark College and 3 years at Concordia University Irvine. My goal with this philosophy is to try and be as honest as possible with those who read it as it is my experience that quite a few individuals tend to mislead in order to be part of the in group.

During my debate career I spent a majority of it debating policy and case debate. That being said my final year in the activity I debated the K more than 70% of the time.

As far as policy debate goes, I expect warrants for arguments. I know that all judges says this but I want to make it extremely clear that you need specific warrants to back up your claims. If you do not have it, often times I will accept the other team to just articulate a lack of warrants in order to refute the argument. Other than that I feel like i view policy in the same way that almost every other person does.

When I was debating I was really into theory debate, it was something that I really enjoyed winning on. While I am more than willing to listen to you read these, I think it should be pointed out that I really dislike listening to theory that is not strategic or meaningful, aka something that is meant just to waste the other team's time. More often than not I think that the questions that theory is asking is important and as such in this aspet of the debate I do not like gamesmanship.

Conditionality

I was coached by Kevin Calderwood and while I buy into his thoughts in regards to conditionailty I want to make it clear that I do not think that one conditional advocacy is necessarily bad. That being said I will definitely listen to a condo bad shell for a variety of reasons. Specifically, I suggest you not run an argument such as whiteness or fem conditionally as I believe that is ethically bankrupt. However, I will not vote anyone down for this if the other team does not win a condo bad theory position.

The K

Like I said, I ran these quite a bit during my last year, however, I do not want you to think that I am up on every single bit of critical literature. I prefer a very explained out thesis for K's that arent cap or something basic. Additionally, you need to explain to me in a very clear way what the alt text does. I truly dislike utopian alternatives with no explanation as to how they function. As far as K's on the aff go I am fine with them, but I would prefer you to make it resolutional. I do not need you to make it topical or use fiat (though that can and should be argued by the neg if they so choose) but I would prefer if the resolution was incorporated somewhere. 

Miscellanious

If you only read one part of my philosophy please read this part: Debate was my home and identity for a long time. However, I realize that they type of debate and the space in which I engage in it are not home for many people that do not have my privilege. I want everyone to be able to run the type of arguments that make them feel most at home. That being said, I think that on some occasion in an effort to run arguments that they feel most comfortable with debaters will do so at the expense of the team that they are facing. What I mean by this is that I believe there is a way to run arguments that do not make your opponent feel like shitty people. I understand that some arguments can get real. I think those arguments are fantastic. However, I do not think that it is beneficial for anyone involved to traumatize someone in order to win a ballot. I believe that this space is a place for us to grow an think and learn a bucnh of new and different types of education that arent offered anywhere else whether that be upper level international relations or very critical queer theory. My belief is that our community is at our best when people can experience these hard truths without being brought to tears because the round made them feel like shit.

My last note is that most of the fastest speakers in the community often times were not clear enough for me to flow at full speed. If you believe you are in this group please drop to 80% of your speed or wait for me to clear you, whatever you prefer.

Hamilton references will garner higher speaks

I reserve the right to walk out of the room if personal narratives concerning suicide are read. You absolutely have the right to read them, but I do not have the obligation to physically be present to experience them. This does not include abstracted discussions of suicide in the broader context of the round.

My ever-growing list of Things which Peeve Me:

- Non-topical affirmative criticisms – I’ll vote for you if you win the flow, but I won’t like it, your speaks will probably reflect that, and I’ll be very sympathetic to theory.

- Waiting to start flex until you get your copies]

- Speed/tech unfair. I do not personally believe that there is a reasonable argument for speed or technicality being unfair or exclusionary. I don’t see skill as a vector of access I should protect for in the same way as (dis)ability, identity, or in-round argumentative access factors.

- Asking for a copy of everything

- Reading competing interpretations then treating it like reasonability. If you don’t sufficiently explicate your competing interpretations I’ll still just have to decide what seems most reasonable.

- Expecting me to weigh something when your warrant is “probably a reason why”

- Asking me to weigh unfalsifiable claims. This includes but is not limited to;

o Spiritual claims

o Performances which claim real world solvency if I do not myself experience change

o Personal narratives, emotive experiences, affective claims, etc.

ABSOLUTELY feel free to ask questions, even if it implicates my decision. RFDs can be a really pedagogically fruitful space when folks push back and forth and find the tension points. On the other hand, if you are a coach reading this I would strongly discourage you from post-rounding me. I won’t change my decision, it won’t improve the likelihood your team wins in front of me again, and I hope you view me as a predictable critic even if I’m not your ideal draw.

Background: 6 years competing through MS/HS, 4 years at a smaller undergrad squad, 2 years coaching at TTU including a number of nationally competitive partnerships, and a year working the occasional weekend for CUI.

General:

- If I clear or slow you, which is rare, you need to take it seriously. I will ding your speaks if you make me do it twice or more. Also, I won’t backfill flow items I missed for any reason unless I can genuinely remember the precise claim, so while I won’t drop you for ignoring my clear/slow you may lose anyway.

- I may want a copy of all texts, interps, and ROBs beyond specifically what I flow, so be prepared.

- Condo: Agnostic, be prepared to defend it.

- MG theory: Agnostic, be prepared to defend it, and realize that I won’t read the block through the lens of the theory until after the PMR.

- Ideologically I’m fairly open to most arguments but do realize that my social location and political perspective are probably irrevocably intertwined in the way I evaluate rounds. I’m pretty moderate (for the debate world lol), so warranted arguments about the wonders of the free market or the necessity of social purging aren’t likely to do well in front of me if your opponent knows what they’re doing.

- For the K: Ultimately, I'm compelled to vote for well-warranted, smart arguments regardless of the form they take. Because of my experience/background, I'm less compelled out-of-hand by approaches that do not seek to engage the core of the topic (and that goes for aff and neg). I want to hear your best arguments, and I'll vote on what's won. My exposure to your argument is probably through debate and not reading the literature. I think about public policy frequently. This is less true for critical arguments.

Arguments: Case debate is dope, I dislike ships passing in the night on epistemology/ontology/methodology discussions, and I prefer you know what a word means before using it a bunch.

Counterplans: I prefer that you provide a copy for the other team if it is anyway materially distinct from the resolution and longer than like five words. Or just read it slow. I just hate judging rounds where the CP text becomes some sort of point of contention.

Permutations: Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies. Have a perm text for goodness sake.

Theory: All theory positions should have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voting issues. Clever, correct, and creative theory arguments are always a good time.

Speaker Points: Be smart and concise and your speaker points will range between 26-30. Utilization of racist, sexist, etc. rhetoric will sink your points quick, as will parroting to your partner. Like, win the round, but don’t parrot if you can help it.

Voting/Rebuttals/POO: Have clear voting issues either through distinct voters, two world analysis, or some other format. YOU MUST DO IMPACT CALCULUS IF YOU WANT IT CONSIDERED. Call POOs if you hear them. I try to protect, but you should call them all the same.

Feel free to ask questions. I can give you my professional email if you’d like it. Debate is great.

I record nearly all of the parliamentary debates that I judge on my MacBook. During the debate, you will see me creating position/answer markers so that I can easily recall any portion of the debate during my decision. I have developed a basic system to govern the conditions under which I will review the recording— (1) if I think I have missed something (my fault) I will note the time in the recording on my flow, (2) if there is a question about exact language raised by the debaters in the round, (3) if there is a Point of Order about new arguments in rebuttals, (4) I will review the exact language of any CP/Alt Text/ Theory Interp. Outside of those circumstances, I typically will not review recordings. This new process has had a couple of important impacts on judging. I don’t miss arguments. I will take as much time to review the debate afterwards if I believe that I’ve maybe missed something. It has made my decisions clearer because I can hold debaters accountable to exact language. It does, however, mean that I am less likely to give PMR’s credit for new explanations of arguments that weren’t in the MG. It also means that I’m more likely to give PMR’s flexibility in answering arguments that weren’t “clear” until the MOC. I don’t provide the recording to anyone (not even my own team). Within reason, I am happy to play back to you any relevant portions that I have used to make my decision.

If you have questions about this process, please ask. I encourage my colleagues to adopt this practice as well. It is remarkable how it has changed my process. If your team chooses to prefer (or, in the case of the NPDA, not strike) me, there are a couple of promises that I will make to you:I understand that the debaters invest a tremendous amount of time and energy into preparing for a national tournament. I believe that judging any round, especially national tournament rounds, deserves a special level of attention and commitment. I try not to make snap decisions at nationals and it bothers me when I see other people do it. I know that my nationals decisions take longer than I will typically take making a similar decision during the rest of the year. If you spend 4 years doing something, I can at least spend a few extra moments thinking it over before I potentially end that for you.

I flow on paper. I find that I am more connected to the debate and can deliver more complete RFDs if I am physically writing down arguments rather than typing. When I watch my colleagues multi- tasking while judging debates, I am self-conscious that I used to do the same thing. You will have my complete attention. I can also guarantee you that my sleep schedule at tournaments will not hinder my ability to give you my full attention. I have made a substantial commitment to wellness and, if I am being honest, I have seen/felt significant improvements in my life and my ability to do my job at debate tournaments. Once again, you will have my complete attention.

Finally, I can tell you that I have come to a point that I am unwilling to categorically reject any argument. I have voted for negative teams with a 1NC strategy of a K, CP, DA, and case arguments (who collapse to an MO strategy of the criticism only) more times this year than I ever thought I would. Smart debaters win debates with a variety of strategies—I don’t think that I should limit your strategy choices. The debate isn’t about me. If we can’t embrace different styles of argument, this activity gets very annoying very quickly.

If I get to judge you, there are a couple of promises that I want you your team to make to me: Please slow down when you read plan texts, theory interpretations or perm texts unless you are going to take the time to write out a copy and provide it to me. Please do not get upset if I misunderstand something that you read quickly (an alt, for example) if you didn’t give me a copy. I will review exact text language on my recording, if necessary.

Please do your best to engage the other team. I like watching critique debates, for example, in which the affirmative team engages the criticism in a meaningful way rather than reading common framework or theory objections. Please make all of your interpretations on theory as clear as you possibly can. This isn’t exactly the same as asking you to read it slowly—for example, a PICS Bad debate should have a clear interpretation of what a “PIC” is to you. I have generally come to understand what most members of the community mean by “textual" versus "functional” competition—but, again, this is a theory debate that you need to explain clearly.

Finally, please do not assume that any of your judges are flowing/comprehending every single word that you’re saying at top speed. As long as I have been involved in this activity, the most successful debaters have recognized that there is an element of persuasion that will never go away. I think that the quickness/complexity of many of the debaters have far surpassed a sizeable chunk of the judging pool. I often listen to my colleagues delivering decisions and (in my opinion) many struggle or are unwilling to admit that portions of the debate were unwarranted, unclear, and difficult to understand. I have often observed an undue burden to make sense of 2-3 second blips placed on critics by debaters—this activity doesn’t work unless you help me to understand what is important. I have the perspective to acknowledge that if a critic doesn’t vote for one of my teams, that there is something that we could have done better to win that ballot. I would simply ask that you dial back your rate of delivery slightly. Understand that there are times that slowing down makes sense to put all of the arguments in context. The most successful teams already do this, so I don’t imagine that this is a very difficult request.

Other notes: I flow the LOR on a separate sheet of paper. My speaker point range is 27-30. I don’t give out many 30’s, but I am happy to give quite a few 29’s. I will protect you from new arguments (or overly abusive clarifications of arguments) in the rebuttals. At a typical tournament, I will be involved in all aspects of prep with my team. Regardless of what I would disclose, for me, clarity is your best bet. I generally advise my teams to assume that your judges don’t know what you’re talking about until you tell them. I generally try to remove my previously existing understanding from the debate as much as possible.

TL, DR: I want to make the best decision that I can, given the arguments in the debate. If I’m going to end your NPTE, I will do so thoughtfully and with my full attention—that’s a promise. Make the debate about you, not me. I love this activity and all of the people in it. I make a conscious effort to approach decisions (especially at nationals) with respect for the activity and the people in the debate. 

ADOF for Washburn University

Please treat your opponent with kindness and respect. I get it sometimes this is hard to do—cx can get heated at times. Just know that keeping your cool in those situations goes a long way with me. Guaranteed if you’re rude speaks will suffer. If you’re really rude you will get the Loss!

