Some tidbits to consider, no particular order:

I try to make decisions based on criteria established by debaters. If none are offered, I will rely on my knowledge of convention, style, and execution to guide me. What that means - I am equally likely to vote for a good thought experiment or critical intervention, as I am a traditional policy proposal. That being said, I have a higher threshold for what counts. Asserted risk calculus is as unappealing as unapplied critical jargon.

Mediocre debaters copy others. Good debaters advance arguments. Great debaters persuade.

Don’t assume I know what you are talking about

I prefer organization and development of arguments as the debate proceeds. That means: 
Details matter. Warrants matter. Cross-ex matters. History matters. 

Evidence matters when a claim is contested. "We have a card" is not a warrant for an argument. How one chooses to highlight evidence should be of relevance to you, but it is especially relevant to me.



Argument "type" is not extremely relevant to me - select the arguments that you are prepared for rather than those that you think I agree with. I obviously have preferences but am interested in seeing how you make sense of the activity, not with advancing my agenda.



I think the activity is at its best when rounds are serious and complex investigations of policy, philosophy, and politics based in literatures and discussions made relevant by and to the resolution. 

That means I am less likely to care about miniscule theory debates or certain kinds of performances until/unless their relevance is clearly explained and impacted. Then, it's awesome.

I like:

case debates

disadvantage impacts that focus on early internal link claims and less on terminal impacts

affirmatives that affirm things

consistent but tricky negative strategies

counter plans with solvency advocates and real net benefits

alternatives

some relation to reality, even if contested

ethos

serious theoretical objections, including topicality

Everyone is always learning - including me and you.

I flow on my laptop generally so if i am not making eye contact, i do apologize. If you would like me to look at your evidence specifically, my email is daniel.armbrust1337@gmail.com or you can use speechdrop.net to make a room specifically for the round.

COWARDICE IS A VOTING ISSUE.

TL;DR- I don't care what you read, just give me a reason to vote for you.

DISCLAIMER- AN important note before you keep reading, discussion of mental health is important, but I have discovered that in the past few years I cannot really handle those discussions very well in debate. Please avoid those arguments as much as possible for my sake. IF the topic asks you to run arguments discussing mental health, that cannot be avoided and is fine. I appreciate a warning in advance if you plan on running arguments discussing mental health. Thank you!

Section 1: General Info

I debated for the University of Nevada from 2012-2017. My final year I was 8th speaker at the NPDA and 2nd seed out of prelims. As a debater I ran anything from spec to high theory criticisms. The only argument I refused to read because I think it is cheating unless you can use cards is Delay Counterplans. That being said I have voted for a disgusting number of Delay counterplans. Run what you want, I don't really care as long as you give me a reason to vote for you.

Section 2: Specific Questions

SPEED ADDENDUM: I understand speed very well and often used it personally as a very efficient tool. That being said, I am continuously swayed by arguments about equity from teams that have difficulty with accessing the round due to speed. While I am often influenced, I still evaluate those arguments through the lens that the debater gives me. 

1. Speaker points

As of right now I range from approximately 26-30. I think speaker points are arbitrary and often tend to be higher if you know the people in the room so I usually trend higher in order to off balance my inherent bias.

2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? can affs run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be "contradictory" with other neg positions?
Let me put it like this, in the last two years of debate, I ran a K every neg round I could. In the 2015-16 season I only had 3 rounds the entire year that did not involve a criticism. I think critically framed arguments are not only good but on occasion necessary. For affs, its a bit of a different story, Framework I think is a convincing argument in some situations but leaves a bad taste in others. FOR ALL CRITICISMS AFF OR NEG, all i really need is a thesis of some kind (I haven't read a bunch of different authors so I need something to like understand) and a reason to vote for you.

3. Performance arguments

Some of the best affs I have ever seen were performance based. Shout out to Quintin Brown (from Washburn if you don't know him) for reading some of the best and most persuasive performance arguments I have ever seen. Just be prepared to answer Framework.

4. Topicality- For the aff, to avoid T, all you have to do is be topical. I prefer nuanced and educational T debates, not just throw away debates that are really there as a time suck. I am almost never persuaded by an RVI. AND if you decide to go for an RVI, it better be the ENTIRE PMR. For T to be persuasive, it needs an interp, violation, standards, voters.

5. Counterplans- Pics good or bad? should opp identify the status of CP? perms-- text comp ok? functional comp?

uhh, PICs are good as long as they are able to be theoretically defended. Theory against CPs is something I did as an MG all the time, it just might not be a great strat if there is an easy DA against the CP. I think that most people should run CPs that functionally competitive unless you have a REALLY good reason why your text comp needs to happen in this instance (for example a word PIC that changes the word run with a reason why that specific word is bad). Just clarify the status when you read it.

6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round?

Dont care.

7. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed how do you compare abstract impacts against concrete impacts?

If i have to do this, I will be angry with you. You do the weighing and it will not be a problem.

Philosophy:

Graduated from the University of Nevada with a major in communication studies. Debate is truly a forum that creates strong policy, world leaders that make change, eliminates narrow minded thinking, and makes a stand supported in facts. Debate is more than the rounds you win or lose, it is a culture and community.

Do's:

I am looking for good clash! The decision will be based on what is on the flow so highlight the strategies and call out the sign posting, no link, no access to impacts, turns, etc. Stay organized in the round, is key. Both teams need to prove why they win and when you develop a strategy it should flow as a presentation or story.

If you develop a unique advantage and/or disadvantage it is a more attractive winning vote. Running politics and economy all day gets old to talk about and old to listen too. Have fun with the round, debate is fun. Let's see you propose an actual solution to the resolution with real world changing solutions.

I value animal life over human life.

You and your partner need to understand what you are running, if you do not understand what you are saying it is obvious. Be comfortable with what you are running, run a strategy you understand and can articulate. Partner communication is fine, please stand when you speak, speed is a go, and time yourself.

Do not's:

Tag lines and bullet points are not facts, you need supporting evidence to what you are arguing and it needs to make sense. You cannot make leaps from economy fails leads to the Great Depression, do not just shout out dehumanization, and leads to nuclear war everyone dies... I will not vote on nuclear war.

Running a topicality where you are whining the entire time just to drop is a time suck! Unless the Aff is truly abusive and you plan to drop everything down to the topicality, you needed to have proved the abusive using the disadvantages. I will not vote on T.

Going into every round running the same K for the last four years is super annoying the theory was probably not even something you wrote and existed prior to your college career. I will not vote on the K.

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.

Treat me like a Lay-Judge. I am a practical, real-world thinker. I’m NOT a debate coach. I’m the judge you need to adapt to by dumbing down your arguments.

If you have questions, Ask!

General guidelines:

1) Have fun. It’s OK to chat and BS before the round starts. Don’t let winning go to your head or losing get you down. Everybody is cannon fodder when they start out. Learn from the successes and mistakes of yourself and others.

2) Speak clearly. I am relatively new to judging, so please do not spread. If you do, I will be unable to understand/flow your arguments…

2a) Debate WILL be accessible. If you are deliberately trying to spread-out (Gish gallop)your opponent, don't clearly articulate your Kritikal arguments, use a Kritik a tool of exclusion, or show reckless disregard towards your fellow debaters: I WILL VOTE AGAINST YOU (For that round)

3) Tell me what you are doing: Please give me a roadmap so I can keep my flow somewhat organized.

4) Clearly articulate what you are telling me. “Advantage #1 is…” etc.

5) Carry your arguments through the flow.

