Debated 4 years HS policy, NDT 3 years and 1 year college LD

Coached NDT/CEDA, LD, Parli, and even IPDA +15 years & HS Policy, LD, & PF

The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just might mean you may have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote where the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to many other judges (26-28 is a pretty typical range and I think I have averaged about 1-3 30s a year) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you.

However, note I taught and published in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the judge, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area.

Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. I like the comparison since if you leave it up to me my view may not be "correct" in the way(s) you want but then again you should have done that for me.

Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear.

Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG.

Theory: Things like "RVI" or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. You do not just get to make those statements and then move on. I have no idea what you mean in those words. I know what I think those words mean, but my interp of them and yours may not be anywhere near the same so unless you like judge intervention, give it an explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained.

Parli specific notes

Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument.

Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

Generic information:
I do not wish to impose my views on the activity through my ballot. What I mean by this is that I think you certainly ought to debate in front of me in a fashion consistent with what you're best at--and allow me to adapt to you. I fundamentally believe that nearly all aspects of debate are negotiable, and certainly a multitude of different kinds of strategies can be fun to watch and fun to do. I believe those who insist on debate conforming to their view of the activity are narcissistic and don't get the point. I also think that the notion of the inevitability of intervention does not remove the responsibility to evaluate issues in a fair and honest fashion--in fact it strengthens this obligation. I will do my best to make decisions which are not informed by my predispositions but rather a serious evaluation of the issues as they were debated. My burden of striving for non-intervention will not prevent me from passing judgment. This ought not be confused. I will make a decision based on judgments I make (clearly) but I will not be dishonest about the objective flow of the debate in order to cater to my own debate ideals. I am a debate nihilist (you might say), I begin with the assumption that what you can do in debate is only limited by your imaginative capacity to justify your argumentative choices. There is no strategy that I didn't try as a debater--who would I be to tell you that you can't do the same?

Specific information:
Despite my strong belief that our predispositions should have no effect on the outcome of our judging, I must admit that I obviously do have predispositions about this activity. I've spent enough time doing it, and even more time thinking about it, that I am not a clean slate. I'll put my slate away for the sake of fair deliberation, but here's a glimpse of what my slate looks like.

Topicality: Unless argued persuasively otherwise, I default to assuming that topicality is both a voting issue and an issue of competing interpretations. I went for topicality a fair amount in debate. I truly believe that affirmatives who make a good faith effort to support the topic (even if for a very abstract or nuanced reason) are the most strategic. Even some of the most strategic critical affirmatives I've ever seen affirmed the topic. I suppose a good general rule is that if you're not trying to be topical, you should have a good reason why. I have never heard a definition of reasonability in my entire life that made more sense to me than competing interpretations (doesn't mean I'm not open to the possibility). I believe that the specificity of the standards and how effectively they are compared (T debates are impact debates like everything else) is often the decider.

Counterplans: I tend to assume that counterplans are a very useful strategy available to the negative. I am not predisposed against conditional counterplans, and frankly I'm also not predisposed against multiple conditional counterplans. Surprisingly perhaps, I also am not strongly against counterplans which don't compete textually (particularly if they are authentically within the scope of the topic). The reason I think textual competition is usually a good limit is precisely because most counterplans which textual competition limits out are those which detract from topic education. If yours doesn't and you can justify your counterplan you're fine. If you say there's a textually competitive version of the counterplan I will know if you're lying (just so you know). It's really all about what you can justify. The quality of your solvency evidence is generally a great indicator of how smart your counterplan is.

The kritik: We shouldn't be afraid to have kritik debates because they serve as a way of making sure that our assumptions can be justified. That being said, our assumptions can be justified, and I appreciate people who do in fact engage critical teams and make an effort to defend the perspectives which inform their arguments. A few uphill battles critical debaters might find with me are that I often think critical framework arguments do not particularly limit the affirmative very much. For example, the reason it doesn't make sense to me to say that representational debating is object fiat or utopian fiat is that disads and cases are also representational. There is no part of debate that isn't already a performance, and there is no part of debate that isn't already representational. It's about the desirability of those representations. Another roadblock critical debaters might find with me is that I have no problem signing off on topicality or evaluating the framework debate against the kritik. I did this plenty against kritik teams, and I'm not opposed to framework if you cannot justify the way your kritik is framed. If they're responsible for their representations why aren't you? I don't like the fact that kritik debaters uniquely have to have a sheet of paper justifying the existence of their argument right out of the gates, but if you cannot win that your argument should exist I think you should find a different argument. I also am a sucker for sophisticated and clever permutation arguments. Perhaps this is why I think the best kritiks are topic specific and turn the case.

Theory: I think theory serves a vital role in regulating debate trends, like a filter. Sometimes a strategy is a winning one precisely because it's not crafted in a fashion that is fair. Sometimes a strategy is antithetical to education to a degree that merits its total exclusion. Again, these questions are answered best through a framework of competing interpretations where sophisticated impact calculus happens at the level of the standards debate. If you can justify it, you can do it. Theory debates are one of the best tests of whether or not you can justify your given strategy. For this reason, I take it seriously and think it should be evaluated first. I will not evaluate it first only in the circumstance where you lose the priority debate (which sometimes happens). My default assumption is that fairness and education are both good, and keep the activity alive. This does not, however, remove the obligation to demonstrate why something is theoretically objectionable to a degree that merits the ballot. I also tend to fall further on the potential abuse side of the spectrum than the real abuse side. Just because you don't perform abuse (in the sense of how much of their strategy has in-round utility) does not automatically mean the way your strategy is positioned is suddenly educational or fair.

Disads: A well argued disad can be a beautiful thing. If you can't outweigh the case, read a counterplan that pairs well with your disad. If you want, read two. You could also surprise me and debate the case effectively (I will appreciate this). I do not dislike politics disads, but those which do not have any real link specificity annoy me a bit. Sometimes the politics disad is the right choice, sometimes it's not. Depends on the topic. The greater the specificity and applicability the happier I'll be. I love a well crafted topic disad. If your disad authentically turns the case, then I'll probably be inclined to thinking it's a good disad. Be prepared to debate all levels of disad uniqueness (not just top level) including link uniqueness, internal link uniqueness, and impact uniqueness.

Things that annoy me: 
1) Process disads. If your disad relies on the process of the plan passing, rather than the outcome of the plan, I will not like your disad. If you say things like "the plan will be horse-traded for x" or "the plan will move x off the docket" I will be utterly dissatisfied with your lazy and bankrupt disad. To be clear, it is the job of the aff to identify how absurd your disad is. I will not hesitate to vote for shitty process disads if the aff fails to correctly answer them, but it'll make me feel bad about myself and the state of debate.
2) Theory debates which begin in the PMR. Sometimes really egregious things happen in the block. In this case, I may very well vote for theory which begins in the PMR. Example: the negative splits the block. However, I am more often than not wildly uncomfortable with theory debates in which the negative has no opportunity to contest your argument. The best example I can think of here is that the MOC should take a question. My intuition is that you get the last word, and so you should have the upper hand in dealing with these situations without putting me in an awkward position. This is one of my least favorite debate arguments. 
3) Spec arguments or T arguments which have no resolutional basis. If your spec argument has no basis in the topic, or requires the aff to be extra-topical in order to meet your interpretation, I will think it's a bad argument. E-spec is a good example of such an argument. This is especially egregious in instances in which T arguments have no basis in the topic since T is supposed to be explicitly premised on the language of the topic. 
4) Floating pics. Alternatives should not include anything resembling the plan. They should especially not literally include the plan text. If they do, and you do not win the debate on perm: do the alternative with appropriate theory arguments about how nonsense it is for the alt to include the plan I will be pretty pissed. The negative should have to make alt solvency arguments in order to demonstrate why the alt solves the aff, and the aff should be entitled to argue that the aff is a disad to the alt. If the alternative does not enable this debate to occur, it's more than likely theoretically bankrupt. I would hope that the aff would identify this. 
5) Incorrect permutation strategies. For every silly nonsense counterplan which shouldn't exist, there is a solid permutation text which makes such counterplan look pretty silly. I really appreciate it when the aff correctly identifies the appropriate permutation, and conversely, I really don't like it when the aff fails to problematize bad counterplans with the appropriate permutation. 
6) Failure to offer impact comparison. Clearly I have no desire to intervene. It is up to you to ensure that the debate is resolvable in a way that doesn't require me to compare things myself. I will always decide debates based on what occurs in your own words. I will not put the pieces together for you. I will not assume your position to be a priority if you fail to demonstrate this for me. Impact calculus is the centerpiece of how you can accomplish this. 
7) Failure to identify things which are theoretically bankrupt. What bothers me the most about asinine strategies is when I'm put in a position to have to endorse them with my ballot, and I absolutely will if you fail to allow me to do otherwise. It is your responsibility to filter out irresponsible debate trends with sound objections to them. Take your responsibility seriously so that I don't have to make decisions which I know endorse things which are not good for the activity.

Summary observations: I suppose my views on the ideal strategy are almost always informed by the topic. The best K's turn the case and are topic specific, and the same can be said for the best disads. The best counterplans have very quality solvency evidence and a sensible net benefit.The best critical affs affirm the topic and discuss issues pertinent to the topic literature. There's always a good strategic option for a given topic, and it's up to you to find it. I will not be a hindrance to that process. Whatever you think is situationally best given the strengths of yourself and your opponent should be what you go with. I'll adapt to you. You'll probably debate better when you do what you're best at. Almost all debate is fun, it should be a question of what's the most situationally strategic option.

One last thing: I am a very expressive judge. 9 times out of 10 you will know what I think of your argument. I will shake my head at you if you say something really absurd, and I will nod for arguments that I agree with. I can't really control this very well (I've tried). On very very rare occasions I will verbally declare an argument to be silly during the debate. Do not take me too seriously. I vote for silly arguments when I would be intervening otherwise, and not all smart arguments are round winners. If it's very difficult for you to deal with non-verbal reactions to your arguments or this is very distracting for you, don't pref me. I literally could not possibly be less interested where I end up on your pref sheet.

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.

Policy Paradigm - quick 20 seconds before round are in bullets:

•Prep ends when you hit send on a document or remove the flash drive from your machine.
•Ideologically agnostic, read t, fw, cp, da, k, whatever. I coached and did a breadth and depth of k literature (that was cutting edge back in the day) and am now working with a team that goes 1 off heg. Do you, and your best debating, and I will work my hardest to adjudicate and respect the debate before me.
•Look for strong offense comparison for me to resolve the debate in your favor.
•Email: austin.brittenham@gmail.com


I'm increasingly becoming flow oriented - I'll adjudicated under any framework that a team wins. For this to happen, there must be a portion of the debate where you positively delineate your vision of how I ought adjudicate a round. That said, my default is really about my flow, focusing on the line by line rather than embedded clash will really help me adjudicate in a way which will favor you. I also find myself using my flow to be clear about what the debaters in the round were putting into words for me, rather than would I thought debaters meant by an argument. I flow your words and warrants, if you phrase things defensively, I will think of it defensively, etc.

Optimizing your chance to win - Frame your offense and compare it to the other teams, generally. I think that's the core of debate no matter how you think about arguments in debate. The 2nr ought centralize out offense, compare that offense to the 1ar offense. The 2ar should win some remaining offense and compare it to the neg offense.

History - I debated for 3 years in high school and 4 years in college. I went to the NDT my junior and senior years debating arguments about embodiment, transness, and queerness. That being said my high school debate experience was primarily flex debating. I have a strong respect for the cp/ptx da combo .I've now coached middle school, high school policy, and college NPDA Parliamentary debate and NDT/CEDA policy debate.