Quality of evidence matters. Credential comparisons are important – example- Your opponent’s evidence is from a blog vs your evidence is from a specialist in the field of the debate---you should point that out! Currency comparisons are important – example- Your opponents impact card from 2014 is based off a very different world than what we exist in now---you should point that out. Last thing here—Over-tagged / under highlighted cards do not impress me. Good rule of thumb—if your card tag is longer than what you have highlighted I will consider that pretty shady.

Speed vs Delivery- What impresses me—debaters that can deliver their evidence efficiently & persuasively. Some can do this a little quicker than others and that is okay. On the flip side— for you slower debaters the great balancer is I prefer quality evidence / arguments and will always privilege 1 solid argument over 5 kind-of-arguments—you just have to point that out. Cross-applications / impact filter cards are your friend.

I prefer you embrace the resolution- What does this mean exactly? No plan text Affirmatives = 90% chance you will lose to T. If you could write an advocacy statement you probably could have written/found a TVA. What about the other 10%? Well, if your opponent does not run or collapse to T-USFG / does not put any offense on your performative method then you will probably get my ballot.

Theory/procedurals- Aff & Neg if you’re not making theory args offensive then don’t bother reading them. Negs that like to run 4 theory/procedural args in the 1NC and collapse to the one least covered—I will vote on RVI’s—This means when kicking out, if an RVI is on that theory sheet you better take the time to answer it. I view RVI’s as the great strategic balancer to this approach.

Case debate-Case debate is important. Key areas of case that should be addressed: Plan text (plan flaw), circumvention, direct solvency turns / defense, impact filters / framing, rolb claims.

Counterplan/disad combo - If I had to choose what debate island I would have to live on for the rest of my life-- I would choose this one. I like generic process cp/da combo’s just as much as hyper specific PICs/with a small net-benefit. CP text is important. Your CP text should be textually & functionally competitive. CP theory debates can be interesting. I will give all cp theory arguments consideration if framed as an offensive reason to do so. The only CP theory I will not listen to is PICs bad (never). Both aff/neg should be framing the rebuttal as “Judge we have the world of the cp vs the plan” here is why my world (the cp or plan) is better.

K debates - I am a great believer in topic specific critical lit – The more specific your link cards the better. If your only link is "you function through the state" – don’t run it or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency that isolates the method being used 3. Tell me what the post alt world looks like. If your K happens to be a floating PIC that is fine with me but I will consider theoretical argument in opposition as well—Yes, I will listen to a Floating PIC good/bad debate.

Last thought: Doing your own research + Cutting your own evidence = more knowledge gained by you.

“Chance favors a prepared mind” Louis Pasteur

Scott Elliott, Ph.D. J.D.

Asst Director of Forensics, KCKCC

Years Judging: 35+

Judging Philosophy:

What you need to know 10 minutes before your round starts:

I believe the affirmative should affirm the resolution chosen by the organization. I have been persuaded to vote otherwise. But, it is tough.

That argument you always wanted to run, but were afraid to run it….this may be your day to throw the Hail Mary. I prefer impact turns and arguments that most judges dislike.

Affirmatives still have to win basic stock issues. I prefer counterplans and disads. But I also believe that the affirmative has a burden to defend the ontological, epistemological, pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the affirmative arguments they have chosen.

I have probably written, cut cards for and against, and coached teams about, the “cutting edge” argument you are thinking of running. I have also voted for it and against it depending upon how that argument is deployed in the round.

I am not intimidated nor persuaded by team reputation, verbal abuse, physical assaults or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside the debate community and I have my dogs. I don’t need to be your buddy and I certainly do not care about my social standing within this so-called “community.”

Memorable examples of ways teams have unexpectedly picked up my ballot:
1) Voted for Baylor one time because Emory misspelled their plan text;
2) Voted for Emporia once because their plan wiped-out the universe, destroying all life (you had to be there);
3) Voted numerous times on anthro kritiks, De-Dev, Cap K's, anarchy, malthus, space, aliens A-Life, etc.;
4) voted for a counter-performance because it made me feel more emotional than the 1AC narrative;
5) voted for porn good turns;
6) voted for genocide reduces overpopulation turns;
7) did not vote, but the team won, because they took my ballot filled it out, gave themselves the win and double 30's;
8) voted once on a triple turn--link turned, impact turned, and turned back the impact turn (had to be there);
9) voted on inherency;
10) voted on foul language in a round--both ways--foul language bad and "yeah, we said F***, but that's good" turns;
11) voted for veganism K while eating a cheeseburger.

One last point: All of you need to flow the round. The speech document they flash over to you is not the debater's actual speech. Look. Listen. You may be surprised what the other team is actually saying.

I have judged a handful of tournaments since leaving full-time coaching in 2015. I was able to maintain the same flowing abilities and understanding of arguments. If there are new styles of arguments, acronyms, etc., you may need to clarify those. Aside from that, the below remains the same.

- I am a flow critic who evaluates the round through net benefits unless told otherwise. If a distinction does exist between pre/post fiat, you should tell me how to weigh all the arguments. I generally do not find arguments that seek to prevent the negative team from competing compelling (i.e. "you can't run DAs, etc). I am fine with discoursive impacts, but make sure all can access the round. You don't get to win simply because you are aff. I also do not like facr/value debate and have a low threshhold for voting on "Fact/Value bad" arguments.
- I am frustrated by the trend of parli to reward unclear, blippy debates that lack substance. I give preference to warranted arguments and clash as compared to a dropped blip that was not developed. An argument is not one line!
The above is especially true concerning impacts; a quick blip on “Resource wars = extinction” does not mean anything nor will I just assume the number of people who die as a result of your impacts; YOU MUST DO THE WORK!
- I can flow a pretty fast pace, but there is such a thing as too fast and really such a thing as unclear. If I do not flow your arguments due to excess speed/lack of clarity, your fault, not mine.
- I will give you a few seconds to get a drink and order, but I am frustrated with stealing prep. I may begin time if I think you are taking too long (you will know I am irritated when I ask you for the order).
- You cannot perm a DA….period!
- I believe that you should take a question if your opponent wants one concerning a new advocacy (plan, CP, alt text, and if perm is more than “Do Both”).
- Slow down and read your plan texts/interps/counter-interps twice unless you plan on giving me a copy
- If you say “x argument is for cheaters,” you will probably lose my ballot. There is a difference between claiming an argument is bad/should not be ran and making an attack against a team. If a team has cheated, that is to be determined by the tournament, not in round.
- I do not understand rudeness. Being rude does not help your arguments and only gets me irritated. Sarcasm and
banter are fine, but there are limits.

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.
The aff/neg can run critical arguments; make sure you have a framework and alternative and be clear as to how I evaluate critical arguments with non-critical arguments. Also, dropping authors’ names and using big words does not mean the K is good;
make sure you know what you are talking about or there is a good chance, I won’t. The alt should be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions.
- I do not vote on Speed Ks (Update: There is a potential I could find this argument compelling, if framed correctly, when it becomes apparent that the sole purpose of using speed in a round is to exclude another team....but this is a stretch in most instances).
- I will let teams debate out the legitimacy of contradictions.
Performance based arguments…
I will not exclude any arguments. Just make sure you have a clear framework to evaluate the argument and have an alternative
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing
interpretations?
I require you to win the argument and have a voter….
I do not require a counter interpretation; I just highly doubt you will win T without one
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual
competition ok? functional competition?
The opp should identify the status and if not, should allow the gov to ask what it is (without counting it as a question). The CP should also be ran prior to protected time or allow time for questions about the CP.
I will let the debaters debate out CP theory for PICS, perms, etc.
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?)?
I default to the weighing mechanism established (so if you say net ben and I am not told when to evaluate T, I will evaluate it as a decision of cost/benefit instead of as an a-priori issue). In a round with T and Ks, teams would be wise to debate out which one comes first.
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 love the buzz terms “time frame,” “magnitude,” and “probability.” Debaters should use these.
One million deaths will always come before an unwarranted dehum claim. Debaters should also tell me which impact standard takes priority.
I also do not consider internal links, impacts. Telling me “the economy goes down” does not mean anything. Also how do I evaluate quality of life?

I debated for 3 years at KCKCC

I read a lot of different types of arguments when I debated and am willing to listen to almost anything. Just what you do best and even you are clear on why that means you win I will vote for it.

Theory- Just like any argument you need a clear link and impact in theory debates. With most theroy args I helieve it is usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. Condo: I am probably ok with conditionality, but, the more condtional arguments that are read the more sympathetic I am to the affirmative team. It will also be much easier to win if you can prove the conditional positions are contradictory to each other. CP theory: PICs are usually ok and the aff should have a defense on why wahtever the negative PICs out of is important to the aff. PIC theory is way more winable against ridiculous than it is against a PIC grounded in topic lit. .  

CPs- Are a very winable strategy in front of me. Make sure the net benefit is clear. The only 2 types of CPs I think may be iffy are consult and ridiculous word PICs out words such as "should" and "the". If you have literature grounded in the topic on reason consult is good you can probably win the argument, I just find that is rarely the case. Some word PICs are ok, if you have reason the world they said is offensive or bad for what they are trying to acheive you have a shot, but i should be subsantitive not just a PIC out of "should" "and" or "the". That does not mean I won vote on those types of arguments, I just think PICs out of minor words are harder to win and probably more thoeritically questionable.

Topicality/Framework- There needs to be a clear impact to these types of arguments, just saying it isn't fair or is bad for education is not an impact if you don't have reasons why those are true of the affirmative you are debating against. I am more than willing to vote on these arguments is they are well warranted and impacted it just may be harder to get me to vote here than it is other people. On topicality, I believe reasinibilty is the best way to evaluate it, I can be persuaded otherwise, but, that is my general starting point. On framework, it is hard for me to believe we should exclude certain styles of debate, I tend to find the impact turns to framework far more believable than the impacts to framework. The most important thing to win if you want me to vote on framework is probably topical version of the aff.

Disads-If you have them read them. I am totally ok with almost all disads, politics is one of my least favorite arguments in debate, the links and internal links on politics are usually questionable. Offense is always a prefferable strategy, but, I am willing to say a disad has 0 risk if the aff can prove it.

Case debate- I like to see good case debate and think the neg should in someway interact with the aff case. Just like disads offense is a better strat but if the neg can prove it I will vote on 0 risk of solvency.

Kritikal affs- I am open to any type of aff you want to read as long as you can justify why what you do means you win. If your method is clear and you impact your arguments you should have no problem. When negating these affs it is usually better to engage the argument instead of jsut reading framework, it wil be a hard sale to get me to believe we should exlcude any style of deabte.

Kritiks- I read a far amount of kritiks, but don't assume that means I know as much about the lit you are reading as you do. Kritiks are my favorite type of arguments and a usually a viable strategy, just be sure you are explainign how your argument interacts with the aff and means you win. 

I think that covers everything if you have any questions feel free to ask before round or email me tyler.gillette1@gmail.com

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Hey there! Please feel free to ask me about my philosophy before round.

email: david.bo.hansen@gmail.com

Experience

Competitor

2 years - Community College NPDA/IE's
3 years - National Circuit NPDA/NPTE

Coach
2 years - Asian Parliamentary Debate/Public Forum
2 years - NPDA/NPTE
Some BP

My preferred pronouns are he/him/his.

Public Forum Notes

Do you have any strong predispositions for or against any particular arguments? If so, what?

I am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well warranted and reasoned. As a debater and coach, I have worked with all kinds of arguments and tend to think that debaters should read the arguments that they are the most personally compelled by.

What is your stance on student delivery? Should debaters be fast or slow?

I have no strong predisposition for or against speed. I just ask that all debaters are able to comprehend the debate round.

Do you call for evidence in debate rounds? What do you look for?

I call for evidence if there is a dispute on interpretation, but I tend to defer to debaters' interpretation.

What do you tend to think the most important questions in a debate are?

How should the judge decide who wins? Which arguments matter most? Why does my evidence support my claim? I find more specific arguments more persuasive.

I am not prejudiced strongly for or against kritikal arguments.

I tend to think providing a framework for the round is important.

Policy/Parli

General Notes

Specificity wins debates.

(Parli) Interpretations and advocacies should at least be read twice and slowly. Ideally you provide the judge(s) and competitors with a copy.

I tend to believe that the way we discuss the world has real impacts outside of the debate round.

If debaters are debating ethically, I tend to believe that framework arguments are more persuasive than the arguments against it. However, I will vote based on how the debate plays out. If you win that defending the topic is bad and you reject the topic, you will likely win the debate.

An argument without a warrant isn’t an argument.

I tend to believe that recording, sharing, and watching rounds is good for debate.

