here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

2008 NPDA National Championship 

Judge Philosophy Book 

March 27-30, 2008 

United States Air Force Academy 

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Amundsen, Allen 

Anderson, Jared 

Artime, Mike 

Badaracco, Gia-Nina 

Baechtel, Mark 

Bass, Steven 

Bates, Marlin 

Bingham, Paul 

Blasdel, Joe 

Bourne, Jay 

Braz, David 

Brodak, Geoffrey 

Bruce, Kathleen 

Bubb, Nick 

Buescher, Derek 

Busho, Robert 

Calle, Brian 

Carothers, Blake 

Carver, Randy 

Cheesewright, Kyle 

Church, Kim 

Cobb, Travis 

Cole, Becky 

Corum Billman, Jenny 

Coulter, Michael 

Copi, Ryan 

Cress, Justin 

Damico, Tony 

Danielson, Brian 

Day, Joel 

Denomie, Dave 

Dilley, Benita 

Dirgo, David 

Doty, Tim 

Doubledee, Steve 

Dreher, Michael 

Drutman, Paul 

Fiorta, Tim 

Franke, Melissa 

Funkhouser, Eric 

Garcia, Eric 

Gardner, Kasey 

Garner, Kevin 

Glenn, Cathy 

Grace, Jeremy 

Graham, Steven 

Graham, Todd 

Granger, Marcus 

Haas, Benjamin 

Hahner, Leslie 

Harvey, Korry 

Helder, Tyson 

Hoag, Andrew 

House, Josh 

Hunt, Jeannie 

Hunt, Steven 

Iberri-Shea, Danny 

Jensen, Kris 

Joffrion, Chris 

Johnson, Brooks 

Johnston Huntington, Terilyn 

Jones, Alan 

Jones, Steven 

Klinger, Geoff 

Kroeker, Faith 

Landry, Luke 

Lane, Gina 

Lauzon,, Rebekah 

Liberto, Nickie 

Livingston, Ashleigh 

Long, Shelby Jo 

3 

5 

6 

8 

9 

10 

12 

13 

14 

16 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

26 

26 

27 

28 

29 

31 

32 

34 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

42 

44 

46 

48 

49 

51 

53 

55 

56 

57 

59 

60 

61 

63 

64 

67 

68 

69 

72 

74 

75 

76 

78 

80 

81 

83 

84 

85 

87 

88 

90 

92 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

103 

104 

Martin, JJ 105 

Massey, Michelin 105 

Masu, David 108 

Mavity, Joey 109 

Menapace, Carrie 111 

Michels, Matt 112 

Miller, Greg 112 

Moran, Susanna 114 

Morton, Ryan 114 

Myers, Sarah 116 

Neesen, Bill 117 

Newkirk, Daniel 119 

Nichols, Jason 120 

Nishie, Karen 120 

Noonan, Thomas 122 

Norcross, Brian 123 

O'Grady, Brendan 123 

O'Leary, Kevin 125 

Olsen, Rob 126 

Olson, Tiffany 127 

Perry, Joelle 128 

Plush, Matt 129 

Pogge, Paul 129 

Poor, John 130 

Purcell, Jen 132 

Reinstedt, Dane 133 

Reynolds, Jessica 134 

Roberts, Chris 136 

Roberts, Sean 137 

Robertson, Kylie 139 

Romanelli, David 140 

Ross, Scott 141 

Rutledge, Skip 143 

Safran, Rachel 145 

Sanberg, Savannah 147 

Scanland, Dave 148 

Schabot, Dan 149 

Schnoebelen, Jim 150 

See, Lindsay 151 

Shephard, Kimberly 153 

Sietman, Dan 155 

Sietman, Rebecca 156 

Simas, Libby 158 

Simon, Ammon 160 

Siver, Christi 162 

Soto, Jen 165 

Stein, Darryl 165 

Straub, Sara 166 

Stroup, Kristopher 168 

Stutzman, Jacob 169 

Swan, Andrew 170 

Swift, Crystal Lane 171 

Taylor, Kevin 174 

Tiongson, Edwin 175 

Troyer, Ken 176 

Tuttle, Matthew 177 

Vanderpool, Tyler 178 

Veden, Mary Lynn 179 

Vemuru, Vamsi 181 

Vertican, Griffith 182 

Vradenburgh, Holly 183 

Wallace, Eric 184 

Walts, Chuck 186 

Weaver, Scott 187 

West, Tim 188 

Whalen, Kristina 189 

Whearty, Brandan 190 

Whearty, Marquesa 191 

Whitsitt, Travis 193 

Wilson, Andrew 194 

Wonnacott, Mark 195 

Woods, Steve 197 

Worth, David 198 

Wyman, Jim 199 

2

Amundsen, Allen 

Humboldt State University 

Background of the critic: 

Currently coaching & judging parliamentary debate for Humboldt State University 

2005—present 

I teach the Introduction to Argumentation course at Humboldt State University (which 

includes academic debate as a major assignment in the syllabus.) 

Coached & Judged parliamentary debate as a graduate student (and later as a volunteer 

coach) for San Francisco State 1998—2002 

Competed in parliamentary debate (albeit on a spontaneous basis) as an undergraduate at 

San Francisco State University for two years. 

Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, 

stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): 

I am tabula rasa to the core. The Government team must explain to me what I am voting 

on and establish the weighing mechanism clearly through case, claims, warrants, and 

reasoning. Since more often than not Government teams are going to link a policy case to 

the resolution then stock issues are indeed paramount. Likewise, the Opposition needs to 

do their heavy-lifting and either refute/turn the case or provide fully constructed 

disadvantages (with links, brinks, and impacts) or a fully constructed counter-plan for me 

to consider as a viable alternative. Don’t make me work too hard on the flow. Show me 

where either plan/solvency/advantages outweighs or the terminal impacts from the disads 

is the most important thing in the round, etc. 

I will consider procedurals like Topicality only if the violation/ground loss story is fully 

articulated and argued by the LO. In the case of kritiks, I will also consider them only if 

the in-round language analysis is fully realized and argued as a legitimate meta-debate on 

the implications in the round in terms of race, gender, sexuality, etc. 

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

: 

I am between the old school parli and the new school parli when it comes to this question. 

On one hand, I can handle speed; on the other hand, I am annoyed by speed. Basically, if 

you are going to talk fast, then do so in the name of efficiency (i.e. by using it not as a 

3

kitchen sink tactic, but as a strategy to fit in more warrants, more reasoning, more 

examples, more analysis—not as a chaotic list of blanket assertions.) I do make it a point 

to reward wit (which is sadly now becoming a lost art in the world of parliamentary 

debate.) If you ramp up the speed and I cannot understand you, my pen will be resting 

oh-so-nicely on my flow sheet. Talk rapidly, but…articulate, please. 

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

On-case argumentation is key, in my opinion. If it wasn’t….then why are we even 

bothering with the debate in the first place The Government must clearly construct and 

rationalize their significance (including definitions), harms scenario, inherency, plan text, 

solvency, and advantages. The Opposition should spend some time on-case, with at the 

very least some sort of solvency press or refuting the impacts of the advantages. I don’t 

mind an Opposition team going for a “plan vagueness” position, but show me where the 

flaws are in the plan text and why the Government dropped the ball in explaining 

themselves. If an opposition team places a few choice turns on-case, then I expect the 

Government team to address them thoroughly. 

Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: 

I am open to critical styles of debating, specifically if there is an egregious element to 

either the topic itself or the rhetoric in the round. Critical positions must be clearly 

constructed in terms of significance and impacts (as well as explaining on how I should 

approach it when weighing the other stock issues in the round.) I have never seen a 

performance in a debate before and thus I cannot speak to my openness to it. 

Any additional comments: 

I’m a flow judge. 

Give me clear voters in the rebuttals (instead of a rehash of the entire debate.) 

Enjoy the rounds and try to learn something. 

Please be civil to one another. 

4

Anderson, Jared 

Los RIos Community College 


I come from a policy debate/CEDA background. I have competed in and coached both 

CEDA and Parli, but my primary focus is CEDA. What this means to you is that I won't 

be as familiar with parli jargon as you might like. It also means I'll care more about the 

arguments you make then the way you make them. I won't be persuaded by knocking on 

the desk, your facial expressions will not influence my ballot...you also will never be too 

fast for my flow. 



I vote on the flow. Impact your arguments, compare those impacts to those of your 

opponents. Have a coherent criteria that actually effects my decision-making and works 

with the rest of your arguments. 


: 

Low importance. Presentation/speaking skills will impact your speaker points and little 

else. 

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

I guess it depends on the nature of your on-case argumentation. Arguments such as "they 

don't identify their time frame" are far less persuasive then "plan can't solve for harms". 

I'm also a big fan of off-case arguments, such as disadvantages, counterplans, and 

critiques. 

Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: 

I'm open to it. You should do it well if you want to win here. 

Any additional comments: 

Just make smart arguments. 

5

Artime, Mike 

McKendree University 


I debated policy in high school for four years and went on to compete in parliamentary 

debate for four years in college. For the past five years I have judged countless rounds of 

parliamentary debate and, in the past two years, LD. I have judged some IE’s as well and 

did not care for that experience so if you’re planning on doing a dramatic interpretation 

of your PMC I will probably either fall asleep or walk out of the room. 



Primarily, I evaluate rounds utilizing a policy option framework, meaning that I weigh 

the advantages to the Government proposal against any disadvantages incurred by the 

plan (it is up to the debaters to tell me whether I should use probability, timeframe, 

magnitude, etc. in deciding which impacts to evaluate). This does not mean that I am 

opposed to someone running kritiks (which I will discuss later) or various procedurals. 

With regard to procedurals I think that it comes down to a debate over competing 

interpretations. More specifically, you need to win the standards debate in order to win 

topicality, vagueness, or your favorite spec position. 


: 

While I am fine with whatever rate of delivery you want to use during the course of the 

round I think that it is important not to sacrifice substance in the process. Going fast 

should allow you to provide additional warrants to your arguments not to simply spew 

out a list of what could only be described as assertions at best and just a collection of 

random words at worst. 


Defensive on-case arguments can help the Opposition mitigate the advantages of the case 

and consequently to provide greater weight to their disadvantages. However, defense 

6

alone is not going to help you win my ballot. If you’re going to spend all of your time oncase 

then I suggest you have some good turns. 