I think kritik alternatives should solve the links & impacts they identify. If the critique says capitalism causes environmental destruction, I need to know either how the 1ac/plan being capitalist produces environmental destruction, or how the alternative solves all of capitalism producing environmental destruction. A simple rejection of bad epistemology probably doesn't solve Britain being a capitalist state, but a global violent revolution might. Similarly, why is it that encountering a capitalist in a debate round is bad if that debater doesn't have their hands on levers of power? For me, I just need a coherency among all portions of a critique. To be clear, do a discourse, reps, epistemology, whatever argument, but make sure there is congruence among the 3 parts.

I think that "methods" debates don't necessarily mean that the affirmative doesn't get a permutation. Methods seem permutable to me. Asserting "it's a methods debate so perms" is certainly not an argument because it is a claim without a warrant. To be clear no perms bc methods is a winnable argument in front of me, but my predisposition is the other way and brisk debating on the theory will not end favorably.

Messy debates will often have me resolve in favor of the negative--the 2ar has the chance to clean up the debate but didn't.

Msc Theory - I think that critical affs should either normatively defend something that isn't the squo or have defense of why their speech act/performance generates offense that is unix to each debate round.

I think try-or-die is really vote aff on presumption which seems silly. Like either the aff wins their impacts or they don't, try-or-die seems like a concession that you've lost the impact defense.

I think (logically limited) conditionality is fine and am not generally inclined to vote on conditionality unless there is an in round impact.

Fiat - is a normative question regarding whether or not the aff/plan/advocacy ought happen. This does not mean that it does happen or would happen, if something wouldn't happen in the status quo, that is inherency for the aff. Many fiat debates that I've seen seem to assume other interpretations of fiat. Please explain for me your version and how it operates for me to be on the same page as you, otherwise I will presume this interpretation.

**These are just how I enter into a debate. Please obviously debate and win the arg and I will vote against my feelings.

If this isn't helpful please ask me questions before the round.

Background

I competed in Parli for four years at Whitman. I have some coaching experience on the English-language BP and Public Forum circuits in China.

My degree is in Asian Studies, with some Politics experience. I am receptive to and can be expected to know critiques like Orientalism and those that deal with IR theory, plus a grab bag of things that the average MG would have learned to answer.

n.b. this is my second year “out” and the Chinese circuits are, of course, slow. I had a messy flow at the best of times as a debater - think twice about going super saiyan 9 in front of me this year.

Basics

Be nice, especially to your partner. People who interrupt others are difficult for me to watch. Humor is a lost art and may yet be the salvation of the debate community.

Theory

Theory is the in-round immune system of the debate community - it allows us to excise toxic elements (and playtest new and exciting ones). There are no theory arguments I will outright ignore, though I may visibly react if you unironically read spec (sorry, Carlton).

All theory questions are weighed on competing interpretations; reasonability is a pipe dream.

CPs/CP Theory

Counterplans are important and useful, including conditional ones. However, I side with Tschida: even though I think condo is theoretically justified, it does occasionally detract from thoughtful debate.

If you keep your conditional advocacy in the block, I’m staying in that world too - don’t expect me to default to the squo for you when the PMR makes you look bad.

I adhere to the community norm of looking down upon delay/consult CPs. If you’re reading one, it should be because it has special relevance to the topic and because you can answer theory on it.

Textual/functional competition is an issue that should be decided in the round. If you can relate your PIC theory to the topic in a specific way and get deep on it, more pointies for you.

Kritiks

See above for what I can be expected to know. Feel free to get weird, but know that you’ll need to hold my hand most of the way there, as I’m not super well-read.

Narratives tend to make me uncomfortable, but maybe that’s not a bad thing. It could also be because I read a langston hughes poem in-round one time and forgot to source it...still guilty!

Ask me about anything; I don’t bite and love working with newer debaters.

Background

I have been involved in competitive debate since 1996, when I started competing at Durango High School in Southern Colorado. I have been coaching debate events since 2001, when I started coaching Policy and LD for Rocky Mountain High School in Northern Colorado--and I have continued to coach debate (primarily NPDA and BP) through my time in Graduate School and at my current school.

In college, I competed for Colorado State University, and then worked at California State University, Long Beach and Southern Illinois University, Carbondale coaching debate and striving to secure some very expensive pieces of paper. Since 2013, I have been working as a Professor at The College of Idaho--where our team has primarily competed in BP and NPDA. My scholarly pursuits are generally queer in nature--and my published work has engaged with pedagogy, settler colonialism, media and digital activism, and international networks of queer conviviality. I characterize my work and educational labor in connection with interdisciplinary frameworks, critical/cultural studies, performance studies, critical race theory, queer theory, process philosophy, activism, theories of affirmation, and failure. While I like to believe I am becoming new, every day. When pushed toward position, I usually articulate myself as: a temporarily able bodied, white, neurodivergent, male-and-masculine ascribed, homosexical genderqueer of fairly fluid class status (though, with the recent elimination of around $236,000 in student loans, the fluidity there feels like it might be firming up--Jello style [but with less horse hoof]). I currently live in Boise, ID--in violation of the unratified Treaty of Fort Boise, signed in 1864.

Debate Things

It has been well over a decade since I have judged a collegiate policy debate round, and even then, it was only at small, regional tournaments. I do have a lot of respect for Policy debate, and I can credit a Towson team for introducing me to Octavia Butler, and changing my life through the power of the livestream.

I like to assume that people are doing the best that they can, given the circumstances of their lives at the moment, and I strongly believe that the purpose of education is to grow and change. Debate is one of the coolest ways, I have found in my life, to practice learning in public. I will strive to take the best notes that I can about the discussions and points of contention that are raised in your debates, and I will try to evaluate them in relation to the totality of the arguments made in the debate.

One important thing to note: given that the majority of my time in debate has been dedicated to impromptu forms of debate, that emphasize the evidence of experience and example, over the authoritative declarations of the credentialed elite--I anticipate that my approach to evidence might be different than the approach that you may typically encounter. For me, reading is a highly engaged process and interpretation is a (if not the) key element. Since my own understanding of written material tends to change and evolve as I read and re-read, I will place a premium on how evidence is contextualized, compared, and contrasted in your debates. I have a strong core belief that debate is a live performance, and as such, contains elements of ephemerality and affect that are crucial distinguishing factors that demarcate a debate round from a written forum. If I find myself in a situation in which I am being asked to read and re-read speech documents, I don't know if I am really truly being asked to adjudicate a debate, which I tend to approach as a live and living entity. For this reason, I often find myself skeptical of doing much more than quickly checking written material, to confirm or challenge my recollection of moments in a debate that I observed. Trying to "read the script" of a performance is a radically different thing than evaluating a performance, and I understand the role of the debate judge as the open-minded observer/adjudicator of a challenging, engaging, interesting performance of embodied, intellectual conflict. I am not "a trained mortician of the mind," which is a line that has stuck with me from McClaren's Schooling as Ritual Performance,and thus, I will not painstakingly dissect and re-construct your debate based on its written record.

At the end of a debate, I generally find myself asking who has told me a more persuasive story about a better world: the affirmative or the negative. I value both the heft of the logic, and the clarity (as well as the affect) of the explanation. Inscribed on my flesh, on the lower inside of my right arm, directly above an artists rendering of Paul Klee's Angelus Novus, is a quote from Gilles Deleuze, pulled from his short essay about Walt Whitman--"Nature is not a form, but rather the process of establishing relations." I would encourage any who debate in front of me to do the work necessary to establish relations between the evidence of your argument, and the evidence of your opponents. I care more about how you articulate those interactions, than any interactions I might be able to form on my own, reading the material that has been "read into" the debate.

Affiliation: Clackamas High School

Competitive experience: 2 years of NPDA (college parli), 1 year of CEDA (college policy)

Coaching/Judging experience: 6 years of NPDA coaching with 45-60 rounds judged per year, 10 years coaching high school policy

Pronouns: He/him

Post the order in the zoom chat ((especially when someone is afk) credit to Wichita BM and Gerrit Hansen for this one)

I’m into philosophy. It was my major for my decade-long undergrad, so that won’t change anytime soon.

I'm also a former law student focused on immigration, employment, and labor.

Although I have run topical affirmatives with a plan in the past, I have generally moved towards the critical as I have continued (From a Heg and Econ National Security Courts aff to Lovecraft performance and high theory).

In CEDA, I have gone for the Cap K with a Historical Materialism alt in every one of my 2NRs. This does not mean that I will automatically pick you up if you run it, but I will be familiar with most of the arguments and authors involved in that debate.

I have come to grips with the fact that I am not very good at evaluating Framework. This does NOT mean you shouldn't run it in front of me or go for it. I think Framework is a valuable debate to be had in most rounds and I encourage people to look at varying forms of this argument in debate. You should be aware, however, that I am not going to be able to fully appreciate the nuances of Framework arguments. It's really not you, it's me.

I hold a high regard for creativity in debate, both in strategy and style. In my mind, creativity is the reason debate is such a fantastic activity. I particularly like arguments that are novel, strange, or Weird.

I am also pretty expressive in round. If you notice me nodding my head or or making a face that suggests "Hey, that sounds reasonable" then that probably means I'm thinking that. If I look up in disgust or confusion, then that means I am probably experiencing one of those things.

All that being said, I am open to most any position or style so long as you can articulate why your arguments are preferable.

Also, feel free to find me outside of rounds and ask me about a round (please bring your flow or be specific about what went on in the round, I can only remember so much on demand) or about general arguments and strategies or whatever.

Clarity: I flow all speeches in the debate and I stick to that flow when making my decision. I will call clear if I can’t understand you. If you are still not understandable to me after I call clear twice, I will stop flowing what I cannot understand.

Clipping: If there is a challenge relating to clipping cards, it must be brought with video evidence. If a team has been shown to be clipping cards in my round; that team will receive a loss and the clipper will receive 0 speaker points for that round.

Email: forensicsresearchinstitute@gmail.com

2017-2018 Season

Background:

This year will be my 12th year in the activity. I debated for 3 years in high school at Puyallup High School (2006-2009) and 4 in college at Idaho State University (2009-2013).  

I have not been involved in college policy debate since the 2015 NDT. I am currently working with The University of Washington on a part-time basis. Gonzaga will be my first tournament, and I am a little bit behind on topic research as a result. This just means I may need a little time to catch up on key topic discussions and acronyms. As a judge, I think it is important to work hard to make the best possible decision in every debate I judge.

---

How I decide debates: I evaluate debates holistically, however I also try my best to keep a good flow of the debate, and use the flow for the basis for my decision. What does this mean for you? The best way to win my ballot is to frame the debate around central questions for the debate. I think both tech and truth is important, so winning larger thesis level claims , and then executing technically on the line-by-line are equally important.

Framework: While I used to have a higher threshold for framework, this is no longer the case. I think framework is an important tool for negative teams to use vs. non-topical/non traditional/non-fiat based affirmatives. If you have read this type of affirmative and don't have a good defense of it, you should lose. Reading an AFF just because it is important in the abstract is not a good enough reason to not talk about the topic. On the flip side, if you are going for framework, you should still be responsible for engaging the content of the affirmative. Also, having tangible impacts to your framework arguments is necessary to win these debates.

Counterplans: What is theoretically legitimate is open for debate. I try to enter the debate without any biases for what debaters should be allowed to talk about. With that being said, I probably still think that counterplans should have solvency advocates, compete in some capacity, and provide and opportunity cost to the affirmative. I think judge kick is stupid. I will do it if I am told to, but I am persuaded that 2N’s should have to think strategically and should be held accountable to their 2NR choice. AFF’s should exploit the difference between the CP and the AFF.

