Taylor Alandzes – Grand Canyon University

TLDR: Run what you want, Ks are fine, speed is fine, be an awful person and I will drop you.

Experience: I debated with GCU for four years. I am a first year out judge but I’ve been coaching in some capacity for a year and half. I was fairly successfully as a debater and made it to quarters last year at NPDA so I can handle whatever you want to run.

General: I ran a lot of traditional arguments and a lot of Ks but I’d leave it all for a good straight case debate or theory debate. I spent a majority of my Junior and Senior year running Debate-space criticisms, so I am very open to any of those arguments as well.

Theory: Love it. Run it. Run it well. Theory, especially creative theory, is my favorite kind of debate. I can be persuaded that RVIs are legit, convince me.

The K: I enjoy a good K. By good I mean well-read and with round-specific links. Specific K’s I enjoy are fem, cap, and debate-space related Ks but I’m open to whatever your wheelhouse is just explain your lit. Real world alternatives are my preference but if you can tell me why your meta-reality is worth the ballot I’m willing to hear you out.

Non-topical Affirmatives: Have good answers to T. Give me topic specific links or a good framework that tells me why I should ignore the topic.

Speaker Points: I will almost always give 30s because speaker points are inherently exclusionary HOWEVER I will break this rule if you are a horrible human being. Debate is a hard enough space to exist in, let’s be kind and decent to each other.

I competed in policy and parli in high school. In college, I competed in LD and Parli. I coached high school parli for a year in LA.

Debate is a game, do what you think is your best strategic option to win. That being said, do not marginalize or demean your opponents: be somewhat polite.

SPEED: I have a very high threshold for speed, but try to maintain clarity. If you become unclear or your words become mumbled, I will clear you. If your opponent(s) clears you multiple times and you do not slow down, I will deduct speaker points. If your opponent(s) clears you multiple times, you do not slow down, & they read theory about it well enough: I will probably drop you.

THEORY: I will not vote on potential abuse. Otherwise, I like a smart, theory heavy debate when it's warranted and well explained.

K's: I guess some people would describe me as a bit of a K hack. I like critical arguments on the negative, but have a slightly higher threshold for them out of the aff. This doesn't mean I'm opposed to hearing them out of the aff but just need a clear cut analysis of what about the topic specifically warrants your critical perspective.

PERFORMANCE: It is your debate round so I have no problem evaluating performance debate. That being said, once you use your performance in a competitive space: it is now an argument. This, especially if it's identity based, can get difficult for some debaters. I have read performance args before and they can be compelling, if well executed. If poorly executed, they can be uncomfortable for all.

FLASHING CARDS: I would like a copy of all file transfers. This can happen before prep starts, as long as it is quick.

SHADOW EXTENSIONS: If you don't extend arguments in the 2AC and go for it in the 1AR (or you read it in the PMC and don't extend it in the MG), I feel uncomfortable voting on it. I want clean extensions of your arguments throughout the speech for it to be viable.

Read all interps, alt texts, plan texts, and perm texts TWICE.

1/22 Updates at the bottom for Open/JV

Parli philosophy

The shortest description of my philosophy is: It’s your time; you do what you want.

Partner talk- see above although I only flow what the designated speaker says.

T, theory, C/P, DA, framework, etc.- See above.

I enjoy well run kritiks and critical affs and most likely will boost your speaker points if you go that route. I find it a little too easy to vote for the K perm, I would suggest you put your preempts in LOC. (This does not apply to counterplans)

I will also give you give you better speaker points if you pleasantly surprise me with an argument. You can win with your international relations DA but it’s unlikely to impress me.

Unless you tell me otherwise, all decisions will be based on in-round discourse with preference going to the better warrants and impacts and offense over defense. (But you can still win with only defensive arguments)

I generally do not protect against new arguments but very big, completely new arguments in the PMR might be protected against. This line is mainly so I don't end up stuck making annoying decisions in novice or JV rounds, if in doubt or in open, call the PoO.

I have been working on pushing my speaker point range up. I currently generally give points in the 27-28 range I am fine with speed. I am also open to speed bad arguments.

I need detailed roadmaps before each speech begins (except the PMC).

Updates 1/22/2020 for Open/JV only

My beliefs about presumption don't match the community norms. I have never voted on presumption but I'm willing to change that. If you want me to vote for you on presumption, please provide a warrant for why presumption is good and a warrant for why presumption flows in your direction.

Last edited 3/8/21

Debated for CSU Long Beach from 2014-2016.

There are a few different paradigms I have floating throughout the internet and I don't really want to track them all down and edit them all. The important thing to note is the last updated date; I dunno I feel like my opinions of debate radically change every tournament so it might be useless to say very much at all.

That being said I think a few select lines have stayed constant through my like 5+ years judging parli.

- I think an argument consists of a claim, data, and warrant. If an argument doesn't have data (an example or evidence from the real world) and a warrant (an explanation of how the data satisfies the claim) then it's not really an argument but an assertion. For parli, I generally have a high threshold for what constitutes a sufficient argument in the 1AC and 1NC as opposed to any other speech.

- You should slow down on theory analytics or for more esoteric criticisms. Theory tends to be too blippy for me to write down and often just sounds like a long chain of claims. For most critical literature, I'm a slow reader, it takes a fairly long time for me to process stuff. It takes an even long time if I have a piecemeal flow of the argument. The point is, for criticisms, you should explain your argument and contextualize it to our interpretations of the world with data and warrants.

Things you should not do in front of me:

Besides the aforementioned consistently true things mentioned above, here are some additional things that you shouldn't do.

There limits to what I'll vote for seems to be put to the test every year... I've decided that I refuse to vote for a theory argument which states that any text must be passed before flex time. I think that passing text should be expected before the next speech and any arguments about competitive equity or accessibility should be contextualized in a form of offense that is not the above interpretation. Additionally, if there is an issue of competitive equity and accessibility (for whatever reason), please make it clear before the round.

You should not assume I am familiar with whatever the hot new theory arguments are. I wouldn't say that I have any particular pre-disposition to any of these arguments, but you really want to explain these to me like I'm five years old. This doesn't only apply to interpretations.

I have a much higher threshold for voting on 2AC theory, even if these are introduced in the pmc. I also don't think the 1NC should read multiple theory positions. I guess my point is that I think theory proliferation is bad.

Things you should do in front of me:

Obligatory, do a lot of weighing in the back half of the debate, read a lot of warrants, be nice to each other.

I really don't know what types of arguments I prefer, but for reference I read fairly diverse arguments while I competed. I enjoyed reading topical affirmatives with specific advantages and also almost exclusively rejected the topic my last year competing. The only substantive arguments I don't really feel qualified to evaluate would probably be politics.