While I am willing to vote for a critical position I think that it is important for the team 

running that position to make a clear and convincing case for why winning the ballot is 

important. More specifically, I want you to extensively explain your alternative because 

without it you don’t get access to your implications (no matter how large they are). It is 

not enough to have an alternative that simply asks me to “reject the Gov.” without any 

warrants simply because you came up with a cool idea. I would ask, as a courtesy to me 

that you do not engage in a performance debate. I’m not going to criticize the practice 

because I have seen very few rounds where a team performed, but I can tell you that my 

threshold would be rather high with regard to such positions. 


7

Badaracco, Gia-Nina 

San Diego State University 


I have been debating for 4 years and have extensive knowledge of parli debate. I also 

have a very good knowledge of ie's. I believe that debate should be fun, and I had a great 

time as a debater. I do not have experience with any other type of debate other than parli. 



I believe that stock issues are important, but I believe above all that arguments must make 

sense. I apply a real-world paradigm analysis to your arguments, and warrantless 

arguments are a one of my least favorite things. I believe that rebuttals should clearly 

evaluate the criterion and provide analysis through that lense, since that is what both 

teams (usually) agreed upon. I am open to any types of arguments, as long as they make 

sense. I don't really like canned cases. 


: 

I believe that presentations should be very interesting and organized. I value organziation 

and labeling over energy, but I come from a background of individual events so I find 

myself giving more credibility to those who appear to have the most passion. 


I believe that on case arguments are important for mitigation, but I don't believe that opp 

can win by providing only on case. I do believe that only on case with strong and well 

articulated turns can provide offense for the opp, but other than that I need to see their 

own positions elaborated upon. 


I want the debate to make sense, so if the critical or performative style gets too out there I 

probably won't give you as much credibility as if you were to use a more traditional style. 

That being said, if you can explain to me why you are using the format you are using and 

it makes sense, then go for it. 


Congrats to all of you for being here! This tournament is a great deal of fun for all of us. 

8

Baechtel, Mark 

Grinnell Clg 


Journalist and teacher of college writing 



My professional experience has been in the classroom—teaching writing in Grinnell’s 

English department for six years—and in journalism, where I’ve been a columnist and 

feature writer. That being so, in judging debates—which I’ve done for about a year 

now—though I’m not quite impervious to the virtues highly technical debating, I’m less 

impressed by minute examinations of topicality & c. than I am by cases that are elegantly 

constructed, eloquently argued and clearly presented. 


: 

Speed leaves me cold, frankly; I’d rather see you use your time in deepening my 

appreciation of a few finely honed points than in cramming lots in with a machine-gun 

delivery. And anyway, I find most blazing-fast debaters end up repeating themselves 

tiresomely. I don’t like a lot of jargon; I do like creative approaches, and I appreciate 

gracious treatment of other debaters rather than boorish attempts at demonstrating how 

high your IQ is by demonstrating how low your standards of civilized behavior are. 


This, to me, is where the interesting work of debate really happens. On-case 

argumentation creates light *and* heat. 


If it's about the debate and does some work, I'm open; if it's about the debater, is 

gratuitous and doesn't do anything to serve the clash of intelligences and issues that 

debate is supposed to be about, then I'm not. 


9

Bass, Steven 

Wheaton College 


I did parli debate for two years in college, and have judged at a couple of tournaments 

since graduating. I work as an economist, but I have remained connected to debate as an 

adviser to the Wheaton College team. 



I like policy debates because they tend to result in the most clarity. I've seen great 

fact/value debates, but I haven't found them to be common. However, I want to see the 

strongest case you have. Don't pigeonhole the resolution into a policy round if it's going 

to decrease the quality of the debate. I'm liable to give GOV the presumption on this one. 

Other than that, I like to think of myself as tabula rasa, but nobody is. The best I can do 

is full disclosure. I try to limit the effect that any of these things have on the ballot, but... 

1. I hate unrealistic arguments. Debate should reflect reality. For example, the world has 

not seen a nuclear bomb dropped in war in over 60 years. If people acted like debaters 

claim, we would have destroyed ourselves thousands of times over. Extreme positions 

are occasionally valid (India/Pakistan dome to mind), but overused. However, if you 

drop or mishandle a crap argument with crap impacts, I have no qualms about voting 

against you, I'll just hate that you made me do it. 

2. I'm an economist by profession. I like economic discourse. The language of 

economics (incentives, supply and demand, costs and benefits, etc.) appeals to me. 

However, if you don't understand the argument, don't make it. 

3. I have a status quo bias. Risk aversion is prominent enough that a plan that's unlikely 

to do much harm but unlikely to do much good is not socially optimal. In my view, a 

wash is much closer to a true tie than what I gather to be the common line of thinking. 


: 

Most importantly, you need to be intelligible. For experienced debaters, that's not much 

of a problem. However, if you can't combine speed and clarity, don't. 5 clear arguments 

are better than 10 arguments that I half understand. Beyond that, rhetoric obviously 

matters. I'll base my decision mostly on the flow, and I'll justify my decision based on 

10

the flow, but the way you make arguments colors the way I'll interpret them and the way 

I'll remember them. In the end though, what you say is more important than how you say 

it. The more organized your argumentation, the easier it is for me to mark it down on my 

flow and find it. 


The case debate is important, but I like to see an offensive strategy from the OPP team. 

However, I'm unlikely to give presumption to the GOV team if OPP effectively beats 

back all their arguments, leaving the debate a wash. That's evidence of a weak OPP 

strategy, but it's also evidence of a weak case (see point three above). 