Disadvantages: I prefer to hear DA's that are specific to the AFF or that are a central to the topic. I think DA's paired with large case debates can be some of the most fascinating debates to watch. Controlling spin and having great evidence are two key factors to winning these debates in front of me.

K/Performance Debate: Controlling meta level questions for the debate is necessary. This is the type of debate that I have the most experience with. I rather see a debate where people are willing to defend something specific and generate offensive arguments from it rather then saying they are everything and nothing. You should be able to justify what you do. AFF’s should get permutations regardless of the type of debate that is happening (although like everything, I am open to hearing arguments on the other side. It just may require additional work to win this argument in front of me). Debate is a competition and negative teams have the burden of meeting some standard for competition. I don’t think the alt has to solve the AFF. I think the alt needs to at least resolve a substantial amount of the link to the AFF. I am less well read when it comes to high theory, especially psychoanalysis, so explanation is critical for me in these debates.

Other miscellaneous things:

• Flowing and good line by line debate is a lost art. You will be greatly rewarded if you do good line by line debate.
• Bad embedded clash is almost impossible to follow and I probably won't get arguments where they should be. 
• Most of the time I keep a pretty good flow and I have typically found that my flow reflects the quality of the debate in terms of efficiency and debate technique. 
• Framework vs. framing – to me, framework is what should be allowed in the debate, and framing is what impacts should come first. I think these two things often times become conflated. To me, unless otherwise stated, the role of the ballot, judge, etc.. are all just impact framing issues.
• Aff framework vs. the K is silly and neither team is going to generate traction in front of me spending substantial time here.
• I am a strong believer in high evidence quality. Research is one of the most important parts of debate. This is tricky for me because I don’t read a lot of evidence, however I do think that high evidence quality should be rewarded. If I happen to read some of your evidence or you are really trying to get evidence in my hand, you should make sure it is good.
• Debate is fun. I hope that you debate because you love this activity. I also like judging debates when debaters are intelligent, witty, funny, and engaged. I have zero tolerance for people that destroy the pedagogical values of this activity or that make this activity an unsafe, violent, or unpleasant space for other participants.  

My name is Keith Corley and I currently am the Assistant Debate Coach at William Jewell College. My experience in the activity is 2 years at Moorpark College and 3 years at Concordia University Irvine. My goal with this philosophy is to try and be as honest as possible with those who read it as it is my experience that quite a few individuals tend to mislead in order to be part of the in group.

During my debate career I spent a majority of it debating policy and case debate. That being said my final year in the activity I debated the K more than 70% of the time.

As far as policy debate goes, I expect warrants for arguments. I know that all judges says this but I want to make it extremely clear that you need specific warrants to back up your claims. If you do not have it, often times I will accept the other team to just articulate a lack of warrants in order to refute the argument. Other than that I feel like i view policy in the same way that almost every other person does.

When I was debating I was really into theory debate, it was something that I really enjoyed winning on. While I am more than willing to listen to you read these, I think it should be pointed out that I really dislike listening to theory that is not strategic or meaningful, aka something that is meant just to waste the other team's time. More often than not I think that the questions that theory is asking is important and as such in this aspet of the debate I do not like gamesmanship.

Conditionality

I was coached by Kevin Calderwood and while I buy into his thoughts in regards to conditionailty I want to make it clear that I do not think that one conditional advocacy is necessarily bad. That being said I will definitely listen to a condo bad shell for a variety of reasons. Specifically, I suggest you not run an argument such as whiteness or fem conditionally as I believe that is ethically bankrupt. However, I will not vote anyone down for this if the other team does not win a condo bad theory position.

The K

Like I said, I ran these quite a bit during my last year, however, I do not want you to think that I am up on every single bit of critical literature. I prefer a very explained out thesis for K's that arent cap or something basic. Additionally, you need to explain to me in a very clear way what the alt text does. I truly dislike utopian alternatives with no explanation as to how they function. As far as K's on the aff go I am fine with them, but I would prefer you to make it resolutional. I do not need you to make it topical or use fiat (though that can and should be argued by the neg if they so choose) but I would prefer if the resolution was incorporated somewhere. 

Miscellanious

If you only read one part of my philosophy please read this part: Debate was my home and identity for a long time. However, I realize that they type of debate and the space in which I engage in it are not home for many people that do not have my privilege. I want everyone to be able to run the type of arguments that make them feel most at home. That being said, I think that on some occasion in an effort to run arguments that they feel most comfortable with debaters will do so at the expense of the team that they are facing. What I mean by this is that I believe there is a way to run arguments that do not make your opponent feel like shitty people. I understand that some arguments can get real. I think those arguments are fantastic. However, I do not think that it is beneficial for anyone involved to traumatize someone in order to win a ballot. I believe that this space is a place for us to grow an think and learn a bucnh of new and different types of education that arent offered anywhere else whether that be upper level international relations or very critical queer theory. My belief is that our community is at our best when people can experience these hard truths without being brought to tears because the round made them feel like shit.

My last note is that most of the fastest speakers in the community often times were not clear enough for me to flow at full speed. If you believe you are in this group please drop to 80% of your speed or wait for me to clear you, whatever you prefer.

Hamilton references will garner higher speaks

I reserve the right to walk out of the room if personal narratives concerning suicide are read. You absolutely have the right to read them, but I do not have the obligation to physically be present to experience them. This does not include abstracted discussions of suicide in the broader context of the round.

My ever-growing list of Things which Peeve Me:

- Non-topical affirmative criticisms – I’ll vote for you if you win the flow, but I won’t like it, your speaks will probably reflect that, and I’ll be very sympathetic to theory.

- Waiting to start flex until you get your copies]

- Speed/tech unfair. I do not personally believe that there is a reasonable argument for speed or technicality being unfair or exclusionary. I don’t see skill as a vector of access I should protect for in the same way as (dis)ability, identity, or in-round argumentative access factors.

- Asking for a copy of everything

- Reading competing interpretations then treating it like reasonability. If you don’t sufficiently explicate your competing interpretations I’ll still just have to decide what seems most reasonable.

- Expecting me to weigh something when your warrant is “probably a reason why”

- Asking me to weigh unfalsifiable claims. This includes but is not limited to;

o Spiritual claims

o Performances which claim real world solvency if I do not myself experience change

o Personal narratives, emotive experiences, affective claims, etc.

ABSOLUTELY feel free to ask questions, even if it implicates my decision. RFDs can be a really pedagogically fruitful space when folks push back and forth and find the tension points. On the other hand, if you are a coach reading this I would strongly discourage you from post-rounding me. I won’t change my decision, it won’t improve the likelihood your team wins in front of me again, and I hope you view me as a predictable critic even if I’m not your ideal draw.

Background: 6 years competing through MS/HS, 4 years at a smaller undergrad squad, 2 years coaching at TTU including a number of nationally competitive partnerships, and a year working the occasional weekend for CUI.

General:

- If I clear or slow you, which is rare, you need to take it seriously. I will ding your speaks if you make me do it twice or more. Also, I won’t backfill flow items I missed for any reason unless I can genuinely remember the precise claim, so while I won’t drop you for ignoring my clear/slow you may lose anyway.

- I may want a copy of all texts, interps, and ROBs beyond specifically what I flow, so be prepared.

- Condo: Agnostic, be prepared to defend it.

- MG theory: Agnostic, be prepared to defend it, and realize that I won’t read the block through the lens of the theory until after the PMR.

- Ideologically I’m fairly open to most arguments but do realize that my social location and political perspective are probably irrevocably intertwined in the way I evaluate rounds. I’m pretty moderate (for the debate world lol), so warranted arguments about the wonders of the free market or the necessity of social purging aren’t likely to do well in front of me if your opponent knows what they’re doing.

- For the K: Ultimately, I'm compelled to vote for well-warranted, smart arguments regardless of the form they take. Because of my experience/background, I'm less compelled out-of-hand by approaches that do not seek to engage the core of the topic (and that goes for aff and neg). I want to hear your best arguments, and I'll vote on what's won. My exposure to your argument is probably through debate and not reading the literature. I think about public policy frequently. This is less true for critical arguments.

Arguments: Case debate is dope, I dislike ships passing in the night on epistemology/ontology/methodology discussions, and I prefer you know what a word means before using it a bunch.

Counterplans: I prefer that you provide a copy for the other team if it is anyway materially distinct from the resolution and longer than like five words. Or just read it slow. I just hate judging rounds where the CP text becomes some sort of point of contention.

Permutations: Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies. Have a perm text for goodness sake.

Theory: All theory positions should have an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voting issues. Clever, correct, and creative theory arguments are always a good time.

Speaker Points: Be smart and concise and your speaker points will range between 26-30. Utilization of racist, sexist, etc. rhetoric will sink your points quick, as will parroting to your partner. Like, win the round, but don’t parrot if you can help it.

Voting/Rebuttals/POO: Have clear voting issues either through distinct voters, two world analysis, or some other format. YOU MUST DO IMPACT CALCULUS IF YOU WANT IT CONSIDERED. Call POOs if you hear them. I try to protect, but you should call them all the same.

Feel free to ask questions. I can give you my professional email if you’d like it. Debate is great.

My views about debate have changed fairly radically since the end of the 2019/2020 season. I will give a detailed explanation of these changes here, but if you want a TLDR dos and don'ts list, I’ll put that at the end of my philosophy as well.

Accessibility note: I suffer from carpal tunnel. This means that on a good day, flowing high speed rounds involves minor but mostly not distracting discomfort. On a bad day, this means flowing high speed rounds is exceptionally painful to the point that the pain absolutely acts as a distraction from the round and significantly slows my flowing speed. If I am having a bad day, I will let you know before the round and I seriously and sincerely ask that you consider accessibility concerns and slow down in that round or if you are cleared by me. I will not vote on arguments I could not get on my flow as a result of debater disregard for accessibility.

Overview: My position for years has been that NPDA debate should be a technical exercise in which the content of an argument is largely insignificant. I have generally been of the opinion that the role of a judge is to bracket out their own views and preferences and to vote based on the technical execution of a strategy regardless of the pedagogical or ethical validity of said strategy. I no longer believe this, and I am adapting my judging paradigm accordingly.

I believe that NPDA debate is a unique format that has many benefits which cannot be derived from other forms of debate, and I believe the preservation of NPDA as an event should be a central goal for all participants in the activity. NPDA provides scholarship opportunities, travel opportunities, and intensive pedagogical development that many students might not otherwise have access to. Debate is not just a hobby we participate in on the weekends, it is a gateway into academia, politics, and a longstanding community.

My concern is that I believe the proliferation of certain pedagogically vacuous trends within NPDA constitute an existential threat to the continued existence of the event, and I feel personally that being a responsible judge with a commitment to the activity and community means no longer facilitating the spread of these trends. My philosophy has changed in order to account for this shifting understanding of what it means to be a good judge.

Theory: Theory has become my main site of concern in terms of proliferation of vacuous strategies. I vote on theory a lot, based on my judging record, and that will probably not change, but there are certain theoretical arguments I am fundamentally opposed to and will not vote on.

1. I will not under any circumstance vote for NIBs (Necessary but Insufficient Burdens) read by affirmative teams.

2. I will not vote on specification arguments which demands specification for anything other than funding, enforcement, and actor.

3. I will not vote on theory positions with a violation derived from the formal behavior of competitors in the round (as opposed to violations derived from the argument choice of competitors). What I mean by this is theory such as “The affirmative must read their plan within X amount of time” or “The negative must take at least X questions during flex” or “The affirmative must pass us a copy of their plan text”

4. I will not vote on disclosure theory or any theory with a violation which occurs outside of round.

5. You should not include more than 2 new theory sheets (defined as independent interpretations and violations) in any constructive speech.

