I am a new judge to parli debate. I look at impacts and presentation when judging. I cannot understand spreading very well yet.

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.

It's up to the debaters how I evaluate the round - you work it out; I listen. Assume that I am intelligent and knowledgeable about the world. I have no preference for how you debate except I believe that everyone should be courteous and respectful. I feel like I can keep up with most debates, if you are too fast or too mumbly, I will let you know verbally.

For evidence debates, even if you use speechdrop or some other way to give me a copy of your evidence, I believe it is your job to read the arguments in a way that I can understand without me reading along with you. I don't like having to read the arguments myself.

Hal Sanford, Santa Rosa Junior College

Short Version:  I'm a stock issues judge.  I'm not fond of Ks, although a summer at debate camp has made me receptive to them if run well.  Thank you Joe Allen.  Be nice to each other.   I'll vote for the team who displays the preponderance of persuasion.  

Long Version:  Some debaters may want more.  Here's more.  Remember, being electronic, its length does not link to damaging environmental impacts - no trees were killed in the creation of the philosophy.                                                                                                                                        

What is the most important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate? I look to stock issues, as argued on my flow. 

AFFIRMATIVE:  Make sure you are topical. Reasonable definitions are accepted; they do not have to be the "best."  I feel constraining the affirmative to the “best” definition removes their right to define and preparation time.  However, negative ground must be provided within the affirmative definition.   I once saw a debate where an affirmative team’s definitions attempted to lock the negative into defending female circumcision, on children, against their will, in unsanitary conditions, with loss of sexual function.   Uh, that is not reasonable ground.   

In policy rounds, show me that a post-plan world is better than one defended by the negative.  Weigh impacts.  If ten people die in Cleveland, that may outweigh a ski-billionth of a percent chance of extinction and/or nuclear war.  Show your solution is workable and links to a better outcome than the negative option(s). 

In value rounds, show me how your value criteria are supported and illustrated through your examples. Provide reasons to prefer your values or criteria to those offered by the negative, if they dispute them.

NEGATIVE:  In policy, raise topicality only if it is a genuine issue.  Too often negatives think they are being clever with "time suck" topicality arguments that fizzle in rebuttals and the negative loses because they did not devote 15 seconds more to weighing impacts or developing a disadvantage.  Also, give me reasons why disadvantages actually make the plan net-detrimental; show me how your counter plan alone is better than plan or the plan plus C/P.  Explain how plan does not solve the problem or is not workable.

In value rounds, if you present counter values, explain how your criteria are superior to the affirmative's when in relation to the actual resolution.  Weigh how the impacts to society (or part of it) are greater when supporting your arguments and value(s). Finally, if the resolution places one value over another, tell me equal status means a negative ballot: the affirmative must prove primacy of one over the other. 

What are your expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?  Be nice.  Don't belittle your opponents by calling them, or their arguments, stupid, lame, or dumb.  Remember, there is always somebody smarter and meaner than you.  Do you want to generate the karma that comes with being a jerk?  Really?

What strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider when you vote?  Stock Issues:

In policy debate, these are key for me.  Affirmative has to win all four to win; negative can win one to win.  Remember, stock issues answer the questions needed overcome the uncertainty and the risk of change to justify adopting the resolution.  Affirmative must win all four to win round.  Stock issues are:

1. Motive/Harm, 2.Blame/Inherency, 3.Plan, and 4. Solvency/Advantage(s) justify an affirmative ballot. 

Topicality:  Be sure terms are reasonably defined, metaphors are accurately applied, and mere time-suck topicality arguments aren't argued by negatives.  You've got better things to do. Still, affirmatives, me buying a reverse voting issue on topicality is very unlikely. Even with a opp. drop, I'll really resist. 

Counter plans:  It should be non-topical; otherwise, there are two affirmatives in the round and I'll just sign the ballot for the one actually listed as affirmative.  I am probably in the minority here, but that is my view.  CPs should be competitive, meaning there is a genuine, forced choice between the plan and counter plan.  Show competition with mutual exclusivity or a reason doing both is bad, like a DA.

Critiques:  Given equal teams, the critique most likely will lose. I have voted for critiques, but that is when a weaker team does not adequately deal with the critique.  I dislike generic critiques that don't relate to the resolution, the opponent's arguments, or reality.  Good luck selling me that K whose central premise is that ”we should all hurry up and die because life's greatest gift is death."  Really?  I vote on the flow, but I won't turn off my brain.   Still, if your names are Robert or Sterling, I might buy it.  They were eloquentus-maximus. 

Weighing:  Explain why you win.  Weigh impacts.  Apply your examples to concepts like magnitude, probability, timeframe and show how the opponent loses, how opposing arguments are less compelling.

How do you evaluate speed, jargon, and technical elements?    

SPEED - NFA-LD:  This is not supposed to be an audition for a speed-freak auctioneer.  Rules state spread debate is antithetical to the event.  That said, I heard about 30 rounds last year, including some top 4-year debaters.  Only one has been "too fast" for the event, but an eloquently argued and rightly applied speed challenge by an opponent might find me a receptive audience.  After all, "speed is antithetical to the event", right?   If I or the opponent call "clear," heed that request.

SPEED - PARLI:  Be sure you really have quality arguments that necessitate speed to get them all in during the allotted time. Be clear, organized, and persuasive.  I'll stop you if you're going too fast and I'll be receptive to an opposing team demanding you slow down also.

JARGON:  Don't just sling jargon around and assume I'll do all the analysis and explanation to fully impact the concept.  For example, if an affirmative thinks he or she can simply say "perm" and destroy the counter plan as a reason to vote negative, he or she is mistaken.  Say something like:  "Perm.  Do both the plan and the counter plan.  If there is a permutation where both the plan and the counter plan can co-exist without disadvantage, the counter plan is not a reason to reject the affirmative plan.  Vote affirmative unless the counter plan alone is net beneficial when compared with both the affirmative plan alone or the plan and counter plan together."

TECHNICAL ELEMENTS:  Please be organized.  I won't time roadmaps, but they are appreciated.  I do permit some conversation between partners during the round, but issues must be vocalized by the recognized speaker to count.  I will not consider arguments made after time elapses.  If you really need to sit while speaking, I'm fine with that.