6) If you require a special dispensation, please let me know before the round starts.

7) Arrive on-time. It is your responsibility to know where your next round is located. I usually allow a one-minute grace period. (Depending on the directions from the tournament director) Otherwise, if you are late, you will automatically lose the round. I will however, encourage you to debate for speaker points. If both teams are late, it will be a double fault loss for both teams, but you can still debate for speaker points.

8) Advanced Arguments. Although I have OCCASIONALLY ruled in favor of Kritiks, I greatly prefer the debate to be about the resolution. HOWEVER: 1) A Kritik should not be used for exclusion. 2) If you are going to use advanced arguments, such as a Kritik or a Critical Affirmative, make sure you clearly tell me what you are doing and try to keep it simple. (If you spread some memorized speech you’ve been using all season, I am going to be annoyed) If the topic is education and you start talking about nuclear proliferation, it's likely going to hurt you. If you start talking about Niche, I am likely to be confused. (Yes, I know it's spelled wrong... :) )

Bill

This paradigm is continually evolving, so I update it frequently before tournaments. Last update was October 16, 2019.

This sheet has two sections: a short biography and my policy debate paradigm. If you have questions about any of the following, please ask.

Bio:

I have been involved with debate in various capacities since 1983.

My background is primarily in 2 person policy debate (NFL/NDT/CEDA), with 4 years coaching students competing in NFA-LD (policy). I have judged approximately 1 LD value debate, and 2 NPDA debates, all of which happened over 15 years ago.

I competed for Detroit Catholic Central (Redford, Michigan) and Butler University (Indianapolis, Indiana). I coached at Indiana University (NDT/NFA-LD) and Westminster College (NFA-LD).

My most recent experience with debate at the college level was judging for Miami University, mostly when Steve Mancuso coached there (2004-6).

From 2016-18 I was a frequent judge of Public Forum debate on the High School circuit in Michigan.

Besides debating and coaching, between 1992 and 2017 I taught Argumentation and Debate courses at Indiana University, Westminster College, and Wayne State University.

Policy Paradigm:

Left to my own devices, I tend to be a loose policy maker interested in evaluating the risk of doing/supporting the resolution against the risk of not. Any net advantage is enough to vote AFF. But that's just my default setting.

My firm position is that the paradigm I use to evaluate the round is up for debate, and I give a lot of leeway as to what it might end up being. If you want to argue for a paradigm, my preference is that you do it clearly and do it well.

If a paradigm isn't debated, I assume that means the debaters are in agreement about what's happening in the round. In that case, I try to fit with what I see as the paradigm that the debaters adopt. So, in a LD-Policy round where the debaters obviously are working with a fairly standard Stock Issues paradigm, I go with the flow. If both teams want to perform, then go ahead and perform -- I'll sit back and enjoy the show.

Please note that, despite my personal belief that I'm open to performance debates, I usually get struck by performance teams. As a result, I haven't seen a lot, but I have voted for and against performance AFFs and NEGs. I actually like a lot of what the performance turn in debate has done for the activity, although it's not the world that I competed in myself.

I've been known to vote for some pretty weird stuff (I ran some weird stuff, too -- at least what counted as weird in the late 1980s). Exotic is not a problem. Incomprehensible, not so good. I generally gag on completely internally inconsistent and contradictory positions, unless that's somehow what the agreed upon paradigm requires or allows.

There are NO inherently wrong arguments, and debate is where counter-intuitive arguments should be tried and tested. What matters to me is not whether an argument is wrong or right, but if it is made well (or not).

I can handle speed, but keep in mind that it's been a decade since I've sat in the back of the room. If I get lost, the problem isn't the speed -- it's my unfamiliarity with a position, or an acronym, or a buzzword. I'm open to being educated -- but it helps if you clarify a term the first time you use it.

As for the K, I'm fairly well versed in critical theory, having taught it at the MA and PhD level for 15 years. I'll leave it up to you to decide what that means. The chances are that I've read more Foucault, Butler, Derrida, Zizek, Burke, etc., than college debaters have.

Whether T is a voter is up for debate. I will assume that it is a voter if no one contests this.

A dropped argument is conceded, but the quality of the dropped argument is what matters most in the decision calculus. If someone on the AFF literally says "the DA is not unique," but then moves on to the next point and doesn't provide any rationale, evidence, or anything else to support that claim, then there's not a lot there if the NEG drops that "argument." Yes, it was conceded, but it was a blank assertion with no apparent meaning -- so conceding it was meaningless. And it didn't open the door for the next AFF speaker to suddenly provide the rationale or evidence and argue that since uniqueness was conceded that the NEG had no right to new arguments on the position. The addition of rationale makes it a new argument to which the NEG can respond (or can ignore if it's made in the rebuttals -- see the following paragraph).

Unless you can make a persuasive argument otherwise, I will ignore new arguments and drop them from the flow. To me, a new argument is a claim made in a later speech that is not connected to a position argued in a constructive. After the constructives are over, a connection must be made at the first opportunity to address the position. The connection is key: a line of argumentation can, and should, evolve and grow over the course of the debate. "No new arguments in rebuttals" does not mean "you have to repeat yourself in the later speeches." As long as the link is clear and does not seem abusive I will allow it to stand in a rebuttal.

Last point. If most or all of the above makes no sense to you, don't worry about it. It probably made a lot more sense 20 years ago when I developed "my paradigm." At least, I hope it did. Do what you do, and do it well. My job is to evaluate the round, not dictate it. Ask questions before the round and I'll do my best to answer.

Public Forum Paradigm:

Dexter will be the first tournament of this type that I have judged this format, but I do know a bit about the activity.

I expect the debaters to set the pace of the round at a level with which all are reasonably comfortable. If one team is speaking way too fast for the other, then that team should slow down.

I abide by the dictate that the debaters need to address a "lay judge," but the definition of this term is, in my opinion, relative. I (and the other judges present, if applicable) are your audience. You need to adapt to us. I'm not going to try to think like someone else -- whether that's someone who has less or more expertise than I. I will do my best to keep my own preferences from playing a role -- and after being involved in debate for most of the last 35 years, I'm pretty good at this. But I don't personally believe complete objectivity is possible or desirable. I have a perspective. Without that I would not be able to engage you, the ideas, the evidence, or anything else. But I can be convinced by arguments that fall outside of my perspective. If I wasn't open to that, I wouldn't be involved with debate.

Debate is a game. We generally work within certain assumptions about good and bad ideas, but these can be challenged by credible and persuasive arguments. The amount of work you need to do to make a persuasive argument varies depending on how much it goes against common assumptions about something. For example: most would say that causing an increase in nuclear proliferation is a bad idea. But you could challenge this idea with evidence -- and, in this case, there's a lot of credible research and analysis you can cite that makes this case -- and I could be persuaded by that evidence that proliferation is actually good. But since it seems that, on balance, proliferation causes an increased risk of nuclear war, you'd have to have some pretty strong support to challenge this idea. In other words, "counter-intuitive" arguments DO have a place in debate; indeed, testing such radical ideas may be one of the most important things academic debate can do.

I suppose you can advocate a paradigm if you want to, but I really don't expect you to.

I will flow the round, and do expect that the debaters will, in some fashion, do this as well. It's up to you, but if you fail to answer an argument because you didn't make a note of it, that's your problem.