As far as off case argumentation, I'll take what you give me (see below for my feelings 

on Ks). PICs, on case CPs, T, and generic DAs are all fine, but make sure your links are 

strong and your impacts are weighed out. Debate theory is not my strong suit (I'm a very 

empirical guy), but that means that I don't really have a lot of preconceptions about what 

is and isn't "allowed." If a position is abusive, tell me why it's abusive. Otherwise, I'll 

probably vote on it (or in the case of T, if you don't tell me why it's abusive, I won't vote 

for it). Also on T, as long as GOV provides a reasonable interpretation of the resolution, 

I'm unlikely to vote on it, but I won't penalize you for running it. 


I've seen a lot of poorly argued Ks. We don't live in a utopian world, and so your kritik 

needs to have a reasonable alternative. There are a few things that I'll vote on without 

any thought, but if you're the kind of person to use overtly racist, sexist, etc. 

argumentation, you're not likely to have strong enough argumentation elsewhere to win 

my ballot anyway. If you run a critical position, just spell it out. Make sure your links to 

the round and links to the implications are strong. Weaker arguments require weaker 

responses to counter them. 


I'm laid back. The more fun you're having in the round, the more fun I'm going to have. 

If I'm enjoying listening to you, it can't hurt. 

11

Bates, Marlin 

University of the Pacific 


Coaching Parli for 12 years Judged 100 rounds this year Competed in CEDA as 

undergrad 



Your job is to tell me what to think, where to put that thought, and how to weigh the 

arguments in the round. Your job is to not let me think. At the point that I think, weird 

things happen. This means that I will make my decision based solely on what happens in 

the round. Is is a value resolution Okay, tell me why and how Is policy the best way to 

decide values or facts Tell mw why and how. There is really no getting around the fact 

that there are different TYPES of resolutions. How those resolutions are debated is really 

up to the people involved in that debate. 


: 

These are two DIFFERENT issues. You need to communicate to me in order for me to 

evaluate your arguments. If you look like a slob, well, I may not party with you, but I will 

listen to your arguments. I am not going to change on the fact that you should dress for 

success, this does not mean that I will ignore you or drop you because you have some 

whack shoes. 


As opposed to off-case I don't know. Did the debate shift to the off-case and on case got 

left behind Well, I guess the case was relatively unimportant then. Did the debate focus 

on the case proper Well, then I guess on-case arguments would be relatively important. 


Critical arguments are dependent on how you link them to the round under discussion. 

Again, the debaters need to tell me why there are/are not important. Performances are 

better left elsewhere. 

Have some fun with it and learn about the world around you. Engage. Discuss. Learn. 

12

Bingham, Paul 

Western Washington University 


Highschool policy background for 4 years. 

4 years Parli debate at Lewis and Clark College 

In my third year of coaching, one with Lewis and Clark and the last 2 years with Western 

Washington University 



I try to be tabula rasa as much as possible 

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

: 

Pretty speaking can be rewarded with speaker points, winning debate rounds is based on 

arguments made. 


they are good to have 


sure as long and there is an articulated reason to vote for the position and why my vote 

has "solvency" 


Debate is for the people who are doing the hard work, so I try to just write the arguments 

down and then compare the reasons for voting at the end. I want to do as little thinking 

as possible. 

13

Blasdel, Joe 



I competed for McKendree in parliamentary debate and individual events for four years 

(1996-2000). I have coached parliamentary debate at McKendree for the last five years 

and Lincoln-Douglas for the last four years. 



Generally, I make decisions from the perspective of a policymaker. I have a very high 

threshold to vote on inherency or solvency mitigation with no accompanying offense. I 

am more likely to vote on probability than magnitude if forced to choose. I’m open to 

fact and value/critical cases if they’re topical and establish clear burdens, but unlikely to 

vote on a trichotomy-based procedural. 


: 

While I don’t vote purely on presentational issues, I think being clear and organized 

makes speeches easier to flow and understand. So it’s pretty important to my decision in 

an indirect way. Speed doesn’t bother me as long as you’re clear and organized. I don’t 

care if you dress ‘up,’ sit/stand, thank people, prompt your partner, etc. 


I don’t think the opposition is necessarily required to directly answer case. Unless the 

opposition strategy captures case offense, though, it’s probably a bad idea to concede 

case. Also, I am willing to vote opposition on unique case turns, particularly in 

combination with good defensive arguments. 


14

I’m fine with critiques as long as they establish a competitive, solvent alternative. I think 

critiques without clear alternatives or that just say ‘reject the government’ are like a list 

of case harms with no plan. I haven’t judged a performance round, so I’m not sure what I 

think about it. 


Six other random things: 1) Generally speaking (meaning in a close debate on the issue), 

I probably think topical CPs, consult CPs, and PICs are theoretically legitimate. I think 

conditional CPs and delay CPs are not legitimate. 2) If an argument is new in rebuttals, I 

will reject it without a point of order. 3) I do not think splitting the block is permitted 

under the rules. In such an instance, I would consider the arguments in MO unextended 

and the LOR arguments new. 4) I think each speaker should take at least two questions 

per constructive in most instances (ask if you want clarification) as a matter of fairness. 

5) I dislike stealing prep between speeches. I may start time if it gets ridiculous 

(probably more than thirty seconds between speeches). 6) I am unlikely to vote on T 

without a specified abuse story. 

