Andrew Myers Paradigm

Last changed 3/20 12:12A PDT
Andrew Myers a.k.a. "Big" or "Big Mead"

Current Assistant Director of Debate for Gonzaga University and Former Assistant Head Coach at Mead HS.

BA- Phil/Poli-Sci GU '12, MA- Phil SUNY Buffalo '14

4 Years Debating for Mead HS, 3 Years for Gonzaga. 5 Years Assistant Coach Mead HS, 5 Years ADOD at GU.

Email: andrewrossmyers@gmail.com

Final NDT Update – Minnesota NDT 19 (3-19-19)

To paraphrase Ryan Wash, this shit here is like a novel – it’s long and a lot to read. Fair, so I stole the “philosophy for the Twitter generation” idea from Adam Symonds for those that don't want to read it all:

TLDR: I have voted for and against Framework, Antiblackness, ESR + Flex, Nuclear Deterrence, Storytelling, and the State. Boo untopical policy Affs and abusive ESR CPs. Hater's Guide: Strict about highlighting, thinks Logic is real, votes for caring about people, Education > Fairness, thinks Debate isn’t just a game, hates agenda politics disads, votes for identity arguments.

My Decision Making Process:

My Vote means I think Team A wins and Team B loses. The final rebuttals most likely to win my ballot are clear on why my vote should declare their Team the winner, but the final rebuttal isn’t the only thing I will consider.

The Process of deciding which Team wins

1. General Impression – What is my first intuition about which team won the debate and why?

2. Check the Record – Did I miss something? Did I undervalue an Argument? Is there a critical concession?

3. Casting a Vote –

A. What are the “voting” issues?

B. Which, if any, arguments were decisively won or lost?

C. How do those arguments relate to the voting issues raised?

4. Determination and Decision – How will I explain the decision? Why Do I accept one of Team A’s or Team B’s voting issues over the other, i.e. Why not vote the opposite way?

This, quite simply, is how I make a decision. For why I make my decision, the rest of my judging philosophy is committed to continued debates where the voting issues are familiar. Debate is more exciting when the ground is unfamiliar, but that doesn’t mean classic debates are not interesting. Note that what constitutes a “classic” debate has more to do with intensity than ideology.

I cannot express anymore so clearly than this: Debate should not be a violent exercise, but it should be competitive, performative, and reasoned activity.

Arguments I will not likely ever vote for

Either,

A. Make debate a violent activity

Or,

B. Refuse Competition, Performance, or Reasoning.

(See below: Ethos, Pathos, Logos)

Examples of Arguments I will likely not like voting for:

1. No K’s ever judge, philosophy is too hard! If making sure when we act we do the right thing is hard for you, I have no sympathy.

2. Debate is Bad because it’s competitive! If your argument is right that winning is bad, why should you win? Clearly debate can take the competitive spirit too far and into the realm of toxicity (see: Either, A.). That violence forgets that part of playing a game is that you play with others.

3. The Circular Logic of Intrinsicness – There is a difference between what I think is intrinsic to the activity, a.k.a. what is to be done while judging, and the assertion of something being intrinsically good. The remnants of theory debates recirculating invoke too fondly paramount truths that are evidently not so self-evident.

4. The Argument as You experienced it/know it – My role here is to consider how we experience you making that argument in relation to others.

Finally, Debating about a Topic is language gaming. There are various language games we play, but we do so competitively at the intersection of thought and performance.

The 2018-2019 CEDA-NDT Topic headache:

I’ll evaluate the debate in front of me. I don’t think this resolution makes sense, and worse, is the bad kind of language game. I miss resolutions that were a statement, not a matrix.

If y’all are intent on having an ESR/Flex debate, that’s fine. Aff’s should be able to answer those core generics, some CPs are more abusive than others. I just don’t find that debate interesting.

I don’t get why Framework teams read not-topical Affs and not-topical TVAs, but especially on this topic (where the floodgates are clearly open). Aim Higher! K teams should not be afraid to read T in front of me against policy Affs. Policy Negs should be ready to defend the topic if your Framework argument is that the topic is good.

No Exec Authority to First Use Nuclear Strike =/= No First Use

Affs should specify the restriction(s)

I don’t think the Act of students debating simultaneously does anything about Trump in the moment. I do think I have seen debating by students on this topic that could effectuate change out of the round. I don’t know if this means anything in regards to presidential power.

I’m really not cool with War Criminals or Fascists.

NDT 16 Judge Philosophy Update 3-25-16

This will by my second year judging and coaching at the NDT for Gonzaga, and I feel compelled to comment on my continually developing disposition(s) as a judge.

I’ve had 52 rounds on this topic, varying in all styles.

I implore you to read what I’ve written here. I take this part of my job seriously and want to demonstrate how my thinking (philosophy) changes and stays the same.

If you don’t read it, ask Michigan KM how that went.

I prefer my role as a judge to be a primarily nonverbal communicative partner – including me in the round, making eye contact (when appropriate), reacting to how I am understanding you, is not merely a narcissistic request: it’s a recognition of a preference for active learning and teaching, for all of us.

I have previously written here that I prefer to be an educator, but frankly that won’t be the case for certain content or experiences. I can, however, offer some academic advice on the structure of your arguments, rhetoric and speaking style. Thus, being an educator is a preference based on comfort, but my comfort isn’t my preference with exception to the following uncomfortable (enough to vote you down) scenarios:

  • Making jokes about rape, or responding to issues of sexual violence with jokes. It’s not funny to me. You know who you are.
  • Sex, Gender, Orientation, Race or Ability discrimination
  • Being willfully ignorant about Race. Racial naiveté isn’t always a reason to lose a round, but being unwilling to admit fault, mistake or responsibility for certain behaviors is not, at the very least, a persuasive way to get my ballot.

As a quick aside on education, the question of what a university should be for often causes me consternation. After all, for someone who valued education as an excuse not to go home, my growing pessimism in the academy (whether from the expected bitterness of graduate school or from the contemporary conversations of the occupy and black lives matter generation) makes me receptive to some cynical positions. I’ve seen some pretty indefensible things condoned in the University. That said…I still believe this activity can be good for students and as such my responsibility is primarily to them. The second I don’t believe that, I won’t be here. Without students we coaches don’t have a job. See Below: Commitment to Educational Debate.

And so I return to my reason for posting: I felt compelled because of my position to comment on some topics pervading the debate community right now:

- If I’m on a panel and someone wants to replace me, I won’t be offended as long as I can cover the rounds I am obliged to so my students can debate.

- If there is a recording, I don’t really want to be on it… So I understand the concern with being recorded against your will. I know states differ on their local laws and the NDT Committee has put forth polices on it. If both teams have to be on video, then I will also have to be on video for the space to be fair(er). I think there are interesting privacy arguments in support of extending protections against being recorded in debates, but I also think accountability is important. In the end I just want to judge the debate.

- I think speech times have to be rigid. I am fine with flex prep, and am honestly lax about prep in general, but at some point fairness and timeliness is a concern.

- I once judged a debate where a Bifo team hit a Buddhist team and they deconstructed the round, reconstructed it, and gave final speeches after dialogue. It was different but not uncomfortable, on time, mutually agreed upon, and productive.

- The only things I will say about civility concerns: a) Before the debate starts I don’t expect much other than if I’m asked I’ll answer questions. b) When the timer starts for the 1AC it’s all performance – that’s a necessary space to express some seriously challenging thoughts c)When the timer stops I prefer some quiet to make a decision, but I often will go smoke or put my headphones in anyway d) At no point should you physically harass anyone. Consent for me applies equally well to unwanted intentional physical touching e) Other issues are probably not my fight and I don’t poke around in them unless beckoned to – either by the ballot or as a community member and academic employee.

As a child Hip Hop made me read books,

And Hip Hop made me wanna be a crook

And Hip Hop gave me the way and something to say

And all I took in return is a second look

- Slug, Party for the Fight to Write

An Admission of Hubris –

“I probably have read the primary sources your authors are talking about.”

Turns out I don’t know much about many contemporary primary source debate authors, even if many of them I do (Given my previous disclosures of my education, expected authors would include stuff like Foucault and Fanon, but exclude stuff like Berlant and Bifo). Either way, you could plausibly predict what I’ve read merely given the MA and BAs in Political Science and Philosophy from a Jesuit Liberal Arts School. Ah how the tables have turned!

To Finish, another nod to Z-Lowe..