As I see it, this is what argument theorists call "value debate." It asks whether a course of action is a good idea, not whether it should be adopted. That's why the resolution could argue for maintenance of the status quo (which would not be "adopting" a policy, but sticking to the present course). This brings its own "paradigmatic" assumptions, including the idea that whichever team defends the status quo will have presumption. A case needs to be made against doing what is already happening; if it "ain't broke, don't fix it." In most resolutions, the CON will be defending the status quo, as most resolutions call for a different course of action than what's happening now. But it could be the PRO who defends the S.Q. For better or worse, this is something inherent in public forum debate. (By "having presumption" I mean the team who, before the round begins, is winning -- as in "the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.")

But this cannot be the case when the resolution only engages values without connecting them to a policy (as in "competing values" resolutions - like "Resolved: That justice is more important than mercy.") In that case, I'll give the presumption to the CON. That's a fairly arbitrary decision, but I believe that someone has to have presumption or there's no basis for a debate. Since I can see no good way to determine who should have presumption in such a case (and if someone can provide a good rationale for doing it otherwise, I'll happily change), then I'm going with the "AFF started this, so they've got to justify that action by making a case" logic.

The other issue that arises from being value debate: arguments that can only be justified by advocating a plan aren't within the scope of the round. I'll ignore them.

Debating the meaning of a term in the resolution (aka "topicality") only seems relevant if the term could reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways and that how it is defined relates to the focus of the resolution. To me, the AFF "right to define" only means that the AFF gets to make the initial statement about how the terms should be interpreted without spending time justifying the use of that definition -- the NEG can challenge that definition in favor of another if they provide good reasoning and/or support. If the AFF definition(s) is/are challenged, the AFF can defend with their own support, or concede the NEG definition. Note: neither the AFF nor the NEG are required (or even expected to) define any of the terms if they so choose.

If you have questions, ask!

I'm a former debater for the University of Nevada and Santa Rosa Junior College.

Important information:

-You can run any type of argument in front of me. That being said, please explain how I should evaluate the round.

-I'm hard of hearing in two different ways. If you speak a bit louder than normal and give a bit of a pause before taglines I shouldn't have any trouble following you. I'll call clear or slow as appropriate.

-I haven't been around debate much lately. If you're fast you're likely faster than I can flow these days.

That's about all I've got for you at the moment. This will probably be updated after every round as I remember things I'm particular about in debate. Please ask questions before round if you've got 'em.

I will listen to any argument. Everything is debatable. Show me clear terminalized impacts.

I am a current UNR student volunteering to judge for BLCC. I am a Comm Studies/Spanish 2x major. I enjoy discussions that involve deconstructing class, race, sex, and gender issues. When I did debate it was my first exposure to a lot of these concepts, and my familiarity with them has only increased. It's important to talk about these issues in order to try to make the world a better place. Talk about hegemony, talk about social status, talk about privilege, talk about capitalism, talk about socialism, talk about anarchism, talk about the morality of war, or what to do about global warming. If these are important or interesting to you, use this as an opportunity to expand your knowledge of these topics.

Please be kind and courteous. If you aren't, I won't vote for you. If your opponent is rude or insulting in a round, don't be afraid to bring that up- you aren't obligated to put up with abuse in round.

If you use harmful rhetoric, whether it is toward your opponent or just in general (ex: misogyny, racism, ableism, classism) I won't want to vote for you even if you are a far superior debater.

Signposting/roadmaps are important. I always need to know where you are, and where you're going. Use clear labels (are you on-case, off-case, on DA2, Topicality, etc) so I don't get lost trying to flow. If I get too lost I stop typing, and then your fantastic points are lost because they weren't written down.

I've been out of debate for a while, so keep that in mind- I can handle jargon, but when it starts to get super technical and fast, I might be out of my depth. Don't assume I understand what you're talking about.

I don't expect perfection. I do expect that you have patience with yourself and your opponents. If you're a novice struggling with learning the ins and outs of Parli, your opponent probably is too. If their definitions, plan, advantages, links, etc. are vague or poorly constructed, by all means address that in a round, but do not make it seem like you think they are incompetent. Do not try to make them feel bad. Be understanding.

Don't forget important structural points: definitions, whether the round is fact, value, or policy, what the values/weighing mechanisms are. Don't leave any of your opponent's points untouched, even if it's just to say "this point is vague and doesn't make sense."

Don't run a T as a timesuck, run it if you really think your opponent is constructing their argument in a way that is inherently unfair to purposely put you at a disadvantage. Otherwise, don't waste your time on it, and for the love of whatever please spend enough time on a T if you think it is crucial to the round. That being said, if you want to narrow the resolution down, don't do it in a way that debilitates you.

Voters are important. In your last speeches, they should be the main thing (even the only thing) you talk about. This is a chance for you to summarize all that has been said, all the strengths of your argument and weaknesses of your opponents', all the harms/benefits, advantages/disadvantages, and tell me why these play into how you've won the round.

I love policy. in most cases, 'should' implies policy, not value (not always, but most of the time). I won't not vote if you run it as value, but I think you're missing out on an opportunity to construct plans, counterplans, advantages and disads, and discuss real world actions, harms, and implications if you run a value instead of a policy. Also- please make sure you have a clear plan (what's the action, who carries it out, how is it funded, etc).
Flush out your impacts. Use as much information as you can (ex: how many people are going to suffer in the status quo; how many lives will be saved). Also talk about ideology and values (dehumanization is bad, but what about it is harmful, what's going to happen if we don't fix it). Use a lot of sources to back up your points with PROOF- real numbers, figures, stats, information. I won't count or anything, but it's obvious when your research consists of a couple HuffPo articles and not much else.

Counterplans are an awesome way to handle being neg on a resolution you'd personally support. I expect you to give it as much attention as you would an aff plan. Don't bring it up in the last 30 seconds of your speech. Give yourself time to hammer it out. On that note, if you find supporting or opposing the resolution morally wrong, then try to find a way to make it work for you. Run a K if you need to. Don't make yourself argue from an ideology that makes you want to puke.

No spreading. I can't follow it, if I can't follow it I can't vote for you. I find it to be an ableist and privileged tactic that excludes people with certain disabilities or language barriers from participating.

Don't use points/jargon/run positions you don't understand, aspire to understand them and THEN use them. Sometimes it's incredibly obvious you don't know what you're talking about, and that sucks for both you and me.

I won't be too critical if you need to talk to your partner to help explain or clarify, but don't grow reliant on them to get you through your speech.

Overall, keep in mind that debate is just one medium of communication, and it's important that you understand why having these discussions matters. It's not just about winning. It's not just about organizing speeches, or talking pretty. It's about becoming familiar with information, ideology, actions, consequences, implications, so that you have that knowledge as you move forward in your academic and professional careers.

Yo!

Please treat me as the layest of lay judges. Although I've been in the forensics community for a while now, my debate experience is pretty much non-existent. Let's try and fix that!

Few things to consider:

1.) I'm an interp cat so performative arguments and flashy stuff will absolutely make me fall in love with you. If someone goes up there and raps their arguments while their partner beatboxes in the background I will surrender every speaker point I have ever accumulated in my life to y'all.

2.) Gently walk me through the debates! Treat me like a clumsy dog that just gained the ability to comprehend the English language, verbally put a leash on me and give me all the outlines and roadmaps and google earths's's of your speeches. Use any and all opportunities to feed me treats (i.e. tell me why I should vote for you).

3.) Feel free to run whatever type of debates y'all want (topicalidums, krattacks, dish ads, etc). I can't guarantee that I'll be able to understand anythi- every little intricacy thrown out but I'll genuinely try my best to understand. That said, I will undoubtedly gravitate towards simple, effective, and clearly articulated arguments.