Theory should indeed be about establishing ideal debate norms through a competing interpretations framework as opposed to being about correcting in round abuse, but there is a limit to the scope of what we can consider legitimate norm setting. I will still be evaluating theory under that paradigm, but parli has clearly passed this threshold to the point that particularly inane instances of theoretical debate has become particularly harmful to the pedagogical value of the activity.

Criticisms:

I believe that critical debate is highly valuable and when well executed can offer some of the most interesting rounds in debate. My stance here remains largely unchanged. This is the type of debate I have judged the most of, and it is the literature base I am most familiar with.

It is, however, important to me that your criticism makes sense. I won't vote on a criticism that I fundamentally cannot understand, and even if you win the formal and technical components of a criticism, if I cannot explain in non-technical terms to the other team why your criticism wins, I’m not going to be comfortable voting for this. Basically this means that your criticism should have a core thesis summarizing the central components of your argument. This also means that your links should be contextualized to the other team in such a way that it is clear how their rhetoric, ontology, epistemology, etc in particular reproduces the impacts that you isolate.

Non-Topical Affirmatives:

I think that it is best for the affirmative to be topical unless the topic is flawed to such a degree that the affirmative is at a thorough disadvantage. That said, I am not so strongly committed to this that I am unwilling to vote for non-topical affirmatives. If you want to read non-topical affirmatives in front of me, you should have a clear reason why you ought to be exempted from upholding the topic.

Counterplans/Advocacy Status:

There are no forms of counterplans that I have an a priori opposition to beyond delay counterplans (which you should not read in front of any judge). I believe that conditionality is important for the negative flexibility and encourages more dynamic negative strategies. That said, I do not believe that an unlimited amount of conditional advocacies is a tenable norm for debate. As such, teams should not read more than two conditional advocacies in front of me. To make this concrete, you may read 2 counterplans/alternatives as a part of your LOC, but I believe the MO should always still have the option to kick both and defend the status quo.

Tech VS Truth:

I previously held that only the technical dimensions of debate mattered, and I was fairly antagonistic towards arguments in round that truth ought to be weighed over and against technical debate. I no longer hold this position to be true.

Technical debate can be utilized as a way of beating down teams in a manner which reproduces various forms of social violence and marginalization. For example, I have seen and voted for utterly vacuous critiques that were read as a means of dodging a grounded discussion of anti-black violence in debate purely on the basis that these criticisms won on small technical concessions and extensions despite offering no read pedagogical value to the debate round.

I’m not going to be auto-dropping all arguments I see as vacuous, because that would be utterly subjective and unpredictable in a way that is not fair to competitors, but I am significantly more open to tech vs truth arguments that claim that the use of technical debate can be an instance of violence in round, and I am much more willing to consider claims that flow centric debate ought to be de-emphasized, either in a specific round or as a broader norm.

Summation: I think this has hit on the major changes to my judging philosophy and the bright lines that I have drawn and am willing to enforce. I know these bright lines will make me a worse judge in the eyes of many competitors, but I also believe many competitors have a short sighted view regarding the future of NPDA and that some level of paternalism from those of us who are committed to ensuring the future survival of this activity is necessary.

TLDR Dos and Dont’s

1. Don’t read NIBs

2. Don’t read spec besides A, F, or E spec

3. Don’t read disclosure or out of round abuse theory

4. Don’t read theory about the conduct of debaters as opposed to their arguments

5. Don’t read more that two conditional advocacies in the LOC

6. Don’t read more than two theory sheets in any constructive speech

7. Do make arguments about why truth ought to be weighed over tech if technical debate is being used as a form of violence

8. Do slow down if I ask, it's a disability thing. I will not vote on arguments I could not get on my flow as a result of debater disregard for accessibility.

9. Do include a clear thesis in your criticisms and make your links contextual

(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!

tldr; I'm open to pretty much whatever, and would much rather you debate how you want than have you try to adapt to my preferences! A lot of my paradigm is pretty technical/jargon-heavy, so please feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Background

I came from a high school parli background, but most of my relevant experience is from the last 7 years with the Parli at Berkeley NPDA team. I competed on-and-off for 3 years before exclusively coaching for the last few years, leading the team to 6 national championships as a student-run program. As a debater I was probably most comfortable with the kritikal debate, but I’ve had a good amount of exposure to most everything in my time coaching the team; I've become a huge fan of theory in particular in the last few years. A lot of my understanding of debate has come from working with the Cal Parli team, so I tend to err more flow-centric in my round evaluations; that being said, I really appreciate innovative/novel arguments, and did a good amount of performance-based debating as a competitor. I’m generally open to just about any argument, as long as there’s good clash.

General issues

• In-round framing and explanation of arguments are pretty important for me. While I will vote for blippier/less developed arguments if they’re won, I definitely have a higher threshold for winning arguments if I feel that they weren’t sufficiently understandable in first reading, and will be more open to new-ish responses in rebuttals as necessary. Also worth noting, I tend to have a lower threshold for accepting framing arguments in the PMR.

• The LOR’s a tricky speech. For complicated rounds, I enjoy it as a way to break down the layers of the debate and explain any win conditions for the negative. I don’t need arguments to be made in the LOR to vote on them, however, so I generally think preemption of the PMR is a safer bet. I've grown pretty used to flowing the LOR on one sheet, but if you strongly prefer to go line-by-line I’d rather have you do that than throw off your speech for the sake of adapting.

• I have no preferences on conditionality. Perfectly fine with however many conditional advocacies, but also more than happy to vote on condo bad if it’s read well.

• Please read advocacy/interp texts slowly/twice. Written texts are always nice.

• I will do my best to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but it’s always better to call the POO just to be safe.

• I’m open to alternate/less-flow-centric methods of evaluating the round, but I have a very hard time understanding what these alternate methods can be. So, please just try to be as clear as possible if you ask me to evaluate the round in some distinct way. To clarify, please give me a clear explanation of how I determine whether to vote aff/neg at the end of the round, and in what ways your alternative paradigm differs from or augments traditional flow-centric models.

• I evaluate shadow-extensions as new arguments. What this means for me is that any arguments that a team wants to win on/leverage in either the PMR or LOR must be extended in the MG/MO to be considered. I'll grant offense to and vote on positions that are blanket extended ("extend the impacts, the advantage is conceded", etc.), but if you want to cross-apply or otherwise leverage a specific argument against other arguments in the round, I do need an explicit extension of that argument.

Framework

• I think the framework debate is often one of the most undeveloped parts of the K debate, and love seeing interesting/well-developed/tricksy frameworks. I understand the framework debate as a question of the best pedagogical model for debate; ie: what type of debate generates the best education/portable skills/proximal benefits, and how can I use my ballot to incentivize this ideal model of debate?

• This means that I'm probably more favorable for frame-out strategies than most other judges, because I think of different frameworks as establishing competing rulesets for how I evaluate the round, each of which establishes a distinct layer in the debate that filters offense in its own unique way. For example, framework that tells me I should evaluate post-fiat implications of policy actions vs a framework that tells me I should evaluate the best epistemic model seem to establish two very different worlds/layers in the round; one in which I evaluate the aff and neg advocacies as policy actions and engage in policy simulation, and one in which I evaluate these advocacies as either explicit or implicit defenses of specific ways of producing knowledge. I don't think the aff plan being able to solve extinction as a post-fiat implication of the plan is something that can be leveraged under an epistemology framework that tells me post-fiat policy discussions are useless and uneducational, unless the aff rearticulates why the epistemic approach of the aff's plan (the type of knowledge production the plan implicitly endorses) is able to incentivize methods of problem-solving that would on their own resolve extinction.

• As much as I'm down to vote on frameouts and sequencing claims, please do the work implicating out how a specific sequencing/framing claim affects my evaluation of the round and which offense it does or does not filter out. I’m not very likely to vote on a dropped sequencing claim or independent voter argument if there isn’t interaction done with the rest of the arguments in the round; ie, why does this sequencing claim take out the other specific layers that have been initiated in the round.

• I'm very open to voting on presumption, although very rarely will I grant terminal defense from just case arguments alone (no links, impact defense, etc.). I'm much more likely to evaluate presumption claims for arguments that definitionally deny the potential to garner offense (skep triggers, for example). I default to presumption flowing negative unless a counter-advocacy is gone for in the block, in which case I'll err aff. But please just make the arguments either way, I would much rather the debaters decide this for me.

Theory/Procedurals

• I generally feel very comfortable evaluating the theory debate, and am more than happy to vote on procedurals/topicality/framework/etc. I’m perfectly fine with frivolous theory. Please just make sure to provide a clear/stable interp text.

• I don't think of theory as a check against abuse in the traditional sense. I'm open to arguments that I should only vote on proven/articulated abuse, or that theory should only be used to check actively unfair/uneducational practices. However, I default to evaluating theory as a question of the best model of debate for maximizing fairness and education, which I evaluate through an offense/defense model the same way I would compare a plan and counterplan/SQO. Absent arguments otherwise, I evaluate interpretations as a model of debate defended in all hypothetical rounds, rather than as a way to callout a rule violation within one specific debate.

• I will vote on paragraph theory (theory arguments read as an independent voting issue without an explicit interpretation), but need these arguments to be well developed with a clear impact, link story (why does the other team trigger this procedural impact), and justification for why dropping the team solves this impact. Absent a clear drop the debater implication on paragraph theory, I'll generally err towards it being drop the argument.

• I default to competing interpretations and drop the team on theory, absent other arguments. Competing interpretations for me means that I evaluate the theory layer through a risk of offense model, and I will evaluate potential abuse. I don’t think this necessarily means the other team needs to provide a counter-interpretation (unless in-round argumentation tells me they do), although I think it definitely makes adjudication easier to provide one.

• I have a hard time evaluating reasonability without a brightline. I don’t know how I should interpret what makes an argument reasonable or not absent a specific explanation of what that should mean without being interventionist, and so absent a brightline I’ll usually just end up evaluating through competing interpretations regardless.

• I don't mind voting on RVIs, so long as they're warranted and have an actual impact that is weighed against/compared with the other theory impacts in the round. Similar to my position on IVIs: I'm fine with voting for them, but I don't think the tag "voting issue" actually accomplishes anything in terms of impact sequencing or comparison; tell me why this procedural impact uplayers other procedural arguments like the initial theory being read, and why dropping the team is key to resolve the impact of the RVI.

Advantage/DA

• Uniqueness determines the direction of the link (absent explanation otherwise), so please make sure you’re reading uniqueness in the right direction. Basically: I'm unlikely to vote on linear advantages/disadvantages even if you're winning a link, unless it's literally the only offense left in the round or it's explicitly weighed against other offense in the round, so do the work to explain to me why your worldview (whether it's an advocacy or the SQO) is able to resolve or at least sidestep the impact you're going for in a way that creates a significant comparative differential between the aff and neg worldviews.

• I have a pretty high threshold for terminal defense, and will more often than not assume there’s at least some risk of offense, so don’t rely on just reading defensive arguments.

• Perfectly fine with generic advantages/disads, and I’m generally a fan of the politics DA. That being said, specific and substantial case debates are great as well.

• I default to fiat being durable.

CP

• Please give me specific texts.

• Fine with cheater CPs, but also more than happy to vote on CP theory.

• I default that perms are tests of competition and not advocacies.

• I default to functional or net benefits frameworks for evaluating competition. I generally won’t evaluate competition via textuality absent arguments in the round telling me why I should.