I really don't go to many national circuit tournaments, most of my time is sticking to southern california community college debates. Slowing down and explaining more is probably a good idea since I think my brain has atrophied from all the ipda.

Even though I'd prefer more technical rounds, it'd be lying to say that persuasion doesn't undergird my decision-making. This can manifest in a few ways. Just cause it was a golden turn in the pmr doesn't mean it's true. If I don't understand the argument I probably won't vote for it, I may feel guilty that I don't, but I won't feel like I should be so guilty I should vote for it.

Things for online debate:

I really need everyone to slow down.

If words from your speech cut out or I can't understand you I'll first type it in the chat. I'll keep note of what the last argument I heard was.

Typically, I don't read the interps or plans or whatever is passed through the chat. I just have whatever is written down. If y'all wanna spread through your interp once and move on that's cool, I'll evaluate it based on my flow.

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

UPDATED January 2024:

I haven't been judging LD for a while; I've mostly been judging PF for the last 3 years. I've almost certainly left things out of this paradigm - if you have more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at serena.e.fitzgerald@gmail.com.

Generally:

I competed primarily in LD in high school (graduated 2015) and NPDA in college (graduated 2018). I've been a (mostly) full-time debate coach since.

I base win/loss only on the content of the arguments; speaker points are based on a combination of rhetorical performance, strategic vision, and technical skill.

Speed is fine, but I'm somewhat rusty, so I might "slow" or "clear" you. I'll call for cards if there is a dispute over their content, but I won't rely on a speech doc to cover for mudmouth or sloppy spreading.

I don't vote off of "arguments" made in cross, only in timed speeches.

Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first. Absent debaters' arguments, I generally default to evaluating procedurals first, kritiks second, and policy arguments last.

I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless extended in the last speech; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.

Specific arguments

LARP/policy/util debate - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.

I am willing to engage in a lot of warrant comparison if the debaters don't do it for me in order to weigh whether a DA/ADV is more probable, so having specific, solid warrants in your evidence (rather than broad claims) will likely help you.

Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks.

I have a relatively high threshold for frame-outs. I find myself more comfortable either voting on substantive solvency arguments based in the critical literature, or granting a weighing mechanism that substantively benefits your critique, than an outright "don't evaluate their case at all" framework. The other two options might be more strategic ways to cross-apply your framework cards in front of me.

In college and high school, I mostly read Ks focusing on Marxism, anti-colonial writers like Fanon and Friere, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari. Puar, Mbembe, and Butler are some of the contemporary philosophers most influential over me. For other theories, you may want to read an overview if you are collapsing to it, to make sure I understand your thesis accurately. (It's probably helpful even if I have read that author before, since you might be emphasizing a different part of their work.)

Theory/ Procedurals - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow.

I find that compared to other judges, I'm not as rigid about the phrasing of theory arguments. If someone substantively makes a "we meet" argument but doesn't formally flag it as such, I will still evaluate the content of the argument and apply it to the theory. However - this is imperfect, and I may not always know what you meant a particular argument to refer to, so it is still always best to flag your arguments and signpost clearly.

I don't have a very high opinion of IVI's as they are usually read; the existence of theory in debate does generally seem like the best way of deciding and enforcing the "rules" of debate. However, I find they're usually more persuasive when they incorporate more substantive arguments (especially if it dovetails with the thesis of the case or other arguments presented) - for example, many of the responses that critical affs develop to topicality are very interesting.

Brandon Fletcher

Hired Judge, Spring 2019

Summary:

I want to watch a competitive debate where both teams are arguing the issues they’re best at, and I would prefer that the debaters spend more time thinking how to be strategic and have fun, than thinking about what particular style of debate or strategy that I want to see.

In terms of my competitive background, I was a competitor at Palomar and CSULB from 2010 to 2015, and was a coach at CSU Long Beach from 2015 to 2017. I was primarily involved in the NPDA/NPTE national circuit during that time, so that's what most of my experience is with.

Requirements:

That said, there are a few non-negotiable things you need to consider when having me in the back of the room:

· Use They/Them pronouns when not referring to me by name

· I will take a long time evaluating highly competitive rounds. As a byproduct of a learning disability, I continually reread and think through my flow before rendering a decision. If this is a problem, then you should strike me.

· Do not read pathos driven arguments related to suicide. Statistics are abstracted enough for me to be distanced from it emotionally, but thorough suicide narratives are not something I want to watch. If this is a core part of your tournament strategy, again, you should strike me.

· I reserve the right to ask for a copy of the plans, interpretations, and alternative texts.

Default Judging Assumptions

· Until told otherwise, I evaluate a topical plan versus the status quo or a proposed competitive policy or alternative option. Explicitly tell me how else to evaluate a debate if your strategy fits outside of this paradigm.

· I only evaluate arguments made in constructive speeches and extended in rebuttals.

· Will protect against new arguments in the rebuttal, but am not hostile to points of order if the argument will decide the outcome of a debate round.

· Each argument needs to hit a minimum threshold of explanation and coherence. I will disregard undeveloped and/or consequence free arguments when compared to arguments that are fully developed and impacted. Example,

· I am not an expressive judge. Do mistake my lack of expression for boredom or apathy; it’s just my default facial expression.

· Go as fast as you want - I will explicitly state if rate of delivery becomes an issue.

Negotiable preferences

This is what I like to see in debate rounds, but deviating from these preferences will not lose you the debate. The list below is just meant to provide context on my preferences for those that want it.

· Please do impact calculus and have warrants.

· I have a low threshold to vote on topicality or framework arguments for non-topical affs. What that means is obviously up for debate, but I don’t think you deserve to win if you cannot read or defend a competitive counter-interpretation of what the debate should be.

· Case debate is the best. No matter what strategy was deployed in the debate, I will never be upset at a thorough, well-warranted, and impacted case debate.

· Conditionality is good, but highly dependent on the context of the round and how theory debates play out in round.

· Theory debates are also the best, and I find them fun to evaluate at high levels of competition.

· Totally fine with generic strategies that are deployed and argued well.

· I don’t like ethically compromised impact turns. There are circumstances where I will evaluate the full weight of those arguments, but if you’re arguing that genocide or racism are good, I will likely eviscerate your speaker points.

· Most familiar with the following subjects in critical studies: Disability studies, queer theory, and anything by Foucault or Nietzsche.

Judge Philosophy

Eric David Garcia, University of Oklahoma

I did LD value debate in high school. I did NDT debate for Cal State Fullerton for 4 years. I qualified for the NDT in 1992 and 1993. I coached parliamentary debate NPDA/NPTE from 2003 to 2012. My flow sheeting skills have declined with age. I will probably yell "slow" more than I used to.

I most often look to the dropped, impacted arguments first. If no criterion is given, I will default to net benefits, but really I want you to tell me what criteria to use or how to evaluate arguments in the round.