Ten Things I Like and Dislike

1. Terrible highlighting -

Honestly a lot of the “evidence” students are reading into the round has become unrecognizable by academic standards of clarity and integrity. Examples of things that irk me: sentence fragments, highlighting parts of a word as a word (i.e., deforestation becomes “defo,” proliferation becomes “prolif,” nuclear weapons becomes "nucs" ). A good way to understand my expectation: highlight your evidence as if you were quoting your sources in an academic paper. Anything else is the privileging debate norms over educational standards of scholarship.

2. Reading a Pile ‘O’ Cards -

In almost every entry here I bring this up. I still will read a bunch of evidence after the round given certain circumstances, but it’s my least favorite thing to do. Given the complexity of debate and the relative short times to make decisions, I don’t want to spend my time adjucating reading evidence I should have heard as part of your “speech.” Making a decision after re-reading read evidence in a debate distances judges from the performance of the speech and increases the likelihood of interpretive hubris. I don’t think either of those things are desirable characteristics of a decision. My novel idea for debate would be for judges to hear evidence read, the first time its read. I also think this is possibly a reason why I often find affective modes of communication persuasive – what they lack in depth they make up in clarity. I don’t think debate is a research competition.

A minor quip on the subject of speech documents: sending a speech doc for your opponents and judges that is 100 pages is both annoying and unrealistic. It makes it hard for everyone and borders on obfuscation. For my philosophy on obfuscation, See: Baudrillard.

3. Affs That Do Things –

I was more often a 2A than a 2N throughout my career. I loved the challenge of changing the status quo. Debate is one of the few spaces you can advocate things we would otherwise be shutdown for: ideas being politically unlikely, socially difficult or subject to academic inertia. If you aff decides to do nothing, I am very likely to buy presumption/pessimism arguments in response. If your aff does something, I am more likely to filter the debate through that proposed change. On a somewhat related note, my proclivity for opacity arguments is almost always as a neg strategy. I do think there are instances in which an opacity Aff makes sense, but given my biases here, it may be best to explain opacity as somehow a strategy to change the SQ, instead of merely retreat from it.

4. Violence, Nebulas… not Stirred

Too many debates I’ve seen have debaters using violence as an ultimate impact, without explaining intricacies or giving frameworks for understanding what violence means. How am I supposed to adjudicate different claims of violence against each other? Or what about violence against some tangible traditional impact (War, Environment, Disease)? Ethics can’t function if everything is axiologically leveled to “violence,” and thus questions of what I should vote for is very likely to be arbitrary in the minds of participants, even if inevitable given the level of analysis in the debate.

5. Demarcating Points of Contestation

Similar to my respect for taking on the challenge of the SQ, I reward debaters who clearly demarcate points of contestation in the round and focus on those matters of debate. Too often debaters run away from arguments rather than engage them. In the college policy debate community this can be discouraging, because we are supposedly a model for deliberation and dialogue. Those latter realities only exist if you’re willing to admit where the debate is, admit that you may not necessarily be right, but debate out the issues.

6. Lost Art of the Case Debate

I am by no means a stock issues judge, but I do think that every argument, every aff should be responsible for these questions. A lot of the time case debate devolves into alt causes and impact defense. While those are good arguments to have, especially in the 2nr, not debating the case is almost always an important forgone opportunity. This is particularly true for K affs – put up a fit and you will be in a much better position than simply ignoring the case. Because of my expectations of an affirmative, I can be persuaded to not vote for an aff based on solvency alone.

7. Joshua Greene on Deontology and Util –

I feel it’s important to disclose this bias, and I have to a few teams. Here’s the thing, when you spend a year on a masters thesis and one of the opponents of your thesis becomes a large focus of effort, time and intellectual investment…it’s nearly impossible to remove that bias. Joshua Greene’s arguments in favor of a moral realist/essentialist account of utilitarianism and deontology invariably raises my blood pressure and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Read a different defense of utilitarianism in front of me – I’m not persuaded FMRI’s prove how people think morally.

8. Flex Time –

I think there is enough to be gained in cross-examination, the most lively and engaging part of debate, that using prep time to ask and answer questions has almost no downside for me. That said, I think the other team has the right to not consent to questions of content (instead of clarification questions: theory, technical or flow) after the normal 3-minute cx period has expired.

9. Conflating Topicality and Framework –

The more persuasive arguments for me center on the content/object of the resolution (military presence) rather than on implementation/actor questions. For one, I think a resolution without “federal government” makes traditional Topicality arguments that turn into framework arguments very duplicitous. Framework should be the debate about what that Aff and Neg should have to do to meet a good interpretation of debate. If an aff makes an ethical statement that US Military Presence is bad, you have the grounds to say its good. You don’t need USFG action to do that. An Aff that doesn’t engage in the question of military presence, or some interpretation of that, isn’t being topical and I can find it a reason to vote Neg. I have voted on different conflations of Framework and T, but I increasingly find it important to delineate the two.

10. Being Big

I am still working on my pronoun usage and am myself unclear about my thoughts on many issues of identity, but I do think my persona in debate, while always authentic, is somewhat reserved. I am not particularly motivated to be extroverted in an activity that often reminds me how stuck up academics can be, and how they think that just because of my appearance they can crack jokes I find distasteful. As a result, I want to be known by who I am when I’m in the debate community. Calling me Andrew is a sign you haven’t given me the courtesy of reading this. Big is always the best way to refer to me.

2015-16 (Military Presence) Preseason Update:

I still endorse my philosophy as written below. Just a few quick updates as we begin this year:

- I am probably not the best judge for Baudrillard debates. Sue me. (Or Forget Baudrillard)

- I still like watching CPs and DAs, much to the dismay and/or shock of my fellow judges and coaches.

- I have a fairly low threshold for what is reasonably topical, but I prefer a reasonability argument on T to make an interpretation of the topic and give me a claim as to why the Aff (and other Affs) could engage the topic under that interpretation.

- Teams that escape jargonism, fashionable witticisms, and oversimplified argument explanation will do well in front of me. I like creative and unique debaters (which can be accomplished in any style - it's usually a matter of dedication, effort and presentation).

- Please explain Acronyms early in the year. Not everyone is going to get what your particular subdivision affirmative is on first hearing it.

- If you didn't read my judging philosophy before round, expect no pity for ignoring my preferences and/or committing offenses I find particularly blameworthy.

- If you can't debate technically, debate thuroughly. I am just flowing in excel columns anyway.

- Random but non-negligble pet peeve: students who start lists and never finish them (e.g., Debater says "There are Three Impacts to the K" then explains only two impacts).

- I value Cross-Examination like a speech. You can win and lose a round in one of those 3 min segments.

- Finally, I proscribe to this ridiculous notion that Debate is a Communicative Activity where Debaters try and Persuade me to Vote for them. See below for what persuades me and what doesn't.

2015 NDT Update:

I decided to post an update to my judging philosophy for the upcoming NDT (2015). Hopefully this is with enough time (a couple of weeks) for everyone to review it.

By far the most important thing: While I've judged 40-45 rounds on this topic, I have done so primary here out west. I don't think that disqualifies any of the debates I've watched - there were some terrific debates I had the privilege to judge this year. Still, full disclosure: I am more familiar with some teams than others, in the sense I've judged them debate before. Then again, with mutual pref judging, this seems like an inevitable outcome - you will always have seen certain parts of the debate community, hardly ever the whole field.

I decided to update what I've written so far for my judging philosophy primarily because I know the preceding to be compelling case for further disclosure of how I adjudicate debates. I stand by much of what I've already written. To expand, I decided to give a "Top Ten Things I Like and Don't like" (primarily an influence of reading Zach Lowe/Simmons Inc... also playing liberally with "Like" and "Don't Like," substitute "find persuasive" and "don't find persuasive" if you wish) in debate rounds.

Top Ten Things I Don't Like (In no particular Order):

1. Clipping

My First round back in debate came down to a clipping call out. Where I come from this is a "no-brainer" ethics question, but I do feel strongly that some rules in debate are necessary. One of those is you must read what you submit as evidence in speeches, particularly when in the form of cards. You will lose if you clip in front of me, but I need video/audio evidence and speech docs to determine this. Please, for everyone involved, do a better job of digitally "marking" your cards - don't leave things to chance.

Because I view clipping this way, it's important to note that while I'm not willing to vote for a team that clipped evidence, not all infractions are alike. I will not always simultaneously reduce speaker points to zero, or some other tanking number, and vote a team down. I believe mistakes can be made, but I also believe people can be malevolent.