K

• I really enjoy the K debate, and this was probably where I had the most fun as a debater. I have a pretty good understanding of most foundational critical literature, especially postmodern theory (particularly Foucault/Deleuze&Guatarri/Derrida). Some debates that I have particularly familiarity with: queer theory, orientalism, anthro/deep eco/ooo, buddhism/daoism, kritikal approaches to spatiality and temporality, structural vs micropolitical analysis, semiotics. That being said, please make the thesis-level of your criticism as clear as possible; I'm open to voting on anything, and am very willing to do the work to understand your position if you provide explanation in-round.

• I’m perfectly happy to vote on kritikal affirmatives, but I will also gladly vote on framework-t. On that note, I’m also happy to vote on impact turns to fairness/education, but will probably default to evaluating the fairness level first absent other argumentation. I find myself voting for skews eval implications of fairness a lot in particular, so long as you do good sequencing work.

• Same with CPs, I default to perms being a test of competition and not an advocacy. I’m also fine with severance perms, but am also open to theoretical arguments against them; just make them in-round, and be sure to provide a clear voter/impact.

• I default to evaluating the link debate via strength of link, but please do the comparative analysis for me. Open to other evaluative methods, just be clear in-round.

• I have a decent understanding of performance theory and am happy to vote on performance arguments, but I need a good explanation of how I should evaluate performative elements of the round in comparison to other arguments on the flow.

• Regarding identity/narrative based arguments, I think they can be very important in debate, and they’ve been very significant/valuable to people on the Cal Parli team who have run them in the past. That being said, I also understand that they can be difficult and oftentimes triggering for people in-round, and I have a very hard time resolving this. I’ll usually defer to viewing debate as a competitive activity and will do my best to evaluate these arguments within the context of the framing arguments made in the round, so please just do your best to make the evaluative method for the round as clear as possible, to justify your specific performance/engagement on the line-by-line of the round, and to explain to me your position's specific relationship to the ballot.

Other random thoughts:

• I pretty strongly disagree with most paradigmatic approaches that frame the judge's role as one of preserving particular norms/outlining best practices for how debate ought to occur, and I don't think it's up to the judge to paternalistically interfere in how a round ought to be evaluated. This is in part because I don't trust judges to be the arbiters of which arguments are or are not pedagogically valuable, given the extensive structural biases in this activity; and the tendency of coaches and judges to abuse their positions of power in order to deny student agency. I also think that debaters ought to be able to decide the purpose of this activity for themselves-while I think debate is important as a place to develop revolutionary praxis/build critical thinking skills/research public policy, I also think it's important to leave space for debaters to approach debate as a game and an escape from structural harms they experience outside of the activity. Flow-centric models seem to allow for debaters to resolve this on their own, by outlining for me what the function of debate ought to be on the flow, and how that should shape how I assign my ballot (more thoughts on this at the top of the "Framework" section in my paradigm).

• What the above implicates out to is: I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the "worse argument" if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as the argument has at least an analytic justification and has been explained in terms of how it implicates my evaluation of the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of.

June 4th 2020 NFA-LD Update:

I'm mostly new to NFA-LD LD so feel free to ask me questions. I competed for a year as a freshman (moon energy topic), mainly on the Northern California circuit, although I wasn't particularly competitive. I don't have a ton of familiarity with the current topic, besides the last week or so of research. Most of the paradigm below applies, but here's some specific thoughts that could apply to NFA-LD.

• I don't think I know the format well enough to know which paradigmatic questions to outline here explicitly. As a general rule of thumb, please just be explicit about how you want me to evaluate the round, and give me reasons to prefer that mechanism (ie whether I should read cards or only evaluate extensions as made in-round, what the implication of a stock issues framework should be, whether/how much to flow cross-ex, etc.). I have very few preferences myself, so long as the round burdens are made explicit for me.

• All of the above being said, I'll probably err towards reading speech docs (Zoom is difficult, and this keeps my flow a lot cleaner), I will evaluate CX analysis although I may not flow it, and I'll only hold the line on stock issues framing if explicitly requested. If you want to know how I default on any other issues, please just ask! Also, no particular issues with speed, although I may tank speaks if you spread out an opponent unnecessarily.
  
  
• I don't have as much experience flowing with cards; I have been practicing, and don't think this should be much of an issue, but maybe something to be aware of. Clearer signposting between cards might not be a bad call if you want to play it safe.
  
  
• I'm a very big fan of procedural and kritikal debate in NPDA, and don't see that changing for NFALD, so feel free to run whatever in front of me. Fine with evaluating non-topical affs, but also very comfortable voting on T, especially with a good fairness collapse.

Background/Experience

I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.

I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.

Unique consideration

I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.

Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)

Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.

Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making

As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.

That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.

Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making

I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.

Openness to critical/performative styles of debating

See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.

Topicality/Theory

While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.

Parliamentary procedure

While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.

I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

TLDR; Be nice or your speaker points perish, a good pun gets you 30 speaks (no, puns do not counteract being mean). Do what you want; I’ll weigh the round how you tell me and all positions are pretty equal in my mind as long as they are probably. I’m more likely to vote on a probable conventional war scenario that kills 50 people than a nuke war scenario.

Speed: I’m decent on speed, but don’t stress, I will clear or slow you if I can’t keep up. While I don’t mind if you go fast, don’t be a jerk to the other team, slow down at least a bit. Also, don’t abuse clears. Use them when needed and I’ll do my best to protect both teams. For example, if one team is all speed and the other is a fair bit slower, y’all should try and meet in the middle so we can have a good debate.

DA’s/Plans/AD’s: Keep them organized and well explained and I’ll be happy. I don’t have a huge preference for the style; I’m just as likely to vote on a kritical advantage and I am to vote on a heg disad. My one qualm is, if you’re reading politics, make sure the link is clear and the specific scenario is explained well in your first speech. I dislike when I don’t know who the lynchpin of the politics scenario is until the member speech and dislike when the reason X politician will dislike something is “just cuz”.

K’s: I like K’s but prefer them to be well explained. Don’t just throw out a name, explain the line of analysis. For K aff’s I prefer if you either are topical or just reject the topic; no point trying to shoehorn arguments about why you’re kinda upholding the res if you aren’t. For a neg K, make sure the links are solid and unique to whatever the aff team reads. Don’t just say, you use the USFG and so bleh!-give reasons that their plan is uniquely problematic.

Theory/Fw: Condo is bad, that’s just the truth. I like theory and Framework, but I don’t like pointless theory. So if you read a theory on no neg fiat, it won’t have much weight for me. However, if the theory position seems like it does have some bearing in the debate, I’m willing to weigh it how y’all debate it. Framework can be a good way to answer the K and does not always have to be prison guarding. I prefer if the framework shell you read has some weighing comparison to the K framework.

Speaker points: Simple rules, I will try to be very gracious in my speaker points, but if you are rude or mean to the other team or your partner, I won’t hesitate to give you 11 speaker points. A little bit of sas is fine and all, but the animosity in debate rounds usually gets out of hand and devolves into pettiness. Debate should be enjoyable, we’re all smart people and can win arguments without being buttheads about it. I also love puns, so if you make a pun, you almost guarantee yourself 30 speaker points (and no, being a jerk, then making puns does not make your speaker points better).

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

Brian Lain

University of North Texas

I work very hard in debates. I concentrate. I teach courses about argumentation and rhetoric at both grad and undergrad level. This greatly influences my thinking in debates. I do not feel that debates are necessarily won by ushering forth the truth. Debates are won by doing the best communicating in an argumentatively competitive setting. I am not a slow thinker, However, I do encounter several debates where speakers are so unclear that I cannot follow critical points in the debate. This happens at the peril of those speaking. I do not think I am a truth machine whom you submit evidence to and ask me to find out which side is correct. I am a critic of argument and as such try to listen and compare arguments as the debate is going on.

I am not a fan of voting on theory, however, I'll do it if you are behind or if its very in-round. Predispositions: counterplans have to be a reason to reject the Aff. Plan- Inclusive Counterplans are ok, Dispositional counterplans are  OK. I think the Aff has a small burden that they must overcome in terms of presumption, then the Neg must usher forth arguments in order to disprove the affirmative.

I try to work hard to make good decisions. I'll only read cards that I can understand the first time that they are presented. I try as much as possible to let the debaters characterize their and each other's arguments. I prefer to hear people comparing warrants as opposed to a list of names of authors. I do believe the name of the game is persuasion and eloquence. The qualifications debate is a lost art and I do think it is

important. You have to be fair and I really prefer it if people are nice.

-

I try to be as objective as possible, with the above predisposition included. In general, I prefer arguments which contain good reasons and strategies which make logical sense. I am less likely to be tricked by the use of big words and I often like to hear justifications.

I am not a person who thinks policy debate is always right. The need to constantly defend the burden of rejoinder has left me battle-weary after these many years. Perhaps the second speech, the rebuttal, has actually encouraged debaters to be lackadaisical and lazy in first speeches and encourages strategies based on bait and switch and sandbagging the best arguments until later. I tire of such things. The persuasive case should be made at the first available opportunity, and this has been said for over two thousand years. I have had the good fortune of working with a great many good debaters, including two top speakers at the National Debate Tournament. In each case, I found their skill and proficiency to exceed any particular piece of evidence or argument and I think that has formed my standard for what I consider good debate.

As an overview, I have been competing in and judging debate rounds since 1993.  I competed in policy debate, was in deep outrounds at NPDA, and was competitive in NFA-LD. I have been a primary prep coach for all of the teams that I have directed or assisted with including Willamette University (before they cut their NPDA program), Texas Tech University, and the University of Utah. With over 20 years of experience in debate, I have watched debate formats change, transition, replicate, and reform.  I’d like to think that I am a critic of argument, where the rules of the game matter.  That doesn’t mean that appeals to authority are sufficient, but feel free to assess these conceptions of debate as part of your audience analysis.

Some general notes:

(As a competitor, I always hated reading a book for a judge philosophy so here are the bulletpoints).

1. Compare warrants between contrasting arguments.
2. Compare impacts using words like “irreversibility,” “magnitude,” “timeframe,” “severity,” and “probability.”
3. Use warrants in all of your arguments.  This means grounding arguments in specific examples. 
4. Make sure your permutations contain a text and an explanation as to what I do with the permutation.  My default with permutations is that they are simply tests of competition.  I don’t typically believe that permutations get you out of a disad (shielding the links) or that you capture a counterplan win you when the perm.  If you have a different conception, make an argument to convince me how your permutation should work.
5. Use internal and external structure like Subpoint A 1. a. i. instead of saying “next” or stringing arguments together without breaks.  I try to keep a careful flow, help me do that.
6. Be cordial to one another. There’s no need to be mean or spikey.  I get that it’s an event that pits a team against another and debate can feel personal…but there’s no need to spout hate.
7. I take a careful flow…if you’re unclear or not giving me enough pen time don’t be upset when I ask you to clear up or slow down a touch.  Let me have time to flip the page.
8. Allow me to choose a winner at the end of the round.  I don’t award double wins or double losses.
9. Have voters and standards attached to procedural arguments if you want me to take them seriously.  “We meets” and counter-interpretation extensions are your friends.
10. I will protect you from new arguments in the rebuttals. There’s little need to call superfluous Points of Order.  If you call them, I’ll take it under consideration.
11. Have an alternative attached to your criticism or at least explain why you don’t need one.
12. Be on time to the round. Already have used to the restroom, gotten your water, found your room, etc.  I will follow the tournament instructions on lateness, regardless of prelim or outround. Please don't come to the round and then go to the bathroom, please relieve yourself before prep begins or during prep.  
13.  Compare standards if there are competing interpretations present.
14. Connect the dots between different arguments to illustrate how those arguments interact.
15. Kick arguments in the opp block to go deeper on selected arguments.  Going for everything tends to mean that you’re going for nothing.
16. Know the difference between offensive and defensive arguments. I still think arguments can be terminally defensive as long as it’s explained.
17. Avoid extending answers through ink. Answer opposing arguments before making key extensions.
18. Extend arguments/case via the member speeches to have access to them in the rebuttals.
19. Not everything can be a turn. Please avoid making everything a turn.
20. I do think that you can cross-apply arguments from other sheets of paper in the rebuttal.  It’s not like paper is sacrosanct.  If the argument was made in a prior speech, then it’s fair game.
21. Enjoy the debate round. I’m not going to force fun on you, but not everything has to be so serious.