15

Bourne, Jay 

University of the Cumberlands 


Rounds judged this year- 50 + 

Judging/ Coaching - 15 years (CEDA 2 years, NFA LD 6 years, 8 years NPDA) 

Competing- high school 4yrs policy// college 1 year NFA LD, 3 years CEDA 



I am a flow judge. 

I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa approach- I think that everyone has preferences and 

biases, overt or latent. However, I attempt to remove any of my personal beliefs from the 

debate round (horse blinders) and let the debate be what the teams construct during the 

round . Personally, I fit best with a gaming paradigm, where everything is pretty much 

fair within the basic debate framework and guidelines. 

I do believe that there are other formats to debate than just policy, so yes, I am open to 

the trichotomy. For me, resolutions of fact are a legitimate form of debate- although I 

prefer a detailed level of analysis more than an example war with that approach.. If teams 

want to take a resolution of fact with a policy res, and the other team clashes, then that is 

fine with me. Since I also have a background in CEDA, value debate is legitimate also. 


: 

Minimal in decision of win loss. Does factor into speaker points. I dislike cursing. 

Speed is not a factor for me with CEDA background, unless you think you can talk fast 

but in reality talk more like Steve Carrell from Bruce Almighty. Ideally, parli can cover a 

variety of issues at a good clip and throw in a good joke or two whereby a general 

audience could understand a good bit of what was said. 

16


whatever provides clash is fine with me. Ideally, opp will have on case argumentation in 

their speeches, but sometimes gov frames the debate poorly, so the round makes more 

sense and can be more organized off case. I prefer it when gov teams don't ignore their 

entire case argumentation after the PMC. 


Kritiks are fine with viable alternative frameworks provided. I have voted on them a few 

times this year, but to be honest, it seems several times I saw them used this year they 

were run as a time suck or an attempt to snow the other team with debate jargon. 


1. I prefer NOT to intervene- make my decision for me. Tell me how to vote. 

2. If I nod my head during the debate, it means "I got it"- so if you want to move on fineif 

not, fine also. Nodding my head does not mean I buy your position, just that I 

understand your argument. 

3. I prefer nontopical counterplans 

4. One of my majors in college was philosophy, so I prefer in depth argumentation. Give 

warrants, don't just blip responses 100% of speaking time. Tell me why your argument is 

better. 

17

Braz, David 

Texas Tech University 

Background of the critic: 

Debated for University of Wyoming 2002-2006, Coached at TTU 2006-2008 

Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, 

stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.): 

I WILL NOT VOTE ON TRICHOTOMY ARGUMENTS. I hate the trichotomy. I 

really, really do. That being said, you won’t automatically lose the round by running a 

fact or value case on the gov. But I'm not likely to vote for you on a "this should have 

been a value/fact" argument from the opp. 

I WILL NOT VOTE ON TOPICALITY. PERIOD. I've been burned by too many people 

who misuse T, so I won't vote on the argument. I will vote on critical turns to T though. 


I vote on arguments not presentation 


If you can win on case, go for it. 

Other than that, I don’t care what you do. Be critical. Perform. Run the debate straight 

up with a policy, and CP + DA’s and case turns. Do whatever it is you do best, but please 

make sure you include TIMEFRAME, MAGNITUDE, and PROBABILITY 

calculus….otherwise I have to do that for you, and you may not like what I decide. 

18

Brodak, Geoffrey 

California State University at Los Angeles 

****Background of the critic**** 

I have coached and competed in speech & debate at both high school and 

intercollegiate levels. I plan on flowing and can handle spread debate; but 

I HIGHLY dislike doing it. I consider myself conservative but most people 

would characterize me as very liberal‹last year I wrote my paradigm in 

Spanish. In every round I will be looking for the Nation¹s best argument. 

****Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the 

trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)**** 

I understand the difference between a fact, a value, and a policy; but I do 

not think the trichotomy is productive because ALL three have important 

implications. As such, evaluation of one does not exclude evaluation of the 

other two. I guess this means that I do not have the ability to pretend I 

am some sort of blank slate. However, I feel equally comfortable using a 

stock-issues or net-benefits paradigm to weigh arguments in the round. 

****Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic 

in decision-making**** 

Presentation is very important to a persuasive performance because it is 

impossible to alter the form of a presentation without changing its content 

and vise-versa. For me, the best debates are sharp, have witty 

performances, and invite discussion as opposed to shutting it down. 

****Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in 

decision-making**** 

The proposition should have excellent on-case analysis. The opposition 

should spend time responding to the excellent points their opponents make. 

Thus, I tend to dislike it when the LOC has ³one off² and no case debate. 

****Openness to critical/performative styles of debating**** 

To That Which Is Preformed 

This prop is so clever 

they can fiat the weather 

Why does this feel so old 

19

This time around 

there¹s no predictable ground 

How can I escape this fold 

Both the A and the E 

lack specificity 

When will someone say F SPECs 

They tried checking Wiki 

and writing on stickies 

Where did this come from, thin air 

This notion of justice 

it applies to just us 

What could count as more fair 

If they should drop on discourse 

But some plan gives them recourse 

Who would take da bait 

****Any additional comments**** 

Some advise: strive for balance; give arguments the time they are worth; 

assume your opponents make some valid points; characterize your opponents¹ 

arguments in their strongest version‹then answer that back; if you have 

questions ask; and oh yea, the best argument wins. 

