Todd Guy - Modesto Junior College

I love the game of debate and believe that the game is the thing!  I want the most intelligent debaters to win.  Part of that intelligence comes from knowing the game and knowing what the game can become because there are no rules against it.  Thus, all games have rules to be followed and I greatly respect those rules, but if the rules are not specific in some areas then provide me reasons why your angle should be accepted and I try to be as open minded as I possibly can.  I try to be open to any and all argumentation you may want to try.  I love debate theory because I believe it is a large part of debate.  I love the strategy of T and jurisdictional arguments and find that as important as stock issues. But, also realize I’m only going to consider Trichotomy arguments during the metaphor rounds since the State Constitution says we will have 2 rounds of policy and two rounds of value, but the two rounds of metaphor could fit any of the three types of claims.   I believe the rules do say prep time ends with the first speech thus I time road maps and really begin timing with your first word and if you are taking a long time setting up then I might be telling you your time has started.  If you want to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.  There is nothing that says you can't Talk with your partner; so, feel free to talk to your partner.  However, realize that If they talk with you during a speech though then you need to repeat it if you want it on my flow.  On that same line don't give me POIs check back with no analysis as to why that should be and realize you answering a question doesn't go on my flow unless you address that answer to me and in asking a question don't assume their answer is on my flow - if you want it to be part of the debate then during the next speech make it part of the speech.  In rebuttals don't blip out responses with no analysis.  Of course this is where you need to tell me why I'm voting for you - so don't just say it - explain it.  In the LOR if the MO put out good arguments as to why I should vote opp you better pull them across because it is in that rebuttal that I truly want to know why I should consider voting for you.  Don't assume I'm agreeing with you on any level - explain to me why I should be agreeing with you on all levels.  I'm trying to accept Ks into my openness, but I find that I really need to know what the alternative is and hear and see you following your own K or you just made it an insignificant argument.  I don’t get debaters asking judges if they should call Points of Order, of course you should.  The rules explain what they are for and why you should be calling them – That’s 100% your job.  The moment you don’t call Point of Order may be that fantastic new argument that goes on to win the round for your opponent.  Please call them, call them, call them.  Be nice, use humor, and have fun.  But, don't belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.  Do you really want to generate the reputation that comes with being a jerk?  Really?  Don’t make me use those speaker points to teach you a lesson.  Now lastly I’ll touch on speed.  In Parli I’m O.K. with it as it may actually help me stay focused.  But, don’t use it as a strategy at the sacrifice of clarity.  Clarity will always win out.  When you do use speed, if I don’t get all your valuable ideas on my flow then in no way is it my fault.  Now, SPEED in NFA-LD:  Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event and that your rate of speaking should be comparable to any platform speech.  I strictly adhere to that rule.   If I or the opponent calls "clear," heed that warning because as the rules state I will drop you if it needs to be asked the second time.  I've tried to cover as much as possible here, but if you have questions AFTER reading this then feel free to ask me.  Now, to begin the fun, here is the first part of this game – Hee Heee – If your opponent asks me something that is clearly stated here, it indicates they didn’t take the time to read this, then point that out by saying, “Doesn’t your philosophy address that question?”  If you are correct that they are clueless about my philosophy then you’ll start the round knowing you have just gained a speaker point bonus!  Now, let the game begin and the most intelligent win!

 

Name: Matthew Hogan

School: University of Nevada, Reno

 

Section 1: General Information

Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.

 

 

To begin, I have about 12 years experience in the activity between competing in high school policy, competing in college parli, and coaching parli for 3 years. My general approach to evaluating the debate is that the government team has the responsibility to defend the topic and their case, while the negative can challenge either of those two burdens to win the round.

 

I believe the affirmative team should defend the resolution. This means that if you want to run a critical affirmative, you need to explain to me how this position is topical under the specific resolution. I allow quite a bit of leeway when it comes to affirmative interpretations of resolutions, so the least you can do is spend the extra 30 seconds explaining how you are topical. My only exception to this burden is a project affirmative, but I need a good framework explaining why this is more important than the topic, and probably an explanation as to why you are not running the position just to skew your opponents out of the round (ie: disclose your project if it is that important to you).

