Nicole Brown_________________

School: Texas Tech_________________

Section 1: General Information

I think that the debate is for the debaters so I will listen to anything. I am not against any particular type of debate as long as it is well explained and please don’t rely on me knowing all the jargon or all of the philosophers that you want to talk about, as long as it is explained I can follow. I think that good impact calculus is important in the debate round. I like a comparison of the issues to make my decision easier. I am also not the best at keeping up in a fast round so it might help you to slow down, I have been out of the activity for a while.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Please describe your approach to the following.

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

27-30

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

I think that critically framed arguments are fine. I like to have a clear way to evaluate the round. I like to know the role of the ballot and why I should vote the way I should. I like for things to be simplified so I don’t have to intervene. I don’t see a problem with arguments being contradictory unless the other team raises a theoretical objection.

3. Performance based arguments…don’t bother me. I don’t have anything against them. I just like a clear framework on how I should vote. As I stated above, I don’t have a clear way that I vote on performance, it seems to be different every time. I think the framework debate is important to have.

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

I think that in round abuse is the easiest way to win topicality in front of me but I will vote on T if you are able to explain what ground was lost and why you should have access to that ground. Please slow down the interpretation and read it twice for me

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

I will listen to any CP. I feel that all of these questions are things that should be debated out in the round. I think that the opp should identify the status of the CP and provide a text.

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

It does not bother me.

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

I feel like all of this should be done in the round but if it isn’t I generally look at Topicality/procedurals first then evaluate the rest of the issues based on importance in the round set up by the debaters. If no weighing mechanism is established, I default to net-benefits.

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")?

Again I think this should be done in the round but if not done I generally will compare abstract concepts less than concrete impacts but this shouldn’t be a problem because I will listen to whatever happens in the round. I think weighing within the round is important so I don’t have to intervene.

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.

Cook, Samuel

Prep Version [MUST READ]

1. You can do whatever you like (strategically speaking) with three exceptions:

A. Do not read generic spec arguments.

B. Do not read condo bad v. one conditional advocacy.

C. Do not spray-and-pray MG or LO theory with a series of incoherent standard cross-applications and collapse to one that is under-covered in the MO/PMR.

If you want/need to object to multiple things the LOC has done and do not want to fall into the above category, I suggest you combine your interps into one interp (e.g., “the negative cannot read multiple conditional plan-inclusive counter-plans when the aff has only one legislative option”).

2. I will not do work for you and I default to a very technical evaluation of the flow (i.e. if you do not extend an aff impact in the MG, I will not allow you to shadow extend it in the PMR, and the same goes for the LOC/MO/LOR). I use consequentialism as a method for evaluating the aff versus the status quo or a competitive policy option to determine if the hypothetical implementation of a plan is net-positive or not.

These are defaults, meaning they are subject to change pending the introduction of an alternative theoretical framework that attempts to persuade me to view the debate differently.

4. Framework matters - I will evaluate this first to determine how I should view every subsequent argument.

5. Do not choose a critical strategy - or any strategy - based on what you think I want to hear. Choose a strategy that suits you best.

6. My speaks generally range from 27-30. Offensive rhetoric will not be tolerated. Be nice, have fun.

Background/General Info

Hello there, I am Sam. My pronouns are he/him. I am not the most omnipresent judge on the circuit, so take into account in your strike/pref decisions that I have not been flowing at top speed for a while. 2018-2019 is my second year out, so factor that into your decision, as well.

I view debate as a game where those who play the game best should win. With that said, I also believe this game should be an inclusive one that produces something for the participants. As a result, my paradigm attempts to discourage cheap, gotcha strategies that are repeated ad nauseam with targeted, minimal interventions while encouraging innovative techniques and content. If you have any questions about that or want to discuss what I mean beyond what is present in my paradigm, let me know.

I had a reputation as a K hack when I was a debater, but I actually read policy arguments more often. The best advice I can give you is to do what you like – making arguments that suit you will always yield better results than trying to form fit your style to the preferences of others.

I am not sensitive about being lit up after I’ve made a decision. Debaters are often both competitively driven and passionate about their arguments and I sympathize with that, so if you feel the need to let loose and yell at me, don’t hesitate, that is fine – I’d much rather you do that than let it simmer and take it out on someone else. That said, you should do your best to not make your opponents feel uncomfortable and generally be good people during and after the debate. I encourage you to ask questions at the end regardless of the outcomes of the debate, it will help you improve your performance thoroughly.

If you have any questions before or at the tournament, feel free to email me at rigdoncook@gmail.com. You may also use this email after the tournament for questions if you miss the opportunity during the event.

Topicality/Theory

I genuinely enjoy good T or theory debates. “Good” meaning terminalized offense on both sides, a robust framing debate (competing interps v. reasonability), and nuanced approaches to the interp/counter-interp level with an intent to produce a better debate for everyone involved. However, I do have some very specific love/hate here.

I will not vote on condo bad versus one advocacy. I genuinely believe that this practice - going for condo bad versus one CP or one K - has the effect of discouraging innovation in debate by pinning every advocacy to the negative in every instance, there's never a chance to experiment with new and interesting arguments. I think this is a reasonably influential variable that generics are repeatedly deployed instead of new, experimental arguments.

I am heavily against “spray-and-pray” LO/MG theory strategies that do not terminalize their impacts or contradict one another– doing this will heavily impact your speaker points and I will be biased against your offense. If your shells are blippy with a lot of incoherent cross-applications and generic standards, I will be loathe to vote for these positions. I also am not a fan of the trend where teams read theoretical objections against random, performative aspects of the debate that do not significantly impact the debate, like if the plan isn't read in the first 30 seconds. These tend to be time-sucks that, more than anything, will signal to me that you have done lazy prep, poor strategic planning, and are relying on bad back-files to be under-covered for a cheap win. Don't make me think that about you.