Just don't do it, slow down and you'll probably sound better anyway.

2. Automization

I mean this somewhat sarcastically, but nothing about you reading into a computer screen is persuasive to me. I will always believe in the value of files, evidence and research, but those are neither absolute ideals nor the only means to win a debate round. Arguments, for instance, are not something I'm willing to vote on because it was written somewhere - explanation of evidence is key. I feel the prevalence of paperless debating is a evil necessity, primarily because debaters lose something of their ability to speak otherwise. Look up at me occasionally?

3. Avoidance

Call this my inverse justification for Clash being a thing I like. Debaters who avoid issues in debate/debate rounds are usually being: (1)selfish, (2)cowardly, (3)strategic or (4) unknowing/naive/unwilling. Only two of those states become problematic for a debate round, for two produce clash and argumentation, and the other two make the debate messy and needlessly complicated. Don't avoid a point of contestation with me, but also don't feel like I have a preferred set of points from which all arguments should begin.

4. Reading Evidence After the Round

I still dislike this practice, and I wrote about it previously below. However, I should make something clear: I really, really dislike debates where reading a pile of cards is the way to come to a decision. This, I understand, can be the natural outcomes of both good and bad debates. However, I want to stand by my statement:

"I will check evidence for accuracy/truth in representation if another team claims it doesn't support its intended use (i.e. your card that says the sky is purple actually claims the sky is blue). If an argument wasn't clear to me, and you were supposed to win a round on it, you probably should have made it clearer than a mumbled 15 seconds."

I have read multiple pieces of evidence in the post-round this year. I will admit that evil necessity paperless debate has this charm, and having the evidence in an email chain seems like not only good academics, but also a modicum of professionalism. I can't say I haven't been more compelled to read because I can get entire speech docs. This is a particularly helpful part of adjudicating that I won't ignore. However, if I can't get what you want me to get out of evidence in the post round (particularly if it's under-highlighted, which happens too frequently and is frankly discouraging) you will likely have dissuaded me more than had I not, and that matters for close NDT Debates.

The easy way to avoid all of this is to read evidence clearly, and draw the necessary warrants out of it. I think it's lazy to collapse an evidenced argument into a Authors last name (excluding titling a flow). Yes, technically there could be a "line" there, but is a bad practice of rhetoric and I find it unpersuasive. I also am always willing to check on factuality rather than persuasion. If you provide reasons why the other team's evidence is misread/doesn't support their argument, I value that style of argumentation equally as much as I dislike having to interpret evidence for/against speeches. I do not have a problem reading evidence, especially at the NDT, on the basis of these arguments. Ultimately, I am not going to read every piece of evidence submitted for review like that was all you did in the debate round - submitting evidence for review. I have other portions of the debate to think about.

5. Victim Blaming

I have no desire to vote for any argument that implies this ethos. This is both an ethos and a logos question. For example, Psychoanalysis K's can run dangerously close to blaming rape victims. I am not cool with that frame of mind and will flush your expensive euro-trash with a L.

6. Rude Partners

This is the sneaky dark-horse for my ideal in debate: the best debate occurs when partners work together, not individually.

Crazy right? Those who chose 2 person CX debate at some point chose to work with others. I reward debaters who embrace that aspect more than the sound of their own voice. A smart team is almost always two individuals working hard for each other, rather than two smart debaters working for themselves.

Don't be destructive to each other. Agonistic partnerships can be very successful, but they can also hurt your chances at winning. By far the best indictment of your argument, in any round, comes from your partner. Don't belittle, unnecessarily interrupt, or look upset/uninterested during your partner's speech. I ultimately give my ballot to a team, not an individual.

There is also a way to be kind/authentic in criticizing the arguments of your opponents (if you need a primer, see Dennett's "How to compose a successful critical commentary" in Intuition Pumps. I am by no means a fan of Dennett, but that process is one every debater should think about). Make sure, as much as one can, to do this as a team.

7. Tagless Taglines

A bit of 4 and 2 in this one, but I am also old school in how evidence is tagged. I am fine with short tags for evidence that requires no explanation. "Extinction," however, is neither a claim nor statement of fact. In fact, many cards read and tagged in such a manner frequently have little to make me believe the argument is even that strong. On the opposite end of the spectrum are K teams who read 3-4 paragraphs and don't introduce the evidence, or make it clear what part of their argument is supported by some fragment of analysis. Taglines in K debates I have a higher threshold on, but those issues irk me as much as badly tagged evidence that is then read unclearly anyway. Make claims, support them with evidence (or as I told many of my students in the past: evidence is a tool, not an argument).

8. Speaker Point Inflation

Mostly because I couldn't avoid it and my judging philosophy no longer represents my scale well. For the NDT:

26 and Below - You were punishably rude.

26.5. Incomplete, your speech ended with large gaps, whole flows dropped, no persuasiveness

27. Poor, you made a crucial error, were completely disorganized or had gaps in your speeches

27.5 Below Average, you provided no momentum for the ballot

28 - Average, you proved you should be here

28.5 - Above Average, you have the power to win some more ballots here

29.0 - Excellent, you should break at the NDT.

29.5 - Elite, you will be debating on Monday.

30 - Asymptotic, per my experience, these are so infrequent you can't predict them happening.

9. Debaters who don't Check Themselves

It's important to know when you're crossing a line from competitive to exclusionary, confident to obtuse. It's also important to act in a manner that produces a meaningful debate experience (whatever that may be). If that becomes impossible because you're not willing to discuss things like privilege, it seems you've failed at a basic test of self-skepticism that makes arguing possible. When debaters know they can lose on things like "Your evidence doesn't say Econ declines" and don't agree with decisions made through that framing, that to me is on par with refusing to answer the claim that "Your experience should be recognized as privileged in this analysis" and losing because they weren't open to how experience can be interepreted. We can't have debates if we don't purport to have some level of skepticism, arguing would cease to function educationally. That said, these are questions that implicate arguments, and almost completely arguments, rather than individual debaters.

10. Coaches that Degrade, not Support, their Students

I can deal with coaches making fun of each other, but how you treat the students in debate tells me more about you than how you treat the your fellow coaches. I am very intolerant of this in all forms - the students are paying to do this, not us. Treating any student in a defamatory or rude manner, that's a major turn off and I would prefer we don't speak.

Top Ten Things I Like (In no particular Order):

1. Analytic Arguments

I don't know if this a function of my experience with speech and debate growing up, but debaters who can't make arguments without evidence almost certainly are at a disadvantage in front of me. I will not simply dismiss a logical argument because you have a piece of evidence that argues, rather than proves/demonstrates, the opposite. Analytic arguments quality check the cohesiveness of the debate, bring issues to light in the block often foregone, and demonstrate a level of understanding and willingness to argue. Analytic arguments in debate almost always function on an a-posteriori basis and rarely a-prior unless that "K-Word" comes back into play. You should be able to argue, for instance, about connections between evidence, without needing another piece of evidence. This demonstrates a higher level of skill in debate that I reward. I do this not only selfishly as a lover of argumentative analysis, but also as someone who knows this skill can be, and often is, rewarded by graduate school, job opportunities and other sectors of life.

2. Proof by Example(s)

Though I like analytic arguments, and find a-priori claims persuasive, most often the fruitful discussions in debate occur when teams give concrete examples to explain, (sometimes seemingly) abstract concepts, connections or arguments. This process of concretion demonstrates to me a level of sophistication and understanding, and also a tangible hook to hang my hat on during post-round decisions. Obviously metaphors, poems, scripted-performances, etc. could all be examples of proof by example, not just history. Consider my preference here to be a testing question:

Basic Argument Necessities:

1. Do you have a Claim?

2. How is that Claim supported?

3. Proof by example: how does your argument operrationalize in different parts of the debate? How might it explain other questions in the debate?

4. Impact in/for the Round

3. Confidence/Willingness to Make Mistakes

I believe the qualities we associate with great debaters usually include fearlessness, confidence, complete attention, etc. These can manifest in different ways, and those ways in different people. The confidence that impresses me is the willingness to try, and be willing to fail to win a debate round. I think sometimes debaters are too worried about losing to focus on winning. As long as that focus doesn't result in other harmful mannerisms, attitudes and actions, I reward debaters for trying to win the round with with a cool confidence.