 

Opposition Teams, your Kritik should also be topical either to the resolution or specifically to the plan text. Generic links, links of omission etc, don’t really do it for me. Link specific discourse, the plan text or the wording of the resolution. Really try to engage your opponent or the resolution with the kritik, don’t run the kritik just for the sake of running it. Also, I believe in negation theory, so you can have contradictory arguments in the round. Just make sure you parameterize down to one of the two arguments by the rebuttals. If you are going for both arguments in the rebuttal and are winning both, I don’t know what to do with the two competing claims you are winning and, thus, disregard them both (government teams should know this too).

 

I am open to procedurals of all kinds, kritiks, diusads and counterplans. I am willing to vote for either liberal or conservative positions, so long as those arguments are not deliberately racist, sexist, etc. I am ok with speed, so far as you give a little pen time between claims, since this is parli after all. A good idea would be to give a warrant after the claim, so I can get pen time and so you can actually support your argument.

 

Above all else, I expect both teams to be respectful to each other. Don’t deliberately be mean, rude or patronizing. I am ok with banter, sarcasm, etc, but being rude just for the sake of bullying your opponent will upset me. Not enough for me to vote against you, but enough for me to dock your speaker points substantially.

 

Points of order should be called in front of me. If something is blatantly new for me, I will do disregard the argument. If there is a grey area, I may allow the argument unless a point of order is called. I think it is better to be safe than sorry.

 

My idea of net-benefits is probably not traditional, where whomever has a higher magnitude wins. Unless you tell me why I need to prioritize magnitude first, I will evaluate net-benefits to my default standard which is: probability>timeframe>magnitude. My political philosophy is that high magnitude debates stagnate real action and reform, which is why I prioritize probability. That isn’t to say that I won’t evaluate magnitude first if you tell me why I should abandon my default judging standard.

 

If you have any specific questions, feel free to email me atmchogan86@gmail.com.

 

Best of luck to you all!!!

 

 

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Please describe your approach to the following.

 

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

 

​26-29

 

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

 

​Critically framed arguments are cool with me for both teams. Critical affirmatives should be topical to the resolution (see above), and still give the negative some ground in the round. Critically framed arguments should have a clear framework for both teams that tell me how I should prioritize the position. Without a winning framework that prioritize the critical argument first, I will weigh it equally to other positions. Yes the position can contradict other positions, as long as you collapse to only one of the positions in the rebuttal. My one exclusion to this rule is that if you run a critical position based off the discourse someone uses, and then you use that discourse, then your contradictory positions can cost you the round, since you can’t take back your discourse.

 

3.​Performance based arguments…

 

​I am also ok with performance based positions, so long as they meet a standard of relevance to the resolution. However, it needs to be clear to me that I am evaluating the performance rather than the content, with reasons why I should evaluate performance first. The opposing team should have the right to know if they are actually debate the performance or the content, instead of being excluded by a team switching back and forth between frameworks.

 

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

​

​I don’t require competing interpretations. If you tell me why your opponent has a bad interpretation, I won’t vote for it. If you want me to vote for your competing interpretation, though, I need counter-standards. I don’t need in-round abuse as long as the standards and voters you are going for aren’t related to ground (ie: grammar and Jurisdiction). However if you are going for a fairness voter with a claim to ground loss, then I need the abuse to be present in round. I do give government teams flexibility in being creative with the topic, as long as  they can win topicality, but I am also more likely to vote on topicality than some other critics may.

 

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

 

​Counterplan is assumed dispositional to me unless told otherwise. If asked about the status of the counterplan, the negative team should answer their opponent. Counterplans of any kind are ok with me, as long as you can defend the theory behind the counterplan you ran. All theory is up for debate for both teams when it comes to counterplans. My favorite counterplans are plan exclusive counterplans, but I will entertain any kind.

 

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

​Yes, teams can share flowed arguments.

 

 

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

 

Procedurals first, krtiks second, then net-benefits. You can easily tell me why I should prioritize differently in the debate. Additionally, if nobody is winning the theory as to why I should look to one argument first, then I will weigh procederuals vs. kritiks vs. plan/da/cp equally under net-benefits and weigh the impacts of each. So you should be winning your theory debate on your position.​

​

8.​How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

 

​As mentioned before, I prioritize probability first. I will still consider things like magnitude and timeframe, I just give more weight to more probable impacts. Therefore things like dehumanization can outweigh extinction or vice versa, as long as you are winning the probability debate. The other option is give me framework reasons as to why I should prefer magnitude or timeframe first.