Theory and Framework

I love a great theory or framework shell. I am happy to vote here. I think a great shell isn't the right buzzwords, it's a specific articulation of how behavior implicates debate as a game.

Counter Plans

I’m uncertain about conditionality. I am sympathetic to arguments about the 2AC/MG being key and difficult. However, I also believe the negative should have some flexibility. The community goes back and forth on condo and I do too. Feel free to run your shell. Feel free to be conditional. I will vote depending on how condo plays out.

PIC’s are usually abusive in NPDA debate, but often strategic and occasionally justified – especially if the topic provides aff flex.

Delay is almost always bad, so are process CP’s.

Kritiks

These are fine. I read them a lot, and went for them occasionally. Please provide early thesis-level analysis. I think most K shells I’ve seen are incredibly inefficient and vulnerable to impact turns. Teams should likely cut major portions of their FW page and instead develop solvency and internal links to the case.

2A/MG’s should be more willing to go hard right (or left) to answer K’s. The aff probably links to Cap, but there is SUBSTANTIAL lit in favor of cap.

K/Critical affs

Can be amazing. However, they are easy to do inefficiently and hard to do well. An aff that is rejecting the motion needs to justify why: 1. Your thing matters more than the topic 2. Why you can’t discuss your thing on this topic OR 3. Why your thing is a prior question to the topic.

On the neg, you need to prove that you are an opportunity cost to the aff. Maybe it’s as simple as you need to keep debating, but you need a reason.

Hey all! To start, my judging philosophy is probably similar to David Hansen’s. However, there are certain issues I view differently than David. I say this to encourage you to actually read my philosophy and not assume you know my preferences because you might know David’s.

I started my debate career at Snow College where I did NPDA and IE’s for two years before transferring to William Jewell College. I debated there for three years and won nationals in 2016. I love debate. The thing I love most about it is that it’s not about the judges, it’s about the debaters. To that end, debate what you want to debate about.

*Note for Jewell: I have spent a year living in South Korea working with students who don’t speak English natively, so your top speed may be too fast. I will let you know if I have any difficulty understanding you with either “clear” or “speed”.

General Notes

If I were to summarize my philosophy, I would say I think that you can run whatever you would like to run as long as you justify it. Whether that be the cap k, fem, afro pessimism, heg, politics, etc., if you can justify you have access to those arguments via links or framework, I can be persuaded to vote there.

Interpretations and advocacies should at least be read twice and slowly. I will ask for a copy of your texts (cp, plant text, t interps, etc).

Pretty much nothing in my philosophy is absolute.

An argument without a warrant isn’t an argument.

Theory and Framework

I love theory debates. Framework was the most common argument I ran my senior year. That being said, I do believe most theory debate is executed very poorly. I will not be persuaded by repeating the shell your coach gave you if you can’t explain what standards like “limits” mean. Generally, I’ve found that theory positions that are nuanced, specific to parli, and are good at interacting with standards are rare.

The exception to this rule is straight-up T in policy debates. This is the one theory that I have a high threshold for.

Counter Plans

Generally, I believe that condo is bad. I think it discourages in-depth research and takes away too much MG flex. However, I know there are excellent condo good args. If you win those, I’ll def vote against condo bad.

PIC’s I think are fair game. I think their extremely strategic but can be abusive, so get good specific justifications that are related to the topic.

Delay is almost always bad, so are process CP’s.

Kritiks

These are fine. I read them a lot, went for them occasionally. Please provide early thesis-level analysis. I think most K shells I’ve seen are incredibly inefficient and vulnerable to impact turns. Teams should likely cut major portions of their FW page and instead develop solvency and internal links to the case.

MG’s should be more willing to go hard right (or left) to answer K’s. The aff probably links to Cap, but there is SUBSTANTIAL lit in favor of cap.

***I do have a much higher threshold for psycho analysis K’s (Lacan, Derrida, etc). This is partly because I get frustrated with how these arguments are so different then how their authors wrote them. I also generally dislike continental philosophy. If this is your baby, go for it. Just make sure you clearly explain what your K is and don’t over rely on jargon.***

Performance

I think performance arguments can be amazing. However, most teams do a terrible job of justifying why they don’t have to debate the topic. I think these arguments exist, but that generally teams are bad at explaining them.

I am probably far more likely to vote on framework arguments if the aff’s justification for not debating about the topic is generic, especially if it seems like you are running the position just to catch your opponent off guard. ***This is not to say you can’t run them. Just be nuanced in your justification.***

On the neg, you need to prove that you are an opportunity cost to the aff. Maybe it’s as simple as you need to keep debating, but you need a reason.

I'm a new member of the debate community, so arguments that are highly technical, overly reliant on jargon, or exotic in nature are not likely your best bet.  I'm interested in narrative, so the best way to gain my support is to have a clear story.  Give me a strong summary and let me know why you deserve my vote.  I'm not particularly familiar with the customs, rituals, or culture of the debate community, so the best thing you can do is be courteous and professional.

Quickness of speech is welcome if accompanied by an equal measure of clarity of speech.  Arguments that are out of place have little impact on me, so make sure to signpost.  An argument that doesn't seem to be anywhere may as well not be anywhere.

Emotional appeals and shock value are more likely to draw my scrutiny than my praise.  I respect levelheadedness and clear reasoning.  You're welcome to use any kind of argument you'd like, but I tend to find it more compelling when the debate sticks close to the topic at hand and does not become a debate about the nature of debate.

On a personal note, almost no Star Trek reference will be lost upon me.

Lauren Knoth

Saved Philosophy:

Currently in Olympia, WA working as a Senior Research Associate in criminal justice at a non-partisan state agency. I earned by PhD in Quantitative Criminology at Penn State with an emphasis on actuarial risk assessments at sentencing and victimization. I work with policy makers on a weekly basis. I also won NPDA and NPTE in 2012.

Note for this year's LD topic: My partner is a Spec Ops member of the US Army. He has and will deploy to areas specifically mentioned in this year's topic. I am human and recognize that it may be more difficult for me than for most to separate my feelings and emotions from the arguments you make in the debate round. I am open to anything, but your language matters. My preference is for a straight up debate, but also know that you can't BS your way through with me since I live and breathe the US military on a daily basis.

Judging Philo:

Debate is a game. Each team will play it differently and ultimately you should stick to what you’re comfortable with. The below information is largely irrelevant in that framework, but I present to you, as transparently as possible, any personal preferences I have that would make the round more enjoyable for me (but again, whether or not I enjoy the round is largely irrelevant or so I'm told). This philosophy is to make you aware of how I see the round in general, since no debate ever addresses every question necessary to render an RFD, I tend to think it important for you to know my starting points and how I will evaluate the round absent a world where I’m persuasively told otherwise. The bottom line is if you win the offense in the round and can clearly explain this using warrants and interacting with the opponents positions, you’ll win my ballot. I also prefer debates to be civil and without any ad hominem arguments. If this occurs, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

Preface on speed: this should be no problem; however if you are ridiculously fast, you may want to knock down to your mach 7 or 8 speed instead of mach 10. Clarity is most important, and if I can’t understand or follow you, I won’t hesitate to say clear. Developed, warranted arguments are also more important than a million unwarranted blippy arguments.

Advocacies/Interpretations: two options – (1) provide me with a written copy of the text (preferred) or (2) slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and read it at least twice. This is also important in theory debates. Too often a team has lost because they didn’t understand their opponents original interpretation OR the judge didn’t catch the entirety of the interpretation. Obviously shared access to your evidence is also desired/appreciated.

Topicality: I need a framework for evaluating this argument, and without one I am likely to default to competing interpretations. Any other framework (i.e. reasonability) needs to be explained well. Other than that, I enjoy a good T debate and when done well I think it can be strategic.

Theory: Overall I think there needs to be a discussion of the different interpretations, and like T I need a framework for evaluating the argument. It is up to the debaters to tell me if the particular theory argument is a voting issue, or a reason to reject the argument. One important distinction – thanks to my years being coached by DD, I do think there is an intimate relationship between aff and neg flex that often is ignored. Theory should be used to justify why you get to read specific arguments, not just reasons those arguments may be good or bad in general. For example, situations with large aff flex (insert whatever reason why) may justify the use of multiple conditional strategies (read: neg flex) for the negative. Including discussions of these critical issues is more likely to persuade me one way or another on a theory position. **One theory argument I am particularly compelled by is multiple worlds. I dislike when teams read multiple conditional strategies that contradict each other. At a minimum, if I’m not voting on this theory argument, I think it does justify severance perms from the aff (again read: aff flex). For example, if the neg reads a war with NK disad and a security K based on the representations of a war with China Adv, I think the aff should be able to “perm: pass the plan without the security representations in the adv.” If the neg is able to severe out of their discourse and reps with the NK disad, why shouldn’t the aff be allowed to do the same thing? Multiple conditional strategies can be deployed without these large contradictions.**

Disads – yes please. Particularly if they are intrinsic. I understand the strategic choice to read politics in some instances; however, with topic areas and specific resolutions (i.e. pass X policy) I am more likely to be persuaded by a topic specific, intrinsic disad.

CPs - Love them. I don’t care if they’re delay, consult, enforcement pics, adv cps, etc . I think each can be strategic and justified through NB. I am more persuaded by functional competition than textual competition. You can have this theory debate if you want, but I think your time is better spent beating the CP and NB.

Ks – also fine. The biggest problem I have with K’s is the common assumption that everyone in the community is familiar with X author and everything they’ve ever written ever. This is certainly not the case for me. Criminal theorists I can get behind since I am immersed in this literature frequently; however other authors I am likely to need additional explanation for. This may be as simple as a clear concise abstract or thesis at the beginning of your K. This is also important if you are using author specific language that isn’t common knowledge. It may be strategic to slow down in the beginning and make sure that important terms or concepts are made clear early. Intrinsic k’s are preferred to the always linkable cap etc., but I am willing to listen to any of them. See the intro to this philosophy about language, especially with identity based/performance K’s.

***Important*** I need to have a clear explanation of what the alternative does, and what the post-alt world looks like. Stringing together post-modern terms and calling it an alternative is not enough for me if I have no idea what the heck that means. I prefer to know exactly what action is advocated by the alternative, and what the world looks like after passage of the alternative. I think this is also necessary to establish stable solvency/alternative ground for the opposing team to argue against and overall provides for a better debate. Good theory is nothing without a good mechanism with which to implement it, and I'm tired of this being overlooked.

Identity based criticisms – I’m honestly probably not the best judge for these arguments in the sense that I am distal from the literature and don’t know how to evaluate claims of personal identity. Often when I've seen these arguments, they replicate the types of violence they are attempting to solve for and they make far too many assumptions about the people in the room. If you read these arguments that is okay with me, but please try to avoid these issues. If you do not personally know me or the people you are debating, please refrain from ascribing labels to them or to me as well. I am generally persuaded by framework arguments against these positions, however simply saying “framework” will not win my ballot. All I am saying here is that my threshold for framework may be lower than critical leaning judges, in a similar way that people have different thresholds for topicality and spec arguments. Let me be clear that I am not saying I will not listen to or ever vote for these arguments. My general preference is for a debate that embraces the topic. This does not preclude criticisms, but suggests that I would prefer topic specific criticisms. My preference would be for a debate that interrogates the critical literature you are reading through a defense of or application to marginalized populations addressed in the resolution, rather than having to evaluate fact or value claims about individual’s identities in the room. I will need a thorough framework of how to evaluate these claims. All of my above statements about criticisms in general (see the need for a clear post alt world) also apply to these types of criticisms.

Perms (CPs/Ks) As may be obvious by some rounds I’ve debated in, I love a solid perm debate. Perm texts need to be clearly articulated – slow down a bit and perhaps read them twice or provide them in a speech doc especially if it’s more complicated than “do both.” Do both is fine for me as a perm text, but you should explain what that means or how that happens.

One last thing – IMPACT CALC. The last thing I want is to evaluate a round where I have no idea what should be prioritized over what, how disads interact with case advantages, and I just have a bunch of arguments randomly on the flow with no story or explanation. Rebuttals should serve to write my ballot, and if you’re lucky my RFD may be a quote from the NR or AR. I think impact calc is undervalued, particularly by negative teams. Probability, Magnitude, and Timeframe are all strategic tools that should explain why I’m voting for you at the end of the round. These also serve to clarify the offense in the round and provide a succinct explanation for your overall strategy.