4. Round Awareness

Somewhat piggybacking of of 3, Debaters who are aware of details during a debate round can always make more strategic persuasive connections. There is a difference, for instance, in debating in the out rounds of the NDT and the Prelims. The way you construct your speech should be wary of that. The composition(s) of the people in the round is not ignorable, the audience included. There is also an awareness of how arguments function, when to stop belaboring, and when to reword and reclarify those arguments. These skills develop with time, but they should be easier to excersise with me because I am a fairly expressive judge. I am no Dallas, alas, but I do nod my head, smile, frown, laugh...you know, those things that make most of us feel human. I find this to be the most honest practice. Mostly, however, I am just very bad at Poker...so I will not try to be a stone-faced judge.

Debaters should also be aware of time. I don't reward teams with more than completing a sentence when the timer ends. I don't reward desperate shadow extensions in the last few seconds. I do reward speeches that end on or before time, or speeches that properly allocate time. I do reward good use of prep and CX time. Speaking time is the most valuable aspect of debate you can somewhat control, and everyone has the same access to the same time. Utilizing time well is a very good indicator of in round awareness.

5. Commitment to Educational Debate

This is an academic community (it includes mostly people employed and/or enrolled in the academy) that should primarily be focused on the Students. As such, students who understand where the pedagogical value of their arguments lie have a greater chance of winning in front of me. This is partly a question of logos (what have you learned, how did you learn it, what are we to learn?) and commitment your fellow students. Granted: not all students are alike, nor do they have the same experience. These two facts should be treated as advantageous: because you all are not alike and share different experiences, a commitment to learning together is probably the best possible praxis for debate. How does the debate round, per your framework or role of the ballot, promote learning? If learning is not all that important to you, that's fine. But understand I value this part of debate more than fairness or love of the game. I refuse to believe that debate doesn't help students - if that's your explicit goal I will likely be dissuaded. If you don't think debate is important, don't be in debate.

6. Humor

Judging very stressful debates can build up a lot of pressure. Humor is a great release valve. That being said, it's not in everyone's repertoire. Do what makes you comfortable, self-depreciation is almost always humbling but also potentially lighthearted.

7. Clash

Debate can be frustrating when neither team argues about the other teams arguments. The worst debates to judge, for me, have been ones where the Aff only talks about aff evidence, the Neg about the neg evidence. I think this is primarily a function of three practices:

A. Horizontal proliferation of arguments. I am persuaded by claims about 4-5 conditional options as weighing heavily against in depth clash from the 2AC. Part of me believes that this is inevitable in a competitive activity, part of me believes that it is also a defensible tactic. That said, if a team is "pushing pieces" but not arguing well, I do value theoretical objections on the basis of what positons move away from clash and what positions move toward it.

B. Fear of Impact Turning arguments. Too many times arguments become needlessly unwound without a point of disagreement. Your solvency/framework/kritik cards may poke many a whole, but the best evidence takes a stance in the opposite direction. Do I believe all impact turns are the same, ethically speaking? No: see Victim Blaming, above. That being said, in front of me, you can "Impact Turn" a methodology as much as you can a value claim. Why teams don't do this more often is strategically puzzling. They said Science was Bad? Maybe there are arguments that Science can be Good, or Useful? "Impact Turn" strategies make an obvious point of contestation that makes creative clash possible. However, Impact turning is merely a sufficient but not necessary means achieve that clash.

C. Debaters hate being wrong. Probably for good reason - most have been trained not to argue wrong things. Still, without trying out different arguments that produce a response from your opponent, debate kind of becomes oratory research reports, rather than engaging discussion.

8. ROTB's that Both Teams can Access

I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think its dishonest and transparently one sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation. Strictly speaking I think the role of my ballot is always to vote for the team that did the best debating, but if you have an argument otherwise, I would be more persuaded by a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. Otherwise its a meaningless piece of debate jargon substituting comfortable rhetoric for good impact framing.

9. Balance of Pathos, Ethos, Logos

Old-School Comm in this sense. Good public speaking requires a balancing all three. Excelling in one or more is ideal, but an above average accounting for each aspect is more valuable than any one on its own.

Examples:

You could be completely correct on a knowledge question, but did not impact that access to truth, nor argue for it with any passion. That is less persuasive than someone who may have lost a few questions of truth, but can still access impacts and passionately argue for them.

You could be full of passion, emotion and making an ethical case without an explanation of how your argument functions or why it should be believed (reasoning, logos).

Put another way:

If you are right on a question, that means you can win that part of the debate (Logos). You do not win for being right in places.

If you are passionate on a question, that means you can string together good arguments persuasively. Without arguments, you won't be persuasive, just passionate.

If you win an ethics question, that means you can frame the debate and win it. You could be right that violence is bad, but not provide a means to resolve it, analyze it or persuade me that its a reason to vote for you.

10. Round Framing in Final Rebuttals

Almost universally, this is what separates elite from above average debaters. Many of the Coachs and People Who Teach Labs I've talked to aree this is one of, if not the most important skill thats difficult to polish. The difficulty of the 1AR/2NR/2AR notwithstanding, the best speeches, and thus the easiest to vote for, frame how to make a decision regarding particular arguments and strategies as a whole. Not doing this puts it in my hands, which is not a bad thing per say, but it's always more strategic to tie together your arguments and show how they win the round. Old-school Voting Issues are important to me. What is most important, what could you do without? Even/if statements in the last rebuttals are supremely helpful.

Fall 2014 Judging Philosophy**

First, I should mention: I left College Debate before my senior year at Gonzaga. This did not play well with many in the community, after all I was abandoning an activity I had previously spent so much time on.

After graduating from Gonzaga, I enrolled SUNY at Buffalo's PhD in Philosophy program. I recently received my Masters and left UB to pursue other things in life.

I mention these things only to say, if I appear bitter, I really am not. But I do believe there are more important things than debate, and all of what I have been reading - on various media and social media platforms - about debate rings true about academia as a whole.

All of that said, I still think debate is an important activity, especially for students. As a judge, I have always preferred to act as an educator. This can include simply listening and giving the reflections of an average citizen - any debate is still ultimately a two-way street of communication for me. Thus, the primary importance of debate, for me, is that it is a speech activity emphasizing persuasion skills. I have no stylistic preferences, but I have been out of the game for about 3 years so I might be a bit rusty with speed, and might need some expanding of abbreviations, jargon and/or acronyms. Clarity and rhythm are crucial either way, and I'll announce "clear" several times before giving up flowing. Frankly, speed reading ultimately trades off with clarity, and I'd rather hear your argument than guess. Because I know I'm rusty I figured I should be clear with that warning - I'm not going to flow theory real well at 400wpm, let alone cards.

The other ultimate difference between myself and my peers: I detest reading a pile of evidence after a round. With few exceptions, most debates come down to a decision about a few issues. If this were quarters at the NDT, I would definitely join this practice insofar as my due diligence for the activity is concerned. If you think a piece of evidence is important, remember that I heard you read it once, and you have multiple opportunities to explain why the evidence is crucial. The obvious caveat to all of this is that I will check evidence for accuracy/truth in representation if another team claims it doesn't support its intended use (i.e. your card that says the sky is purple actually claims the sky is blue). If an argument wasn't clear to me, and you were supposed to win a round on it, you probably should have made it clearer than a mumbled 15 seconds.

I suppose in many ways my academic traits mirror that of my debate tastes. I tend to be a generalist - arguments of many shapes and varieties can peak my interest. In terms of my degree, my AOS is in metaphysics, and my AOCs are in Ethics, Ancient Philosophy and Continental/Social Philosophy. That being said, I spent the last few years being too weird for both the analytic and continental schools of philosophy - I find Baudrillard and Dennett equally intolerable. I probably have read the primary sources your authors are talking about. Just because you think repeating "Dasein" or some other term over and over is going to get a win, the reality of things often disagrees. Be clear and concise and don't rely on jargon to win your criticisms, make them apparent with evidence comparisons and concise link work. I love a good kritik debate, but despise a bad one. I debated all kinds of arguments in my career, and found many of those debates enjoyable for different reasons. I am comfortable with most anything, but don't tolerate any physical or mental abuse, discrimination or hate. Those are the easiest paths to make my ballot simple.

I'll accept any framework if it's argued for well. Performance, Identity etc. are all important elements in thinking about arguments. As I said, I like debate rounds that are aware of the activity as a communicative one. When I make expressions during your speeches, they usually are done intentionally. It's nice to be talked to as more than a transcriber.