If you want/need to object to multiple things the LOC has done and do not want to fall into the above category, I suggest you combine your interps into one interp (e.g., “the negative cannot read multiple conditional plan-inclusive counter-plans when the aff has only one legislative option”). This will give you better, more specific offense anyway, makes the debate neater, and avoids the sophistry of the strategy I described above. Furthermore, I will be more

I hate generic SPEC arguments. Hate them. Reading them is poor strategic decision-making and I hate it. FSPEC, ASPEC, whatever the hell "ESPEC" is supposed to be, these are things that will make me dread your presence. Don't make me dread your presence. I thoroughly believe these strategic choices negatively impact parli.

Now, if you have a shell that is topic-specific and you genuinely think it has something to contribute to the debate - like G-SPEC on court decision topics, where the specification of a grounds determines precedent and that's key to your ground or whatever because it's the only way to divine what the law will result in - then fine.

I will vote on framework v. K affs if it is executed properly. I don't hack for it, I don't hack against it - it's a just another theory argument that needs to be well-executed in order to earn my ballot.

DA/CP

Possibly my favorite thing to see is well-developed DA/CP strategies or smart, aff-specific disads with extensive case debate. I’m fine with PICs and Process CPs so long as they’re well-defended, theoretically and substantively. I do not have any particular preferences in this area as long as it’s done well.

Ks

I am familiar with many of the popular literature bases used in critical argumentation, especially in parli. My specialties when I competed were arguments that involved psychoanalysis, neoliberalism, and coloniality - these are also the areas where my feedback will likely be the most valuable. Despite that, you should not assume I know your authors or their terminology because even if I do know them, I will never do work for you in explaining a theory. If you do not comprehend what you’re saying in round, then neither will my flow. In other words, do not choose a critical strategy - or any strategy - based on what you think I want to hear. Choose a strategy that suits you best.

Framework in K debates matters because it helps me identify which arguments matter and which do not. Your links should be nuanced and terminalized with internal impacts - a link should be able to turn case or cause policy failure, independently. Saying “they’re capitalist” is fine, but the more specific, complex, and impacted your links are, the less likely I will be willing to evaluate the perm. Permutations should be accompanied by disads to the alt because while perms are just a test of competition, if the perm is net-beneficial, that can determine whether or not I consider the alt to be competitive.

The alternative, if you read one, should have a risk of solving the aff impacts or the framework should exclude them from my evaluation (preferably, you should attempt to prove both).

K affs

You can read whatever you want, as long as you know how to do it. My favorite K affs as a debater connected somewhat to the topic, in both analysis and method/advocacy because I felt that was the most interesting way to approach critical affirmatives. I also think this is strategic in answering framework. However, you should feel comfortable reading whatever style of argument you want. Know that regardless of how you read your aff or position it, I am willing to evaluate framework as a response, so long as it is executed properly. Much of my thoughts on this are the same as the “Ks” section above.

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.

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

ask me before the round

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.

As a debate coach and/or Director of Forensics, I have taught students at Northern Arizona University, the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado State University -- Pueblo, and San Diego State University. I have coached students to compete and succeed in CEDA/NDT, NPDA/NPTE, NFA LD, Karl Popper (IDEA Youth Forum), NFL LD (value debate), Student Congress, BP debate, and other academic or educational formats. I coached the World Champion Karl Popper Team -- USA WEST -- in Roosta, Estonia, in 2007, and the 2nd Place Mixed Nation Debate Championship, where I served as lab leader to predominantly Eastejrn Block nations, in Trest, CZ. I love both the educational as well as the competitive qualities of all forms of debate, and believe that debate, or the process of competitive discourse, is perhaps the highest form of learning that can take place. Additionally, next to dance and martial arts (I am a judoka shodan), I believe that the debate round itself serves as a forum for the powerful ritual for the performance of competing narratives, values, and agendas. As a classically trained rhetorician, I am well aware that argument can be formulated in a variety of texts and mediums (e.g., visual, performative, poetic, analytical, structural, and emotional), and as such, I don't hold too many preconceived notions about what a good argument is.

What is important to me as a Critic:

1. Well defined burdens early on in the debate (e.g., criteria, decision-rules, moral imperatives, key values, framework-type arguments, and other "top of case" theoretical justifications).

2. Consistent performance between partners. Some talking between partners happens, but debaters should try not to be full-blown ventriloquists for their partners, necessarily undercutting the ethos, and "voice," of their other half.

3. Clear impact analysis. I am more concerned with this than which position to look at first. Just because a judge looks at something, does not mean there is a compelling reason to vote for it.

4. Control the agenda of the round. Too often, in the face of one lengthy off-case (e.g., a strong K), affirmative teams allow themselves to be put on the defensive, arguing their positions more on their opponent's turf, than through their own case (e.g., making offensive turns and claiming them as advantages to the case). The team that appears to be losing the round, probably will. Be confident, take risks, and utilize the Jedi Mind trick. If you say something is important, it IS, unless otherwise noted.

5. I have no inherent issues with speed, but as a former CEDA debater, I was fast, but loud and articulate. I do not believe that speed should be utilized for speed sake, or for clearly abusive purposes (like blowing down a novice debater). That being said, a nice and steady "hum" gets my head nodding and foot tapping, which is always fun.

6. I am only 40 (ha ha) but I am an OLD SCHOOL SCORPIO in that I probably flow on paper (or with a digital pen), gripe about strikes and digital ballots (again, ha ha), believe debaters should be polite, don't like lazy or apathetic attitudes in the debate round, and tend to not be the biggest fan of "oppression Olympics” (i.e, selling out your otherized personal identity for a win), and believe that debaters should argue over the topic. I would probably be willing to listen to old school theory challenging many of the assumptions regarding stable and fair debate ground. I am all about what debaters concede is important (the forum), and which side best "cashes-in" on that premise/burden/criterion. Whether pre-fiat or post-fiat, jurisdictional or critical (k), stock issues, policy-maker, games (one of my favorites... RIP TUNA SNIDER), activist, comparative advantage, plan-meets-need, etc., I am willing to listen. For jurisdictional-type arguments (T, XTRA T, FX T, Justification, Burdens Presses), I like to see actual articulated abuse to make the positions stick. If they are warranted, run them.