My process during evaluations of CP/K debates: As a quantitative criminologist, formulas are easier ways of organizing my thoughts. Thus, I evaluate every CP/K debate the same way:

Does the CP/Alt solve the aff?

1. Does the aff solve (link turn or otherwise) the offense of the CP/Alt?

2. Is there a Net-Benefit to the CP/Alt?

3. Is there a disad to the CP/Alt?

4. Is there a permutation to the CP/Alt?

1. Does it solve the offense to the CP/Alt?

2. Does it solve the aff?

3. Is there an external net benefit to the permutation?

5. Impact weighing:

1. If the answer to 5 is yes, does it outweigh the answer to 1 and 3?

2. If the answer to 5 is no, does the answer to 2 and 4 outweigh the answer to 1 and 3?

Background

I was a Jewell debater a decade ago, and I coached for a few years after that at Oregon and Willamette.  Debate was a huge part of my life for a long time, but I stopped going to tournaments a few years back.  In other words, I'm competent-but-rusty.  Debate just isn't on my mind the way it used to be, so I'm not up to speed on whatever's been happening in the game for the last 3-4 years.

The overview here is that I don't have an preference about the genre of argument you want to run or whatever, I just care that you're super clear and flowable.  Know that my pen is slow and that I love warrants to your args and we'll be fine.

Speed

This is very important.  On a 1-10 scale, 10 being your top speed, 5 being a conversational pace, and 1 being you're alseep or something, then you can go 7.5.  I don't go to tournaments often, and my flowing skills are rusty.  I'm not saying you have to speak slowly or be a good orator.  I just can't keep up with your top speed.  It is paramount that you be as clear as possible.

Critical arguments

I'm fine with kritiks, critical affs, whatever, I only ask that you be abundantly precise with your alternative/plan text and advocacy.  Abudantly clear.  Abudantly.

Counterplans

Yeah obviously I'm down with counterplans.  I'll let you hash out the theory debate because I don't really have much preference on any of it.  That said, pay careful attention to the next section.

Theory

I love theory, but I don't have any patience for underdeveloped or poorly constructed theory args anywhere in the debate.  Be super clear.  If I don't catch your interp and violation because you just blew through it in two seconds of garbled stuttering, then it doesn't really count as anything for me.  If your interpretation and violation aren't clear to be by the end of the position, I'm probably just going to ignore it.  Don't worry, I'm not looking to throw your args out just because of one tiny question.  I just want you to actually try to make sure everyone in the room understands the argument you're making.  It's a killshot, so I'm picky about this.

Topicality and Specs

See above.  Same thing.  Be clear and precise.

Paradigm

I default to being like "would doing the aff be sweet?  yes?  then yeah dudes i vote aff.  if it's not p sweet, then i'll probably vote neg."

I come from a policy debate background so I try to judge the debate from the flow. I was mainly a critical debater, but i enjoy all arguments and will vote for t.  Theory debates are cool with me, as is the CP.  Tell me why you win. That being said, I have very little experience with parliamentary debate and have been out of the activity for a while. Don't expect me to follow all the jargon.  Usually when I'm making a decision I weigh procedurals first, framework, then the substance.  For the impact debate, I want you to weigh it for me.  If you don't I will usually weigh probability first, then magnitude, then timeframe.

Experience:

I debated 4 years of Public Forum at Pennsbury High School and 4 years of NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate for Wheaton College up through 2017 nationals. Since college, I have coached and judged college parliamentary debate for several schools, and currently coach University of Minnesota. I majored in economics and political science for my undergraduate degrees.

Overview:

I evaluate the debate the debaters have. I am open to policy, kritiks, performance, theory, etc. just tell me why I should prefer it. If you want to mix policy and critical arguments, go for it. That is almost exclusively how I debated and I love critical impacts. Just make sure not to contradict yourself, or go for too much. Weigh. Please. Everyone is happier at the end of the round if there is clear weighing. If you are discussing any kind of physical violence, sexual assault, or anything graphic, it is essential that you read a content warning. These topics are important and should be discussed, but for the safety and well-being of other competitors AND judges, it is essential that you at least give a warning that such a topic will be discussed. If you do not and your opponents call you out on it, I will consider that an independent voter.

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I will vote on post-fiat impact stories if you win the policy debate and win the importance of those impacts. Make sure you have clear links. If your opponent points out massive holes in your link story, I am inclined to listen. The burden is on you to keep your link story in tact, especially if you have high magnitude impacts. I generally default to probability and prefer systemic impacts, but ultimately, I will weigh however I am told to weigh, with the most compelling reasons.

Kritiks:

I will vote on the K if you win the K, and that the K has the most important sheets in the round. Make sure you have a clear alternative and alt solvency. Be prepared to provide an alternative text to your opponents if they ask for it. If your alternative is especially long and complicated, providing a text to me would probably be in your favor. I just got out of high level debate last year, so I am following most of the lingo and will understand most literature references, but please don’t assume I know your author, or that your opponents do. If you are new to debate and don’t understand what your opponents are talking about, ask questions. If you feel your opponents are excluding you from the round by failing to answer your questions clearly, invoking terms and authors you don’t know, etc, point it out.

Theory:

I will vote on theory if you win the theory debate. I ran a wide variety of theory arguments -- common ones and occasionally ventured into new territory. Make sure you have a clear interpretation that you meet.

Performance:

I will vote for a performance debate if the performing team wins the role of the ballot and/or the role of the judge and/or wins arguments about why the performance comes first. I appreciate the way performance debates bring real world issues to the forefront of debate rounds and confront them head on. I have gained appreciation for performance debates over the years, and believe them to be extremely valuable to our community and beyond. I do not need to be made comfortable or included or added to your movement to vote for you, but I do appreciate clarity, especially in performance debates, about how you want me to evaluate the round. If you are opposing a performance, I would highly encourage you to engage the arguments as best you can. I will vote on framework, if framework arguments are made and properly explained to be the most important.

Inclusion:

I expect all debaters to be cordial and respectful of one another. If you are asked to make accommodations for a disability, I expect you to comply to the best of your ability. I will vote on theory arguments or kritiks that demonstrate exclusion if they are well warranted, and am more lenient about structure in these instances if there is demonstrated abuse. Debate is a game, but it is also the real world. Don’t forget that you are talking to and about real people, and that I am a real person in the back of the room.

Speaker Points:

27-30, unless you do something incredibly rude or exclusionary.

If you have questions after the round, I would be more than happy to try to answer them. If you would like to talk in person, you are free to come find me, and if you would like to contact me to talk later, ask me to put my email on the ballot.

In general, I take a real world approach to debate. I am not persuaded by tenuous links to a nuke war impact and would rather vote for real arguments based on likely consequences of policy proposals in the case of policy debate. I believe parliamentary debate should not always be limited to a policy framework and that debaters should structure the debate as the resolution dictates. I am a limited tab judge, which means I won’t divorce my common sense from the evaluation of your arguments and if you state things that the an average intelligent person knows is not true, I won’t give it credit (e.g., Kanye West is the democratic nominee for President).

Experience

I have participated in and/or coached every form of debate.  Currently, I am the DOF at Morehouse College where we engage in NPDA, BP, IPDA, and some times Public Forum. I have coached teams to Pi Kappa Delta National Championships in NPDA debate 4 times in the last three years, and Morehouse finished 6th in NPDA Sweepstakes.  

Topicality

I believe the Gov has an obligation to present a Topical case.  If it doesn’t then I believe Opp should run T and challenge their interpretation of the resolution.  If they don’t, then it’s accepted.  Your standards (or counterstandards) on T are up to you, but I’m not a big fan of debatablity or education.  You can be debateable and educational and still be nontopical.  The correct/best interpretation of words is a real issue in debate and the real world.

I believe T is always a voting issue and never a reverse voter. I expect any critical Govs or performance based advocacy to be topical.  If your links to the topic aren’t strong you should reconsider running it against me.  I am still Tabby, but you will start off at a disadvantage without solid links.

Trichotomy

I believe strongly that Parli debate should some times be Policy, sometimes Value, and sometimes Fact.  I also believe that on some resolutions people can reasonably disagree.  I enjoy a good substantive discussion about the round and the framework that the debate should operate under, but by all means don’t argue this for the sake of arguing it or because I said I like it.

DAs

If there is a plan in the debate and you’re Opp, you should have some.  However, I will vote on traditional stock issues if you win there.  Please don’t feel the need to state large impacts with tenuous links just so your impact calculus sounds better.  I more realistic and likely

Counterplans

For me, these must be nontopical, mutually exclusive, and net beneficial.  I don’t like conditional counterplans in Parli – too much room for abuse. Any other questions just ask. Also, no CPs in the MO.

Kritiks

Please don’t assume I have read any of the philosophical or critical literature upon which you base your arguments. I expect debaters to explain their positions sufficiently in round to justify me voting for it. I am generally open various philosophical approaches to the round.

Things I don’t like:

Tag team POIs – it’s your partner’s speech let them answer.  If they can’t it will hurt their speaker points.

Splitting the block – you just can’t do this in Parli.  MO must respond with any new arguments Opp wants in the debate or to respond to MG.  I am ok with new examples and new analysis in the LOR, but they must connect to preexisting arguments from constructives.

Excessive Speed – Twenty years ago I was a policy debater.  I was fast, but not the fastest for sure. My dislike of speed (particularly for speedsake or loading up the flow) now comes not from my inability to flow it, but for my preference in parliamentary debate that the manner in which you speak is as important as the matter or substance that you deliver.  I enjoy hearing speeches that could persuade anyone (i.e., not only debate coaches and former debaters).  Some people naturally speak fast, and that’s ok with me as long as you are articulate, have good structure, and sign post well.  I also think debaters should make conscious decisions about what positions to run and not attempt to throw the kitchen sink out and see what sticks (or what is dropped).  I will vote on dropped positions, but you are unlikely to win the round just because your opponent dropped your little 3 on Advantage 2, Subpoint A. 

Performance/Project – I believe that Gov should be topical no matter what style case they decide to run.  I believe that Parli debate is about the resolution so you should make sure that your case has a clear link and also see my comments on T.

I am a Debate Coach at McKendree University. We compete primarily in the NPDA and NFA-LD formats of debate. We also host and assist with local high school teams, who focus on NSDA-LD and PF.

Email: banicholsonATmckendreeDOTedu

I have sections dedicated to each format of debate I typically judge and you should read those if you have time. If you don’t have time, read the TLDR and ask your specific questions before the round. If you do a format of debate I don’t have a section for, read as much as you can and ask as many questions as you want before the round.

TLDR

My goal as a judge is to adapt to the round that debaters have. I do not expect debaters to adapt to me. Instead, I want you to do what you want to do. I try to be a judge that debaters can use as a sounding board for new arguments or different arguments. I feel capable judging pretty much any kind of debate and I’ll always do my best to render a fair decision that is representative of the arguments I’ve seen in the round. If I am on a panel, feel free to adapt to other judges. I understand that you need to win the majority, not just me, and I’m never going to punish you for that. Do what wins the panel and I’ll come along for the ride.

I view debate as a game. But I believe games are an important part of our lives and they have real impacts on the people who play them and the contexts they are played in. Games also reflect our world and relationships to it. Debate is not a pro sport. It is not all about winning. Your round should be fun, educational, and equitable for everyone involved. My favorite thing to see in a debate round is people who are passionate about their positions. If you play hard and do your best, I'm going to appreciate you for that.

The quick hits of things I believe that you might want to know before the round:

1. Specificity wins. Most of the time, the debater with the more well-articulated position wins the debate. Get into the details and make comparisons.

2. I like debaters who seek out clash instead of trying to avoid it. Do the hard work and you will be rewarded.

3. I assume negative advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise. I think conditionally is good. Anything more than two advocacies is probably too much. Two is almost always fine. One conditional advocacy is not at all objectionable to me. Format specific notes below.

4. I love topicality debates. I tend to dislike 1NC theory other than topicality and framework. 2AC theory doesn’t appeal to me most of the time, but it is an important check against negative flex, so use it as needed.

5. I don’t exclude impact weighing based on sequencing. Sequencing arguments are often a good reason to preference a type of impact, but not to exclude other impacts, so make sure to account for the impacts you attempt to frame out.

6. I will vote on presumption. Debate is an asymmetrical game, and the negative does not have to win offense to win the round. However, I want negative debaters to articulate their presumption triggers for me, not assume I will do the work for them.

7. I think timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude, but no one ever does the work, so I end up voting for extinction impacts because that feels least interventionist.