If you have questions about typical jargon stuff, ask before the round. Frankly you should be able to convince me of something regardless of my biases - though I admit that my worst bias is openness to arguments. So I'm probably not going to reject a team for reading a K. Sorry.

Other housecleaning: I'm always a fan of being included in the debate if I'm judging, thus if you are paperless and are emailing, include me (andrewrossmyers [at] gmail [dot] com). I'll time prep as finished when the email is sent or flash drive is ejected. My main mentors, though I have had many, were Steve Pointer and Izak Dunn.

Speaker Points - My speaker points for an "average" debater is a 27.5. If I ever give someone a 30, it's probably going to be the last time I do.

Rewarded:

Crafty-ness and Tactics

Persuasion and Interpersonal Speaking

Clarity, Calmness, Confidence

Effective and Engaging CX's

Humor

Awareness

Punished:

Unintelligibility/Marble Mouths

Disorganization

Unbearable/boring CX's

Tunnel Vision

Defeatism

Why you gott be so rude? Don't you know they're humans too? Actually, being a little bit rude is what makes the activity fun, but there's a difference between joking/confidence/pressure and being distracting/harmful/obtuse. Please respect the thin line.

** Weber Update: I will vote teams down for clipping. This includes skipping words. I will only do so with video evidence in combination with the speech doc. I don't think this is always malicious, so my reduced speaker points will vary with the severity of the offense. (For instance, if you skip entire lines, I will give you a zero).