Conversely, for you critical teams: Really strong critical debaters BECOME the argument, as they are aware that full embodiment of the narrative is required, complete with 100% emotional investment, to bring an audience on board with such normative frameworks. In other words, “don't spit good lit, if it’s clear you be faking it!” Take big risks, don't go for everything, be strategic! Kick the fluff and go for the ULTIMATE ISSUES towards the end of the debate. Finally, no matter how fast, or complicated the debate round might get, it is the final rebuttalist’s job to not only to lock down any unanswered or under-covered positions, but more importantly, to demonstrate the big picture mastery of the round (which hopefully is evident throughout the round by virtue of that team's ability to control the agenda of the round), what the ULTIMATE ISSUES were in the sea of issues, isolating 1-5 core voting issues for the judge (e.g., criteria/burdens, offensive turns, successfully argued solvency and/or advantage scenarios), and using examples from the previously argued speeches, demonstrate why the better debating (clash, evidence, reasoning, extended arguments, advanced burdens, etc.) was done by their side.

NOTES: I am an open-minded Scorpio who loves a good fight. Before I learned argument, I was a competitive judoka, which may tell you a lot about how I view techniques (waza), practice (randori), and respect for the practice forum (dojo). Before I ever learned to win a damn thing, I was really adept at losing, despite my delusions of adequacy. The master is but a student, our foes are but our trainers, and a true fight, a pure fight, is a magnificent dance, born out of love. Perform well! Fight hard! Love hard! Take Risks! Stay Classy! Be F'ng Brilliant!!! :)

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.

Ryan Kelly – Washburn University

My Background: I debated for four years NPDA/NPTE circuit for Washburn University. I debated for four years in high school policy debate, LD, and PFD. Graduated in 2017 from Washburn with a BA in International Business and Marketing with minors in Leadership Studies and Communications. I currently attend law school at the University of Kansas.

· Highlights:

o ***First, before all else. When you read a text, interpretation, or anything in that ilk, please slow down and read it twice. I think that the text is important and it will only help you to make sure everyone has it down correctly. Thx buddies.***

o Generally, I believe that debate is a game. (“Do what you can justify” – Doubledee.) But, within that framework, if either team raises the argument that debate is more than just a game for certain bodies or purposes, I think that type of framing for the debate round is valid and I will weigh that. I think that framing can certainly be used to weigh certain impacts as more important than others when done well. I do believe, though, that framing argument should come with robust warrant/grounds--meaning, explain why debate is more than just a game, the benefits to that outlook, etc. Absent this, my general default is that debate is a game.

o I have a preference for unconditional advocacies, but if you want to debate condo, I won’t vote you down right away or anything like that.

o Familiar arguments/debates: politics, hegemony, queerness/heteronornmativity (most familiar here), feminism, anthropocentrism, whiteness, anti-blackness, and other identity arguments. I am also familiar with militarism, cap, and overconsumption. I read Agamben quite a bit my frosh year and am familiar with Lacanian based arguments….a bit. My critical knowledge is more based on identity type arguments, though.

o I think that if your argument is very complex, a thesis at the beginning will help out with my understanding.

o At the end of the day, the most important line of argumentation to me is what the post-world of the negative and the affirmative look like, and weighing between the implications of those two worlds.

o I place a high emphasis on the LOR. It was my favorite speech to give and I come from the school of Lauren Knoth in believing it can arguably be the most important speech in the debate, or a huge waste.

· Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments

o I am fine with these types of arguments and I think that they can lead to very valid discussions in debate.

o I think that these types of arguments are most persuasive when they have an advocacy. This advocacy can be a metaphor, poem, alternative, or even the lack of an advocacy if that is explained well. Kaitlyn and I read a metaphor for our narrative affirmative, and Ian and I read a critical affirmative without an advocacy, but had justifications for that implicit in the argument. Thus, do what you can justify.

o I believe that it is important to explain the post-AFF world in this situation, just the same as when a K is read on the negative. Even if the post-AFF world is supposed to be a change to the debate space, explain what that change is and why your AFF can achieve that.

o That said, I also think that Framework can be used as a response, if it is done appropriately. I think that Framework is most valid when read as a counter-method by the negative, rather than based more in the procedural impacts. I think there is a distinction between Framework and Topicality, and you are less likely to win my ballot if you read T against an AFF in this category rather than Framework.

· Flowing/Speed

o I should be able to keep up, but I’ll let you know if I need you to slow down, likely by saying “slow.” (To me, there is a distinction between “slow” and “clear”. If your speed is fine but I can’t understand the words you are saying, I will say “clear”. If you are going too quickly, I will say “slow”. I’ll try to keep those two as distinct as possible to help.)

o I will likely flow on paper, but may flow on a computer. Either way, give some pen time and time to switch pages. (I was not great at remembering to do this when I was a debater, so I understand that it’s hard to remember when you just want to move to the next argument, but do your best to remember to allow time. J ).

o On the topic of speed, I enjoyed very fast debate. I thought it was a fun skill that is unique to the activity. Despite this, do not use speed when you do not need to. I think debate is about actually having a debate. If you spread someone out of a debate, are you really debating? In my opinion, not really. Engage with the other team as much as you can to facilitate an actual debate. Also, you do not have to be able to spread to win. Ian Mikkelsen is a great example of this. He never went very quickly, but his slow spread was just as effective. Through limiting your word economy and making your speech as efficient as possible, a “slow” speaker can make more arguments than a “fast” debater any day. But, I liked fast debates when I debated, so I don’t have a problem with them whatsoever.