Speaker points:

I typically give speaker points from 25-30. My average is a 27. 30’s from me are rare, but they are occasionally given. You likely won’t see more than one 30 from me at an invitational tournament. At NPTE, I’ve typically given out 3-4 30’s. I expect that most debaters at the NPTE will likely be in the 27-29 range.

Critical Arguments:

I tend to enjoy critical arguments as long as they’re well explained. Framework your argument (Role of the ballot/judge and/or interpretation about what you get access to) and provide an alternative (tell me what the world post-alt looks like and have solvency grounded in examples). Affirmatives can run critical arguments. If you’re running arguments that are incongruent with other arguments, you should likely have an explained justification for doing so.

Please don’t ask me to sit in a circle…have a discussion…rip up my ballot…get naked…or do anything that most folks would find mildly inappropriate. I think that debate is a performance. Some performances are better than others. Some performances are justified better than others. If you prefer a framework of a certain type of performance, make sure your framework is well articulated and warranted.  That's not to say that I don't enjoy critical debate.  I'm a doctoral student that studies critical theory.  I am well read on queer theory, psycho-analysis, and critical theories of knowledge production.

Other things about the K - Method vs. Method debates seem ripe for permutations...read literature on triangulation. I think PMR's should go deep on one or two major arguments if the block goes for the criticism.  Saying post-modern reductionist buzzwords makes my skin crawl, so do the explanatory work to win warrants.  Ground your claims in actual examples beyond another set of buzzwords.  In short, don't be lazy.   

Procedurals:

I require an interpretation, a violation, and a voter. You should probably have standards for why your interpretation is better than other interpretations. I don’t require competing interpretations, but it can be a useful tool for framing theory. As such, I don’t require in-round abuse (though it can help to prove why your interpretation is preferable).  I have a low threshold on procedurals.  Folks do wanky stuff…explain why your version of debate is preferable and why that means I should vote for you.  I am skeptical of MG theory arguments and will hold them to a much higher standard than I would LOC theory.

Counterplans

I think folks should tell me why they get access to their counterplan in the LOC. I might have a very different conception of a PIC than you do (for example, PIC’s are plan inclusive counterplans, which mean they include the entirety of the text of the plan). I think opp’s should identify a CP’s status to avoid procedural args like conditionality. Permutations should be explained. I want to know how you think they function in the round. My default status for a won permutation is that I just stop looking at the CP as it means the CP is not an opportunity cost to the plan. If you have a different interpretation as to what I should do with a permutation, you should articulate my options.

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

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

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

Longer (probably unnecessary) version

General Overveiw:

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

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

More specific stuff:

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

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

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

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

CP/ DA : Ayyyyyyyyy

Hi there!

My name is Amanda, and I'm the DOF at Concordia University Irvine. It's been a while since I've judged at a tournament, so I'll just give a few highlights:

*Not a very big fan of these things they call NIBs, to be honest I simply don't understand how they work. Sorry:( I won't vote on them.

*Things that are rules of the game (Topicality, time limits, prep, etc) are A Priori. Everything else is up for debate.

*Since this is my first tournament in a while, and my first one really judging virtually, please slow if I say slow. I promise I'm not doing it to be annoying, but I can't evaluate things I can't write down.

General stuff:

I tend to prefer policy debate, and am sympathetic to trichotomy arguments that say policymaking includes the educational facets of value and fact debate. Value and fact debates are often lacking in the very basic structure of claim+data+warrant, and rarely use terminalized impacts. These shortcomings are much easier to logically rectify if policymaking is used. "should" is not necessary to test whether or not the resolution is true.

Theory comes first in debate, since it is a debate about the rules. I default to competing interpretations and am unlikely to vote for your counter interpretation if it has no counter standards for that reason. That being said, a we meet acts as terminal defense under competing interpretations, so that's a way to win as well. MOs should choose whether to go for topicality or the substance debate and collapse to one OR the other, not both. Likewise, PMRs should choose whether to collapse to MG theory arguments OR the substance debate, not both. I do not enjoy voting for RVIs and have a very low threshold for defense on these. I do not enjoy voting for spec args honestly can't remember doing so.

Kritiks should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. The framework should be utilized as offense to frame out the method of the AFF, and prioritize the impacts of the K. The Alt should explain why they solve for the AFF, and avoid the disadvantages of the link story. I prefer critiques that do not make essentialized claims without warrants about how the AFF's method in particular needs to be rejected. I prefer critical affirmatives be topical in their advocacy statement or policy option.

Disadvantages should explain why they turn the AFF and have terminalized impacts. Uniqueness claims should be descriptive of the status quo, with a predictive claim about what direction the status quo is heading. Politics disadvantages should have well-warranted link stories that explain why the plan uniquely causes losers/win, winners to lose, etc.

Counterplans should solve for at least one of the advantages of the AFF. Plan-inclusive counterplans are core negative ground, though perhaps less so on resolutions with 1 topical affirmative (resolutions that require the AFF to pass a bill, for example). I usually default to counterplans competing based on net benefits, and thus permutation arguments need to explain why the perm shields the link to the disadvantage(s).

idk. i used to say things like "i default to being a policy maker" but that is no longer true--it is true that i have a predilection for policy debate and given no framework by either team, i am likely to return to old habits, but it is true that i am critical friendly and if either team are to make a stab at that, and have some real understanding of it, i am likely to like it :-)

beyond that, i would describe myself, these days, as an old school "games player"-- iow, i will vote for the team that does the better job debating. particularly in a round where there are multiple technical flaws i can understand how that may appear to be a haphazard and subjective process, but i will do the best i can to evaluate the round fairly.

your number one responsibility as a debater is to tell me how to judge the round-- tell me what is the reason you win the round . . . .

debate is a comparison (at heart) -- so the better debaters are the ones who can make the best comparisons.

more than anything else, above all other considerations:

BE NICE.

The allegory of the cornbread:

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


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

I have roughly nine years of debate experience as a competitor and coach. I left debate full time over the summer, and have only judged a handful of rounds this year. Mostly this means that you should not presume that I possess a great deal of topic knowledge, so clarity and comparison work in the rebuttals is more important than ever. My undergraduate studies emphasized US American Political Science and International Relations, and my MA is in Communication Studies, with an emphasis in rhetoric and critical pedagogy, so my experiences and perspectives are informed by a diverse range of literature and theoretical perspectives.

I am agnostic on most argumentative issues in debate. The bulk of my competitive experience was invested in topic research and debate geared towards policy centered/plan focus debates, though I spent the last couple of years primarily coaching and judging critique teams, and am supremely comfortable evaluating both critical and policy debate. I err neg on most questions of debate theory, though I would describe myself as slightly aff biased on issues of topicality and framework, but still operate close to the median.

I place a premium on comparative work in the rebuttals. I am not a particularly voracious card reader. This is by design. At the high school level, I want to incentivize an approach to debate that requires students to think critically and creatively about how arguments interact with one another, and to underline the importance of individual debaters understanding the nuances of their evidence.

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

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

Judging Generally

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

Framework

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

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

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

Theory

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

Independent Voters

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

Mack Sermon- College of Western Idaho

Bachelor of Science: Social Science- Boise State University 1991

Master of Arts: Communication- Notre Dame 2016

1980-1984 Competitor Skyline HS, Idaho Falls, Idaho

1984-1990 Competitor Boise State University

1986-1987 Director of Speech & Debate, Skyline HS, Idaho Falls, Idaho

1990-1993 Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, Boise State University

1996-2012 Director of Speech & Debate, The College of Idaho

2012-2015 Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, Utah State University

2015-2017 Assistant Speech & Debate Coach, College of Western Idaho

I have about 35 years experience in competition, judging and coaching, mostly in the Great Northwest. I have significant experience with IEs, NDT, CEDA, NPDA, IPDA and NFC-LD. 

Debates should focus on Aristotle’s Big 3: ethos, pathos and logos- and keeping it fun and educational.

-Your character, ethos, is established in and out of the debate by your behavior with opponents, teammates, me and others. Please treat everyone with respect and friendship.

-Emotion, or pathos, is demonstrated by the conviction and selection of your arguments and fairness to your opponents. Your delivery should make me believe that you really care about the issue.

-To me, logos is most important. A case must be logical. This requires that you make a claim, provide proof of some sort, develop a warrant, then pull it all together for a case. Please, please, do not simply make claims and expect me to accept them as truth.

-Speed: Sure I could talk as fast as any of them, but I really dislike debaters who purposely garble their presentation. I tolerated it in policy debate because at least I could look at their evidence after the round. In NPDA, what am I supposed to look at, your flow? Also, you can be persuasive when speaking fast.

-I’m fine with counterplans if you meet the requirements of a counterplan- I’m bored by agent change, study, and delay counterplans. But I’ll listen.

-I will listen to Topicality, procedurals or structured definition arguments but since you are basically accusing your opponents of “breaking the rules”, presumption is with the AFF. I sort of like Specification arguments but I don’t always vote for them.

-I’m not opposed to the concept of the Kritik but I only voted for them about 30-40% in true policy debate-- less in NPDA and IPDA. There just isn’t enough time in the shorter forms, without substantial evidence, to perform the type of dialectic discussion that Aristotle advocates, so a Kritik is often too complex to work. However, you are welcome to give it a shot.

-It’s unlikely that you will win on a single dropped subpoint- unless it’s really, really important. Give me a framework to evaluate the round. Show me the big picture to justify my ballot.

-I really prefer a straight up debate on the heart of the topic. Case versus Disads, impact and link comparisons. Straight refutation. I’m old-school, yes, and just generally old. But, I think I am a fair judge and willing to evaluate the debate without using my preferences against you.

Hey y’all, Nadya here, I’m glad that I’m getting the opportunity to judge you in this round! For the sake of a pre-round TL:DR-

I want my opinion to come into play as little as possible during the round. I would like to be told how to vote and why, by the end of the rebuttals I will almost always pick the easiest simplest route to ballot possible. You can do this through Impact Calc, Framing debates, link directionality claims, etc. I don’t particularly care what the debate ends up being about, topical or in total rejection of the resolution I’ll be fine either way. I am fairly familiar with Policy, Kritik, and theory debate, do what you want. I will give you the best possible feed back I am capable of at the end of the round. I am most familiar with NPDA and NFA-LD.

Some more specific things for when you have time to read more -

General Things -

- I find that people have gotten less interesting clear in their impact calculus as of late, I would like more explicit and clear articulations as to why I should care about what impact. Absent being given this context in a round I will default to probable over high magnitude impacts.

- My experience with debate, I am currently the Director of Debate at Lewis and Clark College and have been for the last 5 years.  Before that I competed in NPDA and NFA-LD for 5 years in college.  I read a little bit of everything as a debater but had some particular favourites (Queer Pes, D&G, DeCol, Impact Turns)

- I have no problem voting on terminal defense if the round comes down to it, but I am always much more excited to get to actual vote offense in a round.