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/24/2019 OPEN Q Liberal Brew Arianne Nguyen & Liberty Prieb a SLacK in the face Elena Wierich & Morayo Kassim Aff Neg on a 2-1
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/24/2019 OPEN O a SLacK in the face Charlie Huang & Aarin Jain Da Sauce Seth Garwood & Ausha Macias-Curry Aff Aff on a 3-0
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/24/2019 SCHLRS R6 Scholars Audrey Strevey & Jonathan Crowley Scholars Andrea Moreno & Jeannine Lopez Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/24/2019 OPEN R5 Liberal Brew Kate Nozal & Grace Ward Liberal Brew Matt Stinson & Alan Zeng Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/24/2019 OPEN R4 (Conflicted Copy) Daniel Shi & Evan Alexis Liberal Brew Arianne Nguyen & Liberty Prieb Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/24/2019 OPEN R3 a SLacK in the face Zach Clough & Chris Martin a SLacK in the face Harman Singh & Gage Brock Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/24/2019 OPEN R2 Liberal Brew Joshua Ramos & Jack Martin Da Sauce Maxwell Cooke & Kai Orita Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/24/2019 OPEN R1 (Conflicted Copy) Riley Reichel & Athena Muhammad a SLacK in the face Charlie Huang & Aarin Jain Aff
73rd National Debate Tournament 3/21/2019 Open Octos Wake Forest EF Binghamton AY Aff Aff on a 3-2
73rd National Debate Tournament 3/21/2019 Open Double Baylor TZ Michigan GW Neg Neg on a 5-0
73rd National Debate Tournament 3/21/2019 Open Round Kansas State EL West Georgia CC Neg Neg on a 3-0
73rd National Debate Tournament 3/21/2019 Open Round Oklahoma PW Michigan GW Neg Neg on a 2-1
73rd National Debate Tournament 3/21/2019 Open Round UC Berkeley RN Emory CM Aff Aff on a 2-1
73rd National Debate Tournament 3/21/2019 Open Round Pittsburgh FK Emporia State SW Neg Neg on a 3-0
73rd National Debate Tournament 3/21/2019 Open Round Wake Forest EF Emory GS Aff Aff on a 2-1
73rd National Debate Tournament 3/21/2019 Open Round UT Dallas BK Rutgers-Newark AH Neg Neg on a 3-0
55th Owen L Coon Memorial at Northwestern 2/2/2019 Open OCTAS Binghamton AY Michigan WG Aff Neg on a 3-2
55th Owen L Coon Memorial at Northwestern 2/2/2019 Open RD 8 George Mason BT Missouri - Kansas City FJ Aff
55th Owen L Coon Memorial at Northwestern 2/2/2019 Open RD 5 Pittsburgh FK UT Dallas WM Aff
55th Owen L Coon Memorial at Northwestern 2/2/2019 Open RD 2 Michigan WG Kansas BD Aff
55th Owen L Coon Memorial at Northwestern 2/2/2019 Open RD 1 Wake Forest EF Michigan WM Aff
Hoosier Invitational Tournament 2019 1/12/2019 Cutt OR 1 Kentuc Hackman & Rivas WakFor Marban & Tomasi Aff Aff on a 3-0
Hoosier Invitational Tournament 2019 1/12/2019 Cutt R7 MisSta Van Dyke & Waggoner Miami Homeijer & Lynch Aff
Hoosier Invitational Tournament 2019 1/12/2019 Cutt R4 MisSta Morrison & Pieper Indian Bricker & Holland Aff
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX Final Kamiak BD Lincoln GS Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX Quarte OES OW Ferris OS Aff Aff on a 2-1
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX Octo Lincoln GS Garfield PB Aff Aff on a 3-0
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX R6 Emery CS Head Royce WM Aff
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX R5 Ingraham ST Garfield PB Neg
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX R4 St George's CR Nevada Union GF Aff
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX R3 Timberline HT Gonzaga Prep RB Aff
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX R2 West Campus MH OES OW Neg
The Conway at Gonzaga University 1/4/2019 OpeCX R1 St George's BR Interlake BP Neg
Saint Georges Invitational 12/7/2018 OPol Semis OES OW Ferris OS Neg Aff on a 2-1
Saint Georges Invitational 12/7/2018 OPol Quarte Ingraham VX Ferris OS Neg Neg on a 2-1
Saint Georges Invitational 12/7/2018 OPol R5 Kamiak DB Interlake FY Aff
Saint Georges Invitational 12/7/2018 OPol R4 OES TC St George's CR Aff
Saint Georges Invitational 12/7/2018 OPol R3 Gonzaga Prep RB Kamiak KE Neg
Saint Georges Invitational 12/7/2018 OPol R1 Ferris OS Ingraham VX Aff
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest 11/17/2018 SHIR RD 7 George Mason GB Iowa BR Neg
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest 11/17/2018 SHIR RD 6 Texas SW Michigan WG Neg
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest 11/17/2018 SHIR RD 4 Wayne State AD Missouri - Kansas City HD Aff
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest 11/17/2018 SHIR RD 3 Michigan PP West Virginia BM Neg
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/27/2018 Open RD 8 Binghamton BM Pittsburgh KL Neg
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/27/2018 Open RD 1 Weber State MM UC Berkeley NR Neg
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Open QF UC Berkeley RN Binghamton BP Aff Aff on a 2-1
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Open OF Arizona State FG Kansas State EL Aff Aff on a 3-0
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Open R4 Binghamton BP Arizona State FG Neg
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 JV R3 Weber State PS Miami LL Neg
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Nov R2 Fresno State AZ Fullerton CS Aff
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament 10/20/2018 Open R1 UC Berkeley CK Wyoming BP Aff
Kentucky College Tournament 9/29/2018 Open R8 Michigan WG UNLV HS Aff
Kentucky College Tournament 9/29/2018 Open R5 Wake Forest/Wayne State ER James Madison HM Aff
Kentucky College Tournament 9/29/2018 Open R3 UT Dallas SW Wake Forest GK Neg
Kentucky College Tournament 9/29/2018 JV R2 James Madison RS Miami LL Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 9/15/2018 N Final Southern California CP Fresno State MiLo Aff Aff on a 3-0
Sun Devil Invitational 9/15/2018 V R6 UNLV RB Fresno State AZ Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 9/15/2018 V R5 UNLV QS Weber State BT Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 9/15/2018 V R4 CSU Long Beach KB Southern California HR Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 9/15/2018 V R3 Southern California DK Puget Sound FR Neg
72nd National Debate Tournament at Wichita State 3/22/2018 Open Round Texas BP George Mason HL Neg Neg on a 2-1
72nd National Debate Tournament at Wichita State 3/22/2018 Open Round Arizona State CR Missouri - Kansas City SW Aff Aff on a 2-1
72nd National Debate Tournament at Wichita State 3/22/2018 Open Round Missouri State SW Dartmouth AA Aff Neg on a 2-1
72nd National Debate Tournament at Wichita State 3/22/2018 Open Round Wayne State HC Wake Forest MR Neg Neg on a 2-1
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OCX Final Missouri State Smith & Wicks Weber State Gaither & Morales Aff Aff on a 2-1
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 NCX R8 Fullerton Jensen & Perry Weber State Johnson & Stephens Neg Neg on a 3-0
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OCX R6 St Mary's Magee & Perez Weber State McPherson & Mounarath Neg
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OCX R4 Arizona State Barney & Silber Weber State Baker & Rawle Neg
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 NCX R2 Weber State Johnson & Stephens CSU - Northridge Gevorgian & Tarasyuk Aff
Winter at the Beach 2018 2/2/2018 OCX R1 Arizona State Guthrie & Ferdowsian Weber State Gaither & Morales Neg
Southwestern College Hannie Schaft Invitational Tournament 1/20/2018 Open R6 Monmouth FR Weber State/Cal State Fullerton MR Neg
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/13/2018 Open Octs Pittsburgh FK Dartmouth AA Aff Neg on a 2-1
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/13/2018 Open Dbls Wake Forest CE James Madison KW Aff Aff on a 2-1
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/13/2018 JV R3 George Mason RL Liberty BS Aff
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/13/2018 Novic R1 James Madison DS George Mason AH Neg
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/5/2018 OpeCX Semi Nevada Union AM Head Royce DH Neg Neg on a 2-1
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/5/2018 OpeCX Quarte Heritage Hall VS Head Royce DH Neg Neg on a 3-0
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/5/2018 OpeCX R6 Garfield BP Heritage Hall VS Neg
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/5/2018 OpeCX R5 St George's GV Eagle EE Neg
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/5/2018 OpeCX R4 Gulliver Prep GM Centennial AH Aff
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/5/2018 OpeCX R3 CK McClatchy FS Skyline CL Aff
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/5/2018 OpeCX R2 Head Royce DH Centennial HY Aff
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest University 11/11/2017 SHIR DBLS Kansas KR Binghamton AB Aff Aff on a 5-0
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest University 11/11/2017 SHIR RD 3 Pittsburgh BR Missouri - Kansas City SW Neg
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest University 11/11/2017 SHIR RD 1 UT Dallas BJ Binghamton MY Neg
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/28/2017 Open RD 5 Emporia State SE Washington BT Aff
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/28/2017 Open RD 4 UC Berkeley HN West Georgia CJ Neg
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/28/2017 Open RD 1 Washington EP UC Berkeley PO Neg
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Nov Semifi Weber State BS Arizona State MF Neg Neg on a 2-1
Las Vegas Classic Debate Tournament at UNLV 10/21/2017 Open R6 Arizona State RV Emporia State KM Aff
5th Mukai College Classic Weber State 9/30/2017 Open 2x Missouri - Kansas City SW Emporia State ES Neg Neg on a 2-1
5th Mukai College Classic Weber State 9/30/2017 Open R4 West Georgia CJ Arizona State CR Neg
5th Mukai College Classic Weber State 9/30/2017 Open R3 Weber State MG Arizona State FG Aff
21st Val Browning Round Robin Weber State 9/27/2017 Val R8 West Georgia CJ Cornell KR Neg
21st Val Browning Round Robin Weber State 9/27/2017 Val R6 Rutgers-Newark CW Baylor ZB Neg
21st Val Browning Round Robin Weber State 9/27/2017 Val R3 Arizona State CR Binghamton BM Aff
21st Val Browning Round Robin Weber State 9/27/2017 Val R2 Emporia State ES Nevada Las Vegas AK Aff
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open Qtrs Emporia State ES Central Oklahoma HS Neg Neg on a 3-0
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open Octos UT Dallas KR Central Oklahoma HS Neg Neg on a 2-1