I am more open to procedurals than most judges. I am open to voting on potential abuse and competing interpretations. I am open to theory debates. I barely tolerate critiques. Critique debaters don't use tag lines. I have no idea what to write because the debaters should be using tags for the audience. I detest projects. Projects largely damage NPDA by ignoring the topic.

For rebuttals, I value weighing likelihood, magnitude, irreversibility, and timeframe. If the debaters do not do the analysis for me, I will default to my non-tabula rasa, real world bias.

My real world bias is Libertarian. Take the 1st right on economics and the 1st left on sex and that's my bias. AOC and Bernie Sanders are economic idiots and endorse statist violence. Also, what you ingest for pleasure or do in the bedroom is none of my business. In the real world, government should follow the Non-Aggression Principle. End the War on Drugs. Consent and voluntarism are beautiful. Coercion is terrible.

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

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

Jake Glendenning Judge Philosophy

Hey. I’m Jake. I debated four and a half years of NPDA/NPTE style debate. 2.5 at Irvine Valley College and 2 at UC Berkeley. As a general principle, you’re best off debating in the way you’re most accustomed or will have the most fun. I was a part of this activity because it was fun and I enjoyed it, and encourage others to do the same. I will insert myself into your round as little as possible.

Quick Hits

• I almost always defended the resolution as a debater, though not necessarily fiat. This means that I am not intimately familiar with arguments justifying the rejection of the resolution, so if that is a strategy you’re going for, you should probably err on the side of caution and explain your arguments in depth.
• As a debater I debated about half critical and half policy. I’m a fan of a good, nuanced politics disadvantage, as well as a well-researched, well-warranted K. I find post-modernism, post-structuralism, and existential type positions to be the most philosophically interesting when run well. I’m relatively familiar with Baudrillard, Foucault, Nietzsche, Deleuze (and his work with Guattari to a lesser extent), Hardt+Negri, and Butler. I find more sociologically-based K literature (race, gender, colonialism, ability) persuasive, but not as much fun to explore on a philosophical level. I think Agamben’s philosophy is generally bad, but I understand its strategic utility in debate. I feel similarly about a lot of marxist authors, though I also enjoy some, so take that for what you will.
• I default to my flow. I adhere to it whenever possible, and don’t intuitively know how to evaluate arguments that ask me to do otherwise, so please be very clear if you are going to go this direction with the debate.
• My degree is in Political Science and I did most of my research in Comparative Politics and International Economics, for whatever that’s worth. I’m also a bit of a current events hack.
• On speed, if you don’t know the other team’s comfortability with speed, ask. I liked debating fast, but that doesn’t mean everyone does and I don’t much care for the use of speed to beat less experienced teams. 
  -I value creativity quite a bit. If I haven’t seen it before and it makes me think a lot, it’s likely to get higher speaker points than the same consult counterplan/cap shell I’ve run and seen 100 times.

Disads

-Disads are great. I like nuanced, well researched disads. Politics, relations, whatever. Have specific links to the plan and all that. 
-When you kick them, please extend actual arguments, and not just “the defense”

Case debate

-It’s great!
-For my flow’s sake, please let me know if you have a separate sheet of case defense/case turns. I usually referred to this as a “dump” as a debater.

Counterplans

-Counterplans are also awesome. 
-I have no real disposition for or against condo (and think I may be the only person Kevin Calderwood has coached with that in their philosophy), but found that I won more going unconditional as a debater. I probably had a bit more fun going condo though, so you do you. Just win the arguments. 
-I really don’t have any dispositions against “cheater” counterplans, but found them very easy to beat as a debater. Feel free to run delay, veto cheto, conditions, consult, whatever, but theoretically justify it, and be prepared to not get very high speaker points if it's not creative/interesting.

T

• I default to competing interpretations, but am fine evaluating theoretical questions through different frameworks if the arguments are made.
• RVIs are an uphill battle in front of me. This is probably the issue where I have the hardest time staying objective. You’re going to have to really sell it if you want me to vote on an RVI.

Other Theory

• I’ve always enjoyed that the rules of debate are debateable. I think if you can demonstrate how ground loss took place, it’s going to be easier to win.
• I have seen beautiful, nuanced, specific uses of spec arguments and shamefully bad, vague, and slapdash ones. The former will get you higher speaks.
• On disclosure theory, I ran this argument quite a bit, and am fine voting on it. My interpretation was usually “If the affirmative chooses not to defend the resolution using fiat, they should notify the negative with no less than 10 minutes left in prep-time if the negative asked them to before prep” and I never ran into any of the contrived hypotheticals that opponents of disclosure theory bring up every time the issue recirculates on facebook or net-bens.

The K

• I very much enjoy the K debate. I have at least a shallow understanding of most K lit I’ve heard of. I find warrants very persuasive, especially in the K debate, and find that they can often help resolve difficult questions in K debates that devolve to claim v claim issues.
• I don’t think many teams actually explain how their alt solves their K a lot of the time. It’s more often than not just a bunch of perm preempts, and maybe a claim without a warrant. I’d appreciate it if you really articulated how your alt solves.
• I don’t think a K needs an alt in a “methods debate” or when the aff is a K, depending on what kind of specific framework the aff roles with.
• I think if there is an alt in a “methods debate” it makes intuitive sense that the aff maybe shouldn’t have a perm, so I’m generally receptive to that argument as long as it's well articulated.
  -On K affs, I value being creative within the confines of the resolution very much. A topical, non-fiat K aff would be preferable to rejection/deference of the resolution. I also find it really cool when a team can come up with creative definitions of words in the resolution to make an performance or identity based positions topical.

Note - Below is my H.S. philosophy. I go into much more detail about my opinions specific to college NPDA here: https://www.net-benefits.net/t/jake-glendenning-judging-philosophy/12965

Experience Debating/Judging:

I am a recent graduate from UC Berkeley. I competed in NPDA/NPTE style parliamentary debate for about 4 years and have done NFA: LD for two of those. I’ve coached high school parli extensively, but have also coached individuals competing in PuFo, VCX, VLD. I’ve also judged all these events at several tournaments. It’s worth noting that the type of debate I compete in now is more similar in a many ways to Team Policy than Parli on the high school level.

As a general overview, I have different opinions on different types of arguments based on the activity. For example, since the 1AR in LD is only 4 minutes, I’m generally a bit more lenient on theory against counterplans/criticisms or condo bad, in regard to my default threashold for abuse. Also, I view debate as a game to be won. I try to intervene as little as possible, but having judged and competed in countless rounds at this point I acknowledge that a certain degree of judge intervention is probably inevitable. I was a relatively gamey debater for a large portion of my career. I was known to often run multiple conditional strategies and strategic procedural arguments, but think the best debates are the least complicated and most clear. For this reason, higher speaker points usually go to debaters who are confident enough in their strategy and abilities to deploy as few tricks as possible.