8. Give your opponents’ arguments the benefit of the doubt. They’re probably better than you give them credit for and underestimating them will hurt your own chances of winning.

9. Debates should be accessible. If your opponent (or a judge) asks you to slow down, slow down. Be able to explain your arguments. Be kind. Debate should be a fun learning experience for everyone.

10. In evidence formats, you should be prepared to share that evidence with everyone during the round via speechdrop, email chain, or flash drive.

11. All debate is performative. How you choose to perform matters and is part of the arguments you make. That often doesn’t come up, but it can. Don’t say hateful things or be rude. I will dock speaker points accordingly.

General

This philosophy is very expansive. That is because I want you to be able to adapt to me as much as you want to adapt. To be totally honest, you can probably just debate how you want and it will be fine – I really do want you to do you in rounds. But I also want you to know who I am and how I think about debate so that you can convince me.

Everything is up for debate. For every position I hold about debate, it seems someone has found a corner case. I try to be clear and to stick to my philosophy’s guidelines as much as possible as a judge. Sometimes, a debater changes how I see debate. Those debaters get very good speaker points. (Speaking of which, my speaker points center around a 28.1 as the average, using tenth points whenever possible).

I flow on a laptop most of the time now. Flowing on paper hurts my hand in faster rounds. If I’m flowing on paper for some reason, I might ask you to slow down so that I can flow the debate more accurately. If I don’t ask you to slow down, you’re fine – don’t worry about it. I don’t number arguments as I flow, so don’t expect me to know what your 2b point was without briefly referencing the argument. You should be doing this as part of your extensions anyway.

One specific note about my flowing that I have found impacts my decisions compared to other judges on panels is that I do not believe the “pages” of a debate are separate. I view rounds holistically and the flow as a representation of the whole. If arguments on separate pages interact with each other, I do not need explicit cross-applications to understand that. For instance, “MAD checks” on one page of the debate answers generic nuke war on every page of the debate. That work should ideally be done by debaters, but it has come up in RFDs in the past, so I feel required to mention it.

In theory debates, I’ve noticed some judges want a counter-interpretation regardless of the rest of the answers. If the strategy in answering theory is impact turns, I do not see a need for a counter-interp most of the time. In a pure, condo bad v condo good debate, for instance, my presumption is condo, so the negative can just read impact turns and impact defense and win against a “no condo” interp. Basically, if the aff says “you can’t do that because it is bad” and the neg says “it is not bad and, in fact, is good” I do not think the neg should have to say “yes, I can do that” (because they already did it). The counter-interp can still help in these debates, as you can use it to frame out some offense, by creating a lower threshold that you still meet (think “some condo” interps instead of “all condo”).

I look to texts of interps over spirit of interps. I have rarely seen spirit of the interp clarified in the 1NC and it is often used to pivot the interp away from aff answers or to cover for a bad text. If you contextualize your interp early and then stick to that, that is fine. But don’t use spirit of the interp to dodge the 2AC answers.

I start the round with the assumption that theory is a prior question to other evaluations. I will weigh theory then substance unless someone wins an argument to the contrary. Critical affs do not preclude theory in my mind unless a debater wins a compelling reason that it should. I default to evaluating critical arguments in the same layer as the rest of the substantive debate. I am compelled by arguments that procedural issues are a question of judging process (that non-topical affs skew my evaluation of the substance debate or multi-condo skews the speech that answers it, for instance). I am unlikely to let affirmative teams weigh their aff against theory objections to that aff without some good justifications for that.

A topicality interpretation should allow some aff ground. If there is not a topical aff and the aff team points that out, I'm unlikely to vote neg on T. That means you should read a TVA if you’re neg (do this anyway). I am open to sketchier T interps if they make sense. For instance, if you say that a phrase in the res means the aff must be effectually topical, I can see myself voting for this argument. Keep in mind, however, that these arguments run the risk of your opponent answering them well and you gaining nothing.

NPDA

I’m going to start with the biggest change in my NPDA philosophy. Debates need to slow down. I still think speed is good. If all the debaters are fine with speed, I still like fast debate and want to see throwdowns at top speed. However, analytics with no speech docs are brutal to flow. Too many warrants get dropped. While we have laundry lists of arguments, they are often not dealt with in depth because they’re just hard to keep track of and account for. Our best NPDA debaters could debate at about 80% of their top speeds and maintain argumentative depth through improved efficiency and increased focus on the core issues of rounds, while still making the complex and nuanced arguments we want and getting more of them on each other’s flows and into each other’s speeches. Seek out clash!

NPDA is a strange beast. Without carded evidence, uniqueness debates and author says X/no they say Y can be messy. That just means you need to explain a way you want me to evaluate them and, ultimately, why I should believe your interpretation of that author’s position or the argument you’ve made. In yes/no uniqueness questions, explain why you believe yes, not just that someone else does. That means explaining the study or the article reasoning that you’re leaning on and applying it to the specifics of the debate. Sometimes it just means you need an “even if” argument to hedge your bets if you lose those issues. I try to let these things be resolved in round, but sometimes I have to make a judgment call and I’ll do my best to refer only to my flow when that happens. But remember, the evidence alone doesn’t win evidence debates – the warrants and reasoning do the heavy lifting.

Arguments in parliamentary debate require more reasoning and support because there is no printed evidence available to rely on. That means you should not just yoink the taglines out of a file someone open-sourced. You should explain the arguments as they are explained in the texts those files are cut from. Use your own words to make the novel connections to the rounds we’re in and the topics we discuss. This is a beautiful thing when it happens, and those rounds show the promise that parli has as a productive academic endeavor. We don’t just rely on someone else saying it – we can make our own arguments and apply what others have said to new scenarios. So, let’s do that!

Affirmative teams must affirm the resolution. How you do that is up to you. The resolution should be a springboard for many conversations, but criticizing the res is not a reason to vote affirmative. You can read policy affs, value affs, performance affs, critical affs, and any other aff you can think of as long as it affirms the res. Affs should include an interpretation of the resolution and a weighing mechanism to determine if you’ve met this burden. That is not often necessary in policy affs (because it happens contextually), but sometimes it helps to clarify. I am not asking the aff to roleplay as oppressors or to abdicate their power to pose questions. Instead, I want the aff team to reframe questions if necessary and to contextualize their offense to the resolution.

Negative teams must answer the affirmative. How you do that is up to you. You should make sure I know what your objections to the aff strategy are and why they are voting issues. That can be T, DAs, Ks, performances, whatever (except spec*). I vote on presumption more than most judges in NPDA. The aff must win offense and affs don’t always do that. I think “risk of solvency” only applies if I know what I’m risking. I must be able to understand and explain what an aff does on my ballot to run that “risk” on their behalf. With all that said, articulate presumption triggers for me. When you extend defense in the MO, explain “that’s a presumption trigger because…”.

I can buy arguments that presumption flips aff in counter-advocacy debates, but I don’t see that contextualized well and is often just a “risk of solvency” type claim in the PMR. This argument is most compelling to me in PIC debates, since the aff often gets less (or none) of their 1AC offense to leverage. Absent a specific contextualization about why presumption flips aff in this round (bigger change, PIC, etc.), I tend to err neg on this question, though it rarely comes up.

*On spec: Spec shells must include a clear brightline for a ‘we meet’ – so ‘aff must specify the branch (judicial, legislative, executive)’ is fine. Spec shells often only serve to protect weak link arguments (which should be improved, rather than shielded by spec) or to create time tradeoffs. They are sometimes useful and good arguments, but that scenario is rare. In the few cases where spec is necessary, ask a question in flex. If that doesn’t work, read spec.

Condo: 1 K, 1 CP, and the squo is fine to me. Two Ks is a mess. Two CPs just muddles the case debate and is worse in NPDA because we lack backside rebuttals. Contradictory positions are fine with me (procedurally, at least). MGs should think ahead more and force bad collapses in these debates. Kicking the alt doesn’t necessarily make offense on the link/impact of a K go away (though it often does). I am open to judge kicking if the neg describes and justifies an exact set of parameters under which I judge kick. I reserve the right to not judge kick based on my own perception of these arguments. So probably don’t try to get me to judge kick, honestly.

I don't think reasonability (as it is frequently explained) is a good weighing mechanism for parli debates. It seems absurd that I should be concerned about the outcomes of future debates with this topic when there will be none or very few and far between. At topic area tournaments, I am more likely to vote on specific topicality. That does not mean that you can't be untopical, it just means you need good answers. Reasonability makes more sense to me at a tournament that repeats resolutions (like NPTE).

NFA-LD

I tend to think disclosure of affs (once you’ve read them) is good and almost necessary and that disclosure of negs is very kind, but not necessary. The more generic a neg position is, the more likely I am to want it disclosed, but I’ll never expect it to be disclosed. I won’t take a strong position on any of this – disclose what you want to disclose (or don’t disclose at all) and defend that practice if necessary.

Affirmatives should stake out specific ground in the 1AC and defend it throughout the round. I don’t care how you do this, whether it is a plan, an advocacy, a performance is up to you. I think that topical plan debate is often the easiest to access, but I don’t believe that makes it the only accessible form of debate or the only good form of debate. So, read the aff you want to read, but be prepared to defend it. Affirmative debaters can (and sometimes should) kick their advantage offense to go for offense on a neg position. I don’t see this enough and I really wish it was more common in plan debates, especially.

Negatives should answer the aff. How you answer the aff is your business, but I like specific links for negative arguments. On case, I love a good impact turn, but I’ll settle for any offense. In terms of DA choice, I think you benefit from reading high magnitude impacts most of the time, because the aff likely outweighs systemic DAs or has systemic impacts of its own.

For criticisms, I just want to understand what is happening. Most of the time that’s not a problem, but don’t assume I’ve read your lit or understand the jargon. I would prefer if you can articulate your criticism in accessible language in CX. I tend to prefer a K with a material impact, but I can vote for impacts that are less material if they’re explained well and interact with the aff impact in a meaningful way.

Negative procedurals should be limited to topicality if possible. T isn’t a voting issue because of “rules”. It’s a voting issue because of how it impacts debates. I default to competing interps and don’t usually hear a good justification (or even definition) for reasonability. I will still weigh based on reasonability if it is explained and won.

Spec, speed bad, and norm-setting arguments (like disclosure) generally don’t appeal to me. I understand their importance in some strategies and sometimes they are required. If someone refuses to slow down, I understand the need to say speed is bad. But I don’t care about rules, I care about how people are being treated – so make speed debates be about that. Spec and norm-setting arguments should be about the impact on research practices, education, and fairness in rounds.

2AC/1AR theory is not my favorite. I want debates to be about the aff case and when the affirmative debater decides to introduce additional issues, that often takes away from discussion of the aff itself. I know sometimes people go too far, and you have to read condo or delay bad or whatever. That’s fine. But use your best judgement to avoid reading theory in unnecessary situations and when you do have to read theory, keep the debate about the aff if possible.

I expect clear interpretations and voting issues for theory shells. I’ve noticed that this is not always the case in the NFA-LD theory debates I’ve seen, and teams would benefit from a specific statement of what should and/or should not be allowed.

Negative debaters should prioritize impact framing and delineate a path to the ballot for themselves. I have seen quite a few debates where the NR gets bogged down in the line-by-line and the aff wins by virtue of contextualizing arguments just a bit. In your NRs and 2ARs, I’d like to see more comparative analysis and focus on what my ballot should say, rather than exclusively line-by-line. You still need to answer and account for arguments in the line-by-line, but absent a clear “mission statement” for your speech paired with necessary analysis, it is hard to vote for you. Aff debaters can’t go all big picture in the 2AR. You have to deal with the line-by-line. I can’t ignore the NR and let you give a 3-minute overview. Get short and sweet with your overview. Clarify your path to ballot and then execute that strategy on the flow.

NSDA General

I’ve heard many things referred to as “cards” that are not cards. A card needs to be a direct quotation, read in part (marked by underlining and highlighting) with a citation and a tagline that explains that argument. Present it in this order: Tagline, Author/Year, Evidence. Referencing a study or article is not a “card.”

You should be reading cards in debates. And you should be prepared to share those cards with your opponents. If you’d like help learning how to cut evidence into cards and how to share those cards quickly with your opponents and judges, I’ll gladly walk you through the process – but there are many resources available to you outside of me so seek them out.

Seek out clash. Don’t say “my partner will present that later” or dodge questions. Find the debate and go to it. We’re here to answer each other’s arguments and learn from the process, so let’s do that.