20

Bruce, Kathleen 



Debate Experience: I did parli debate all four years of college at the Junior college level 

and at the four year level at Univ. of Pacific. I have been judging and coaching this past 

year. 



Debate Experience: I did parli debate all four years of college at the Junior college level 

and at the four year level at Univ. of Pacific. I have been judging and coaching this past 

year. Trichot: I prefer policy because it is easier to way out and tends to stay clear 

throughout. I don't like facts, but will listen to them. I prefer a really good criteria in fact 

because poponderous of evidence, I still don't know what that means when deciding the 

round upon it. Values can be good if they are run right. Meaning a value case should have 

some sort of philosophical criteria to set up the value or moral framework in which you 

want me to evaluate the contentions that you provide. Also a terminal or instrumental 

value should be used that each contention comes back too and suports. Proceedurals: 

Debate is for the debaters I don't like to interject about positions that I like and don't like. 

Run whatever position you think will get you the win. Topicality and Specs serve as a 

check on the Govt and can be very useful for both teams to prove a point. I appreciate 

when these positions are given in round impacts and they have very clear ways in which 

they function. Kritiques: I believe that the alternative should have some sort of solvency 

for the implications of the K. Also Kritiques make more sense to me when they have a 

framework and discursive implications. I am much more inclined to vote on discursive 

implications than I am post fiat impacts. Rebuttals: I do not typically flow rebuttals, 

instead I just circle the arguments that you are going for. As a judge impact calculus 

makes my job a lot easier when deciding the round. This way I do not weigh out the 

impacts under my own paradigm and use yours instead. 


: 




21

Bubb, Nick 

University of Wisconsin-Madison 

My background is largely in high school debate and forensics competitions. I am 

diamond coach in the National Forensics League. I coached at James Madison Memorial 

High School for six years and during that time I sent Wisconsin’s first representative to 

the National Tournament of Champions in Lincoln-Douglas Debate in ten years. I 

coached Sheboygan North High School for two years, winning a state championship in 

Lincoln Douglas Debate, and redeveloping their policy debate team. Last summer at 

Marquette University Debate Institute, I lead their top policy debate lab with Bill 

Batterman, Cheryl Stanga, and Brandon Sheats. My academic studies are in public 

policy. I am a master’s candidate at La Follette School of Public Affairs. 

My experiences with policy debate and LD have led me to clear judging philosophies in 

each event. However, I have judged only one parliamentary debate tournament and so my 

philosophy is still a bit developing. Quickly, my framework for evaluating policy debates 

is from a policymaker’s perspective and my framework for evaluating Lincoln Douglas 

debates is from a standard’s perspective. My philosophy for parliamentary debate is 

pretty much tabula rasa. But this means you must: 

1) Define how I should evaluate the round. Is it on terms of providing a policy 

Or is it on what a definition of morality is This can be accomplished in one 

sentence but it must be done. 

2) The end of the round must refer to this framework and weigh the competitive 

arguments in the round. 

Often times, I think the easiest argument is the best. Debate sometime gets silly when 

debaters choose not to make the most intuitive arguments and instead introduce 

something extraneous to the debate. But if you want to win debate extraneous 

information, you can do so and win in front of me, so long as you set a clear framework 

and make arguments that operate within that framework. I guess that means I have 

preference for debaters to debate the resolution, rather than something else. But if you 

want to debate something else, that’s fine. I’m not going to vote you down just because. 

Debate should be what the debaters make of it. 

I am not a fan of performance debating. While I’m familiar with some of the arguments 

performance debaters make, I have only judged those debates a couple of times. A 

concern I have with performance debating is that those debaters attempt to remove logic 

from an activity that should place logic at its forefront. 

I consider myself a flow judge. Because of the spontaneous nature of parliamentary 

debate, I tend to be a bit forgiving on the flow compared to LD and policy debate. For 

example, so long as topicality violation is relatively clear to me, I won’t make it a major 

issue that violation is somewhat unclear at times (e.g. is it within or just in you’re 

22

objecting to). This does not meant that I’m going to be likely to forgive outright lies or 

dropped arguments. 

If you have other questions feel free to ask. I am very open and will be willing to engage 

in a conversation before the round. 

Buescher, Derek 

University of Puget Sound 


Parli Rounds judged this year: '1' 

Non-parli rounds judged this year: '0' 

Years judging debate: '15' 

Years debated: '6' 

School debated at: 'Whitman' 



Approach to Deciding: '--i tend to default to policy-maker framework in the absence of 

articulate framework debates. i will thus hopefully with debaters guidance weigh 

impacts and solvency (net-ben). --in the case of framework debates (i.e. the first 

scenario below on nuke war/racism) i need the debaters to do some work on how these 

issues are/are not comparable. work to explain the contingencies of your own 

argumentations. speaking in absolutes is *never* strong argumentation. :) -- i want 

arguments to be complete--claim evidence warrant in simplistic terms.' 