Speaker Points

I can generally be a bit of a speaks fairy, especially when teams read creative positions in front of me. These can be a particularly interesting K or a politics scenario with a nuanced link story. I enjoy originality. I tend to give slightly higher speaks in LD and CX than in parli. My average is about 28.5 for the former two and 27.5-28 for the latter.

Speed

I can probably flow you at whatever speed you're going, and if I can't I'll let you know during the speech by yelling "slow" if you are too fast and "clear" if you are being unclear. I think it's a great general rule to always ask your opponents how they feel about speed if you plan on going fast (or even brisk, as people have very different interpretations on what "fast" is).  If you go fast to exclude your opponent, I will tank you speaks. You should be confident enough in your ability to debate that you don't need to rely on out-gaming your opponent. Debates where only 1 team and the judge understand what is happening are never fun for anyone and can be detrimental to the activity. 

General thoughts on arguments

DAs - Yep. Run them. I love a good, nuanced DA with a lot of warrants. Impact Calc is dope. It’s easier to win when you do it.

CPs - Hell yeah. any and all types so long as you can justify them on a theoretical level. In general I err neg on CP theory on Agent CPs and Consult CPs. I err aff on process and floating pics. Make sure you slow down when reading your text. I also wouldn’t mind a copy.

Kritiks - I’m a big fan of critiques. Run them. Get fancy with them. Ks with very specific links will win me over more than Ks that sound identical every round. I’m receptive to arguments that the aff gets to leverage its case under many K frameworks.

K Affs - I enjoy a good K aff, but enjoy topical K affs much more than untopical K affs. I don’t think defending the implementation by a government actor is necessary to be topical. Feel free to affirm the res and defend your reps. I will vote and have voted on untopical/reject-the-res type affirmatives, but don’t generally care for them very much.

Topicality/Theory - Run it. Run it strategically. I was once told by a good friend of mine that crafting a good interp is an art form and I find that statement more true every day. I will reward good interps with high speaker points. Also, the way to win theory is to do good weighing analysis on the standard level.

Parli-specific stuff

-I don't like it when partners prep between speeches. This seems to be a huge problem in H.S. parli and I will drop speaks if you're strategizing with your partner before your own speech. 

Given the nature of this activity, I think there is intrinsic value in public speaking ability and persuasion and will use speaker points to reflect how good of a public speaker you are. I will still try my best to not inject my previously-attained knowledge into the round, which means I will adhere to the flow very closely when making my decision. 

LD-Specific stuff

I haven’t judged LD in a little while and haven’t coached it in even longer, so I likely won’t be very deep in the lit on positions being run, especially the more nuanced frameworks. Speaking of frameworks, I’m much more familiar and receptive to util, but if you have particularly interesting deont arguments, or are just more confident in the deont debate, feel free to run your positions, just slow down a bit on your tags and spend more time than you think you need to in the rebuttals.

Policy-Specific Stuff

If you're going to be paperless you should have 3 computers and a usb drive that is easy to use and navigate for the other team. I don't count jumping files as prep-time, but please don't take forever with it. Regarding the substance of the debate, I really don't like it when half your speech is reading a scripted overview. I like debaters who think in-round. Speaker points will reflect this. Theory interps, CP texts, and Alt texts should be read slowly and have as few planks as possible.

Feel free to ask me specifics before the round.

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.

If you find yourself here, it probably means that i'll be judging an upcoming round of yours -- so here is some information about me!

I debated for 4 years on the national circuit, cleared 3 times at the NPTE, and took 4th overall at the 2014 NPTE. I was also Cal's NPDA/NPTE coach during the 2015 season.

My involvement with debate ended in 2015 and I have not kept up with the activity. Consequently, I am not up to speed on the latest debate meta. I'll figure that out as I go.

From a content perspective, feel free to run whatever you want! Policy debate, K debate, theory debate, and any other type of "non traditional" debate are all fine with me. If a theory debate does happen, please take time to explain your arguments. This type of argumentation tends to be more tricky.

From a speed perspective, go as fast as you want! Just be courteous to the other team in the room. From my own experience, speed past a certain threshold is not generally effective. I'm much more persuaded by a single well developed argument cross applied to a blip storm, because I can understand the logic behind that well developed argument.

Please tell me why you are winning the round! Writing my RFD for me and explaining the interaction of arguments during the round will go far towards earning my ballot!

Finally and most importantly, have fun!

Hello, my name is Alexander and I'm a debate coach and former competitor. I've been in the parli world for about 7 years. I view myself as a note-taker and I evaluate the round based on who did the most effective debating. Please use impact calc in your rebuttals. Please have warrants for all your claims.

Things I dislike: I very much dislike frivolous theory arguments like "neg must only defend SQ" or "neg must only defend CP" or "AFF must have a period in their plan text". I think legit theory arguments are: PICS good/bad, Condo good/bad, must defend a plan text, must take a question, spec arguments, T: substantial, and the classic Topicality arguments. Overall, the more sheets of paper you introduce in the MG and MO, the messier the round will probably be.

I also dislike AFF Ks that completely disregard the resolution. You don't need a plan necessarily, but I think the rez is the central locus of the round and if the AFF just ignores it, the neg is inherently skewed strategically. (Especially because AFF has the PMR.)

2020 Update: I am no longer actively involved in the activity, other than judging a few tournaments a year, so my threshold for speed is going to be lower than it has in the past as a result of being rusty at flowing. If you are particularly fast, I would recommend starting at about 75% speed.

Experience: 4 years policy debate at Tualatin High School, 4 years NPDA/NPTE experience at the University of Oregon. 3 years high school coaching experience at Thurston High School.

Quick in prep version: In general I am down with just about anything, however I would much rather hear a good disad than some only tag lines and a bad alternative kritik. Theory was my jam when I was debating, so if you want to read it go ahead, however, I’m not going to vote for you just because you read it, while my threshold is probably lower than most judges I like to pretend I’m not a hack .

Longer (probably unnecessary) version

General Overveiw:

My ideal debate is a strategic topical aff v some CPs and a DA or a topic K. That being said, I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.

Impact framing is a lost art, it’s not helpful to just inform me that both teams do, in fact, have impacts. I want to hear how I should evaluate those impacts against each other, ie. Do I care more about fairness or education on the theory flow, is timeframe or magnitude more important, can I even evaluate arguments rooted in some kind of epistemology?