· Procedurals/Theory/T

o Repeated from above, please repeat your interpretations slowly and twice. This is especially important here.

o I am a fan of a good T debate. I think that collapsing is critical in those debates. I also believe the LOR should give a full speech when the negative goes for T/Theory. That LOR time is not just prep for the PMR if it is done correctly.

o RVIs – I think that you should make an RVI if it is strategic. (Hold your shade about RVIs…to me, they are a tool just like anything else). I doubt that you will win my ballot on an RVI, but I definitely see the utility of making the argument.

o A pet peeve of mine is when debaters arrive at the voters section and simply say “and this is a voter for fairness and education.” In fact, I’m not even sure that I would evaluate those as voters. Explain your voters—they are the impact to your theory argument.

o I am usually most persuaded by theory arguments when they are applied to parli specifically.

o MG theory is fine by me, as long as it doesn’t make the debate a mess to deal with. I see no point in spreading yourself out with a litany of small theory arguments. In my opinion, your time is better served making more offense elsewhere.

· DA’s

o Topic specific DA’s are great! As are other DA’s.

o I have a high threshold for Politics DA’s because they were one of my favorite arguments to read and research. The link analysis should be very specific, hopefully including vote counts and other specifics such as that.

· CP’s

o I think counterplans are underutilized in debate (by myself included when I was debating with Kaitlyn—emphasis on Advantage CP’s, sorry for letting you down Brent Nicholson). We always wished we would’ve read more of them.

o Functional competition is most persuasive to me, but I can also understand arguments about textual competition.

· Ks

o I think the K is a great argument in debate and I welcome it. (I also like policy/topic debates, don’t think you should just read the K right away if I judge you.)

o I need a clear alternative. If you have an alt that includes lots of specific, high-brow language in it, please have solvency points that explain those terms.

o To me, the most important part of the K is the explanation of the post-alternative world. What happens after the K’s alternative is accepted? Paint me a picture of that world. I think a K without a well explained alternative is just unending criticism, and I am not sure that is enough to overwhelm an affirmative’s change to the status quo.

· Perms

o Stolen form Kaitlyn’s philosophy, because I feel the same (it’s like we were partners or something): “I really enjoy perm debates. I think that the text of the perm is critical and must be clear in the debate. 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. IE: the alternative is to vote negative to recognize the dehumanizing struggle of indigenous populations. The perm in this case could be to do the plan and recognize the struggle of indigenous populations (thus picking out of the word dehumanizing and reading net benefits/disads to the use of that word). I think that perms serve as tests of competition.”

o Test of competition: The way I view the permutation is that it is a hypothetical test of competition of the two advocacies happening together (generally, I know there are other permutations sequences). I think that if there are net benefits to said hypothetical test that outweigh its absence, then those net benefits can be used to say there is not competition because there is only net good that occurs from the world of the two things happening in concert.

· Also, have fun! Be nice to one another, while still being competitive. If you have any questions, please ask. J

My background:

I debated for 4 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit at Washburn University. I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years. I haven’t participated or judged debate in a few years but I’m sure It’ll just take me a minute to readjust.

Overview: I think that debate is a game. Do what you can justify.

Texts and Interpretations:

You can either provide me with a written copy of the text or slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt/interp and repeat it. Not doing so can make debates impossible to judge and follow.

Thats really all I have for you. Good luck!

As an overview, I have been competing in and judging debate rounds since 1993.  I competed in policy debate, was in deep outrounds at NPDA, and was competitive in NFA-LD. I have been a primary prep coach for all of the teams that I have directed or assisted with including Willamette University (before they cut their NPDA program), Texas Tech University, and the University of Utah. With over 20 years of experience in debate, I have watched debate formats change, transition, replicate, and reform.  I’d like to think that I am a critic of argument, where the rules of the game matter.  That doesn’t mean that appeals to authority are sufficient, but feel free to assess these conceptions of debate as part of your audience analysis.

Some general notes:

(As a competitor, I always hated reading a book for a judge philosophy so here are the bulletpoints).

1. Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.
2. Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “severity,” and “probability.”
3. Use warrants in all of your arguments.  This means grounding arguments in specific examples. 
4. Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation.  My default with permutations is that they are simply tests of competition.  I don’t typically believe that permutations get you out of a disad (shielding the links) or that you capture a counterplan win you when the perm.  If you have a different conception, make an argument to convince me how your permutation should work.
5. Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks.  I try to keep a careful flow, help me do that.
6. Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey.  I get that it’s an event that pits a team against another and debate can feel personal…but there’s no need to spout hate.
7. I take a careful flow…if you’re unclear or not giving me enough pen time don’t be upset when I ask you to clear up or slow down a touch.  Let me have time to flip the page.
8. Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round.  I don’t award double wins or double losses.
9. Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously.  “We meets” and counter-interpretation extensions are your friends.
10. I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order.  If you call them, I’ll take it under consideration.
11. Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.
12. Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc.  I will follow the tournament instructions on lateness, regardless of prelim or outround. Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep.  
13.  Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.
14. Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.
15. Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments.  Going for everything tends to mean that you’re going for nothing.
16. Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.
17. Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.
18. Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.
19. Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.
20. I do think that you can cross-apply arguments from other sheets of paper in the rebuttal.  It’s not like paper is sacrosanct.  If the argument was made in a prior speech, then it’s fair game.
21. Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious.

Speaker points:

I typically give speaker points from 25-30. My average is a 27. 30’s from me are rare, but they are occasionally given. You likely won’t see more than one 30 from me at an invitational tournament. At NPTE, I’ve typically given out 3-4 30’s. I expect that most debaters at the NPTE will likely be in the 27-29 range.

Critical Arguments:

I tend to enjoy critical arguments as long as they’re well explained. Framework your argument (Role of the ballot/judge and/or interpretation about what you get access to) and provide an alternative (tell me what the world post-alt looks like and have solvency grounded in examples). Affirmatives can run critical arguments. If you’re running arguments that are incongruent with other arguments, you should likely have an explained justification for doing so.