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R7 Arizona State CR UT Dallas SG Aff
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 JV R6 Johnson County Community CE UT San Antonio DC Neg
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R5 Emporia State ES Baylor WW Aff
UMKC Baby Jo 9/16/2017 Open R2 UT Dallas BJ Weber State HR Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Open S TitleWon BH TitleWon GV Aff Aff on a 2-1
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Schol Q Scholars HT Scholars FR Neg Neg on a 3-0
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Open O TitleWon BH Skoogs AA Aff Aff on a 3-0
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Open R6 KiLiRs LS KiLiRs SG Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Schol R5 Scholars MJ Scholars FR Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Open R5 KiLiRs RM Skoogs WH Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Open R4 Skoogs RL KiLiRs WD Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Open R3 TitleWon RM KiLiRs GP Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Open R2 TitleWon WM Skoogs FS Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/25/2017 Open R1 Skoogs JD KiLiRs MS Neg
71st National Debate Tournament at Kansas 3/23/2017 Open Round West Georgia MJ Central Oklahoma HS Neg Neg on a 3-0
71st National Debate Tournament at Kansas 3/23/2017 Open Round Wake Forest MM Wichita State OS Neg Neg on a 3-0
71st National Debate Tournament at Kansas 3/23/2017 Open Round Wake Forest AS Pittsburgh DL Aff Aff on a 3-0
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 4 Pittsburgh DL George Mason BH Neg
Owen L Coon Memorial Debates at Northwestern 2/4/2017 Open RD 2 Arizona State SQ Wayne State HM Neg
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Nov F Monmouth SP Nevada Las Vegas FJ Neg Neg on a 2-1
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Open SF Nevada Las Vegas GB Arizona State FR Aff Aff on a 3-0
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Open QF Nevada Las Vegas WC Arizona State FR Neg Neg on a 2-1
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Open OF Weber State MW Miami AS Neg Neg on a 2-1
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Open R6 Monmouth HT Weber State MM Aff
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Open R5 Arizona State SR Weber State/Cal State Fullerton PW Neg
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Open R4 Southwestern CC Nevada Las Vegas ST Neg
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Nov R3 Monmouth WS Nevada Las Vegas FJ Neg
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Open R2 Arizona State FR Nevada Las Vegas GB Aff
Southwestern College Hannie Shaft Tournament 1/21/2017 Open R1 Weber State MW Nevada Las Vegas WC Neg
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/14/2017 Open Octs Wake Forest NW Pittsburgh CR Neg Neg on a 2-1
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/14/2017 Open R5 West Virginia CB Wayne State HM Aff
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/14/2017 Open R4 James Madison MG Georgia State CL Aff
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/14/2017 Open R2 Wake Forest NW George Mason CL Aff
Crowe Warken Debates at Navy 1/14/2017 Open R1 George Mason TO Wayne State CH Aff
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX Final Interlake DS Heritage Hall DV Neg Neg on a 2-1
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX Quarte Interlake DS CK McClatchy LP Aff Aff on a 3-0
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX Octo St George's DM Interlake DS Neg Neg on a 3-0
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX Double Interlake GL Ingraham VZ Aff Neg on a 2-1
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX R6 CK McClatchy NM OES (Oregon Episcopal School) SM Aff
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX R5 CK McClatchy LP Camas LL Neg
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX R4 Lewis and Clark PC St George's DM Neg
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX R3 Heritage Hall DV Fullerton Union GK Aff
Conway Classic at Gonzaga University 1/6/2017 OpeCX R2 Interlake GL Garfield RS Aff
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var Dubs Weber State GT Harvard AM Aff Aff on a 3-0
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 JV R6 Nevada Las Vegas JF San Francisco State BG Neg
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var R5 UC Berkeley FM West Georgia MJ Neg
USC Alan Nichols Tournament 1/3/2017 Var R3 MIT Policy Debate GS Nevada Las Vegas SS Neg
Northwest Fall Championships UW 11/12/2016 NWCED R5 Cal State Fullerton WT Wyoming HL Aff
Northwest Fall Championships UW 11/12/2016 NWCED R4 Puget Sound FH Washington UM Neg
Northwest Fall Championships UW 11/12/2016 NWCED R2 Washington TT Puget Sound RP Aff
Northwest Fall Championships UW 11/12/2016 NWCED R1 Puget Sound RP Washington ME Neg
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/29/2016 Open DOUBLE Emory GK Wake Forest DM Neg Aff on a 2-1
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/29/2016 Open RD 6 Wake Forest DM Central Oklahoma SH Neg
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/29/2016 Open RD 4 Indiana GD Oklahoma SP Neg
The Jesuit Gonzaga University 10/29/2016 Open RD 1 Nevada Las Vegas SS Wake Forest CR Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 10/14/2016 Open SF Texas BP Johnson County Community ES Aff Aff on a 3-0
Sun Devil Invitational 10/14/2016 Open QF Johnson County Community ES Wyoming CH Neg Aff on a 2-1
Sun Devil Invitational 10/14/2016 Open R6 Arizona State VR Arizona Competitive Speech and Debate Club WK Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 10/14/2016 Open R5 Weber State GT Wyoming CH Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 10/14/2016 Open R4 Wyoming HL Texas BW Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 10/14/2016 JV R3 Weber State EP CSU Northridge GZ Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 10/14/2016 Open R2 San Francisco State GH Weber State HR Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 10/14/2016 Open R1 Johnson County Community ES Weber State RW Aff
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open QF Binghamton AY Weber State GT Neg Neg on a 2-1
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open OF Puget Sound QF George Mason BH Neg Neg on a 2-1
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open R7 Kansas State RL Wyoming HL Neg
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open R6 Southern Methodist NS Weber State GT Neg
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open R5 Binghamton BS George Mason OT Aff
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open R4 Washington EM Arizona State SR Neg
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open R3 Binghamton AY Johnson County Community ES Aff
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open R2 Nevada Las Vegas SS Weber State RW Aff
4th annual Mukai College Classic at Weber State 10/1/2016 Open R1 George Mason BH Weber State LM Aff
20th annual Val Browning Round Robin at Weber State 9/28/2016 Val R9 Arizona State QR Stanford AS Neg
20th annual Val Browning Round Robin at Weber State 9/28/2016 Val R5 Texas BP George Mason OT Aff
20th annual Val Browning Round Robin at Weber State 9/28/2016 Val R4 Wyoming CH Binghamton BS Neg
20th annual Val Browning Round Robin at Weber State 9/28/2016 Val R3 Weber State GT Rutgers-Newark CS Aff
Georgia State University 9/17/2016 OPEN R8 Wayne State AC Indiana NT Aff
Georgia State University 9/17/2016 OPEN R7 Michigan CW Trinity DK Aff
Georgia State University 9/17/2016 OPEN R5 Nevada Las Vegas BO Puget Sound QF Neg
Georgia State University 9/17/2016 OPEN R4 Pittsburgh DL Trinity SY Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Vars Q HoHoDuck11 ST Paige Against The Machine KG Aff Neg on a 2-1
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Vars O Paige Against The Machine CG HoHoDuck11 AM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Stars S Mao's Cows HD Mao's Cows FS Neg Aff on a 2-1
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Vars R6 HoHoDuck11 SQ MY CROSS-X JG Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Vars R5 Paige Against The Machine Ch MY CROSS-X WF Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Vars R4 HoHoDuck11 ST SHNEPDO LN Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Vars R3 HoHoDuck11 AM MY CROSS-X TH Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Vars R2 SHNEPDO FM Original Glasers BF Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/19/2016 Vars R1 HoHoDuck11 RN SHNEPDO HT Aff
70th National Debate Tournament at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round Trinity RS West Georgia MS Neg Neg on a 2-1
70th National Debate Tournament at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round Georgetown KK Binghamton CH Neg Neg on a 2-1
70th National Debate Tournament at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round Pittsburgh CB Wake Forest RV Aff Aff on a 2-1
70th National Debate Tournament at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round Rutgers-Newark HQ Kansas BC Aff Aff on a 3-0
70th National Debate Tournament at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round West Georgia CC Nevada Las Vegas CH Aff Aff on a 2-1
70th National Debate Tournament at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round Wake Forest AS Nevada Las Vegas BK Aff Aff on a 3-0
70th National Debate Tournament at Binghamton 3/31/2016 Open Round Central Oklahoma HS Indiana AF Aff Aff on a 2-1
D1 Qualifier and Pacific Championship 2/20/2016 Novice Finals Cal State Fullerton KS Southwestern CS Neg Neg on a 3-0
D1 Qualifier and Pacific Championship 2/20/2016 Quals Finals Stanford PT Nevada Las Vegas CH Neg Neg on a 3-0
D1 Qualifier and Pacific Championship 2/20/2016 Quals R6 Southern California SS Nevada Las Vegas CH Aff
D1 Qualifier and Pacific Championship 2/20/2016 Open R5 San Francisco/San Francisco State SG Nevada Las Vegas BT Neg
D1 Qualifier and Pacific Championship 2/20/2016 Novice R4 Southwestern CS Cal State Fullerton WR Aff
D1 Qualifier and Pacific Championship 2/20/2016 Open R3 Nevada Las Vegas CM Arizona State LB Aff
D1 Qualifier and Pacific Championship 2/20/2016 Quals R2 Arizona State CR Southern California SS Aff
D1 Qualifier and Pacific Championship 2/20/2016 Quals R1 Nevada Las Vegas CH Arizona State CR Aff
Texas Open 2/6/2016 TXO Double Michigan KM UT Dallas LO Aff Aff on a 5-0
Texas Open 2/6/2016 TXO R8 Binghamton BS Washington ST Aff