More specific stuff:

Theory/ T : I read a lot of theory when I was debating so I am pretty much able to follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more condensed and harder to flow. I evaluate theory just like any other argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most judges if you go for it correctly. In order to win theory in front of me you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP). I find myself voting a lot this year on teams forgetting to read a counter interp. If I am judging in a competing interps paradigm, which is usually how these things shake out, and there is not either an interp or a counter-interp that you meet I will vote against you regardless of the rest of the flow, as there is not an interp for me to stick your offense to. I think that this is a pretty common way of evaluating theory but I feel it is worth flagging explicitly in my philosophy given that I find myself voting on this a lot.

Framework : Framework was my go-to when debating the K aff. That doesn’t mean that you necessarily shouldn’t or can’t read a K aff in front of me, just be aware than I’m not going to be one of those judges that just ignores the argument for some vague political reason.

K affs : I would prefer that if you are going to read an aff that isn’t topical that you have some good justification for doing so, I am not really interested in your “I read a cool book and here is my book report” project.

Ks : I am down with the K, however there are some recent trends in the kritik that I feel need some addressing here. First, Marx was my bread and butter and I am fairly deep in that literature, but outside of that and maybe Heidegger you should not assume that I am incredibly well read in your lit base. That doesn’t mean that you can’t read your K in front of me, it just means that you are going to need to do some more explaining. Second, there has been a tendency of K’s becoming just a list of tag lines, that then get extended as arguments later in the debate. If your K sounds like this I am probably going to give the other team a lot more leeway in reading new arguments when your K finally becomes something in the block.

CP/ DA : Ayyyyyyyyy

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.

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

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

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

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)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

Kevin M. O’Leary / Washburn University (KS)

MY BACKGROUND: I started debate in 1982 and was very fortunate to debate with Alan Coverstone for all four years in high school in Illinois.  After high school, I ended up at SIUC under Jeff Bile and debated in CEDA, pre merger, for four years.  I went to graduate school at SLU and started coaching CEDA.   I took some time off from coaching once back at SIUC (for the doctoral program) and after that I started coaching again fulltime in CEDA/NDT, post merger.  That lasted for four years.  Then in 2003, I came to Washburn as the DoF where we dabbled in policy during my first year before moving over to NFA LD as well as NPDA parliamentary debate.  For the last several years, Washburn has been exclusively focused on NPTE/NPDA parliamentary debate, which has certainly evolved to something that looks a lot more like policy debate than when it started.  That’s where we remain today.

“The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here. . .”  Too true.

“He held the keys to the Kingdom and the world couldn’t do him any harm.”  Interpret the resolution and/or activity as you wish.  Do what you want to do.  Be happy with that and care (a little) less about the win.  If you do, you have already won.  Maybe have a politics, but definitely have an ethic.  Be straightforward with your opponent in terms of what ground they have under your interpretations and doings.

Advice doesn’t get any better than Scott Deatherage’s, does it?  The key to winning a debate will always be locating and developing your relationship to the tipping point for the round (the arena of conflict that ultimately decides the round), which is always a matter of choice and highlighting on your part.  Highlight the support you have for the claims that matter the most in terms of the tipping point that you have identified.  Explain why the tipping point you have identified is the one that matters most.  Directly clash with the arguments and support from your opponent that could upset your central claims there.  Refrain from editorializing—just debate already, and debate from the position of giving your opponent’s arguments their full due.  Invest in impact comparison and calculation so I can do something with your winning arguments that decidedly favors you at the end of the debate.

I don’t wish to reconstruct the round after the fact, so I don’t anticipate calling for evidence after the round.  There will always be exceptions, I suppose.

“You’re not a punk, and I’m telling everyone.  Save your breath, I never was one.”  I have no strong leanings in terms of genres of argument.  They all have their place, and that highlights, in my opinion, a central point.  Make your arguments context specific, which requires you to think about the context or setting that we’re in, articulate a vision of that, and then make arguments for why your arguments are the most appropriate given the context or setting.  That is the key for procedurals, K’s, on down the line, and, seemingly, winning the NDT in 2013.  Hats off, Emporia!

“Are you having fun yet?”  Please be kind to and take care of one another as well as our host’s space and the activity.  Best of luck!

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).

The allegory of the cornbread:

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


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

Background: I competed in policy, NPDA parli, and NFA LD from 2011-2016. I've read and coached every genre and style of argument so have the debate you want to have. I enjoy technical and nuanced debates that showcase clever and well-researched strategies with rebuttals that construct a story detailing how arguments interact with one another. Absent impact framing I evaluate probability, then magnitude and then timeframe. In carded formats, add me to the chain - drr.debate@gmail.com.

I won't vote for: racism/sexism/ableism/imperialism/colonialism good; Afropessimism read by non-Black debaters/teams (see Evans 2015 and Dixon, Porter, and Hughes 2019)

A Request for Accessibility: I can handle speed but I am hard of hearing - taper into your top speed and slow down on your taglines, analytics and overviews. I will say "slow" or "clear" two times; after that, I will stop flowing. I'm not afraid to tell you I didn't vote on an argument because I didn't hear it or wasn't able to get it on my flow so you should prioritize clarity over speed.

---"HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT X ARGUMENT?"---

- Affs: I would prefer if you have a stable text advocacy of some kind; despite this preference, I think performance affs are cool and important but you have to tell me how I'm supposed to evaluate them. Case turns are poggers.

- DAs: Uniqueness controls these debates. Tell me how the disads complicate/short circuit the story of the aff, especially during rebuttals. I'm more likely than other critics to vote on terminal link defense - to win the disad, you have to have a link so analysis of "the risk of a link" should show up in your rebuttals.

- CPs: My favorite kinds of CPs are smart PICS and advantage CPs. I prefer hearing one well-warranted CP as opposed to multiple 30 second CPs. All CPs are conditional unless otherwise stated. No opinion on multi-plank CPs or the conditionality of certain planks.

- Ks: You should assume I don't know anything about your thesis, your authors, or your alternative solvency mechanism - that means you must be able to explain things in an easy-to-follow manner within your first speech. If I don't understand what your position is saying or how your alternative functions, I give your opponents a lot of leeway in their responses, including in the rebuttals. I place a great importance on link debates - the negative cannot assume they have a link and the aff cannot just say that permutations are able to resolve residual links, so the negative should point out specific components of the aff when articulating links, and the aff should warrant how perms interact with links.

- Theory: I prioritize proven abuse over potential abuse, but I've certainly voted on "the risk of a violation" before. I'm not sure what reasonability is and default to competing interpretations. Topicality debates become much more winnable for the neg when you tell me what the topical version of the aff would be, and much more winnable for the aff if you tell me why there is no topical aff under the neg's interpretation. Make sure you clarify how precisely the aff is extra T/effects T. An important note: while I enjoy unique arguments, I have a high threshold for so-called "frivolous theory" that move beyond traditional questions of topicality, advocacy status, and specification of "normal means" mechanisms; these debates feel infinitely reductive and not useful in establishing meaningful community norms.