4.) I absolutely love learning and (respectfully) getting schooled. Don't be afraid to flex your knowledge and bust out some obscure ish. Obviously it should relate directly to whatever arguments you're making. Or not, whatever... would that be considered off-off-case? is that a thing? help

In all seriousness, this'll be a learning experience for the both of us. All I ask is for everyone involved to be respectful towards your peers and to make the rounds as fun and as educational as possible.

(Reviewed Jan. 2024) Quick Read (NPDA/NPTE):

TL;DR- I evaluate arguments which means I expect claims to be warranted and evidence to support the claim be true and reasonable. I think you are entitled to read whatever arguments you choose and I am confident in my ability to keep up intellectually with what you are trying to do, and if I cannot then I will admit why I was confused at the end. Beyond that, CTRL+F is your friend and whatever is (not) covered below I am happy to discuss my thoughts and how it can help you win the ballot.

Most debates I watch these days in parliamentary debate discuss structural and/or systemic violence both on the AFF and NEG. The second most common thing I see is theory of some sort. The best debates I see discuss these issues across the debate (i.e.- how does access to the debate implicate the way folks in the round acknowledge and interrogate structural and/or systemic violence). Debates that often end in frustration tend to silo arguments and retreat from counter-arguments in favor of concessions.

I think the AFF should defend a topical advocacy. This does not mean I believe the AFF MUST role play or defend the state structure of the status quo. I believe being creative in how we imagine what state structures can become can allow us to engage in what Native Hawaiian scholar Manulani Aluli Meyer refers to as the radical remembering of the future. Structures of oppression exist differently across cultures and eras if at all. To me this means that the current political and economic system is anything but natural and inevitable and as such I think there are excellent justifications (although many in debate may end up half-measures) for why the AFF can be topical AND critically interrogate current political and economic systems.

I think NEG advocacies in parli should be unconditional as the concept of testing the AFF and what it means to do so is altered by the structure of parli debate. Theory and advocacies are distinct as theory is a debate about what the system should look like and advocacies are defensable changes to the status quo. Theory is distinct from T as theory is about how to debate and T is about the words in teh topic. If the NEG provides an advocacy and maintains that advocacy through to the end of the debate, then presumption flips to the AFF as the burden of proof has shifted. Kritik, performance, T, theory, framework, Disads/CP to non-topical AFFs, and Disads/CP to topical AFFs are all open to the NEG. However, I think that the opportunity to indict the AFF in the LOC is often overlooked and many NEG teams allow the AFF infinite offense by conceding case warrants and relying on implied clash.

I think that parli debate is a unique format that allows meaningful engagement. While the things above are beliefs I have about the burdens of the AFF and NEG, the only thing you MUST DO is defend a world view at the end of the debate and if you want to win, you ought be comparative in your impact analysis. Although everything above is essentially how I think you should debate, I recognize that you make choices on how YOU want to debate and I am interested in those choices and why YOU make them. If you have any questions, I have a lot more below and also am happy to answer any questions at sfarias@pacific.edu.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

TLDR Version: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. In terms of theory I generally have a medium threshold for voting T/Spec except CONDO Bad, in which case the threshold is lower. However, clever theory is great and generic CONDO Bad is meh. CPs/Alts are generally good ideas because I believe affirmatives usually have a high propensity to solve harms in the world and permutations are not advocacies. Finally, pet peeve but I rule on points of order when I can. I generally think it is educational and important for the LOR/PMR strategy to know if I think an argument is new or not. I protect the block as well, but if you call a point of order I will always have an answer (not well taken/well taken/under consideration) so please do not just call it and then agree its automatically under consideration.

Section 1: General Information-

While I thoroughly enjoy in-depth critical and/or hegemony debates, ultimately, the arguments you want to make are the arguments I expect you to defend and WEIGH. I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war these days when the topic is about education, a singular SCOTUS decision, immigration, etc. BE RESOURCEFUL WITH YOUR IMPACTS- ethnic conflict, mass exodus, refugee camps, poverty, and many more things could all occur as a result of/in a world without the plan. I think debaters would be much better served trying to win my ballot with topically intuitive impact scenarios rather than racing to nuclear war, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE PROBABILTY MEANS MORE THAN MERELY CONCEDING AN ARGUMENT/LINK CHAIN.

I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

Section 2: Specific Arguments

“The K”- I do not mind critical affirmatives but be prepared to defend topicality/framework with more than just generic links back to the K. Moreover, I feel that this can even be avoided if the affirmative team simply frames the critical arguments they are going to make while still offering, at the very least, the resolution as a policy text for the opposition. On the negatiave, I think that K’s without alternatives are just non-unique disads. I think that reject and embrace are not alternatives in and of themselves, I must reject or embrace something and then you must explain how that solves.

In terms of ballot claims, I do not believe the ballot has any role other than to determine a winner and a loser. I would rather be provided a role that I should perform as the adjudicator and a method for performing that role. This should also jive with your framework arguments. Whoever wins a discussion of my role in the debate and how I should perform that role will be ahead on Framework.

For performance based arguments, please explain to me how to evaluate the performance and how I should vote and what voting for it means or I am likely to intervene in a way you are unhappy with. Please also provide a space for your competitors to engage/advocate with you. If they ask you to stop your position because arguments/rhetoric have turned the space explicitly violent then all folks should take it as a moment to reorient their engagement. I am not unabashed to vote against you if you do not.

I believe you should be able to read your argument, but not at the expense of others’ engagement with the activity. I will consider your narrative or performance actually read even if you stop or at the least shorten and synthesize it. Finally, I also consider all speech acts as performative so please justify this SPECIFIC performance.

Topicality/Theory- I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competing definitions and a question of what debate we should be having and why that debate is better or worse than the debate offered by the AFF. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an AFF who is winning that the plan meets a definition that is good in some way (my understanding of reasonability), if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T.

In terms of other theory, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized arguments to parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position (read: multiple conditional advocacies, a conditional advocacy, usage of the f-word) is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other teams responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications by prioritizing the arguments. Yes, I have a lower threshold on conditionality than most other judges, but I do not reject you just because you are conditional. The other team must do the things above to win.

Counter Advocacies- Best strategy, IMHO, for any neg team. It is the best way to force an affirmative to defend their case. ALTs, PICs, Consult, Conditions, etc. whatever you want to run I am okay with so long as you defend the solvency of your advocacy. Theory can even be a counter advocacy if you choose to articulate it as such. You should do your best to not link to your own advocacy as in my mind, it makes the impacts of your argument inevitable.

With regard to permutations, if you go for the perm in the PMR, it must be as a reason the ALT/CP alone is insufficient and should be rejected as an offensive voting position in the context of a disad that does not link to the CP. I do not believe that every link is a disad to the permutation, you must prove it as such in the context of the permutation. Finally, CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the ALT is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links in both instances as well.

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as I would when I was a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. If you are really asking how I weigh after the explanation in the general information, then you more than likely have a specific impact calculus you want to know how I would consider. Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks.

LD SPECIFIC PHILOSOPHY

Section 1 – General Information

Experience: Rounds this year: >50 between LD and Parli. 8 years competitive experience (4 years high school, 4 years collegiate NPDA/NPTE and 2 years LD) 12 years coaching experience (2 Grad years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific and 3 years NPDA/NPTE at Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, 7 years A/DOF years NPDA/NPTE and LD at Pacific)

General Info: I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate because I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round. I think the AFF should find a way to be topical, but if you are not I then I am sure you will be ready to defend why you choose not to be. I think the NEG is entitled to read whatever they like but should answer the AC and should collapse in the NR. Failing to do one or both of these things means I am much less likely to vote for your strategy because of the primacy of the AFF and/or an inability to develop depth of argument in the NR.