Please don’t ask me to sit in a circle…have a discussion…rip up my ballot…get naked…or do anything that most folks would find mildly inappropriate. I think that debate is a performance. Some performances are better than others. Some performances are justified better than others. If you prefer a framework of a certain type of performance, make sure your framework is well articulated and warranted.  That's not to say that I don't enjoy critical debate.  I'm a doctoral student that studies critical theory.  I am well read on queer theory, psycho-analysis, and critical theories of knowledge production.

Other things about the K - Method vs. Method debates seem ripe for permutations...read literature on triangulation. I think PMR's should go deep on one or two major arguments if the block goes for the criticism.  Saying post-modern reductionist buzzwords makes my skin crawl, so do the explanatory work to win warrants.  Ground your claims in actual examples beyond another set of buzzwords.  In short, don't be lazy.   

Procedurals:

I require an interpretation, a violation, and a voter. You should probably have standards for why your interpretation is better than other interpretations. I don’t require competing interpretations, but it can be a useful tool for framing theory. As such, I don’t require in-round abuse (though it can help to prove why your interpretation is preferable).  I have a low threshold on procedurals.  Folks do wanky stuff…explain why your version of debate is preferable and why that means I should vote for you.  I am skeptical of MG theory arguments and will hold them to a much higher standard than I would LOC theory.

Counterplans

I think folks should tell me why they get access to their counterplan in the LOC. I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do (for example, PIC’s are plan inclusive counterplans, which mean they include the entirety of the text of the plan). I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args like conditionality. Permutations should be explained. I want to know how you think they function in the round. My default status for a won permutation is that I just stop looking at the CP as it means the CP is not an opportunity cost to the plan. If you have a different interpretation as to what I should do with a permutation, you should articulate my options.

TOO LONG DIDN’T READ: You do you. If you bring me chai I will give block 30’s. If you have questions then ask me.

Theory arguments are boring.

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.

Hi there!

My name is Amanda, and I'm the DOF at Concordia University Irvine. It's been a while since I've judged at a tournament, so I'll just give a few highlights:

*Not a very big fan of these things they call NIBs, to be honest I simply don't understand how they work. Sorry:( I won't vote on them.

*Things that are rules of the game (Topicality, time limits, prep, etc) are A Priori. Everything else is up for debate.

*Since this is my first tournament in a while, and my first one really judging virtually, please slow if I say slow. I promise I'm not doing it to be annoying, but I can't evaluate things I can't write down.

General stuff:

I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.

Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. That being said, a we meet acts as terminal defense under competing interpretations, so that's a way to win as well. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both. I do not enjoy voting for RVIs and have a very low threshold for defense on these. I do not enjoy voting for spec args honestly can't remember doing so.

Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.

Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).

My name is Matt. I did NPDA/NPTE style debate at Washburn University for 5 years, and coached it at Texas Tech for another two. I am currently a Ph.D. student at Penn State, and am studying the rhetoric of fascism.

Enough about me, here is how I view debate

Affs: If you are affirmative, you should defend some sort of concrete action. I tend to think that affs need stable plan/advocacy texts because it's important to generate stable offense for negatives. Good affirmatives have clear advantages and have some relevance to the topic. This doesn't mean that I won't listen to critical affirmatives or performances, but I do think you should try to link it some how to the resolution, even if that is a rejection of the resolution. Regardless of the affirmative, I tend to reward well researched affs that have high quality evidence, clear taglines, and impacts.

DA/CP: These are great! You should read them, but make sure you explain how they interact with the aff. Good disads turn the aff. Excellent CPs solve some portion of the aff. CPs can be conditional, but I'd prefer you only read one.

Theory: Theory is a great tool when used responsibly. I tend to like most theory. I default to competing interpretations, unless you just straight up meet. I dislike when debaters read too much theory. 2AC's should really avoid adding too many new theory sheets. NRs collapsing to theory should ONLY be collapsing for theory.

K debate: You should have a clear alternative with links that describe why the plan trips the impacts. Saying "Plan uses the USFG" is fine, but that's only a link. Have multiple links. Also it's important that you very clearly describe the world of the alternative. Providing a simple two-sentence explanation of the action of the alt is recommended. As for framework, I think that frames are best used for photographs and NRs.

Here are some other important things:

1. Perms are not advocacies, and I don't think they have net benefits. Advocacies have net benefits, but perms do not. They are tests of competition, so you should talk about competition.

2. I don't like silly theory. I think if you read an argument in the 1NC, you should be willing to go for it. I'll vote on potential abuse if you tell me to, but you've gotta tell me to.

3. Disclosure should happen before the round. If not, I will vote accordingly on theory.

4. I get lost easily when the following lit bases are read in front of me: Baudrillard, Bataille, Nietzsche, and really anything in this tradition of really high continental theory.

5. I prefer depth. I really don't wanna see you read 7 off in the 1NC just to spread the other team out.

6. Don't be rude in CX. Don't talk over each other, and let your opponent answer questions.

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

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.)

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.

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. I will certainly vote on abuse. If you just really like going for theory, I will also vote on a position that doesn’t necessarily have proven abuse, but proves some sort of standard that would set a precedent that you argue is bad. Just remember, it will be harder to get my ballot on theory for theory’s sake.

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?

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

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. It also hasn’t stopped them from interrupting me, or leaving during my RFDs but staying for men’s. Point being--Tell us how to reject. Do we burn the system 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? Do you give people a language with which to discuss a system? Is there are a counterplan text that could solve your K?

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

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?

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. Feel free to pander to me with Tom Hanks references.

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

I competed in parli debate for four years at William Jewell College (2010-2014). Currently, I am working on my PhD in Political Science at the University of Kansas.

