As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.

When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I don’t require competing interpretations.

I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some “contradictory arguments good” answers.

Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you don’t tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.

As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says “one million deaths” and the other says “dehume,” but doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.

Hi! I'm Madi Ingraham!

I competed in LD at Eagle High School (Idaho) for four years and competed in NPDA (Parli) for four years on a scholarship at The College of Idaho. I coached at Eagle for about 4 years and debate is the love of my life.

PARADIGM: I consider myself a tabs judge. Run whatever arguments you want, run whatever you feel most comfortable with. I was a K debater in college, so I tend to enjoy hearing those types of arguments more. Only risky argument to run in front of me is Politics DAs, I've never understood them well.

Speed is fine, but I need to be able to understand you.

PLAN/CP: Please read your plan texts twice. There's nothing I hate more than being deep in a T debate and only having half the plan text to reference. I haven't judged policy debate yet this year, so please don't assume I know your AFF. Explain the links and solvency mechanisms well.

ADV/DAs: Run them. Since I come from Parli debate, where we can't use cards, I'm much more persuaded by analytical assessment and explanation. Tell me WHY your cards matter in terms of the overall debate. Impact out your advantages and disadvantages fully, don't just say buzzwords and expect me to do the work for you. I will only vote on what you say, I think this is the best way for me to stay objective and avoid judge intervention.

Ks: Run them!! But only if they're good and make sense. Again, don't assume I'm up to date on your literature base. And please don't stumble through some K you clearly found online and haven't read yet. I weigh solvency relatively heavily.

Debate is competitive storytelling. Don't get so bogged down in the line-by-line that you lose the value of crystallization. Your first speeches and rebuttals can be to the point line-by-line, but by your final speeches you should be telling a comprehensive story of why you won the round.

I'd rather not judge identity politics. I don't like the position it puts me in as a judge, since this is a competitive event, I am forced to choose a winner and loser. It feels extremely violent for me to put a win / loss on someone's identity.

Organization is extremely important to me. I need a clean flow in order to give helpful feedback and a good RFD. Please take two seconds to make sure I know where you're at!! Overviews and underviews are a lost art that bring SO much clarity.

If you have any other questions, just ask!

Mackenzie Moss- Judging Philosophy

I did NPDA for 4 years at Boise State University and just graduated in May of 2018. I like all different kinds of arguments, and think I'm okay with hearing whatever you want to read. I like the rebuttal speeches to paint a pretty clear picture of what each team thinks I should be voting on. I encourage watching my facials/demeanor for recognition throughout the debate. I do pretty well with speed, but I’ll say something if I can’t understand. It should be pretty obvious if there comes a point where I'm not following. I think the only thing I really care to see in a round is people being nice to each other. I am likely to drop someone treating someone else not well. I like debate a lot, and am excited to be judging.

More specifically —

FW: I will assume NB unless told otherwise. I get kind of frustrated when the framework debate isn’t clear. My decision usually starts with what FW I’m supposed to be using to evaluate the rest of the arguments in the debate, so it’s a lot better for both teams if there is either a clear consensus on how I’m evaluating, or if the argumentation regarding FW is clearly outlined throughout the debate. This heavily impacts how I know how to see the potentially more substantive parts of the debate.

T: I need a pretty slow reading of the interp. I also need the debate to slow down a bit when it comes to counter-standards and cross applications of the standards debate on T. And I also need the debate to slow down if T is going to be a big part of the rebuttals.

Case: I think my bias is to like realistic impact scenarios over hypothetical, but I’ll listen to whatever you have to say. Clear impact calc helps avoid any of the intervention that could come from that bias.

K: Read whatever you want. Again clear FW is important because it’s likely I haven’t read what you’re telling me about.

Project: I’ll listen to your project.

Speed: I’ll ask for speed or clarity if I need to. And I appreciate when the speed is accessible for all the debaters in the round, but I’ll vote based on the arguments made.

Feel free to ask if there’s anything else you want to know.

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

Pronouns:

He/Him/They/Them

Positions:

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

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

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

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

General Notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experience:

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