As an academic familiar with critical theory across a host of topics (race, gender, "the state", etc.) feel free to read whatever you like on the AFF or NEG but I expect you to explain its application, not merely rely on the word salad that some of this evidence can use. I understand what is in the salad but you should be describing it with nuance and not expecting me to do that for you. The same is true for standards on theory, permutation arguments, solvency differentials to the CP, or the link story of an advantage or disad. I am willing to vote on any theory position that pertains to the topic (T) or how debates should happen (all other theory). This includes Inherency, or any stock issue, or rules based contestation.

In terms of impacts, I often find myself less compelled by nuclear war, or other black swan events, and would appreciate if you were more resourceful with impacts on your advantage/disad. I think probability means more than just a blipped or conceded link. The link arguments must be compared with the arguments of your opponents.

Last--I do not think you need evidence for everything in the debate. Feel free to make intuitive arguments about the world and the way things operate. I do think its good if you have evidence for 80-90% of your arguments. I will also say that evidence on issues where it is usually lacking (like voters on theory or RVIs) will be weighted heavily if the only response back is "that's silly"

Section 2 – Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I can handle top speed and am not frustrated by debaters who choose to speak at a conversational rate. With that said, I believe the issue of speed is a rules based issue open for debate like any other rule of the event. If you cannot handle a debater’s lack of clarity you will say “clear” (I will if I have to) and if you cannot handle a debater’s excessive speed, I expect you to say “speed.” In general, I will wait for you to step in and say something before I do. Finally, I believe the rules are draconian and ridiculously panoptic, as you are supposedly allowed to “report” me to the tournament. If you want me to protect you, you should make that known through a position or rules violation debated effectively.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?

I will not tolerate homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, disablism, or any other form of social injustice. This means that arguments that blatantly legitimize offensive policies and positions should be avoided. I do not anticipate this being an issue and rarely (meaning only twice ever) has this been a direct problem for me as a judge. Still, I will do my best to ensure the round is as accessible as possible for every competitor. Please do the same. Anything else is up to you. I will vote on anything I simply expect it to be compared to the alternative world/framing of the aff or neg.

3. General Approach to Evaluating Rounds:

Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds sequentially against the Affirmative. This means I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won their case and if the impacts of the case outweigh the off case. I do not assume I am a policy maker. Instead I will believe myself to be an intellectual who votes for the best worldview that is most likely achievable at the end of the debate.

4. Whether or not you believe topicality should be a voting issue

Yes, it is because the rules say so. I will listen to reasons to ignore the rules, but I think T and generally all theory arguments are voting issues.

5. Does the negative have to demonstrate ground loss in order for you to vote negative on topicality?

Generally yes, but I will vote on reasons the negative has a better definition for the resolution. To win that debate there should be a comparison of the debate being had and the debate that the competitors could be having.

6. Do you have a close understanding of NFA rules/Have you read the NFA rules in the last 6 months

Yes

7. How strictly you as a judge enforce NFA LD rules?

I only enforce them if a position is won that says I should enforce them. I will not arbitrarily enforce a rule without it being made an issue.

8. Does the negative need to win a disadvantage in order for you to vote negative?

No. I am more likely to vote if the negative wins offense. But terminal case defense that goes conceded or is more explanatory to the aff will win my ballot too.

9. What is your policy on dropped arguments?

You should do your best not to drop arguments. If you do, I will weigh them the way I am told to weigh them. So if it is a conceded blipped response with no warrant, I do not think that is an answer but instead a comparison of the quality of the argument. Also, new warrants after a blip I believe can and should be responded to.

10. Are you familiar with Kritiks (or critiques) and do you see them as a valid negative strategy in NFA-LD?

My background is in critical theory, so yes and yes they are valid negative strats.

Feel free to ask me direct questions before the round or at any other time during the tournament. I do not mind clarifying. Also, if you want to email me, feel free (sfarias@pacific.edu). If you have any questions about this or anything I did not mention, feel free to ask me any time. Thanks!

Experience-

Hey there you all, my name is Kelly Hutchison and I am currently an Assistant Coach for the University of the Pacific pursuing my master's degree in Communication. I have two years of competitive experience at the community college level. I continued my parliamentary debate career at the four year level at CSULB where I was ranked top 13 in the nation prior to national. I then went on to compete in individual events at CSULB qualifying limited prep events (extemporaneous speaking and impromptu) at AFA. After my competitive career, I have been coaching and judging for three years. Now that you know a little about my involvement as a competitor and a judge, let's discuss how I view debate!

Pedagogy-

I view this activity as a unique place to hone advocacy skills and to learn about current events that are going on in the world around us. This activity is the perfect storm of education, competition, strategy, and community. I find it helpful to remember that all of us were once novices in this space and should create spaces for everyone and anyone interested in the activity.

Speed-

I can most assuredly keep up with your speed, if I can't I have no problem "clearing" or "slowing" in round. Although I think speed can increase the competitive nature of the activity, I feel that rounds should be inclusive to all debaters. Therefore, if a team requests debaters to slow down for equity purposes, you should.

The Topic-

I think the affirming the topic is the burden of the affirmative. I believe that switch side debate checks back for rejecting the topic at large. Although I have voted on positions that do so. I do not think that affirming the topic necessarily means that you as a debater are upholding the implicit undertones of the resolution. Basically, you are not a bad person for saying the state is good. On the other hand, I acknowledge that rhetoric and one's position do matter.

K-

I think that kritiks are a great tool for questioning the methods of the affirmative. I am more persuaded by alternatives that attempt to solve the aff. I am highly persuaded by the arguments that rethink and reject alternatives are artificially competitive. I prefer Ks that have strong/unique links to the affirmative action. I have a very low threshold for generic links or links of omission.

Theory-

I like theory positions and have voted on them. I prefer well flushed out theory positions that the debater can collapse to, as opposed to "blippy"/ unwarranted theory that does not have argumentative precedent. I don't know how to resolve trigger warning theory, disclosure theory, or exclusionary framework theory. I am not saying don't run these positions, but I am not sure how to resolve them. TDLR, I am probably listening to your T, condo, vagueness shells, but not "you must read a plan text in the first three minutes of your speech" theory positions. In terms of dispo theory, I think that the negative always has access to the status quo. The status quo is presumed and not an advocacy.

Concessions-

If you drop an argument, it is dropped. I protect the flow, but please call points of order. I am persuaded by crafty arguments rooted in fact. I have a very high BS meteor and a low threshold for you to refute claims that are not true. I try and not vote for arguments that are explicitly false. Please don't make things up to justify your arguments, this affects your ethos in round.

Remember debate is fun and a great place to make friends (across team lines) and learn things about the world!

Pronouns: She/they

Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.

• For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.

• For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.

• For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.

Longer threads;

• RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

• Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.

• Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.

• Other items

• I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.

• I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.

• POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.

If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.

Go gaters

Ben Krueger (he/him/his)

University of Nevada, Reno

I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.

How To Win my Ballot

Make clearly-structured arguments that are well-supported with warrants, don't spread a million words per minute, be courteous to your opponents, and be able to defend your framework. I'm open to listening to policy arguments in rounds with fact or value resolutions as long as you can defend your framework. Additionally, I have a moderately high threshold for voting on T and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards.