General Things to NOT to do in front of me:

- This is really what you care about I think, and further I think people make the mistake of not being forthright and honest about things they do not like to hear in front of them in judging, so here is a list of general things (I’m willing to answer any questions you have). While these are things I don’t like to hear, I won’t vote against you if you do them (except one), but you can count on not having “pretty” speaking points:

1. Do not speak at an incomprehensible rate of speed and expect me to vote for an argument “you said.”

- I consider myself to have a pretty good flow of information, and a good memory of things that are said in round. My flow is a combination of things I can write down as you speak and clues as to what you said. If you speak so fast that I cannot flow you, I will not write anything down and I will not vote for an argument that I do not have written down. If you are going too fast (which I would hope you would recognize based upon my fairly obvious facial expressions), I will clear you once. If it doesn’t get better, I will not signal verbally any further.

2. Do not read K’s that are not topic-specific or unclear.

- I think that some K’s are appropriate in certain situations. That being said, I am not usually a fan of hearing a gnarled mess of philosophical jargon that you may/may not have made up in a 30-minute round of prep. I’m not going to vote to “imagine myself in a mechano-sphere” or some other mess unless I know what it means. That is best accomplished by:

A) Reading topic-specific K’s: an example of this might be, during a tax-reform topic, criticize the method that the affirmative team goes-about attempting to reform taxation by attacking their calculus of success: is it bad to look at numbers instead of people? Is it couched in a capitalist understanding that is doomed to fail? Tell me why and get specific and I will vote for the argument. The contextualization of an argument in something topic-specific will do you well and ease the pain of trying to explain why something links. I would rather you do this, and have it be clear instead of you trying to explain to me why giving free birth control is in some way not “eco-feminist” or something.

B) Every K needs to have a CLEAR, CONCISE way of stating and framing the argument in the beginning of the speech. You should state it slowly so that people understand it in round and can engage it (you want education, right?). This is best accomplished by reading a thesis statement in the beginning that is as simple as: “The negative team is criticizing the method under which the affirmative team constructs their impacts. Our criticism says it is wrong to calculate body counts.” (Or something similar to this).

3. Do not read a link/solvency argument without a direction.

- What do I mean by this? I mean that your link argument shouldn’t be “The affirmative team’s plan changes the political calculation of Republicans,” or “the plan changes the (insert thing).” The reason I have a problem with these arguments (not arguments) is that they are often a) bad arguments that change themselves and b) are often warrantless tags to get you out of a link debate. Do yourself a favor, limit your embarrassment, and say what you mean.

4. Do not personalize the ballot unless an extraordinary circumstance has arisen warranting the claim.

- If you call someone an offensive name (racially charged, sexually discriminating, etc.) I’m not going to just vote against you, I will give you zero speaker points as well and write a fairly lengthy rebuke of you on your ballot. Most people would do this. However, I will do the SAME thing if you call someone a: racist/bigot/insert other name in round. Debate is meant to be a competitive, yet safe space where people come to argue topics, make friends, and maybe learn something. It is not a platform for you to espouse hatred or make someone feel unwelcome. Do not make me do this, you can read an argument without getting personal and attacking someone. If you can’t, well, you will 100% not have my ballot.

5. Do not leave me/your opponents without a text of your Plan/CP/K Alternative.

- This should go without saying, and most people provide each other (teams) a text of their (insert plan thing), but often do not return the favor to a judge. With specific debates about texts becoming more and more prevalent, it might be a good idea to include me on the text-present giving since I’ll have to make the final decision.

6. Do not leave me to weigh your arguments against each other.

- Obviously there is some room for this. However, don’t leave it to chance—if you tell me net-benefits, I have outlined how I view net-benefits below. If you do not specify to me how to weigh your arguments beyond the argumentative level, I will default to my understanding of impact comparison, which may/may not match what you want it to be.

Assuming you are amenable to the previous “do not’s”, here is how you can earn my ballot:

General (All speeches):

1. My view on Theory/Topicality:

- Theory and Topicality are best utilized to shield a person from abuse (specification arguments) or to articulate how abuse has occurred (topicality). The way in which this is determined is through an interpretation, clearly defining a circumstance (specification/other) or a word/phrase in the resolution (topicality). Then a violation stating why your interpretation was not held true in the case of the situation you are attempting to claim abuse. What is abuse? That is articulated through specific standards that you read, giving me a clear way to preface your interpretation over the other team’s counter interpretation and counter standards.

My preferences:

a) Need an Interpretation and Violation: You must have both an interpretation and violation. Read both slowly and clearly when reading your shell.

b) Role of Standards: Your standards should be contextual to the interpretation you read and not just “what limits most, limits best” explain why in the instance of your interpretation, limits are necessary to the topic.

c) Limits are Best: The most clear standard for me to evaluate is typically “limits.” All questions of abuse seem to originate from limits in some way or another, so maybe you could save some time in your debating of 50 standards and just focus on one that makes sense and gets you what you want: to win on theory.

d) No potential abuse: I think that abuse is basically mandatory for me to vote on theory. Your debating determines what this is for me, and I understand why setting up a “they could do ‘x’” makes sense. If they do “do” it, I’ll vote on the argument. If they don’t do the “it” you are concerned with, I’m not going to vote for your theory argument.

2. My view on offense/defense:

- I think good defense is massively under-utilized in parli-debate. I do not care about “1% risk calculus,” I care about substantive arguments. That is, unless, you can explain why in the specific instance of your 1% it matters. For example, if someone reads a DA saying how China is going to first-strike and nuke Japan, a defensive argument that would work very well for you is, “China was the first nuclear power to completely renounce the first-use of nuclear weapons (NFU) in 1964 and remains committed to this. Therefore, there is no internal link/impact to the DA” A DA without an impact is won, no? Smart defense, at least in my rounds, will beat blippy and incomplete offense every time.

3. My view on the K:

- I don’t like the K usually. I think the arguments, although interesting, typically lack the depth and development necessary to actually have a “debate” about. That being said, I will vote for arguments that make sense, have a link, a clear alternative and impact story. (See previous “Do not” about the K if you have questions about what you shouldn’t do, the rest is up to you.)