Time yourselves and each other – you should keep track of your prep time and your opponent’s prep time and time every speech in the debate. This is a good habit that you need to build.

NSDA-LD

Values and value criterions are a weighing mechanism for evaluation of arguments. Winning the value debate matters because it changes how I view impacts in the round and prioritize them. I understand the idea of “upholding a value” as the end goal of an LD round, and I can buy into that as a way to win a round, too. However, if that’s what you do, I probably won’t vote for impacts outside of that framework. You should choose between (1) upholding a value as a virtue or good in itself or (2) winning impacts that you will frame using your value/criterion. Both are valid, but I am inclined toward the impact style (option 2) by default.

I tend to think of LD debates in four parts: Definitions, Value, Aff Contentions, and Neg Contentions. I think it makes sense to flow LD on three sheets: One for definitions and values, one for aff contentions, and one for neg contentions. That makes the clash in definitions and aff/neg value easier to isolate and prevents a lot of strange and usually unnecessary cross-applications. Thinking of negative values as “Counter Values” that answer the aff value makes a lot more sense to me. You don’t have to do this in your round or on your flow, but it should help you conceptualize how I think about these debates.

I have not judged many plan-focused rounds in NSDA-LD, but I’m open to that if that is your style or you want to experiment. If you do this, I’ll flow top of aff, advantages, and neg positions on separate sheets like I would in a policy debate, and you can ignore the stuff about values above.

I am open to the less traditional arguments available to you. I love to see the unique ways you can affirm or negate using different literature bases than just the core social contract and ethics grab-bag.

Public Forum

I don’t have a ton of specific notes for PF. Check out the general section for NSDA and feel free to ask questions.

I like when the aff team speaks first. It makes debates cleaner and encourages negative responsiveness to the aff. You don’t have to choose first if you’re aff and like speaking second. But keep it in mind and do what you will with that information.

I don’t flow crossfires. I pay attention, but you need to bring up relevant crossfire moments in your speech and explain why they matter for me vote for them or include them in my decisions.

Debate is a game.

My preference is debate centered around a plan focus style of debate. This is not say that other debate styles should or do not exist, but it is to say, I prefer policy debates, and I enjoy judging policy debate rounds. I will not rule out or prohibit other styles of debate, but I want to be clear, my preference is debates about the plan and competitive policy alternatives.

Counterplans

Well, for starters, they kick ass. I lean heavily neg on counterplan theory questions. Conditionally is generally good, but I think the format and speech times of parli and NFA-LD debate begs the "generally good" question.

If both teams are silent on the question, my presumption will be that counterplans identified as “conditional” mean that status quo is always an option for the judge to consider, even if the counterplan is extended by the 2nr. This presumption can easily be changed if debated by either side.

Counterplans which result in the affirmative, probably, not competitive. I’ve written many of these counterplans, and voted on many of these counterplans many times, so do not think they are off limits

The K

First, see above.

Second, if you are going for the K, please have well developed link args to the plan and an alternative that is competitive. Also, it is a very good idea to explain what the alternative does and how it interacts with the AFF.

Topicality

All about which interp is best for debate.

Daniel Plott

I’ve debated at Missouri State and Johnson County Community College for about 4 years and have experience in all of the debate formats with the exception of college PF. I would most prefer that you use the set of arguments you’re most excited about and feel most comfortable executing without reading too much into my personal preferences.

My past experience has largely been centered in researching and reading more policy centric arguments such as T, Framework, Theory, DAs, CPs, and affirmatives that defend a topical example of the resolution. I’ve also read my fair share of kritiks and critical affirmatives but the likelihood that I misunderstand or misinterpret your position goes up some if your argument gets more critical in nature. This doesn’t necessarily mean anything is wrong with your argument (there might be) but it’s more of a disclosure in fairness for those who gravitate more to the left on this question.

Some minor notes I find coming up regularly:

A.Theory positions almost always require an interp - Please make your interp explicit for me. Is all of conditionality bad or a certain combination or number of conditional positions? I find debaters arguing around an implied interp instead of making this explicit which I usually don’t feel comfortable constructing for you in the RFD.

B. Clarity/Ethos - You will get higher speaker points if you can make me feel something that isn’t fear/concern for my immediate safety. This goal is usually more readily achieved by debaters whose jabs, jokes, and best arguments are delivered in a way that I can understand and copy onto my flow (not the jokes tho unless they’re really good)

C. CX - This is another good place to earn speaker points. I LOVE strong CX exchanges and in Parli I’ll be a little disappointed if you don’t get at least 1 question.

Works Cited: Justin Stanley’s tabroom paradigm

Andrew Potter Judging Philosophy

Experience
4 years high school policy at Buhler on the UN, Civil Liberties, National Service, and Sub-Saharan Africa topics(2004-2008). 4 years NPDA/NPTE parliamentary debate at William Jewell College. 2 years of coaching NPDA/NPTE at Texas Tech University.

Initial Thoughts (My philosophy on debate)

My thoughts on how specific arguments are ran and function in the debate round has not changed since I last judged, so this is the only part that will be different if you have read my philosophy before. During 2015-2020 I judged one college parli tournament. It was refreshing to say the least. That is not to say that I think debate is bad or that I do not like debate any more. I love debate, but taking a step back from debate was a good time to reflect after 10 years straight of debate nonstop. I hope that you love debate too. I hope that you are doing your best to debate as hard and as respectful to the other team as you can. I understand those ideas can be in conflict with each other but I truly believe they are not mutually exclusive. Debate is about the people in the room more than it is about the topic. In my career is it helpful that I researched the United States’ military capabilities and knew how to run multiple impact scenarios to a sick Heg DA? Yes and no (sure makes for interesting water cooler talk, am I right?). But it is more important that I learned how to communicate those ideas and create a space where ideas can be discussed safely and with respect. I think that the most important lesson that debate can teach us is empathy and I hope that does not get lost in the minutiae.

/END GRANDPA POTTER RAMBLINGS


Offense/Defense

Defense may win championships in sports but offense is what wins debate championships. However, that does not mean to cast off defensive arguments because those can be damn useful when weighing impacts. Use both offense and defense strategically and you will likely get higher speaker points and access to my ballot.


Status of Counter Plans/Kritiks

I am prone to believe all positions are dispositional. Each piece of paper has an impact on the round once it is said. A good example is a DA. Team A runs the DA. Team B answers the DA Once the argument has been answered there are one of three scenarios that are true with regards to said position. 1)Team A avoids the impacts, 2)Team B avoids the impacts, 3)There are no impacts for either team. It is up to both teams to tell me which of these three scenarios I am supposed to believe. Every position (CP, K, DA, T, Theory, Adv, etc.) ran in the debate is prone to these three scenarios.

Now, this does not mean I will not vote for a conditional CP or K. What the former paragraph means is that I am swayed by dispo but I will give all arguments their fair shake.

My definition of dispo is: If you straight turn the CP, we have to go for it. If you prove it is not an opportunity cost to the plan i.e. a perm, CP links to the DA, Net-Benefit has no impact, then you reserve the right to defend the SQuo. I also believe the status should be said right before the text as in “The CP, the Unconditional Text, US Congress will pass and President Biden will sign blah blah blah”


Flowing

I flow the Resolutional Analysis, Background (Inherency), Plan, and Solvency contention (if there is one) on one piece of paper. All subsequent advantages/off case positions get their own sheets of paper after that. I break up Counter Plans and the Net-Benefit into separate sheets of paper. I flow the K on one sheet.

I flow answers to positions in a long column starting with 1,2,3 etc.


Speed

I’ve been out of the game for a few years so my ears aren’t what they used to be when listening to speed. My general tendency towards speed is that if you are going too fast for me to flow, then I will yell “clear.” I do not believe speed is the issue, it is clarity. There is nothing wrong with going slower but being more clear. You will probably win more rounds and get better speaker points if you do so. Also, I do not like seeing speed used as an exclusionary tactic. If you are clearly faster than your opponents and they yell clear but you do not slow down or try to accommodate them, then your speaks are gonna suffer. However, I do not find “Speed Kills” arguments persuasive because it feels like some sort of intervention would have to happen on my part to vote on that position and that is not a position I am comfortable judging.

Also, here is how you can make sure I get all your arguments. For example, if you are answering a DA then it should go something like this “1, Non-Unique, Dems capitol low b/c blah blah blah. 2, Non-Unique Biden capitol low b/c blah blah blah. 3, No-Link, plan doesn't affect capitol. 4, Turn, plan increases Dem cap blah blah blah......”


Warrants

Yes, please! I will have a high threshold voting on positions that are lacking substantial warrants. I will also have a tough time voting on positions that are one thing in the 1NC or 1AC and another thing in the 2NC/1NR and will be pretty sympathetic to new 1AR characterizations of 2AC responses to fit the transformed position. I do not like adding warrants for the argument based off of my own knowledge, and I like being able to repeat the position I am voting for (the story of the Adv, DA, or theory position), so add warrants.


Theory

I ran theory a lot in college and feel like I have a decent grasp on the ins and outs of theory. However, that does not mean I will fill in blanks for theory. Every theory position should have an interpretation that is read twice and preferably slower than other arguments, a violation, reasons to prefer, and voters. I view theory debates similar to CP/Plan debates. There are texts, DA or Advs to those texts, and impacts for voting for or against a certain text. I would say I have an average threshold on voting for theory but if you can run it well and win it, then my thoughts should not detract you from making that strategic decision.


Disads

I feel like this is the most straightforward part of my philosophy. Disads need to be unique and warranted. I feel this is a question more on Econ or Politics debates. On Econ, instead of just throwing numbers my way, why not make some comparison why your numbers are more important/predictive of economic trends. Politics is the same way, do not just throw out Dems high, Bill gonna pass, you stop it, bill woulda done some good things, WE ALL GONNA DIE. Instead, I like Politics that focus on key members of the Senate or House who would be influential in the bill's success or demise and EXACTLY what the bill does. That will give me a better idea of how to evaluate the claims of the debaters.

Impacts

Run any impact and make it important. I usually default to Timeframe 1st with Probability and Magnitude 2nd and 3rd. I like good impact analysis with Timeframe because if you win the impact to a disad/adv before the other DA/Adv happens, then it probably changes the impact story of the other DA/Adv.

CPs

CPs need to be functionally competitive and have a net-benefit, whether that is an advantage the CP captures that the plan does not or a DA that is avoided while gaining the Solvency of the Aff. I feel like I have a decent grasp on what textual competition is and I have determined it is not nearly as important as people have made it out to be. Functional competition is the way to my heart.


Types of CPs to be ran in front of me:
Alt Agent (mmhhmmm they warm my soul)
PICs
Alternate Plans that avoid the DA but solve the Case (Example: Plan regulates Ag pollution with an Environmental Adv. CP is to clean up ag pollution and run a regulations bad DA.)
Advantage CPs


Ks

These were not really my thing in debate. I ran them occasionally but it was nothing super tricky or too post modern. Basically I ran Biopower. However, I have judged multiple K rounds and I have found them a lot easier to judge than I expected. I have voted for criticisms and voted against criticisms both on the aff and the neg. I will just say that if this is some new kind of K that is supposed to catch the other team off guard, then you should explain it well because I am not the most well read in that area.

The allegory of the cornbread:

Debate is like a delicately constructed thanksgiving dinner. Often, if you take time to make sure you don’t serve anyone anything they’re allergic to, we can all grit it and bear it even if we really didn’t want to have marshmallows on our sweet potatoes. Mashed potatoes and gravy are just as good as cranberry relish if you make it right. Remember, If you’ve been invited to a thanksgiving dinner you should show up unconditionally unless you have a damn good excuse or your grandma got hit by a reindeer because we’re here to eat around a point of commonality unless your great uncle happens to be super racist. Then don’t go to thanksgiving. I’ll eat anything as long as you’re willing to tell me what’s in it and how to cook it. Remember, you don’t prepare stuffing by making stuffing, that’s not a recipe that’s a tautology. I eat a lot, I’m good at eating, and I’d love to help you learn how to eat and cook too.


PS: And why thanksgiving? Because you’re other options are Christmas featuring a man way too old to be doing that job asking if you’ve been naughty or nice at the hotel lobby, the Easter bunny which is just a man way older than you’d think he is in a suite offering kids his definitely-not-sketchy candy (who maybe aren’t really even old enough to be eating all that candy), or Labor Day where everyone realizes they can’t wear their hoods and be fashionable at the same time.