What not To Do

I try to maintain an open mind about what I'll vote on. It's up to you to frame the round and to tell me how I should weigh it. I do tend to be predisposed against cases that are unclear. For example, "plan is the resolution" makes sense to me only if the wording of the resolution names a specific piece of legislation or court case. Also, I will not vote on "gut check" arguments; you need to give me more specific reasons why a particular argument is flawed or not believable.

I don't do well with speed. The faster you speak, the more likely it is that I'll miss important arguments on the flow.

Finally, don't be jerks. It is s possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity. I will not hesitate to vote against teams for in-round abuse. I feel especially strongly about this point after the 2021 USUDC tournament (British Parli nationals) collapsed due to in-round racial microaggressions.

Quick Note on IPDA

I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon. That having been said, I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like framework and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. Also be aware that I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of reasons to prefer a specific criterion or definition.

Quick Note on NFA-LD

i recognize that carded debate needs to be delivered at a high rate of speed to get through evidence. Please slow down for your taglines; that will usually be enough for me to keep up with you. If I can’t understand you, I’ll use “speed” or “clear” to slow you down (“speed”=I can’t keep up with you, “clear”=your rate is okay but I can’t understand your enunciation).

A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)

In light of recent political developments at the national level, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man with who politically identifies as a liberal institutionalist. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments in a fair manner without imposing my own beliefs on them. However, it is unlikely that I will vote for any case which advocates taking legal rights away from LGBTQ+ individuals and/or women. I encourage you to use out-of-the-box policy thinking if you find yourself faced with a resolution that forces you to defend an anti-LGBT or anti-women policies. (Some ideas: 50-state counterplans, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, constitutional convention, secession, etc.). The fiat issues will probably get weird fast, but it will be a more interesting debate than rehashing culture war issues we've all already heard 10,000 times. 

TL;DR

Debate is a game. Run whatever you want, just win it on the flow. Hit me with your new K, some frivolous theory that you’re worried other judges won’t buy, or literally anything else. Speaks based on execution of strategy.

Background

I'm a recent grad of UC Berkeley who debated in NPDA (tech parli), and now I coach the college team Parliamentary Debate at Berkeley, as well as the high school team at Campolindo HS. My partner Ryan Rashid and I won all three nats in NPDA my junior year, but I have next to no experience outside of parli (just some high school PF and lay LD), so I'm relatively unfamiliar with LD and policy norms. I did and teach pretty much all the stylistic things—equal amount of case, theory, and Ks. I love writing K links, collapsing to tix/elections DAs, and prepping clever T shells courtesy of shoddy resolutions. (The last one is kind of a joke, but also not really.) Point is, I have no preference for what you read, please just do what you're best at. I'd rather see a good K debate with quality clash than a bad case debate, and vice versa.

General note: My philosophy on debate has been primarily shaped by Trevor Greenan, Brian Yang, Ryan Rashid, June Dense, Will White, and Lila Lavender.

Kritiks

- If you're in a hurry you can skip this section—read whatever K you want lol, I don't pick favorites

- My background in academics and debate leans slightly more toward sociology than pomo. I've taken courses (and written Ks) about critical refugee studies, settler colonialism, anthropocentrism, etc., but have yet to truly grasp more than the barest bones of Bataille, for example. That being said, I definitely have experience with pomo—I've read/collapsed to Buddhism, Barad, Foucault, Nietzsche, etc. and competed against Lacan more times than I can count (shout out to the Rice team for that one). So feel free to read pomo if that's your thing, just be a tad gentler with me and don't assume I've read/heard allll the terminology before

- I'm a hoe for really well-warranted links that are specific to the aff and have imbedded DAs/solvency deficits. Also detailed and specific reasons why you solve the aff (if that's an arg you like to go for), either in the impacts or on the alt

- Theses can be helpful for more complex Ks, but def not necessary for your generic cap shell. I often write Ks that draw from multiple lit bases, and for me, a thesis creates a more cohesive story for something that can be kind of frankenstein in nature

Theory

- I love theory. I've been told I have a low threshold for frivolous theory (probably a consequence of too many rounds with Ryan and Brian), but my favorite is topicality, or any other interps that are very specific to the resolution/Aff. If it's clear that your interp had to be written during the 2 minutes before the LOC, that's my jam. Ofc you can read generics too, I'll just be slightly more bored and slightly less impressed

- MO and PMR theory will be an uphill battle with me, the latter most of all because it can't be contested by the other team, which makes my job so very hard, and I am lazy. But if the abuse is truly egregious and didn't occur until the MG/block, or if it's a matter of rhetorical violence, read the new arg and I'll do my best to evaluate it. But please weigh the new shell against the other team's remaining offense

- MG theory is fine, I read it all the time, but I'm also comfortable rejecting it if the Neg wins arguments for why it's bad or in-evaluable

- I don't need proven abuse under competing interps (it's about what your interp justifies, not what you actually did)

- Text vs. spirit of the interp should be debated in-round, and I'll evaluate under whichever is won. If somehow it's relevant but completely unmentioned by either team, I'll default to text over spirit

- I default to competing interpretations, but I'll use reasonability if you win args as to why I should AND if you have a briteline for it, cuz I don't feel like intervening. For example, a briteline (that I think works relatively well) is that I should evaluate whether the aff interp is good or bad based on all the offense-defense arguments read about it, and decide theory based on that, regardless of whether there's a counter-interp text. You could have a different briteline, but either way, explicitly tell me what it is, because "evaluate theory using reasonability" means different things to different people. I would prefer not to treat it as just a gut check, but if you don't define it, that's what I'll assume you mean

- I think theory is an RVI if and only if you tell me that it is, provide warrants, and then win that arg

- I default to drop the arg, although drop the arg sometimes = drop the debater, like for T. But obviously, reading "drop the debater" with even just one uncontested warrant is sufficient for me to change this default

- I didn't do circuit LD, so explain slightly more to me the definitions/implications of buzzwords that aren't as common in parli. The best example I can think of is semantics vs. pragmatics: I NOW know what they both mean, but I did NOT a year ago, and that made it difficult for me to render a decision in favor of blippy semantics first args in NPDI finals. Still read arguments like that if you want, just define and implicate them out, don't assume that I know all the things

Case

- I enjoy niche disads, like a hyper-specific tix scenario, or a biod disad about endangered turtles that live near where the plan happens. These can be hard (or impossible) to find though, depending on the res, so don't sweat

- I also definitely understand the value of tried and tested generics - I read a lot of backlash DAs and consult CPs, and inv con, so it's okay to read that too. Read whatever you think is strategic for the rez

- I enjoy technical CP debate. PICs are fun unless I'm read a shell that tells me otherwise. Same thing for consult CPs, delay CPs, agent CPs, etc.