Minor Things:

1) The K doesn’t come before theory unless you explain why it does. No, stating, “the K criticizes the way the aff came up with their interpretation,” is not going to fly with me unless your K explains how that happens.

2) Give me a text of your alt…please.

3) I like the flow of: Thesis->framework->links->impacts->alternative, but feel free to read it however you want (thesis first though, please…)

4. My view on Impact Calculus:

- I tend to default to large impacts first, then the rest. The “largeness” of said impacts, however, are impacted by probability most, and timeframe second. A good way of framing debates for me is: who “controls” (both argumentatively as well as through the lens of timeframe and probability) the largest impact wins, and explaining how you get there. If your case/DA has a framing mechanism in its shell of why probable/small impacts come first, that is useful and I will vote for it. However, at the end of the debate, if your argument is that one dead person outweighs extinction, without some sort of critical or really compelling impact framing, the timeframe and probability of that one person dying seems irrelevant (sadface).

Specific things for speakers (what will get you good speaker points)

1. I’m skipping the PMC because if you talk “pretty” and are clear I typically don’t have a problem?

2. LoC:

- The LoC should attempt to create a multitude of strategic outlets for the MoC to choose from. I personally think that this is best accomplished through a highly adaptive approach of reading a disad, some theory, case debate and a counterplan. That being said, you do you. I like case debate a lot (which won’t shock many) and I think the more that you showcase that you aren’t using pre-prepared arguments, the more likely I’m going to tick-up your speaker points for your innovation.

Things that will help your speaking points:

a) Clear and concise arguments: don’t rattle on a point that can be said in one sentence.

b) Impact comparisons done in the LoC: This will frame your LoR, and help the MoC make choices. It shows foresight and is helpful.

c) Opting to read a few smart and deep arguments that are maybe “defensive” over reading several quick and blippy pieces of offense without much sway. The more development that is done by the LoC early, the less that the MoC has to do changing and molding an argument later.

3. MG:

- I think that the MG’s role is basically the same as the LoC’s. Your goal should be to give your PMR as many outs as possible without sacrificing clarity and coverage.

4. MOC:

- The MoC should not, in my opinion, contain an overview in the beginning. I think you would better served allowing your LoR to be bombastic, verbose and persuasive, but that’s just me. Instead, I think a good MoC attempts to answer every argument that the MG made, while also kicking out of arguments that do not need answering. The MoC should, additionally, start taking on the role of framing the debate around the possible PMR outlets. This contrasts with how most view the MoC, I think, who instead favor the even-if’s to be in the LoR. I disagree, I think the earlier that this starts, the better, and it will cover your bases.

Things that will help your speaking points:

1) framing impacts early to give your LoR some flexibility in time allocation so that they don’t have to do all of the framing.

2) even-if’s on impacts, arguments, etc. will be immensely useful to you and your team. If a PMR say’s everything that you predicted and you pre-empted it, that will reflect well on you.

3) If you feel the need to give an overview, do a small one (no longer than about 15 seconds in the beginning), detailing your strategy “we are going for the DA because we are winning “x” link and “x” impact” should suffice.

5. LOR:

- Lot’s of people see this as a wasted point in the debate, which is why many people tend to tune out. Make them not. The LoR should accomplish the following things:

a) Give a clear, probably 30-second/1-minute overview on a new sheet of paper that clearly articulates what I am voting for and against. I think this should be something like “1. The Neg team wins on magnitude because of “x”. Even If the aff does “y” we still are winning “z”; etc.” Your overview should be transferable to my ballot.

b) Go to each sheet of relevant paper and articulate the most important arguments and give a concise way to view the paper. Explain what you won, why the PMR will do things that are irrelevant, but even if they do, you can still beat it.

c) Read pre-emptive arguments to potentially new arguments that the PMR will make. I do not view these as new, because the argument only matters if the PMR makes a new characterization/response. Should it have come sooner? Always. Am I going to penalize you for being smart and utilizing the speech correctly? No.

d) Acknowledge concessions/missed arguments and explain why they do not matter. Everyone misses something; most people like to pretend those things do not exist. It shows skill over luck in attacking that sort of thing head-on, acknowledging a mistake and showing how that concession might have been bad, but could be strategic. For example, maybe the MOC dropped an impact turn that leads to dehumanization somehow, but even if they go all in on that turn, your impacts are still bigger. Why leave a concession to chance?

e) Go slow. Your MoC can/maybe should go quickly to answer everything. You are not supposed to go fast as an LOR. Your job is to be persuasive, give a clear idea of how I should view the round, and “beg” for a ballot. I’m not going to appreciate an MG in the LoR.

6. PMR:

- I honestly believe that a PMR should fill the same role as a LoR,--not answering every argument, but choosing how to frame out arguments that the MoC/LoR made. Obviously, some answering is required, but this is best accomplished, in my mind, by reading 2-3 responses on each sheet of paper that answer every argument made and showing how those few responses are more important. Don’t talk fast unless the MoC forced you to somehow (new case arguments or something). Give credence to arguments that you lost, but explain how they are moot. Just be smart and concise and you will get good speaks.

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.

Background

I competed in NPDA for 4 years at Concordia University Irvine. My BA is in Sociology and I hold a Master's in Public Policy from the University of California at Irvine.

TL;DR

I have not been active in debate a lot lately. I am employed the government, so I am personally inclined to believe (and, consequentially, to vote for arguments that):

• Reformism and the state are good

• Policymaking improves the world

• Sweeping structural claims about society are inaccurate/contingent

• Theoretical and procedural debates are only useful when they serve policymaking goals

Ballot

Debate is a game and participants have the creative choice in how they choose to engage in that game. I prefer topical debates that involve a discussion of policy making. I will protect against new arguments in the rebuttal, but it is the prerogative of the debaters to call points of order anyway to hold teams and critics accountable for new arguments. Use impact calculus to explain how the ballot is warranted for your side. You may not like the outcome if I have to do the weighing for you.