: 

Presentation Preferences: '--i tend to flow and don t see much of what the debaters do - 

either focus or middle-ground. i don t like an overwhelming number of positions 

especially since they tend to be poorly developed. --i think the lor should do both point 

23

y point and voters (overviews/underviews) --lor and mo need to provide nuanced 

arguments that are offensive. division of ground depends on the debate. --loc time steal- 

i scowl. --post-time. i don t really flow the args after time expired. --new args--no. and i 

dislike point of orders to point out new arguments. ultimately it s my decision anyway. i 

do flow. --add-ons. depends ' 


Case Arguments: '--they should debate them. if they want to make a policy out of the 

resolution make an argument. the opp should make responses depending on their strat 

and if the gov runs a fact or value the opp should probably make responses to the 

criteria/value framework. --last minute plans. i m not a huge fan. i don t assume it s 

intentional usually. --performance and critical arguments are different entities 

altogether despite the fact they generally challenge similar cultural assumptions. i think 

performance cases in parli debate are a tad problematic since this presupposes a nontopical 

case (something from judging policy debates seems to be generally granted as a 

driving component of the argument). i generally think although it is debatable govs 

should be topical. i am fine with critical debates generally although irony is in my view 

more of a performance than a traditional K. I have posted a bit on the net-benefits.net 

thread on Irony if you want some specific thoughts. --i think impacts should be 

offensive and clear. i like any size of impact as long as teams develop the justification for 

evaluating impact differences. i generally think impacts should be linked and tend toward 

realistic--although i see know reason why nuclear war is not realistic. --it is better to be 

inherent --i like some structure to help my flowing but it doesn t need to be overly 

obvious' 


Kritik Arguments: '--w/o alt--up to the debaters probably makes them harder to win but 

theoretically more viable. --i react to critical arguments very similiar to how i react to all 

arguments i want them to be well developed. whether a adv da or K articulate your 

position. i like critical argumentation but have a real problem with debaters who use 

buzzwords (masking micropolitics biopower) and assuming that is all they need to say. 

without warrants/explanation buzzwords make you sound like bad academics especially 

when citing critical research. to me that is poor debate. --word K--debatable. i tend 

believe on a personal level that discourse is the means by which the world is made 

meaningful and is material. but i also think discourse is ever-changing which means our 

articulations mean different things in different contexts while still citing their own 

history. in other words if the gov says "mankind" and the opp runs a language K and the 

gov continues to say the word and the opp goes for the position they probably win it. if 

the gov acknowledges the articulation and ceases using it the position probably goes 

away. --perf K--see above --i think the framework debate is fairly important to the k 

24

debate but i also think that "trad policy" debate is a framework. --just debate Ks 

smartly.' 


Disadvantage Arguments: '--i think link stories are pretty important. but a minimal link 

that is conceded is still a problem for the aff/gov. --i think opps/negs need uniqueness 

links and impacts to win a DA. i think govs can t/o the DA at any of those levels. - 

explain your internal link stories for me' 

Counterplan Arguments: '--delay--debatable --consult fine. debate it out. --pics. 

depends a bit on the resolution but ultimately deteremined by the debaters in the debate 

--not a huge fan of topical counterplans. certainly gives more credence to the perm. --a 

perm can be either a test or an advocacy. depends on how it is argued/framed. i generally 

lean toward thinking of the perm as a test. govs can lose on perm theory however. - 

conditionality--debate it out --there ought to be a reason for the counterplan. it should be 

competitive on some level. it should have a net-benefit.' 

T and Theory Arguments: '--not necessarily. it may be a nice time trade-off. they may be 

able to win it. it s a strategic position as much as an occassionally true position. --for me 

to vote on T i like to have some form of articulated abuse. this may be ground loss or 

wrong forum (i.e. jurisdictional). --ex-t--sure maybe. depends on the debate --see 

above plus structure--clear interpretation abuse voter etc. --same as T--i tend to vote on 

spec less than on T. i see the position along with vagueness as parts of larger strategies. 

that doesn t mean i won t vote on them.' 

25

Busho, Robert 

Santa Clara University 

I competed in Policy Debate for four years in college in the late '70's. I have judged 

dozens of rounds of both CEDA and NPDA Parli. I can flow and I don't mind speed. 

Other than that I'm open to any strategy as long as its explained well and makes sense. 

Stay organized and don't orate. 

Calle, Brian 

California State University at Los Angeles 


I competed in parli and IEs for USC and Mt. San Antonio College. I did mostly ADS, 

Parli and CA. I have degrees in political science and communications. Professionally I 

have worked extensively in politics and public policy. I am well versed in political 

philosophy and rhetorical theories. 



I am more of a blank slate. I try not to bring my pre-existing knowledge in to the round. 

BUT if you blatantly lie, make something up, or flagrantly bastardize a fact or idea, it 

will impact my decision. 


: 

Being able to persuasively and professionally articulate your case is important to my 

decision but at the end of the day the best argument(s) will win out. I do believe though 

that delivery of an argument is key in winning an argument. 


It is important to address the on case arguments and clearly link off-case points to the 

original case. 


26

I am open to both critical and performative styles of debating. 


Humor and irony are always welcome and encouraged. 

Carothers, Blake 

University of Wyoming 

Years debate: 1 year NDT/CEDA, 3 years NPDA, 3 years judging 

I feel that the debate is for debaters to decide what should and should not be debated. The 

resolution, to me, is a jumping off point for discussion. Teams should debate what they 

want to debate I only ask that debaters justify their speech act. 

I don’t think every resolution is a specific type. By this I am saying that just because the 

resolution has the word is in it doesn’t necessarily means it’s a fact or that should means 

a policy. That’s for the debaters to decide. I like policy type debate because it seems to be 

the one style that has quantified impacts in the end (more times than the other two styles). 