- Perms on CPs. Make them. Any perm is fine, unless the other team gives me a reason why it's not

- In the absence of explicit magnitude/probability/timeframe/etc. weighing, I default to using only strength of link. In other words, I’m more inclined to vote for arguments that are dropped or comparatively under-covered, but you can prevent this by telling me why your impact is high [magnitude/probability/etc.], and why [magnitude/probability/etc.] comes first

- I love clever case strats that exploit a mistake the other team has made, like collapsing to a straight turn or a double turn. Don't be afraid to do something "risky" like that, I can follow along

Everything Else

Here's some miscellaneous beliefs that I have about debate and will utilize by default; however, I'm willing to evaluate otherwise, even in the opposite direction, as long as you give me sufficient reason to in-round:

- I think unconditionality means you *technically* have to defend the advocacy throughout the round, but that could include conceding defense so the sheet doesn't matter anymore

- I believe that perms are a test of competition, not an advocacy

- I'm not game for shadow extensions that aren't at least mentioned in the MG/MO, even if the argument is conceded. In other words, I think the member speeches should have to extend every piece of offense their team intends to collapse to

- I will do my best to protect during the LOR and PMR, but I don't trust myself to catch everything and neither should you, so call points of order please. I'll rule on all of them immediately, to the best of my ability, because you usually need to know my stance for the sake of the rest of the speech

- New weighing is fine in the LOR/PMR, but make sure it's actually weighing, not sequencing or anything else. E.g., saying "fairness is more important than education because debate could survive without education, but not without fairness" is acceptable weighing, but saying "fairness is more important than education because it's the internal link to education and skews the round" is a sequencing argument that should be read before the rebuttal speech

- I think condo's p dope, so run however many off you want, but also I'll drop you if the other team wins a condo bad shell

- I think dispo is condo in a suit, but if you can get a we meet out of it, go off sis. And if you think they might use their dispo status to meet your condo shell, preempt that in the violation please

- Presumption flips neg, unless the neg reads a CP/alt, in which case it flips aff

- I find “truth over tech” arguments incoherent and self-refuting; “truth” in debate is only ever arrived at through evaluation of the flow (or judge intervention, which I will not do), so in order to convince me that truth outweighs tech, you’d have to win that claim via the tech flow…which seems to indicate that tech still > truth

- I will drop your ass for racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. rhetoric or behavior

- Non-Black debaters should not read afro-pess, I will drop you if you do. [Added March 29th, 2023.] Read: https://thedrinkinggourd.home.blog/2019/12/29/on-non-black-afropessimism/

- To pick you up on an IVI, I need reasons why that IVI outweighs all the impacts your opponents are going for

I am a current lecturer for public speaking, teaching students how to craft and present informative, persuasive, and debate speeches and arguments.

I like to be able to follow a clear and well-organized debate where you have strong support for the claims you are making while being creative and calling on any arguments or claims you feel need to be addressed.

Speaking clearly is a big concern for me, as the audience and myself need to be able to hear what you have to say and that you have a clear understanding of tone, enunciating, and speed. If you use debate jargon, explain what it means and make it relevant.

We can be passionate but I don’t like when speakers interrupt and act rude towards the people they are working with or arguing against.

This is just a basic overall paradigm, feel free to ask me more specific questions during a round.

I have experience competing in college for the last few years in Parli and LD and I.E's. I've judged for the last few years of high school policy, LD, PF, Congress, some I.E's, and Parli.

I'd like to consider myself a flow judge meaning that I will examine every argument and evaluate the debate based on what is on the flow.

That being said I usually follow the rules of each syle of events whenever I'm judging unless I'm told otherwise in the debate as for examples why rules are bad.

In terms of speed/spreading, I'm ok with it since I can keep up with it. That being said I care more about accessibility into the round, meaning if you're going too fast for your opponents and they try clearing you or telling you to slow down, it is probably a good idea to try and adjust your speed in those situations.

I'm open to any type of argument. My only preference is that arguments are impacted out in the round. I'm a lazy person by nature and like to do the minimum amount of work, meaning I prefer when teams tell me exactly where and what to vote for on my flow. Don't assume I know which arguments you are going for at the end of the debate. I also tend to protect against new arguments in the final speeches. Additionally, treat me as someone who has no sense of direction and needs to be given clear instructions to any destinations that you need me to go to.

And finally, don't be jerks to your opponents.

So the bottom line is to do whatever you'd like to do, have fun and throw in a joke or 2, even make references to anime, European football, or anything for that matter.

My favorite debates are ones in which the affirmative defends a fiatted plan text defending the resolution and the negative defends the status quo or a competitive policy option. You are of course open to approach the resolution in whatever way you wish as long as you justify it but you should support/be germane to the topic. Non-topical or anti-topical affs will be hard sells in front of me.

I’m compelled by terminal defense but I am more likely to vote one way or another if I have some risk of offensive.

Speed/spreading should never be used as a tool of exclusion so while I think speed bad arguments tend to be silly if you are asked to slow down you should or I’ll be pretty open to them. I will also add a note that I have been out of the activity for 2 years now and I have not kept up listening to speed. I’m confident that I can keep up but please don’t sacrifice clarity in the name of speed.

I view topicality as a search for the best interpretation of the topic and whether or not the affirmative meets that, it’s up to the debaters to tell me which standards are the most important and why I should prefer them. That being said I don’t think that abuse is necessary for me to vote but it certainly can be a compelling reason. T is always apriori voter unless I hear a compelling reason why it shouldn’t be and RVI’s are not the way to convince me.  I’ll vote for theory arguments as long as they are justified, generally condo is probably a good thing but multiple conditional advocacies are probably bad for debate.

Impact prioritization is the most important thing to do in rebuttal speeches, tell me where you want me to vote and why it matters. I’ve seen many times where the rebuttal will tell me that they have won an argument and expect me to contextualize how it plays into the debate. You are free to roll the dice and see if I agree with you absent instruction.

If you are reading this, that means I'm judging you. The important thing to know is that you can do whatever you want as long as its cool and you are having fun. Also, I'll probably get lost in your kritik if you don't make it simple enough. That doesn't mean I won't vote for it, just that I want to be able to understand it before I vote on it. Also this is the first tournament I've judged in a year and a half


With topicality, I prefer proven abuse over potential, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on T if its far enough out there, but don't try and run "T:The" cause you aren't going to win that, and I am going to be frustrated. My threshold for T normally lies with the education voter.

With kritiks, I'm probably not the most well read judge, but I've read enough to understand the basic kritiks if you feel like that is the ground you have been given in the round (cap, imperialism, etc. Just please don't run deluze) I do my best to understand what you are telling me in round, but please break it down for me. I'm not going to be the most well read judge, so don't expect me to understand what you mean when you say the trees are fascist

Disads, go for it. Give me the weirdest most plausible story you can think of. I'm willing to vote on either probability or magnitude with probably a minor bias towards probability, however if you are both going for the same thing, time frame and reversibility are good tie breakers.

Counter plans: Condo isn't to bad, but don't run 3 counterplans with no expansion in the first neg speech and expect to win the condo debate

Memes? I fucking love memes and I fully appreciate the strategy of using memes in round

Quals: Debated for 3 years, coaching/judging for 2 years. And a year and a half of working in sales

PARLI

3x National Champion in 2021 (NPTE, NPDA, and NRR)

- I don't care about persuasion, I give better speaks for technical strategy and execution.

- I would rather you debate what you're most comfortable with, rather than over-adapting and reading something you aren't as familiar with

- 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.

Other Events

Background

I did high school LD for 3 years, and now I compete in NPDA at Berkeley. TL;DR, do whatever you want and I'll vote for whoever wins on the flow.

General Issues

- 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 (i.e. tech > truth).

- I think condo is good, so I'm perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies. That being said, I'm also more than happy to vote on condo bad if you win it.

- I don't believe in shadow extensions.