Theory

I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards. However, I have some arbitrary threshold for offense required to vote on a theory interpretation. I am unlikely to vote on procedural arguments about interpretation flaws or other nit-picky issues – they don’t implicate substance or norm-setting. I’ll buy reasonability brightlines that explain why the theory debate itself trades off with debating substance, why that’s bad, and why the difference between the interps does not matter.

Kritiks

Kritiks should explain why they turn the aff and have terminalized impacts. The alt should explain why they solve the aff, and what the post-alt world looks like. If I do not understand what the world looks like by voting for your alternative, I will not vote for it. I prefer critiques do not make essentializing claims, without warrants about why the aff engages in something that needs to be rejected. Links of omission are not compelling to me. You should assume that I am not familiar with your K lit base and that I may not necessarily resolve a messy debate in the way you expect.

Framework/Critical Affirmatives

Critical affirmatives should be topical or at least germane to the topic. Rejecting the resolution (or debatably worse, ignoring it entirely) is an uphill battle. I am highly sympathetic to framework. I am not convinced fairness is an impact, but it matters.

DA/CP

Disadvantages should explain why they turn the aff and have terminalized impacts.

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the aff. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, however, I am sympathetic to counterplan theory when there is one topical affirmative. I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s). I think delay CPs are bad for debate and I'm predisposed to vote against them on principle.

Other

Speaker points are arbitrary. If you are unnecessarily mean, rude, condescending or just not a nice person in round, I’ll be decreasing points as you go. Likewise, I will reward clarity.

Otherwise, my speaker points will probably reflect my preferences above. Go for positions of good substance that encourage clash and enjoy rewards; do the opposite and expect punishment.

Note: Because it has been a little while since I've been active in debate, consider speaking below your top speed and with an emphasis on clarity, especially when I’m judging virtually. If I can't flow you it will only to hurt you.

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

Joshua Vannoy – Grand Canyon University

Experience: 4 years of NPDA Debate at Concordia University Irvine. I competed at the NPTE and NPDA all four years of college. Kevin Calderwood has heavily influenced my views regarding debate.

General:

Debate is a game. There are arguments I personally will lean towards, but ultimately you should make the argument you want to make. I am the current director of debate at GCU and this is my third year as a judge.

- One question should be answered during each constructive.

- If you read my favorite Ks (Marx/Symbolism) I will have a higher threshold regarding them, since I ran them so much. (That means I will want to see more specific arguments and a deeper level of understanding and without either I will have a less likely chance of voting for you)

- Partner communication is fine, but do not puppet your partner or talk louder then the other team.

- Be friendly!

Theory:

Theory ran properly can win my ballot. I would avoid V/A/E/F specs/specs in general, unless the abuse is really clear. All interps should be read slowly twice, or I won’t be able to flow it. I do not need articulated abuse. Competing interps is my go unless you have something else. I most likely will not vote for “you must disclose” arguments.

Case:

If your PMC lacks warrants/impacts the ballot should be pretty easy for the Neg. If the entire PMC is dropped, it should be a pretty easy ballot for the Aff. I will not do work for any impacts, if you just say “poverty” without terminalizing the impact, I will not terminalize it for you.

Performance:

So I personally enjoyed performative debate, it was fresh and interesting. If you decide to have a performance argument/framework you need a justification and a true performance. If you say performance is key in the FW and then do not “perform” anywhere else I will wonder why it was argued in the first place. I will need performance specific Solvency/Impacts if you take this route. In your performance never do harm to yourself or another competitor or I will have to intervene for the safety of everyone in the room.

The K:

When I first started debating at CUI I was afraid of the K, towards the end of my career I loved it. All K’s should have a FW, Thesis, Links, Impacts and an Alt with Solvency arguments. If one of these pieces is missing it is going to be difficult for me to evaluate the criticism. Sometimes people skip the thesis, that is ok so long as you describe the thesis somewhere else in the K (Earlier the better). The closer your K is to the topic the easier it is for me to vote for it. Reject alts are ok, but I find ivory tower arguments to be very compelling in these debates. Like I said above I ran Mark/Symbolism the most but am open to any other type of K. I probably have not read your author so please be very clear on what the Thesis of your argument is; name-dropping means nothing to me unless you explain the idea.

Non-topical Affirmatives:

After two years of seeing many non-topical debates as a judge I have become more open to hearing them without much justification needed to reject the topic. With that being said I am still compelled and convinced by FW if ran effectively on the negative.

CP Theory:

Is condo bad? Probably… Having debated under Kevin Calderwood for three years this is the argument that stuck with me the most. If a condo bad shell is run properly and executed well I will probably vote for it. Although I am open to a conditional advocacy (that means one) if you can justify it in responding to condo bad arguments (Multiple conflicting advocacies make it really easy for the aff to win the condo debate)

Never run delay.

50/States/Consult/Courts need a DA/Net Ben/Justification for doing so.

Pics are awesome if done well (Does not mean PICS bad is also not a good argument), and please read all CP texts (Just like All Alt/Plan texts) slowly twice. If you do not provide a written copy for me and I do not hear it well enough to write it down, things will not look good when I make a decision.

Permutations:

I am not a fan of the multiple perm trend, 1 – 2 perms should be enough, I am open to Neg multi perm theory arguments when teams run 3 – 8 perms. If your perm does not solve links to the DA’s/Offense it would probably be better to just respond to those arguments instead of making a perm, considering a perm is just a test of competition.

Speaker Points:

I have found that I have a pretty routine pattern of speaker points; I generally give out 26 – 29.5 depending on how well the debaters perform. With the 26-27 range being debates that usually are more learning experiences for the debaters, while the 28-29 range is usually for the debaters who do not have as much technical work and have very competitive performances. Jokes and making debate fun is always a safe way to get higher speaks in general. I also have found that the more hyper masculine a performance is, especially directed towards the other team, the lower my speaker points go for that individual.