---"ANYTHING I SHOULD KNOW BASED ON MY FORMAT?"---

I certainly don't know anything about the newest/trendiest/slayer arg that's been dominating your event, so don't assume I do.

- Parli: Repeat texts/interps twice (or put them in the chat for online debate) and slower than you read your other args. Make sure to number your tags and subpoint your warrants or they will likely get misplaced.

- NFA LD: I don't have any opinions on disclosure theory except for one: I don't like when disclosure theory is used as an easy out against debaters/programs who are new to the competitive national circuit. If you debate like that in front of me, your speaker points will max out at 26.

- Policy: I hate one word taglines - stop saying just "Extinction" or "Nuclear War". You should not be reading tags, cites, and analytics as fast as you're reading card text. When you start reading a new off position, give it a name please - say "Next off is the K", etc.

- HS LD: I get the utility of 1AR theory, but you're better off reading one well developed interp with contextualized standards than you are 3 different 25 second shells - 25 seconds of blips will not make a very persuasive 2AR even if they're "conceded".

- PF: The evidence sharing norms in this format are atrocious. You should be sending cards you plan to read prior to the start of your speech. I'll be timing prep to limit opportunities to steal prep, pausing only if cards that were read in the prior speech were not sent.

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

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

Judging Generally

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

Framework

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

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

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

Theory

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

Independent Voters

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

I coached Parli at Biola University for 12 years from 1997-2009. We had success at NPDA and NPTE during my time there. I returned to NPDA Nats last year as the DOF for the University of Oklahoma in 2018.

• I am not a fan of critical, non-topical AFFs. If you want to run one of these for me, you are probably going to have to slow down and teach me to embrace your position as I might not be familiar with the literature you are referencing to build your claims. Also, cite your damn sources when you run a K! At least mention the author's name of the literature you are referring to. Earn mega speaks by pimping your authors!
• K's need to have some link to either the case or the AFF/NEG advocacy.
• I believe the role of the ballot is to assess the arguments and debaters, not solve some systemic problem within or outside the round. I am currently very skeptical of critical/identity debate as it often excludes debaters trying to play by the rules. If your advocacy necessarily excludes the other team access to the ballot, I think you may be guilty of the same exclusion that you are fighting against.
• I probably can keep up with about 80% of the fastest national circuit speed in Parli. I will ask for roadmaps before every speech (even the 1AC) and let you tell me what page to put arguments on so that I can keep up better. Give a bit of analysis after each of your tags so that I can finish writing the tag down.
• I prefer that the neg block goes this way: 2NC covers the flow. 1NR crystallizes and shares voting issues (while obviously referring back to the flow when necessary). If the 1NR addresses issues that that the 2NC did not cover, then I will give the 1AR a lot of leeway to collapse and focus on key issues.
• Not a fan of lazy cross applications. Explain why they matter and impact the arguments.

• If the neg offers a counter definition, criteria, weighing mechanism, framework, or role of the ballot, it is imperative that they give me a reason to prefer NEG over AFF in the INC. It really is too late, in my opinion, to do this in the Neg block. I will default to AFF interpretations if no reason to prefer is given by the NEG in the 1NC, especially if the 2AC gives me reasons to prefer the AFF.
• I think new arguments in the 2NC are dumb strategy. The aff can turn those in the 1AR without you having a chance to respond. Use at your own peril.
• I am not super sharp on perm theory. I like nice, clean perms of non-competitive neg plans. I personally believe it is dumb to say "perm do both" and then tell me later that the neg plan sucks. From the beginning, frame it more like "We could do both, but the neg CP sucks, so go for AFF."
• I am glad I finally got my team to go this tournament! Looking forward to a great weekend!

I don't want to hear debates about personal identities, experiences, etc., generally prefer to not have to vote on non-falsifiable claims.

Condo is bad.

I enjoy seeing good case debates and topically grounded kritiks with strong specific links. High threshold on most theory.

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.

Hello all!

I'm Victoria--yes, like Victoria Woodhull who was the first woman to run for president. I did four years of parli in high school and I did 2 years of parli at Santa Rosa Junior College. My partner and I were the #1 NPTE ranked community college team in the nation in 2016.

TL;DR: I prefer case debate and original arguments over excessively technical and block-based debates. I will evaluate your K but heavily prefer that you engage in the topic, especially if you are on the aff. Counterplans should probably not be heavily abusive, and unconditional. I try to be tab as possible, but I won't hesitate to intervene if an obscenely bigoted and/or offensive argument is made (racism good, etc).

Case debate: I love a good case debate. I am a fan of politics DAs but generally do not like business confidence as much. Most of all, I prefer offense that is specific to the resolution. I prefer the contemporary debate structure (Advantages and Disadvantages) to the classical stock issues style. Solid impact weighing/framing can easily win you an otherwise close round.

Theory: I believe that theory is a tool to correct for and deter real in-round abuse, not simply a strategic tool. I believe that drop the debater vs drop the team and reasonability vs competing interps should be debated out in round. I am probably biased towards condo being bad but will still not vote on condo bad if you win the flow. I believe that PICs good vs bad, and other CP theory, should be debated in round.

Kritiks: I am a fan of pomo and structural Ks but I always want you to thoroughly explain your arguments, perhaps with a thesis section. I am most fond of Marx and fem, but no matter what just explain the K as if I have never heard it before. Please either be topical or have specific justification for rejecting the topic.

Speed / Speaker Points: I prefer solid word economy over excessively fast debates, but I can probably keep up with your speed. Don’t exclude other teams from the debate with your speed, it will cost you speaker points and I am open to theory/kritikal arguments against it.

As a quick background, I did high school policy debate and college parli debate. I would like to think I was at least okay as a debater. I haven't really been involved in judging or coaching for about three years, so my ability to flow fast spreading has probably deteriorated. Although I'll probably still "get" any particularly debate-y arguments, I've probably become significantly more lay since I left the debate scene.

**IMPORTANT** If you are running a highly critical advocacy (e.g., something involving the word simulacrum), I will almost certainly need you to explain it to me like a five-year-old. While I will try to consider any advocacy you run, my ability to judge will be delimited by my ability to understand what I am judging. If that makes me a bad judge for you, that's my b (but also maybe your b).

1. I appreciate having a written version of all texts, advocacies, etc. The language we use matters.

2. I appreciate teams that are respectful and courteous (not to me, but to their opponents and partners).

3. I appreciate when teams are creative. Boring debate is bad debate.

4. I appreciate clash. Offense wins rounds.

5. I appreciate well warranted and clear arguments, with an emphasis on presenting tangible or real-world examples. Explanations should come in constructive speeches, I should not be waiting until the end of the round to understand the argument.