- I’m fine with you going fast if you want, its not really a huge problem so long as you aren’t weaponizing speed to exclude other people in the round go wild. I have a pretty low threshold needed to be met to vote on speed theory

- I don’t vote on disclosure, don’t take this as a challenge, I DO NOT VOTE ON DISCLOSURE, I do not care if its conceded, I do not care if you think you’ve got the version of the argument to get me to finally change, I will not vote for it under any circumstances.

- Please please please, read analytics, be smart, just saying an argument isn’t an argument because it doesn’t have a piece of evidence immediately attached to it doesn’t mean that an argument wasn’t made, as long as its explained an analytic is a perfectly valid argument and needs to treated as such.

- I like creative extensions of the aff, I like well structured overviews, and in general am always excited to see what weird new things you all come up with, so please show me what you’ve got, I love seeing the limits of what debate is capable of being.

Theory Specifics

- I will vote on theory read in basically any speech within reason, I think that if abuse happens in the 1NR than the 2AR has a right to read arguments about it happening, it doesn’t mean I will automatically vote on it, but I will at least flow and eval it.

- Some jurisdictional issues regarding theory. Theory is by default Apriori, you can always make the argument that it isn’t or that I should evaluate something else first. “This is an NFA-LD rule” is not a voter its a statement, the action of them breaking a rule has a result, that is your voter. Fairness and Education are bad voters, please contextualize them, what kind of fairness, education about what? Please make sure you have a clear interpretation, please please please make sure its clear, I will hold you to the interp you read out of the first speech it is read out of. I will default to competing interpretations as an eval mechanism unless told explicitly not too.

- lighting round, Yes I’ll vote on 1AR theory, Condo is fine until it isn’t, Dispo is okay until it isn’t, Pics are good until they aren’t, Floating pics are great until they aren’t, CP theory is always a good option, I’ll vote on spec but I won’t be happy about it, Potential abuse is fine but proven abuse last forever.

Kritik Specifics

- I am familiar with most common critical authorship that has been popular in the last decade or so. This includes; Cap of all flavours, Queerness stuff, Blackness lit, Decol and Set Col stuff, PoMo stuff like D&G, Ableism stuff, and a few fringe things. Feel free to read whatever kind of kritik you want to in front of me and I will evaluate it to the absolute best of my ability.

- I’m not super picky about how you read a kritik, but I do think that every kritik needs to functionally make three claims in order to function. First, a Kritik must make some kind of evaluative claim, what should my ballot focus on and what impacts should be prioritized. Second, a Kritik must have a link to the specific actions either advanced explicitly or methodologically endorsed by the aff plan. Third, there needs to be a clear and explicit alternative that has a clear solvency claim.

- If you want to read a K Aff go wild, I did it a lot when I was a debater, I am usually sympathetic to them and enjoy a good K Aff, that being said, I do still expect you to fill your time and be strategic. If you’re rejecting the topic wholesale fine, but tell me why, give me a reason why the topic should be abandoned. Make sure that you are advancing a clear methodology in your 1AC as well, I don’t so much care what that method is just make sure you stick to it, I find that I am exceptionally compelled by a a good contextualization or warranted analysis of the 1AC vs theory etc. out of the 1NC. A sneaky 1Ar/2AC restart will almost always net you high speaks in my book, its a hard thing to do well but if you can manage a tricky restart to the debate in the second aff speech I won’t shut up about it.

- Rapid Fire, Links of omission are bad and warrant link turns of omission please be specific on your link sheet, you can read a K and theory at the same time I find that I not super compelled by “you read theory which is a form of X violent practice so it links to your K” like if you want to go for the double turn go for it but like its not a strong arg, K and theory operate on different levels which I evaluate comes first is up to you and your opponent, floating pics are fun please read them strategically but make sure you can answer the theory sheet first.

Policy Specifics

- I am fine evaluating a good Case vs CP and DA combo. In fact a good DA/PIC combo is one of perhaps the most fun strategies that exists in the negative tool box. I am fine with any sort of case argument. I will vote on terminal defense, the sqo is neg ground and if the aff can’t solve than the aff doesn’t change the sqo, so I vote negative. I am not happy to vote on terminal defense, but as they say, the status quo is always an option I guess.

- I find that too often people read uniqueness args at each other but never think about the way those arguments actually interact with each other. I think that the best way to win a policy debate is to win the uniqueness level. Who cares if the aff solves an impact if the sqo already solved it right? I think that too often we focus on impact debate and link debate and forgo some of the fundamentally important arguments that are needed to win these claims. If you’re reading this now, take it as a reminder, when was the last time you updated your 1AC uniqueness? Cutting updates should happen before every tournament, don’t let yourself lose because you didn’t stay on top of your research.

- Straight Case is perhaps the best thing a 1NC can read, if you read straight case in front of me you will almost certainly net 30 speaks no questions asked. I’ve almost never not voted on this strategy, just case defense and impact turns or link turns is such a compelling strategy and as you’ll find out, a lot of people are a lot less ready to actually defend their case than you may think.

Some last minute fun things -

- Try to have fun, I love voting on goofy stuff and am fine to have a good time. The only argument that has a 100% win rate in front of me is Wipe Out so like who cares what I think anyway right?

Unaffiliated

Previously coached University of Washington, University of Puget Sound, Interlake High School, Bingham High School.

Graduated from University of Puget Sound in 2013

Short version

All approaches (policy, k and beyond) are welcome. Do some good research. Be specific with your claims. Tailor your argument to your opponents. You can cheat, but not too much. I am probably about 50/50 on T vs the K aff.

I judge sparingly these days. It is a safe assumption that my knowledge of the topic is, at best, equivalent to a decent google search. What I've written below may no longer be of any relevance, but it's an approximation of what I thought about most when I was judging more often.

Miscellaneous pet peeves

- Saying "cut the card" without marking where it's cut

- Excessive (ie longer than :30) overviews

- Ending prep before clicking "send" on the email chain/before the flash drive leaves your computer

- CXes that don't go anywhere, or that get interesting and are promptly forgotten

- Cruelty/being unnecessarily mean/disrespecting people/using hateful speech

General

When I debated, I typically read a plan and tended to defend it, and went for both Ks and policy strategies on the negative. As a coach, I've worked across the spectrum, both with traditional policy squads and one-off/no-plan teams. I've qualified teams to the NDT and the TOC, and was a CEDA elim participant and NDT qualifier myself.

I have some thoughts about content and style, but at the end of the day, I think both sides of the k/policy "divide" are interesting and worthwhile. Fundamentally, I think debate is a game of research, in one form or another. In "policy" debates, author qualification, evidence specificity, recency, and conclusiveness are all worth referencing and comparing. In "kritik" debates, explanation and application to your opponents' arguments and evidence is crucial. Either way, I like it when debates are reflective of controversies in academic fields, and not just constructed out of ideas pulled from the back pages of newspapers or sketchy timecube-esque websites. I think reading evidence in the correct context and with minimal distortion of its authors' intent is important.

I think that you should respond to your opponents' arguments. How you do that is up to you, but it's much easier for me when you proceed in an order similar to that of your opponent, and make it clear which argument you're responding to. I've judged several debates that were pretty far from this, and while I enjoyed them, I think I'm far less predictable at deciding them.

Plan-focus debate

Excellent! I think well-researched and well-executed technical policy debate is awesome.

Particularly in this context, I think defense matters, and am willing to depart from the offense/defense cult. The last time I sat on a panel was because I assessed a 0% risk of a net benefit to a PIC. I think good internal link defense against advantages/DAs is an underutilized strategic element.

The politics DA gets a lot of hate from people, but if you think you can wordsmith your way through the logical oddities of the argument, I'm probably a surprisingly good judge for you. From an educational perspective, I think it's cool that debaters expend so much energy to keep up with news about federal legislation, and I'm more than happy to reward it as a judge.

Kritiks/etc

Academically speaking, this is probably my comfort zone, but that makes me much more willing to inject my interpretation about what an argument is supposed to say into how I evaluate a debate.

I think talking about the aff (when on the negative) is crucial. This is particularly true of how you explain the alt.

I think role of the ballot args are often arbitrary and self-serving. I think you're better off defending the relative merits of your framing mechanism, but I will probably disregard one-line interpretations that needlessly stack the deck in your favor.

I am open to and interested in alternative models of competition but will default to my interpretation of traditional opportunity cost absent any direction to the contrary. I have, in a couple instances, determined that the aff didn't get a perm, but that was usually because the block out-teched the 1AR on the theory debate, and not because I think that argument is particularly compelling.

Procedurals

I like neg flex. I think, as far as "the rules" go, that the neg probably should get to read a few conditional advocacies, and indirect "contradictions" between them (like the security k and a DA impact) aren't necessarily the end of the world. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, however, for both theoretical and critical reasons. Also, I'm not too keen on the "judge kick" conditionality argument.

I would rather reject the arg and not the team on theory, but I respect the value of theory as an element of a diverse strategy.

I think T debate is a good thing. Real-world relevance or engagement with core debates in topic literature is important. I like T debates that effectively use evidence.

The less generic a framework arg feels (vs the non-traditional/K aff), the more I will like it.

My name is Nick Stump I competed 4 years at Northern Arizona University in NPDA
and LD and 4 years directly coaching HS/college. The biggest thing I wanted as a competitor was a judge that would be open minded and intent on listening
and letting the debaters have the round they want to have. I want to see what makes
you the best you rather than feeling pinned to having a particular format. I try to be
approachable about questions and am willing to see anything from traditional policy-
oriented debates to performance; the round is yours to debate.

What wins rounds:
I will vote on almost any argument, but what wins is framing and
comparative analysis of impacts, solvency, and link differentials. Weighing is
wonderful, I prefer weighing material impacts than nebulous claims. Please read all
interpretations on theory and texts of plan/cp/alts twice OR SLOW DOWN. Decorum:
I don’t care if you sit or stand when debating. I am not here to criticize your clothes.
I’m here to evaluate arguments.

Section 2: Specifics.
1. Speaker points: I like humor, but prefer people being real.

2. K’s:
YES! I mostly read K’s in debate, both sides of the rez. I extremely prefer topic
specific criticisms and critical impact framing to generics plug-in or rejecting topics
outright. I think the weakest point of a criticism is the alternative/solvency, and
generally think it’s better to just engage than shy away from answering them. If you
read jumble-word- salad k’s that morph in the block, please strike me. I don’t like
when people read multiple contradicting strategies or kick out of the alternative.

3. Performance-based arguments:
Not my favorite, but explain what your performance is and why that is necessary/important to framing the debate round.

4. Theory:
I enjoy theory when it is done right, but bad theory just sounds like whining. I don’t
know how to quantify education, do that for me. Tell me what ground you should
have had. Contextualizing theory to the round and what your opponents have done
especially goes a long way. Tell me whether it is reasonability framing or competition
interpretations. I don’t generally err either side on theory, I prefer creative affirmative
interpretations to outright rejection. Consult is probably bad. One conditional CP is usually fine, but don’t read contradictory strategies, and you probably don’t get to
sever yourself out of offensive things said.

5. Counter plans/DA:
Anything goes! I prefer clear brinks and terminalized impacts with timeframe
analysis. Please don’t read consult. Secretly 8 minutes of case turn in the LOC is my
favorite debate. I generally prefer depth over breadth. I prefer creative affirmative
interpretations to outright rejection of pmc.

6. Permutations:
Bad perm debate makes my head hurt, depth and developing your argument here helps
a lot.

7. Speed:
Debaters who sacrifice clarity for speed disappoint me. Don’t expect me to know
your blocks. I don’t like speed used as a tool to exclude your opponent, but often find
anti-speed procedurals have an arbitrary bright line without indicting the performance
of the other team. That being said the fastest debater does not always win the round,
but often does because of comparisons. Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed.