Updated 10/29/13

 I'm still figuring out my paradigm and it is an every changing process as this is my first year out but, below ar my basic beliefs about debate. With that being said i'm also trying to determine what i look for when giving speaker points.

To get a better understanding of what my values are or what i look for I should start by saying that I have been heavily influenced by Sue and Jason Peterson and Theresa Perry. If my philo is confusing i suggest you look there for additional information. I debated for 3 years at CSU Chico

the reason you read the philo-  

Framework and non topical aff's - i believe that you should affirm the resolution. I love a good framework debate specifically when it is well carded. the community  bashes on the clash of civs debate but as a competitor they were probably my favorite to have. I think that the framework should have it's own built in topicality but additionally that a different topicality is worth the time investment. topical version of the aff is very compelling to me. 

stolen from Sue's philo: if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. 

If that is unclear i'll state it another way. If you are not even loosly related to the topic you should not pref me. I believe that the debate should at least in the same hemisphere as the resolution. I believe it at the most basic level the resolution is the commonality that binds the activity together.

K's-  holy batman if your link is solely based off a link of omission you are running an uphill battle before me. I think links of omission debates are the largest waste of time it is impossible to talk about all of these problems in the world in a 9 minute speech. Linking to the status quo is also problematic for me links should come off what the aff does not to what the squo is. alternative solvency needs to be explained so that it makes sense, I am not familiar with the literature base. Why is rejecting the plan necessary what does it actually do?

 

T's - go for it i'm down. i default to competing interpretation and don't like to vote on potential abuse

 

C/p and DA: always a dependable 2nr decision. I really enjoy listening to nuanced DA's. c/p with a solid internal net benefit are also underutilized.

 

case: 2a's hate talking about their case in the 2ac. a good 1nc strategy will have a large case debate ready to ruin some days. 

theory: should always be where it applies. however i'm pretty persuaded by reject the argument and not the team

 

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

General Information

I will attempt to adjudicate the round based on the flow, however if the original argument is not complete, I will not vote for it. Please don't expect me to do the work for you or simply accept your premise without explaining why it is true.

Specific Issues

1. Speaker points

In open division I tend to use a 27-29 scale. You need to stand out to receive less or more than this. The largest factor in my assignment of speaker points is clarity of argument. If you are explaining yourself and giving good warrants, you will do much better than blippy debate with confusing claims. I have not been watching as many debates the last few years, so I'd prefer that debaters not go too fast.

2. Critically framed arguments and performance

I hope that the aff will choose to make the connection between the topic and their argumentation clear. I have a low threshold for procedurals which task the aff with engaging with the topic in the affirmative direction of the resolution. I also would like the negative to have unique links and an alternative that creates uniqueness. I am not generally persuaded to vote for masking impacts and/or root cause argumentation when the negative attempts to compete through these strategies. I also tend to believe that aff does not get perms in method v method or performance v performance debates, but the negative needs to make this argument. I hope that debaters will explain the critical perspective (literature base) that their argument relies upon so that their opponents and I can engage with the argument. To be honest, most of the Ks I hear fail to sufficiently explain the concept before jumping into links and impacts and then are vague about the Alt and Alt-Solvency. This leaves me very unsure of what I am endorsing with my ballot and why.

3. Framework

I prefer a policy debate. However, critical debates should make the criteria for the debate (and role of the ballot clear). I am open to arguments about the division of ground that a particular framework creates. I think good critical debate provides both teams an avenue to the ballot.

4. Topicality

In the event that a team chooses to defend the topic (which I prefer), I give them a fair amount of leeway in their interpretation. I think competing interpretations is a poor approach to framing topicality and am persuaded by right to reasonably define answers.

5. Counterplans

I like good counterplan debate. I am ok with conditionality (but generally do not prefer multi-condo or a CP and an Alt). I don't think textual comp is a good argument.

6. Decision Making

The rebuttals should guide me to a decision and tell me exactly how they want me to vote. If the teams do not give me a clear way to vote, I will try to do the least work to vote for one team or the other. I like debates with clear clash and comparison of argument in the last two speeches so that I know how I am supposed to pick one team over the other.

Note: I do not like arguments which weaponize identity of debaters and employ rhetorical violence against people rather than issues, systems, and arguments. I have seen plenty of good critical debates that refrain from this, but i have seen some teams choosing to debate this way and I do not prefer it. If you feel your only option to exist within debate is to do this, then I would ask that you not have me as the judge for that round.