6. I appreciate debaters who ask good (or strategic) questions.

7. I appreciate debaters who have good round vision and collapse only to the round’s most essential arguments.

8. I will always evaluate “stupid” arguments (RVIs, etc.) if given a good reason. I will listen to all arguments barring dangerous or violent ones. (This means I do not have a high threshold for theory, etc.)

9. I will do my best to not involve myself in the round and rely heavily on the flow (unless told otherwise). In instances where I do not understand something (e.g. one is speaking too quickly), I will make this clear.

10. I dislike when debaters deliberately exclude their opponents (by using speed, unnecessary jargon, etc.).

11. I dislike debaters who lie and cheat.

12. I dislike debaters who are rude, make the debate space more inhospitable than it already is, etc. Debate is best served when we all are (or aim to be) safe, kind, and having a good time.

13. I dislike having to do work. I will always prefer debaters who weigh arguments early and often, who explain the relationships between pages, and who have a clear narrative at the end of the round.

14. I dislike having one partner excessively use their other partner as a puppet or mouthpiece.

15. I am (currently) not well versed in argument theory. You should not assume I understand the complex relationships between the two-plank dispositional CP and x, y, or z argument. Explain your arguments well.

16. I think rebuttals should be a much slower-paced speech than the others and provide the judge with the most persuasive version of your argument. I won't dock you if they don't sound pretty, but these should be where you try and sound the least like you're trying to cram in every possible argument.

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round!

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.

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.

Hello friends,

I have been coaching college parli since 2016 and competed in the activity previously.

Case debate/Policy: I really enjoy case debate. I am particularly persuaded by positions that interact with the uniqueness of the topic. DA’s that are bottom heavy or generic can work but are vulnerable to MG non-unique and link arguments.

Theory: I default to competing interpretations. I tend to hold MG theory to a relatively high threshold due to lack of backside rebuttals, but see it as a check against particularly abusive neg strategies. I will go either way on condo depending on the argumentation in the round, but I tend to vote aff on delay/consult theory and when the neg reads multiple advocacies.

Critical Debate: Love it. Aff K’s need to either interact with the topic or present strong reasons for not doing so. I really like to see topic oriented-debate if possible. Accessibility is key, so I will not fill in the blanks on K authors even if I am familiar with them. Explain your Thesis/Solvency in a way that can be understood by the other team. Links of omission/generic links tend to be iffy for me. Show clear links.

Speed: I will listen to speed procedurals if the other team does not respond to clears and the team reading the position is clearly losing access to participating in the round. Speed is both strategic and lacks a bright line, but that is not an excuse to push people out of debate.

Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

Some side notes

- Be cool to your opponents. Seriously, I consider this important enough to influence my decision in extreme instances.

- Provide a plan/CP/interp/perm text if asked. Perms with clear texts are preferred.

- Read trigger warnings if you are in doubt.

Take what you will from the comments below, and don’t hesitate to ask for clarification.

Pronouns:

He/Him/They/Them

Positions:

Procedurals/Theory: I am a big fan T/Specs/Theory type arguments, but rarely see teams collapsing to these positions (which I think is a necessary strategic decision to win these types of arguments in front of me). As for types of specs I’m less/more sympathetic to: I don’t find over-spec or under-spec particularly compelling arguments (point of clarification: by under/over spec I mean blanket spec positions not the individual specs that would fall under these categories such as aspec fspec espec etc.) although I am willing to listen/vote on over/under spec. I do really like topicality (as long as you aren’t running 5 of them and simply just cross-applying the standards and voters without new articulation of how those standards/voters function in conjunction with your different interpretations). I also think that conditionality is a great/true argument, but only in particular scenarios. I am far more sympathetic to conditionality arguments if there are multiple advocacies that cause the affirmative to double-turn themselves (meaning don’t run condo just to run condo, run it because you think there is actually a strategic advantage being leveraged by the other team). I prefer articulated abuse, although I will vote on potential abuse, and I default competing interpretations unless otherwise told.

Kritik: I am fine with critical debate on either side of the resolution, although I prefer the K Aff to be rooted in the substance of the resolutions, that being said, I will listen to any justification as to why you should have access to non-topical versions of the affirmative. The framework should be informed by your methodology (meaning your framework should not just function as a way of excluding other positions, but actually inform how to evaluate your advocacy), your links contextualized to your indictments (some generics are fine, but it should include a breakdown of how the other teams position/mindset perpetuates the system), and an alternative that can actually resolve the harms of the K (meaning there needs to be very clear solvency that articulates how the alternative solves/functions in the real world). I don’t think rejection alts get us anywhere in the debate space, unless it is rejection on word choice/language (in which case I think those grievances are better articulated in the form of a procedural) or you clearly explain what that rejection looks like (in which case you should probably just use that explanation as your alternative in the first place). Permutation of the K alternative is perfectly fine, but I think on critical debates I need substantially more work on how the perm functions (especially in a world where the links haven’t been resolved). I am rather familiar with most of the K literature bases, but still think it is important for debaters to do the work of explaining the method/functionality of the K, and not rely on my previous knowledge of the literature base.

Disadvantages: I like a good DA/CP strategy, with a couple of caveats. The first is that the disadvantage needs to have specific links to the affirmative (generics just don’t do it for me), I am far more likely to vote on a unique disadvantage with smaller impacts, than a generic disadvantage with high magnitude impacts (although I will obviously weigh high magnitude impacts if you are winning probability). I have a rather high threshold for politics disadvantages, but if you can tell me which senator/representative will vote for which policy and why, I am far more likely to buy into the scenario (specifics are your friend on ptix).

Counter-Plans: I am fine with almost all types of counterplans (+1, pics, timeframe, etc.) but think they often need to be accompanied by theory arguments justifying their strategic legitimacy. I also think that mutual exclusivity competitiveness should always be preferred over simply having a net benefit/disadvantage that makes the position functionally competitive. I am fine with all types of permutations with justification (again often needs to be accompanied by theory). My threshold on perms are sometimes low, but I think that is because they are often under-covered, so knowing that you should be spending a great deal of time answering/going for the permutation if you want to win/not lose there.

General Notes:

1. Status of arguments: It is your responsibility to ask, and for the other team to answer (don’t give them the run-around, and if you aren’t sure just say dispo).

2. ALL “Text/ROB/Thesis” should be read twice, and made available for the other team.

3. The order you give at the beginning of your speech is actually important. I flow exclusively on paper, so switching between sheets/having them in the correct order helps me follow along. I completely understand that you have to switch up the flow mid speech sometimes, but you need to clearly signpost where you are (especially if you deviate from the order given).