Theory

- I like theory

- I default to competing interps, drop the debater on T (drop the arg on most other theory), and no RVIs

- Weigh between your standards for me (i.e. why does limits outweigh ground)

Advantage/DA/CP

- I don't keep up with the news at all, so I'm very uninformed on current events. That being said, I don't think that really matters for LARP debates

- Have good warrant comparison and impact calc

- Overviews are greatly appreciated, especially if the round is messy

- No preference on CPs; I'll evaluate PICs, consult, alt actor, etc., but I'll also evaluate theory against them

Kritiks

- I'm familiar with more structural/material Ks, as opposed to pomo. If you're unsure about whether I'll know something, just assume I don't and explain well (overviews, please)

- I like seeing good links that are actually specific to the aff and have imbedded offense

- I have a high threshold for reject alts and links of omission

- K-affs are fine, but if you don't answer fairness skews eval properly, I probably won't vote for you

Phil

- I've been out of the activity for a while, and phil debates are non-existent in parli, so I'm definitely not up-to-date on any of the norms. But if it's your thing, I'll definitely try my hardest to properly evaluate it -- same with tricks

- Weigh between violations of the standard

Decision Making: Follow the rules and negotiate with your partner and opponents what the debate is about and how it should be evaluated. I aim to manage my bias and vote for the team that presents the most logical, well-reasoned, organized, creative, clever, responsive, and dynamic arguments. I like well-reasoned and supported claim, and tend to vote on cogent, criteria-based arguments that are weighed against other issues in the round. Debaters should provide/contest a framework and/or criteria for evaluating the round. Highlight key voting issues during your final speech. When well warranted, I can vote on well-structured and clearly explained topicality arguments and kritiks. Debaters should be specific in their argumentation, add dimension where possible, and provide clear voting issues in rebuttal speeches. I tend to think education and storytelling is at the heart of forensics, but that can be problematized and I can be persuaded to think differently about our roles and/or the role of the ballot. I appreciate debaters who engage in line-by-line debating but also offer overarching narratives of what happened in the round.

Communication Climate: The emotional experience of participating in debate matters, and my hope is that debaters will be respectful of opponents, judges, and audience members at all times. Attack the arguments in the round rather than the people. Debaters may experience discomfort and disorientation, and that can often be valuable in a learning environment. Heckling and cheering is acceptable but everyone (partner and opponents) should minimize interruptions to the debate and the flow of the speaker. Use preferred gender pronouns or avoid gender pronouns altogether. I will listen to you throughout the round. I hope you will continue to listen to each other.

Delivery: In terms of speed, the debate should be accessible to your opponents and judge(s). For me, delivery can be accelerated beyond a conversational rate, but I value clear articulation, emphasis, inflections, and pauses. Avoid distracting nonverbal-behaviors. Partner communication is acceptable, but don't parrot or puppet your partner. Delivery will not factor into decisions. Delivery may affect speaker points, but I aspire to resist dominant norms about what sounds and looks credible. Speaker points are awarded based on efficiently making quality arguments.

I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE:clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold.

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.

General

Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

I’m willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.

It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.

Tech = truth

Flex time answers are binding.

I have two years of competing Parli and LD, so here’s some of my stances? Overall I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round I’m okay with speed, as long as it’s not stupid fast if I need you to slow down for me I will let you know. This being said I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

AFF:

If you want to run a Kaff you can just be sure to defend it and prove that it has solvency for the issues you bring up. I do not find them as persuasive as running case proper. Other than that defend yourself and prove why you’re preferable over the neg. I think that’s a fair request.

NEG:

Disads - I like to hear Disad vs. Case debate. However, I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me.

CP - Sure, they’re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won’t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on the face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them.

I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not, in the end, prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.

T/Theory - I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either-or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either.

In terms of other theories, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations of parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other team's responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications

For both Aff and Neg: on K's I don't find K's as persuasive as a running case proper. I'll listen to them, but remember that personally, it's not my preference and that you'll need to do more work for it to convince me ie. giving a realistic alt that functions both inside the round and outside of it, and that will actually solve the structural issue that you bring up. I don't vote on the risk of solving with the alt.

At the end: Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won.

Updated for NPTE 2022

On me as a judge:

- I was a critical policy debater in college and currently coach policy, parli, and LD at SFSU.

- I default to being a technical judge but am happy to judge differently if you tell me why I should. I don't protect the flow, please call out any new arguments in the rebuttals.

- **Speed is fine BUT now that we're virtual, please make sure you're speaking clearly if you want to spread. Audio quality can be poor when debating online, so enunciating is really important for me to catch exactly what you're saying.** It is most important that your opponents can understand you so they can engage with your arguments. If you're intentionally going for full unintelligibility or rejecting the English language as part of your performance, carry on; just give us enough so I can weigh it against your opponent.

- I dock speaker points for being rude in flex/cx, making excessive faces during your opponent's speech, or straight up interrupting your opponent's speech. As long as you're respectful, my speak ranges are usually 27-29.5.

On types of arguments:

- I'm drawn to critical and unconventional arguments. That said, I care more about seeing you debate what you believe in and are passionate about than seeing you craft a case you think will please me - if that's traditional policy for you, please keep doing you. This is your education and your debate experience first.

- I love critiques, but you need to establish clear, strong links. I love performance, but you need to establish and extend what your in-round performance is. I'm familiar with most K literature, but you need to make sure your opponent fully understands your K/lit so they can engage with your case.

- If you are not a K team, you are not at a disadvantage with me. I've voted against Ks just as often as I've voted for them.

- If you're neg against a critical affirmative, I want to see you engage with the critique as you would engage with a plan. I will vote neg for dropped theory arguments and/or for proven abuse if the aff refuses to explain their literature to you, but if you collapse to theory and the aff does answer it, you will have a hard time winning my vote.

tl;dr:

- Ks good, inaccessibility bad, flow judge

I'm trans so please keep that in mind if trans issues become part of the debate. :^)

Please use speechdrop instead of email chains! My email is oli.tripp@icloud.com if you have any extra questions after round.

Updated: September 2023

In debate, the most important thing to me by far is fairness. Fairness gets a lot of lip service in debate and is frequently treated like any other piece on the game board, which is to say that it is wielded as a tool to win rounds, but that isn’t what I mean. I don’t think fairness is an impact in the same way nuclear war or even education are. Fairness is a legitimate, ethical consideration that exists on the gameboard and above it, and as such, weighs heavily in how I make decisions.

In the context of the game itself, all arguments and strategies exist upon a continuum from a mythical “completely fair” to an equally mythical “completely unfair”. I am willing to vote on the vast majority of arguments regardless of where they fall on this continuum, but it is certainly an uphill battle to win those that I perceive as falling closer to “completely unfair.” Arguments that I would say are meaningfully unfair include:

- Conditional Strategies (Especially multiple conditional advocacies)

- Untopical Affirmatives

- Vacuous Theory (think Sand paradox or anything a high school LD student would find funny)

- Arguing Fairness is bad (obvi)

- Obfuscating

In the context of things that occur above the board, I similarly observe this fairness continuum but am even less likely to vote for these unfair tactics because I view them as a conscious decision to exclude people from this space. I view the following as falling closer to the unfair part of the continuum:

- Refusing to slow down when spreading

- Using highly technical debate strategies against new debaters

- Being bigoted in any way

I tend to find myself most frequently voting for arguments that I perceive as more fair and that I understand and feel comfortable explaining in my RFD. With all of this said, I have voted on Aff Ks, theory I didn’t especially like, and conditional strategies, I just want to be upfront that those ballots are certainly more the exception than the norm.

Background: I am the director of debate at Diablo Valley College, I competed in LD and NPDA at the University of the Pacific for 3 years and then was an assistant coach for the team during grad school. I can hang, I just hate sophistry and vacuous debate.