General Information:

Background in debate with NPDA, IPDA, WUDC, Public Forum, APDA, and Long Table. 

Comfortable with alll speeds in debate. i flow mostly on laptops so its not a challenge for me at all usually.

Kritiks:

Receptive to all Kritiks, kritik theory and disagreements about kritik theory. Would rather not reveal my personal opinions on the matter as I feel it may prompt debaters to appeal to them. Debate however you see fit, if your warrants and supporting arguments are stronger than your opponents', I'll prefer you whether I want to or not.

Tabula Rasa?

I try to be as tabby as possible within a debate round. However, falsification or deliberate bastardization of commonly known facts will not be acceptable, as this is an academic endeavor as well. However, I have specified knowledge on a variety of topics. If there is a misinterpretation of specified information that I know to be true because of my familiarity, yet, goes unchallenged in the round, I will accept that misinterpretation as true. 

Do I protect against new arguments in the rebuttals?

Yes! I do protect against new arguments. However, I still HIGHLY encourage people raise objections about new arguments if you do hear them, as it shows you are still engaged in the debate.

Performance Debate?

I will vote on anything you tell me to. However, I will note that I dont feel judges currently have the tools, theory, or literature, to properly evaluate scenarios in which both teams run performance.

Other relevant info:

Your speaker points are positively and negatively affected by your asking of Points of Information. If you individually have asked 0 POIs, I cannot give you more than a 26.5. This format is extemporaneous. Adequately fulfilling your role as a speaker requires you satisfy all speaking roles in a Parliamentary debate. Asking questions is one of them. FIELDING questions is another. 

I graduated from William Jewell in Spring of 2016 with a degree in Institutions and Policy (studied politics, philosophy, and economics). While at Jewell, I debated three of my four undergraduate years. As a debater I tended towards policy oriented debates, largely as a result of my greater depth of knowledge on policy issues. I have not gotten to be involved with debate much since 2016 nationals, but I do stay up to date on current events. Though I did not personally prefer a critique heavy strategy, I do feel that I have a solid understanding of how critiques work. However, if your critique has a niche literature base or is tricky then you should take time to explain clearly as I might not be able to fill in gaps with past knowledge. If you are really fast and/or unclear and your critique has not been very main stream in debate in the last 4 years or so then you might want to give me a little extra pen time so I can become familiar with your argument. I am totally comfortable voting on procedural issues such as theory and topicality, but I am most persuaded by in round abuse. I generally tend to err towards neg flex good but with a well warranted standards debate and a clear violation I can be persuaded to vote on Condo/Process/PIC theory. 

Things that will get you more speaker points:

- Impact analysis

- Good questions

- Clash

- Be nice! (No offense, it's just likely I'll give you lower speaker points if you aren't.)

Background: Parli coach at WWU for one year. Competed in parli at Whitman for three years and one year independently (sco Sweets!). I have no idea if I am or if people perceive me as a K- or policy-oriented judge. I guess I read a lot of disads, topical K affs, disads, and always read, but never went for politics, but I strongly preferred being a double member because I gave no shits about what our strategy was and would defend whatever. So I have no strong preferences regarding argumentative content. 

I’ve tried writing a philosophy four or five times this year, and every attempt has ended with one sentence rejecting the proposition of writing in a philosophy in the first place. The short version, and what you probably want to know, is that you can read whatever you want, and should give me a reason why you win and a reason why the other team loses. In the event that the reason you win is also the reason they lose, you should explain how it is so. What follows is not a syncretic philosophy but a disorganized and unenclosed series of thoughts on debate, some arbitrary biases and thresholds, and judging tendencies I’ve noticed in myself. It may or may not be helpful.

Judging Generally

I find I feel much less certain about my decisions as a judge than I did about my predictions as a competitor and observer. Actually doing the work of making and justifying a decision almost always necessitates getting my hands dirty in some form or other. Most of my decisions require intervention to vote for any one team, either because certain core questions have not been resolved, or some resolved questions have not been contextualized to one another, or some combination of the two. Recognizing the frequent inevitability of dirty hands in decision-making, I try to stick to both a general principle and practice when judging. In principle, I try to have a justification for every decision I make. In practice, I find I try to limit my intervention to extrapolating from arguments made to resolve unanswered issues; if a certain team is winning a certain part of the flow; what does that mean for this part where no one is clearly ahead but where someone must be to decide the round? This is also means that an easy way to get ahead is doing that work for me--provide the summary and application of an argument in addition to making it. 

Framework

In general I think framework either tells me how to prioritize impacts or understand solvency, and in particular how to situate solvency in relation to debate as a practice. Most framework arguments I see in-round seem to be made out of a precautious fear of leaving the something crucial open on the line-by-line, but with little understanding of the argument’s application to interpreting the rest of the round. At least, that’s what I felt like when I extended framework arguments for awhile. I don’t understand the argument that fiat is illusory. The advocacy actually being implemented has never been a reason to vote aff, as far as I can tell. The purpose of fiat is to force a “should” and not “will” debate. Framework arguments that dictate and defend a certain standard for the negative’s burden to argue that the advocacy “should not” happen are ideal. I’m open to arguments proposing a different understanding of solvency than what a policymaking framework supplies.

My only other observation about framework debates is that every interpretation seems to get slotted into some “critical non fiat –ology” slot or “policy fiat roleplaying” slot. This is a false binary but its frequent assumption means many non-competitive framework (and advocacies!) are set against each other as if they’re competitive. Policymaking and roleplaying are not the same thing; epistemology and ontology being distinct doesn’t mean they’re inherently competitive, for a couple examples.

 This is also the major flaw of most non-topical K v. K debates I see—the advocacies are not competitive. They feel like I.E. speeches forced into the debate format when the content and structure of that content just don’t clash—I mean, it’s like the aff showing up and saying dogs are cool and the neg firing back that cats are cool. It’s just not quite debate as we’re used to, and demands reconceptualizing competition. This is also why I don’t think “no perms in a method debate” makes any sense but I agree with the object of that argument. The topic creates sides—you’re either for or against it. In rounds where each team is just going to propose distinct ways of apprehending the world, whatever that looks like, I see no reason to award noncompetitiveness to either team. (Oh, this should not be used as a justification for negative counterperms. How counterperms being leveraged against perms represents anything less than the death of debate is a mystery to me) I’m not saying don’t have nontopical KvK rounds, please do, just please also read offense against each other’s arguments (cats are cool and dogs are bad). In those rounds, your reason to win is not the same reason the other team loses, which is the case for advocacies which are opportunity costs to each other. For the record, I think critical literature is arguably the most important education debate offers. I just think debate is structured for competition oriented around policy advocacies and the ways that kritikal arguments tend to engage each other challenge that structure in ways we have yet to explore in parli (at least, writ large).

Theory

Don’t have anything in particular to say about this other than that I have a high threshold for evaluating anything other than plan text in a vacuum in determining interp violations. Everything else seems a solvency question to me, but make the arguments you want to and can defend.

Independent Voters

I’ve noticed that I have a pretty high threshold on independent voters. I voted for an independent voter once when the block went for it. Arguments about discursive issues serve an important purpose. But for arguments read flippantly or as a gotcha or, more often, that lack any substantive impact, I always feel a little guilty voting there and jettisoning the rest of the debate, like feeling bad for picking one spoon over another when you’re a kid. I think a lot of judges want the simple way to vote but I don’t, as far as I can tell. They don’t necessarily have to be complicated, but I like thorough ways to vote, which do often involve a lot of nuance or at least word dancing (I believe debate is fundamentally competitive bullshitting, which I do not mean derisively in the slightest).

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.



Do what you do best.

Couple of side notes: 

I likely have a higher threshold on theory debates than some judges, but that also doesn’t mean you should shy away from it. 

Extinction probably won’t happen, so you need to have really good link stories if that’s your style. Probability > Magnitude.

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


According to Rob Layne, I’m a point fairy. Basically, the way it shakes down is I give the top speaker in the round a 30/29 and then rank everyone. Don’t be an insufferable and rude human, I will dock your points.

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

I’m sure I’ve been called a “K-hack” at some point, but this is false. While I ran a lot of critical arguments, they weren’t particularly good. With that being said, I’d prefer a straight up debate, but am by no means to opposed to good critical arguments. My advice for critical arguments.

1)    1) Name dropping/jargon are not substitutes for an argument. Example- “That creates a simulacrum.” That’s a tagline. Tell me how / why.

2)    2) Rejection doesn’t solve. I’ve been rejecting patriarchy for years, but that doesn’t mean sexist people in debate stopped saying I vote with my emotions, that I just don’t get their arguments, or I’m not very smart. Point being--Tell us how to reject. Do we burn the shit down by creating chaos? What alternative system can we use? Are there organizations that seek to dismantle the same system you’re critiquing? How does this function within realism?

4)    4) Explain your solvency, and tell us what the world looks like in the post alternative world.

5)    5) Your framework should do more than attempt to exclude your opponents from the round. It should also tell me how to evaluate your position.

Affirmatives can run critical arguments, but I think they need a clear framework with an interpretation and standards.
Couch your argument in the topic someway, even if that means you explain why the topic is rooted in an ism, and justify why that is aff ground and not neg. No, the topic is not just a springboard for you to talk about whatever you want. The cool thing about debate is you get to develop an argument/justification for doing/saying what you want, so do that. Additionally, don’t exclude your opponents from going for a policy with your framework. If you’re really frustrated with the ism that is occurring in the topic, your goal should not be to prevent the neg from participating. As far as “projects” (I hesitate to call them that because of the negative connotations), I’m down, but again, please tell me why the topic shouldn’t be discussed. If your argument is that debate is ableist, sexist, racist, etc, if possible, explain why the topic is also rooted in that ism and then use that to discuss the debate space. That way your opponents may have some more ground.

Performance based arguments…



I’m fine with them, but I need to know how to evaluate them.

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

Again, higher threshold. I prefer proven abuse. Competing interpretations is probably your best bet.

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


PICs are a good strategy. The opp should identify the status IF they are asked to, otherwise it’s fair game. Perms should be functional in my ideal debate world. If you’re going to go textual comp you’ll probably want to run more theory than you would with functional telling me why I should prefer it. I love CP theory so read it.

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

I think as a courtesy, you should always give a copy of any plan text or counterplan text, especially if asked. I don’t care if teams want to share anything other than that.


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. Framework, if necessary. Then the substance. I default to the impact debate. 


How do you weigh 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 look to probability, first. Then magnitude. Finally, timeframe. If you want me to vote on huge impacts that are incredibly unrealistic, you should warrant exactly how these impacts will occur. Not some x country is pissed, the US gets involved, boom, big explosion because some random action causes a war in which rational actors would absolutely have to use nuclear weapons and it would cause a dust cloud that covers the sun. Although I did this, it’s because I had no idea if what I was saying was actually true.

Other Things


Have fun, make me laugh, be nice. Care about what you do, your words matter.

Hi! I’m Zach. I debated for 5 years of NPDA/NPTE parli (4 at Cedarville and 1 at SIU) and this is my 6th year coaching/judging. I've been coaching for McKendree since 2017. Here are some of my many thoughts about debate:

- I will flow the round and make a decision based on my flow. I will skip flowing your speech if you insist but I will not evaluate arguments that I don't flow.

- You won't get a 30 unless you give a perfect speech. My average is 28.1 with a standard deviation of 0.6. 27 is the floor unless you do something offensive.

- I've gone back and forth on this a few times and I've decided the best use of this space is just to tell you what I think I'm a good/bad judge for. Standard caveats apply, you should really just do what you do best, don't read something just because I listed it here, but this is what I've learned about myself to help you pref me. I also keep a Google doc with stats for every round I judge.

- Good judge for: topicality, big-stick affs, topic-specific disads, advantage counterplans, K affs that do the work on the flow, framework teams that do the work on the flow, Nietzsche, antiblackness arguments, conditionality, impact turns, pessimism based arguments, defense, creative interpretations of the topic, fast-paced debates, teams that stake out their ground and defend it

- Medium judge for: politics, process counterplans, soft left affs, Marx, Foucault, D&G/Bataille/most other Eurotrash, Buddhism (unfortunately), counterplan theory, novelty, teams that win by tricking the other team, probably anything else I didn't think to list above or below

- Bad judge for: K aff teams that think I'll autovote for them for ideological reasons, framework teams that think I'll autovote for them for ideological reasons, Lacan/psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, any argument that posits that rocks and/or animals are people, fact or value affs

- It will take a Herculean effort to make me vote for: spec, AFC, any other theory that makes me roll my eyes (e.g. must pass texts at X time), RVIs

- Will not vote for: negative kritiks that don't have a link to the aff, any theory if the other team wins a we meet, arguments about something that happened in another round/that I cannot verify

You may know me previously as Caitlin Smith or Caitlin Addleman. She/her pronouns.