- Additional Note: It causes me a great deal of physical pain to flow numerous consecutive high speed debates. Swings and tournaments that occur directly after one another (like NPDA/NPTE) are difficult for me. While I will still flow everything you say (regardless of speed) I have a very strong preference for debates to happen at a more moderate rate of speech. Which leads nicely into:

4. Speed: You can go as fast as you want in front of me, that being said, I’m not sure if going fast for the sake of going fast is always the best strategic choice, as your word count probably isn’t much higher even if you think you sound faster. I will "clear" and "slow" debaters, within reason, but competitors are ultimately responsible for making necessary adaptations.

5. I will listen to literally any argument (heady, aliens, personal narrative of a farmer from Wisconsin), doesn’t really matter to me, but please don’t put me in a situation in which I have to evaluate/endorse advocacies or authors that promote/have caused the mass death of people. Also, as far as identity politics go (this maybe should have gone in the K section) I think that debate is a great platform to talk about your own person experiences, but I think it’s important to note that oppression is often intersectional and is articulated/experienced in different ways. I think forced disclosure of experience/identity in order to interact with your position can be potentially harmful to others, and “trigger warnings” only work if you give people time to exit the room/are willing to punt the position.

6. DO NOT BE MEAN, I will tank speaks. Totally fine to being witty, and slightly confrontational, but avoid personal attacks, I would much rather listen to you actually debate. Overall I believe debate is a creative space, so feel free to run literally anything you want.

Experience:

4 years policy debate in Kansas, 4 years parliamentary debate at Louisiana Tech University, and Arkansas State University. 2 years Assistant Debate Coach at Arkansas State University. 4 years Assistant Director of Debate at Whitman College. Currently the Director of Debate & Forensics at Whitman College.

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

Note: If you read nothing else in this, read the last paragraph.

I’ll judge based on given criteria/framework. I can think in more than one way. This means that the mechanisms for deciding the round are up for debate as far as I’m concerned. My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide the round but I will intervene if the round demands it. There are many cases where this might be necessary: If asked to use my ballot politically for example, or if both sides fail to give me a clear mechanism for voting, or if I know something to factually incorrect (if someone is lying). In these cases, I try to stay out of the decision as much as I can but I don’t believe in the idea that any living person is really a blank slate or a sort of argument calculator.

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

I will not vote for an argument that I don’t understand. If I can’t figure it out from what you’ve said in the round, I can’t vote on it.

I will admit that I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles. I am tired of moving symbols around on paper. Alts and plan texts that are empty phrases don’t do it for me anymore. The novelty of postmodern critique that verges on--or actually takes the leap into--nihilism has worn off. I don’t think there’s much value anymore in affirming what we all know: That things can be deconstructed and that they contain contradictory concepts. It is time for us to move beyond this recognition into something else. Debate can be a game with meaning.

Warrants: I will not vote for assertions that don’t at least have some warrant behind them. You can’t say “algae blooms,” and assume I will fill in the internals and the subsequent impacts for you. You don’t get to just say that some counter-intuitive thing will happen. You need a reason that that lovely regionally based sustainable market will just magically appear after the conveniently bloodless collapse of capitalism. I’m not saying I won’t vote for that. I’m just saying you have to make an argument for why it would happen. NOTE: I need a good warrant for an "Independent Voting Issue" that isn't an implication of a longer argument, procedural, or somehow otherwise developed. Just throwing something in as a “voter” will not get the ballot. I reserve the right to gut-check these. If there is not warrant or if the warrant makes no sense to me, I won't vote on it.

Defense can win, too. That doesn’t mean that a weaker offensive argument with risk can’t outweigh defense, it simply means that just saying, “oh that’s just defense,” won’t make the argument go away for me. Debate is not football. There’s no presumption in the NFL, so that analogy is wrong.

You need to deal with all the line-by-line stuff but should not fail to frame things (do the big picture work) for me as well. It’s pretty rare that I vote on one response but it’s equally rare that I will vote on the most general level of the ideas. In a bind, I will vote for what’s easier to believe and/or more intuitive.

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. There are days when I need you to slow down a tad. I have battled carpal/cubital tunnel off and on for a few years and sometimes my hand just does not work quite as well. I’ll tell you if you need to clear up and/or slow down, but not more than a couple of times. After that, it’s on you.

Please slow down for the alt texts, plans, advocacies, etc., and give me a copy too. If I don’t have it, I can’t vote for it.

Strong Viewpoints: I haven’t yet found "the" issue that I can’t try to see all sides of.

Points of Order: Call them—but judiciously. I’ll probably know whether the argument is new and not calling them does not change their status as new. Also, if you’re clearly winning bigtime don’t call a ridiculous number of them. Just let the other team get out of the round with some dignity. If you don’t, your speaker points will suffer. It’ll be obvious when I think you are calling too many.

If the round is obviously lopsided and you are obliterating the other team then be nice. I will lower your speaker points if you aren’t respectful or if you simply pile it on for the heck of it. If it’s egregious enough, you might even lose the debate.

You don’t need to repeat yourself just to fill time. If you’re finished, then sit down and get us all to lunch, the end of the day, or the next round early.

Theory: I’m not going to weigh in on the great theoretical controversies of the day. Those are up to you to demonstrate in the round. T can be more than one thing depending on the round. I’m not going to tell you what to do. Debate is always in flux. Actually, I’ve learned or at least been encouraged to think differently about theory issues from debaters in rounds far more often than from anyone else. If I had pontificated about The Truth As I Knew It before those rounds, the debaters would have simply argued what I said I liked and I wouldn’t have learned, so it’s in my interest as well as yours for me not to hand you a sushi menu with the items I’d like to see checked off. PICS, Framework, Competing Interp, in-round abuse, etc. are all interpretable in the debate. I will say that I probably most naturally think in terms of competing interpretations, but, again, I can think in more than one way.

My “Debate Background:” I did CEDA/NDT in college. I coached policy for years, and also coached parli from the days of metaphor all the way into the NPTE/NPDA modern era. I have also coached NFA-LD.

Finally, I ask that you consider that everyone in the room has sacrificed something to be there. A lot of resources, time, and effort went in to bringing us all there. Be sure to show some respect for that. I am serious about this and it has come to occupy a significant portion of my thinking about debate these days. In fact, I think it’s time for the in-round bullying to stop. I see too many rounds where one team’s strategy is simply to intimidate the other team. I find it strange that an activity that talks so much about the violence of language often does so in such a needlessly aggressive and violent manner. In some rounds every interaction is barbed. Flex/CX is often just needlessly aggressive and sometimes even useless (when, for example, someone simply refuses to answer questions or just keeps purposely avoiding the question when it’s obvious that they understand the question, opting instead for aggression sometimes verging on ad hominem). I see too many other rounds where everyone is just awful to each other, including the judges afterward. You can be intense and competitive without this. We are now a smaller circuit. It’s strange that we would choose to spend so much time together yet be so horrible to each other.