Ashe Tippins - they/them pronouns (she/her is not preferred but i'm not gonna correct you if you use it, just try to like not)

ashe.tippins@gmail.com // please include me on any email chain that is created for the round

First a little about me as a debater: I debated in college parli debate for four years at Western Washington University off and on between 2010-2016 (yes i'm old, but hey at least i've seen a lot of rounds lmao). I coached high school policy debate for two years. In the six years since I debated, I have coached and judged rounds in a variety of formats; I, now, coach policy and CARD debate at Western Washington University.

How I evaluate a round: My evaluation of a round does not change based on the arguments presented in the round. The only exception being debate performances that present sufficient cause to abandon the guidelines I have listed below. Such performances are; arguments that have won on the flow but are morally reprehensible (i.e. arguments that advocate for transphobia, antiblackness, colonialism, misogyny, antifatness, ableism, etc.), ad hominin based arguments*, and arguments that preclude another debater's ability to compete (i.e. triggering arguments). My bright line for abandoning the evaluation method outlined below is; 1) the performance of one of the listed behaviors above being present within the debate round, and 2) the argument is made that the team must be voted against for their performance within the debate. I would prefer that teams collapse to the performative exclusion type arguments however, a collapse is not necessary for me to vote on the argument. I do not enjoy voting on these arguments and I prefer to default to my stated evaluation method; i do not think a minor performance of these listed behaviors will be enough for me to exclude an entire team rather than simply excluding the argument**. *Ad hominin based arguments about public figures, authors, or rapists are not performances I would include within this designation. **this does not apply to performance-based arguments, simply arguments concerning the performance of the debaters’ opponents in the round.

A Note About Misgendering Your Opponents: DON'T DO IT! You are not always gonna know ahead of time, so ASK and never assume. If your opponent lets you know that you have misgendered them and you do not stop misgendering them, I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN. This functions the same way that the performance-based reasons to evaluate the round differently function; the only differing factor is that I have a zero-tolerance policy for continued misgendering within the debate round.

1. FRAMEWORK: By the very nature of framework, it must come first in any evaluation. Comparison work must be done between competing framework interpretations; simply giving further examples of your own framework is not sufficient. Framework decides which impacts must be solved for and which types of arguments I should prefer when making my decision. Role of the ballot arguments also need to be a full argument [claim-warrant-impact] as opposed to an assertion.  

2. INTERNAL LINKS/SOLVENCY: After determining which impacts must be solved (the point of framework debates), it is a question of who solves the impacts best. This is; CP solvency vs. Plan solvency – Alt Solvency vs. Plan solvency – Plan solvency vs. Status Quo Solvency – Standards internal link vs. counter standards internal link.

a. If the framework and uniqueness are agreed upon, then my decision will be for the team that best solves for the agreed upon impacts.

b. If the framework is won by either side, my decision will be for the team that best solves for the impacts that the winning interpretation prioritizes.

c. Under the winning framework, if solvency of the impacts is sufficiently contested and justified by each team, it is a question of uniqueness and the evaluation continues.

3. UNIQUENESS: There is all types of uniqueness – link turn uniqueness, uniqueness overwhelms the link, disad uniqueness, internal link turn uniqueness, etc. – and justifying sufficient uniqueness for your offense is the way to edge your way out of a close debate in front of me.

a. If the team wins that their instance of solvency is unique in some way - i.e. there's an opportunity cost or solving for a problem now allows future problems to have greater solvency - then the team that has the most unique solvency will have my ballot.

b. Conversely, if a team wins that there is no uniqueness for the other teams solvency - i.e. the problem could be solved later or will be solved by enacting some alternative to the presented advocacy - then the question becomes what percentage of the impact did each team win and which type of solvency should be preferred. This is where impact calculus comes in - magnitude, probability, reversibility, and timeframe. Realistically these are just impact framework arguments however, if there is no uncontested or cleanly won uniqueness for either sides impact solvency and there is nearly equal claim to solvency then it is ONLY a question of what type of solvency is best. These questions are answered by impact calculus and impact comparison. Too many times debaters leave this last question to the judge - which results in unhappy debaters and judges - if you want to be in control of the decision in front of me - then simply tell me how to vote and i'll follow you like jazz.

Hopefully this blurb only convinces you to read the arguments that you want to read...

This is my second-year coaching parli at WWU and my tenth year in the activity so I've probably seen a flavor of the arguments that you want to deploy. That being stated, I try to evaluate the round through the lens that you provide. If that means I adopt a normative utilitarian calculus then cool. Want me to not evaluate strictly from the flow? Awesome--just make sure that you provide an alternative weighing mechanism.

When I was debating I was a huge proponent of the classic TKO strategy but that shouldn’t deter you from running CPs, projects, or anything in front of me. While I do have theoretical dispositions against delay, object-fiat, and study CPs, that doesn’t mean that I will automatically drop a team for running those args. Though it is fair to say that I hold arguments that purposefully try to skew the other team out of the round to a higher level of skepticism. In other words, it’s not a good strategy to read 5 off that is littered with PoMo nonsense against a novice team when I’m sitting in the back. So be cool, have fun, and do what you think is best.

Some other random tidbits:

·        Speaker points range from 25-30 with 25 needing major improvement, 27.5 being average, and 30 being perfect

·        If you’re being excessively mean or violent then I won’t hesitate to vote you down: you are privileged enough to operate within this space but that doesn’t allow you to be an asshole.

·        I’ll rule on a POO but often times they’re unnecessary; there is never a need to do it more than 3 times (I promise I’ll notice any new arguments) and they are often a non-sequitur to the heart of the debate.

·        K v. K debates are BORING unless you can delineate between the competing methods

o   You are allowed to perm in a methods debate unless there is a compelling argument for why you shouldn’t

o   The Kritik should have a clear solvency mechanism and framework arguments should specifically lay out how the other team can engage with your arguments.

·        Don’t run theory as a time suck

·        For the love of all things sacred if you’re going for a procedural then only go for the procedural

o   Demonstrated abuse is helpful but not required for my ballot on T

·        If you’re clearly winning the debate then finish your speech and sit down—there’s no reason to beat a dead horse

·        Clash of civilization debates are the way to my heart

·        Obvi don’t expect me to fill in or favor your arguments just because they stem from an ideology that I also occupy

I debated throughout high school and then at Idaho State University for 5 years. I then coached at Idaho State University for 2 years, Weber for 1, USC for 1, and am currently with Houston.

I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I've had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and it's my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations, make me adapt to you instead of the other way around.

I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards.

I prefer not to call for evidence (although I would like to be on your email chain... misslindsayv@gmail.com). This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics.

Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument.

Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of debate? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.

This means things like framework and T (fun little-known fact: I've always found topicality in general super interesting--I love the nit-picky semantics of language) can be viable options against K affs. However, you are better off if you have a substantive response to the aff included as well.

I'm still kind of deciding how I feel about how competition functions in method debates. I think the most accurate depiction of what I think about it now is this (and it all obviously depends on what's happening in the debate/on the flow, but in general): I'll probably err that the affirmative on-face gets a permutation to determine if the methods are mutually exclusive, and so that means the best strategy for the negative in this world is to generate their links to the aff's method itself to prove that mutual exclusivity.

I'd really appreciate it if you could warn me in advance if there will be graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

Overview: In general, I am most comfortable in a policy making paradigm.  A specific plan tends to offer the best focus for debate. However, I understand that not all resolutions are translatable into “policy” language.  In those cases, the teams must clarify their frame, and how it should be evaluated.  Criteria should be more carefully thought out than “net benefits” or “preponderance of evidence” as to what is to be weighed and should be identified along with how the weighing takes place.  The opposition team should feel free to offer counter criteria.

Resolutionality/Topicality should be impacted by the opposition team with something other than “unfair” or “abusive.”  There should be a good reason based in decision making integrity and advocacy that drives this argument rather than the opposition didn’t think of it or doesn’t want to talk about it. Must be in round abuse, not potential.  Generally, cases that are hiding from the subject matter of the resolution are weak logically, and subject to critique for refusing to address important issues.  Have substantive reason for voting on Res/T arguments, and in round vs. potential abuse. NOTE: I tend to NOT vote on T

 Procedure:­ Please note that I likely will just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals.  I will penalize speaker points if the point is made and I feel it is inaccurate, or just a tactic to disrupt the speaker.

 Points of information are obviously strategic both as interruption devices and as a means to elicit information.  Debaters should make sure they are judicious in their use of them simply to interrupt.  There is such a thing as a stupid question.

Style: I tend not to follow much of the traditional or formal elements of the activity that are stylizations of parliamentary practice: 1.) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time; 2.) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you; 3.) Don’t do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand; 4.) I won’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech of no more than whatever, you know the order, speak; 5.) I will include thank-you and road map time in speech time. 

 Delivery: Structure is important and should be verbally identified as you speak.  It should be clear where you are refuting and extending arguments.  Simply going down the flow is not good enough, you should still be identifying the argument you are addressing by something other than “next.” I will reward humor and positive attitude.

 Argumentative Preferences:  I try not to eliminate any arguments simply because of their “title,” i.e. like “kritik” or Counterplan. However, any argument, even disadvantages, can be run poorly and weakly applied.  I try to focus on the content of the argument and its application instead of its title.  Please weigh arguments against each other and be aware of the others teams arguments as well when weighing.

 Aff “Projects”: Would prefer them to have links in the resolution and talk about the subject of the resolution even if just filtered through your project. I have deep doubts that the flaws of our activity will be solved by my ballot in a contest situation where the other team is automatically demonized and placed in binary opposition, your project should probably be presented at a business meeting to get any real outcome. But, if you run one I will try to evaluate based on both teams handling of framework.

This is an amendment to my posted judging philosophies, to which the content/style/preferences are all unmodified; this just serves as a “rider” to those documents

From this point forward, should any debater raise an issue in the debate that relates to the experience of personally being placed in a hostile environment or experiencing a harassing situation by participating in the activity, at the end of the round I am going to take that issue to the tournament director or ombudsperson for follow up. The intent is not to silence persons, or have them avoid talking about these things in rounds, but if harm has been done to you, I cannot leave it alone with the filling out of my ballot.

I feel obligated to take this position for several reasons:

1. It is a legal requirement. I face liability if I do not.

As per University Policy 1600.04:

“8. Employees Must Report Sexual Misconduct. Employees have a duty to promptly report to the Vice Provost for Equal Opportunity, Title IX Coordinator, known or suspected incidents of sex discrimination, including sexual misconduct (except for those employees statutorily barred from sharing such information). Students and visitors are also encouraged to report this.”

2.  This requirement extends to all places WWU is participating in activities related to University business.

“POL-U1600.04 PREVENTING AND RESPONDING TO SEX DISCRIMINATION, INCLUDING SEXUAL MISCONDUCT: This policy applies to all students, employees, agents, groups, third parties, individuals, and organizations that use University facilities and persons who participate in University programs and activities to the extent provided by law, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This policy applies to all Western locations (i.e., main campus, satellite locations, Lakewood); locations where Western activities are taking place (i.e., field trips, away sporting events); Western sponsored transportation (i.e., buses to off-campus events); and off-campus non Western sponsored events where the off-campus behavior creates a negative adverse impact back on campus.”

3.  I am no longer personally accepting of harmful activities towards others others being part of the content and “contest” of debate. There is absolutely NO debate possible about the acceptability of such behaviors. I am no longer willing to let my ballot alone be a referendum on such behaviors.

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

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

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

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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