Experience:

I coached with the University of Minnesota (fall 2017 - 2022). I debated 4 years (2013-2017) of NPDA/NPTE parli for Wheaton College and 4 years of LD in high school. I have also coached policy at the UMN and LD at Apple Valley High School.

Ethics:

I care deeply about debate, about equity in it, access to it, and very much believe in the power it has to change lives. I take my role as an educator seriously, which means I am always happy to chat about or answer any questions related to debate, from theory to substantive arguments. Additionally, I consider the moral/ethical questions of debate to be a constitutive feature of the activity. As such, I refuse to check my status as a moral agent at the door. I will, and have (albeit rarely), voted down arguments that I consider to be seriously morally problematic, regardless of what’s on the flow. While my standard for doing so is high, I take as axiomatic that every person has intrinsic and immutable worth - if I feel that your advocacy or representations seriously impinge on the worth of someone in the room, that will affect my decision. This does not mean that I won’t vote for arguments I don’t like or ethically agree with (I do that all the time); rather, I simply will not hold myself to voting on the flow if I feel someone in the room is being done violence. If you have any questions about my standards or threshold, please ask me.

A Note on Tech:

I believe that the technical aspects of debate are tools we use to allow us to understand and engage with the substance of arguments more deeply. I therefore do not think that tech is a substitute for substantive engagement. I value more highly arguments that engage with the opposing positions substantively than ones that merely do so technically (while to do both is truly masterful debate). Put simply, substance > tech > truth.

Speed:

I’m fine with speed and will clear you if you pass my threshold (which is unlikely). Please be aware of how the online nature of debate constrains speed by paying attention to whatever chat feature we have available for people saying speed or clear - and please make accommodations as necessary. Please say all plans/CP’s/T-interps/alts/etc. slowly and twice.

Weighing:

Please do it. This will make my job a lot easier, and also make it a lot more likely that I see the round the way that you would like me to. I will evaluate the round as you tell me to, although in absence of any weighing arguments, I default to probability first and will have a substantially lower threshold than most parli judges to vote on systemic/materialized/highly probable impacts (given any arguments being made that I should prefer them). This does not mean I will not vote on nuclear, disaster, etc. scenarios, just that I will not accept prima facie an unwarranted claim that those impacts outweigh all other things if your opponents are making arguments to the contrary.

AD/DA/CP Debate:

I have broad knowledge of economic and policy issues (my knowledge skews more heavily towards the K). Thus, I will be largely limited to my understanding of what you put out in a given round. If you’re clear, there shouldn’t be a problem, just don’t expect me to know what various terms or abbreviations mean off the bat or grant you internal warrants without clear explanations.

Theory:

Win the debate on whatever layer you would like. My threshold to vote on theory is determined by the extent to which a clear impact on the shell is articulated and weighed. I also believe that standards should be contextualized to your opponents’ position. I find great problems in reading generic reasons why policy is good against non-T affs because I very much believe that theory should be about bringing questions of how debate ought function into the conversation, rather than forcing certain ideas out. This doesn’t mean don’t read theory in those situations, but that, if you’re going to, I will hold you to a high standard. Finally, I have a lower threshold than most parli judges for we-meets: if they meet the text of your interpretation, I do not consider a remaining violation to be a priori offense (as in, it’s still offense, but without an interpretation it does not function a priori, absent additional arguments that it should). If you have questions about what this means, let me know.

Kritiks:

I debated lots of K’s and write lots of them with my team. I love them. I particularly love when they are clear on what the alt does and what a world of the alternative looks like. I really hate chicken-and-egg style root cause debates and would much prefer to hear substantive debate about the issues in the K. Please don’t assume I know your literature (just because I read K’s doesn’t mean I will understand your K) . I will vote on what is said in the round, not my prior knowledge of your particular author.

Performance:

Debate is both a game and the real world. Bringing real world issues to the forefront within debate rounds is simultaneously extremely important and extremely difficult. It definitely creates change in our community and, as such, is something I take very seriously. I will attempt to evaluate every round as fairly as I can, while recognizing I do not check my status as a moral agent at the door. The one thing I like to be clear in these debates, therefore, is the role of the judge. I don’t mean that you have to include me in your movement, make me feel comfortable, or anything like that; I mean expecting me to evaluate what I’m supposed to do at the end of a debate round, with many moral issues on the table and no framework to deal with them, has the potential to give me a major panic attack. I don’t say this because I anticipate any such problem, but simply because it is a very real concern for my mental health and I want competitors to be aware.

Speaker Points:

26-30, unless you do something very rude or exclusionary.

Quick line for prep- The debate is yours to have on whatever you can justify making it be yourself and have a blast doing it no matter what people tell you. This is how you choose to spend your time so you shoudl enjoy doing it whith whatever arguments you want to make. Have fun, Read or do whatever you want. Aslo my Debate Partner is Chris Miles if you know how he judges i will probably evaluate a round incredibly simularly.

Hello,
My name is Michael Smith, I am currently a debater for Missouri Western State University and an Alumni of KCKCC.l. I debated Policy Debate in High School and was exposed to both lay style debating and nat circuit style of debating. I have also been involved in the DKC community and have judged a very large amount of rounds especially on the MO and KS circuits as well as rounds at nationals. In high school I debated "traditional" policy affs until later in my high school career I became a more technical K debater. At KCKCC and Missouri Western I debate the K very heavily as well as method/performance style arguments. I would like to think that I have a decent understanding in all base forms of argumentation, and do not prefer one over another. That being said I default to Tabula Rasa unless told otherwise. Look below to see how I evaluate specific arguments.

PLEASE SLOW DOWN AND READ ALL TEXT TWICE (PLAN, ALT, PERM, ECT.) and/or GIVE ME A COPY PLZ

The K,
I prefer the K with large overviews and have probably a better than most understanding of most of the lit with special reagards to more favored authors (Baudrillard, Marx, amongst varrying other brancehs of capitalistic thought, Derrida, and Bataille). I believe that the K will almost always need more than a link of omission or a state link in order to win in front of me, unless clerically explained. I think there needs to be a clear link story, alt story, and impact story. I am a fan of the floating PiK but if that is the goal I don't believe you should hide it in the debate, and will not vote on one unless there is a strong chance that the aff links to the Criticism. I have a higher threshold on perms when there is only one off case position, and I believe that it is a test of competitiveness not an advocacy. In the world where the perm is made I will evaluate it on the risk of solvency vs the risk of the K impacts. I also think that link packaging makes the debate cleaner especially later in the debate. If you choose to not read an alternative that is ok.

Theory,

I have a pretty high threshold on theory and will very rarely will I reject the team, unless there are multiple off case positions kicked in the 2NR or some other wacky amount of abuse. All levels of theory need to be impacted out. That said I believe that you can use the theory flow to get offense on other parts of the flow. I prefer to flow this on a separate sheet so tell me in the road map. I also believe that the negative should avoid making contradictory arguments (Performative-Contradictions are probably bad) and can be used as offense. Slow down a little bit for theory at least for the interpretation and violation, if you want me to vote on it then it is in both of our interest that I have a clean flow.

Framework,

I have been on both sides of the framework flow, and I think that both sides need to be making offensive arguments on the framework flow. I believe that framework should try to include the most debaters as possible and should not be exclusionary, I am naturally going to prefer those arguments over just basic fairness and education debates. The problem I see most often on the framework flow is that no one is making strong impact analysis. I do have a higher threshold than many straight policy judges on this question, and tend to err a little to the left of center. I also do evaluate impact turns as offense that can be a potential win even if the 2NR doesn't go for it. That being said you do you, and I'll do my best to keep up.

Topicality,
Is an underutilized tool inside of debate, language is a device of understanding and agreement that allows conversations to happen and becomes even more important in evironments such as debate. The way you posit the discussion or dont have direct implication son the round and how it plays out or could have played out. My threshold is probably lower than most on T, and I also almost always default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
DA/ CP

I group these two areas because I believe that all cp's should have a net benefit. I am not a fan of consult cp's and think that they steal a large amount of ground. If that is the argument you are going to make you will need to win a high chance of the net benefit. I refuse to vote for cp's that do not have a form of net benefit. I handle perms on the CP the same way I evaluate them on the K. I will vote on da's including politics I like good politics debates, as long as the internal links are solid.

Offense vs. Defense,

I'm pretty pessimistic. I will vote on terminal defense. I may have a higher chance of voting on terminal defense than some other judges. That being said I think you should always be extending offense before defense. In debates between systemic impacts and magnitude impacts, impact framework is very important.

Aff's

Don't have much to say. You do you tell me why to vote aff, if you're not topical tell me why that is ok, etc. I am not a massive fan of try or die arguments, so saying it 200 times in the 2AR isn't going to get you very far with me, say it once that's fine (if you say it more than that then you are probably missing larger issues). I have also noticed a trend of 1AC's not having very good internal's in the advantages and this trend frustrates me. I also see a lot of non-inherent aff's if it becomes an issue I will vote on it. Again you do you.

Performance,

I am all for this kind of argumentation as long as you are telling me why you are doing it and why your method is something that I should to vote for. I also prefer some form of thesis statement as a center for advocacy. Don't just sing for "funzies" give me tangible reasons to why your performance is an endorsement of a methodology that I should endorse with the ballot.


Overall, do what you do and tell me why it is important and you are in a good position. If you want to have a massive MURKA heg throwdown debate I am game. I am also cool with talking about why van gogh cut off his ear and anything in between. I will try to give non verbals when I can because I think they are important for you to understand how to communicate, and will say clear twice before I stop flowing

1. Sure debate is game. But who said that games don't matter?

2. You are always you. You can say your roleplaying, but how do you roleplay out of your own ethics or responsibilities? Is that even possible?

3. Black lives matter. Black debaters matter.

4. The world is--literally--on fire. Right now, perhaps even our games should matter.

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. I then coached at Texas Tech University for 3 years. Now, I am the Director of Forensics at CSU-Pueblo. 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. Speak er 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. 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 at times 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!

-POI’s: Seems like a good rule of thumb 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.

Hopefully this blurb only convinces you to read the arguments that you want to read...

This is my second-year coaching parli at WWU and my tenth year in the activity so I've probably seen a flavor of the arguments that you want to deploy. That being stated, I try to evaluate the round through the lens that you provide. If that means I adopt a normative utilitarian calculus then cool. Want me to not evaluate strictly from the flow? Awesome--just make sure that you provide an alternative weighing mechanism.

When I was debating I was a huge proponent of the classic TKO strategy but that shouldn’t deter you from running CPs, projects, or anything in front of me. While I do have theoretical dispositions against delay, object-fiat, and study CPs, that doesn’t mean that I will automatically drop a team for running those args. Though it is fair to say that I hold arguments that purposefully try to skew the other team out of the round to a higher level of skepticism. In other words, it’s not a good strategy to read 5 off that is littered with PoMo nonsense against a novice team when I’m sitting in the back. So be cool, have fun, and do what you think is best.

Some other random tidbits:

·        Speaker points range from 25-30 with 25 needing major improvement, 27.5 being average, and 30 being perfect

·        If you’re being excessively mean or violent then I won’t hesitate to vote you down: you are privileged enough to operate within this space but that doesn’t allow you to be an asshole.

·        I’ll rule on a POO but often times they’re unnecessary; there is never a need to do it more than 3 times (I promise I’ll notice any new arguments) and they are often a non-sequitur to the heart of the debate.

·        K v. K debates are BORING unless you can delineate between the competing methods

o   You are allowed to perm in a methods debate unless there is a compelling argument for why you shouldn’t

o   The Kritik should have a clear solvency mechanism and framework arguments should specifically lay out how the other team can engage with your arguments.

·        Don’t run theory as a time suck

·        For the love of all things sacred if you’re going for a procedural then only go for the procedural

o   Demonstrated abuse is helpful but not required for my ballot on T

·        If you’re clearly winning the debate then finish your speech and sit down—there’s no reason to beat a dead horse

·        Clash of civilization debates are the way to my heart

·        Obvi don’t expect me to fill in or favor your arguments just because they stem from an ideology that I also occupy