Texas Open 2/6/2016 TXO R5 Wake Forest AS Michigan KM Aff
Texas Open 2/6/2016 TXO R4 Wake Forest CL Nevada Las Vegas BK Neg
Texas Open 2/6/2016 TXO R2 Harvard MD Minnesota KT Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 1/16/2016 Open Finals Nevada Las Vegas AO Weber State HS Aff Aff on a 2-1
Sun Devil Invitational 1/16/2016 Open Semis Nevada Las Vegas AO Weber State PS Aff Aff on a 2-1
Sun Devil Invitational 1/16/2016 Open R5 Weber State HS Nevada Las Vegas AO Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 1/16/2016 Open R4 Nevada Las Vegas TC Weber State GV Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 1/16/2016 Open R2 Arizona State HQ Weber State HS Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 1/16/2016 Open R1 Weber State LR Arizona State HQ Neg
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/8/2016 OpeCX Semi St. Vincent De Paul HM S. Eugene H. S. LS Aff Aff on a 2-1
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/8/2016 OpeCX Quarte St George's MV Juan Diego Catholic DM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/8/2016 OpeCX Octo Interlake DS St. Vincent De Paul HM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/8/2016 OpeCX R5 Interlake LL Ingraham TK Aff
Cal Swing 1 1/3/2016 Open Double Michigan KM Nevada Las Vegas OG Aff Aff on a 3-0
Cal Swing 1 1/3/2016 Open R6 Wake Forest AS Nevada Las Vegas CH Aff
Cal Swing 1 1/3/2016 JVN R2 Nevada Las Vegas NT Weber State LR Neg
Cal Swing 1 1/3/2016 Open R1 Weber State GT UC Berkeley SW Neg
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest University 11/13/2015 Open RD 8 Binghamton AY UT Dallas BF Aff
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest University 11/13/2015 Open RD 7 Harvard AM UT Dallas LO Neg
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest University 11/13/2015 Open RD 4 Michigan State TS West Georgia MS Neg
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest University 11/13/2015 Open RD 3 Wichita State OS Indiana AK Neg
Franklin R Shirley Classic at Wake Forest University 11/13/2015 Open RD 2 Wichita State CW Capital CL Aff
Harvard 10/30/2015 Open R8 Texas CB Michigan State MW Neg
Harvard 10/30/2015 Open R7 Minnesota KL Georgetown MS Neg
Harvard 10/30/2015 Open R2 Iowa KL Emory DF Aff
Las Vegas Classic 10/17/2015 JV F Kansas City Kansas CC UW Oklahoma CS Aff Aff on a 3-0
Las Vegas Classic 10/17/2015 Open 2x West Georgia MS Southern California LP Aff Aff on a 3-0
Las Vegas Classic 10/17/2015 JV R6 Utah State University Eastern LR Oklahoma WP Neg
Las Vegas Classic 10/17/2015 Open R5 Southern California LP Nevada Las Vegas BT Aff
Las Vegas Classic 10/17/2015 Open R4 UT Dallas YS Texas BD Aff
Las Vegas Classic 10/17/2015 Open R3 Nevada Las Vegas AO NYU DZ Aff
3rd annual Mukai Classic Weber State University 10/3/2015 Open R8 Binghamton SS UC Berkeley EK Aff
3rd annual Mukai Classic Weber State University 10/3/2015 Open R6 Wyoming TM Weber State GT Neg
3rd annual Mukai Classic Weber State University 10/3/2015 JV R2 Nevada Las Vegas CM Utah State University Eastern RL Aff
3rd annual Mukai Classic Weber State University 10/3/2015 Open R1 Missouri - Kansas City KM Arizona State CR Neg
GSU National College Debate Tournament 9/19/2015 OPEN R6 Wake Forest AS Michigan State TS Aff
GSU National College Debate Tournament 9/19/2015 NOV R5 Liberty NJ Vanderbilt ZW Neg
GSU National College Debate Tournament 9/19/2015 OPEN R4 Nevada Las Vegas CH Wyoming MM Neg
GSU National College Debate Tournament 9/19/2015 JV R3 Cornell TK James Madison CM Aff
GSU National College Debate Tournament 9/19/2015 JV R2 Trinity CT Michigan PM Aff
GSU National College Debate Tournament 9/19/2015 OPEN R1 Kansas Co Harvard BK Aff
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 OPEN 2x Weber State GT Nevada Las Vegas AO Aff Aff on a 3-0
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 OPEN 8 UT San Antonio AG Nevada Las Vegas AO Neg
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 OPEN 5 UT San Antonio WH Central Oklahoma GS Neg
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 OPEN 2 UT Dallas YL Emporia State TW Aff
UMKC Baby Jo Memorial 9/12/2015 OPEN 1 Wichita State CW Texas BP Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Open Octas Holy Schmitt MM Oculus LeSh Neg Neg on a 3-0
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Schol Semis $corpion$ SR $corpion$ ML Neg Aff on a 2-1
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Open Double Snaps4Surveillance OM 19db84 SD Aff Aff on a 3-0
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Schol R6 Anonymous ES $corpion$ HS Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Open R6 Snaps4Surveillance WS Oculus OG Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Open R5 Holy Schmitt SA 19db84 KB Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Open R4 D.W.A DH Holy Schmitt CG Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Open R3 19db84 ZZ Thuff Lab EE Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Open R2 Snaps4Surveillance MY Rage Against The Machine GL Neg
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Open R1 19db84 SD Thuff Lab CC Aff
Gonzaga Debate Institute Tournament 7/22/2015 Schol R1 $corpion$ SR Anonymous JaMa Aff
69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa 4/3/2015 Open R7 UT Dallas OL CUNY AM Aff Aff on a 3-0
69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa 4/3/2015 Open R5 Minnesota CE Kansas HR Neg Aff on a 2-1
69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa 4/3/2015 Open R4 Harvard DH Binghamton CS Aff Aff on a 3-0
69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa 4/3/2015 Open R3 Arizona State CR Wake Forest DL Aff Neg on a 2-1
D2 NDT Qualifer 2/21/2015 D2NDT R4 Puget Sound BQ Whitman College BT Aff
D2 NDT Qualifer 2/21/2015 D2NDT R3 Weber State HV Wyoming HT Aff
D2 NDT Qualifer 2/21/2015 D2NDT R2 Whitman College BT Wyoming HT Aff
D2 NDT Qualifer 2/21/2015 D2NDT R1 Puget Sound BQ Wyoming MM Aff
Texas Open 2/7/2015 TXO R8 Binghamton Herrera & Smith Wyoming Marcum & McFarland Neg
Texas Open 2/7/2015 TXO R7 Louisville Barnett & Lattimore Dartmouth College Ahmad & Yan Neg
Texas Open 2/7/2015 TXO R5 Arizona State Canarie & Revenew Binghamton Friedman & Choudhury Aff
Texas Open 2/7/2015 TXO R4 Wayne State Husic & Maxey George Washington Stenn & Stasaski Aff
Texas Open 2/7/2015 TXO R3 Whitman College Anderson & Barsky Arizona State Chotras & Rajan Aff
Texas Open 2/7/2015 TXO R2 Whitman College Lassiter & Durand Arizona State Brisson & Ram Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 1/17/2015 Open Octas Weber State MS Nevada Las Vegas KO Neg Neg on a 3-0
Sun Devil Invitational 1/17/2015 Open R6 Pepperdine CH Weber State HT Neg
Sun Devil Invitational 1/17/2015 Open R5 Southern California PR Arizona State WS Aff
Sun Devil Invitational 1/17/2015 Open R4 Nevada Las Vegas BT Weber State OG Neg
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX S St. Vincent de Paul DM Lake City CM Aff Aff on a 3-0
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX Q Lake City CM Renaissance MG Aff Aff on a 3-0
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX O St. Vincent de Paul DM Eagle CC Aff Aff on a 3-0
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX DO Lake City CM Coeur d Alene 1 FS Aff Neg on a 2-1
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX R6 Timberline JF Interlake DS Neg
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX R5 Centennial MX Tigard PH Aff
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX R4 St. Vincent de Paul DM Ingraham BG Aff
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX R3 S. Eugene H. S. LS Coeur d Alene 1 CH Aff
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX R2 Timberline XW St. Vincent de Paul CH Neg
Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic 1/9/2015 OpeCX R1 Lake Oswego Senior GT St. Vincent de Paul RP Aff
2015 USC Alan Nichols Debate Tournament 1/3/2015 JV Quarte Nevada Las Vegas BT Washington MP Aff Neg on a 2-1
2015 USC Alan Nichols Debate Tournament 1/3/2015 Var R5 Nevada Las Vegas GV Michigan KM Neg
2015 USC Alan Nichols Debate Tournament 1/3/2015 Var R4 Harvard HK Cornell LL Aff
2015 USC Alan Nichols Debate Tournament 1/3/2015 Var R3 Whitman College DL George Mason MC Aff
2015 USC Alan Nichols Debate Tournament 1/3/2015 Var R2 Nevada Las Vegas KO Cornell KG Aff
2015 USC Alan Nichols Debate Tournament 1/3/2015 Var R1 Michigan AP Binghamton CS Aff
2014 Franklin R Shirley Classic 11/15/2014 OPN R8 Baylor BS Nevada Las Vegas KO Neg
2014 Franklin R Shirley Classic 11/15/2014 OPN R4 Missouri - Kansas City AF Kentucky GV Aff
2014 Franklin R Shirley Classic 11/15/2014 OPN R3 CUNY AM Arizona State CR Aff
2014 Franklin R Shirley Classic 11/15/2014 OPN R2 Northwestern OW Nevada Las Vegas BS Aff
2014 Franklin R Shirley Classic 11/15/2014 OPN R1 North Texas AK Binghamton HS Neg
Puget Sound Logger Invitational 10/25/2014 CX R6 PugSou CD Wyomin HT Aff
Puget Sound Logger Invitational 10/25/2014 CX R4 WhiCol NH PugSou BQ Neg
Puget Sound Logger Invitational 10/25/2014 CX R3 PugSou BQ Wyomin BJ Aff
Puget Sound Logger Invitational 10/25/2014 CX R1 WhiCol KT PugSou CD Aff
Las Vegas Classic Invitational 10/18/2014 Open Double Arizona State ChRa Oklahoma MS Aff Aff on a 2-1
Las Vegas Classic Invitational 10/18/2014 Nov Semis Weber State MG Arizona State BA Neg Neg on a 3-0
Las Vegas Classic Invitational 10/18/2014 Open R6 Arizona State ChRa Nevada Las Vegas KB Aff
Las Vegas Classic Invitational 10/18/2014 JV R5 Southwestern College BB Johnson County Community College DD Neg
Las Vegas Classic Invitational 10/18/2014 Open R4 Texas WB California, Berkeley GK Aff
Las Vegas Classic Invitational 10/18/2014 JV R3 Wyoming CF CSU Northridge BT Aff
Las Vegas Classic Invitational 10/18/2014 Open R1 California, Berkeley WT Baylor BS Neg
2nd annual Mukai Invitational Weber State 10/4/2014 Open R8 Missouri - Kansas City AF Nevada Las Vegas GV Aff
2nd annual Mukai Invitational Weber State 10/4/2014 Open R7 Wyoming DM Kansas HR Neg
2nd annual Mukai Invitational Weber State 10/4/2014 JV R6 Southwestern College BE Whitman College RM Neg
2nd annual Mukai Invitational Weber State 10/4/2014 Open R5 Puget Sound BQ Nevada Las Vegas OK Aff
2nd annual Mukai Invitational Weber State 10/4/2014 JV R4 Nevada Las Vegas/Weber State CB Wyoming CF Neg
2nd annual Mukai Invitational Weber State 10/4/2014 Open R3 Oregon GV Texas KS Neg
2nd annual Mukai Invitational Weber State 10/4/2014 Open R2 Missouri - Kansas City CJ Trinity CY Neg
2nd annual Mukai Invitational Weber State 10/4/2014 Open R1 Central Oklahoma SW Arizona State RR Aff