However I have voted for and enjoyed debates of fact and value. As debaters I only ask 

that you justify and explain what and why you are doing what you are doing. 

I like good, clear, warranted, and impacted debates. No argument is off limits. The best 

thing you can do in front of me is debate well, meaning you understand your arguments, 

warrant them sufficiently and come into the debate with a strategy that goes beyond the 

PMC or LOC. I feel that too often teams worry too much about who their judge is and the 

debate suffers for that. If you have any other specific questions feel free to ask me before 

the round starts, especially if you feel that it would determine your strategy for the 

debate. 

27

Carver, Randy 

Texas State University 


I have been judging and coaching for the past year at Texas State. Our team has mostly 

traveled a regional and local circuit so my exposure has been limited by that travel 

schedule. My experience as a competitor is primarily in individual events. 



I use the critic of argumentation paradigm when judging debate rounds because it best 

meets the educational and competitive purposes of debate. While some my say that they 

are tabula rasa, I don’t believe they are completely accurate. Tabula rasa is a means to an 

end and I will leave as much of my personal feelings out of the debate as I evaluate your 

arguments. 


: 

Communication skills are very important to me. My background as an individual event 

competitor leads me in that direction. NPDA grew as a reaction to the noncommunicative 

aspects of policy debate so I uphold the rhetorical tradition of this format 

as opposed to a faster and un-kinder delivery. 


Debate in the trenches and the line by line case debate appeals to me. The pre-flowed 

generic disads or off case positions are not strategic for me. Topicality run on open 

motions is just plain dumb. Kritiks, like disads, are just generic positions that you run 

when the on case knowledge is not there. Not a fan of these. Counterplans do provide a 

viable option in a policy debate if the competition standards are clear and there is a 

definite net benefit. 


I did interp events as an IE competitor. That’s where performance/critical arguments 

belong. While they may be becoming more popular, they move away from the 

argumentative paradigm that I adhere to, so you would not be wise running one in front 

of me. 


28

Speeches should be clear and you should moderate speed. I am not a fast flow so if you 

are depending on me getting all of your arguments you better adapt. The point of writing 

this philosophy is so that you can adapt to me. Speakers adapt to audiences, audiences 

should not have to adapt to the speaker. Similarly, debaters adapt to the critic, the critic 

should not have to adapt to the debater. Don’t be rude. Don’t be abusive with points of 

order. Speech time begins immediately. Thank whoever you want, but its coming out of 

your time. 

Cheesewright, Kyle 

CSU-Long Beach 

Parli Rounds judged this year: a lot 

Non-parli rounds judged this year: far less (hs/college policy, ld) 

Years judging debate: 3 

Years debated: 8 

School debated at: colorado sate 

Case Arguments: i had my time in debate. it was a time of glory, beauty, and wonder that 

will never be paralleled (because i was in debate!). now i am just a simple judge, looking 

to render decisions on the basis of the arguments that are made inround. while i have 

many specific beliefs about debate, i recognize that they are only my beliefs, and i don’t 

really have the authority for foist my beliefs on anyone as universal debate truth. and, as 

sweet as it would be, intervention makes me feel dirty . . . and not dirty good; dirty bad. 

keeping that in mind, i have yet to see a round that was labeled as “fact/value” that was a 

well articulated reason to support the resolution. it seems to me that those labels are 

mostly created to allow debaters to engage in shoddy theoretical practices and avoid 

taking argumentative responsibility for their advocacies. seeing as i am firm believer in 

saying something and supporting it in debate rounds, i am not appreciative of people 

trying to use poor outdated theoretical justifications so that they don’t really have to 

defend anything, “’cause it’s a fact, you know.” clarity of advocacies is something that 

is important. i don’t really know why saying an advocacy near the end of your speech 

makes it less clear, nor do i know why saying an advocacy near the beginning of your 

speech makes it more clear. if you have something to say about either of those issues, i 

will copy them down onto paper like the trained monkey i am, and evaluate those claims 

like i would any others. impacts are also good. i like them and i think that they 

generally make debate rounds more interesting to watch, and easier to adjudicate. even 

more than good impacts, i like clear articulation of how and why i should evaluate those 

impacts. some fairly vacuous words that often lend to the project of clarifying impacts: 

timeframe, magnitude, reversibility, systemic, probability . . . they’re a party, and 

everyone’s invited! beyond that i am pretty open to the structure and form and content 

29

that debaters want to create in their cases. if you can defend it, you can do it! i’ll try to 

avoid the inspirational aphorisms for the rest of this philosophy 

Disadvantage Arguments: a disadvantage is an argument, which is why it is good. i prefer 

to hear disads that are responsive in some way to the government case, this means that 

the d/a should have an articulated link. generally, impacts are where the d/a debate end 

up. the impact debate can play out in a multitude of ways, depending on the offense that 

the government is using to answer your d/a. impact turns, link turns, etc. its not like any 

of that is really a revelation. i have a fairly traditional understanding of d/a’s. offense is 

what wins d/a’s. i don’t think that i have ever seen terminal defense that was enough to 

straight outweigh a d/a, though a good case should probably have an outweigh story that 

the mg could tell. d/a’s are also good places to perform impact calc. 

Counterplan Arguments: counterplans: i generally dislike conditional strategies. though i 

haven’t really seen any arguments about conditional strategies, so i don’t really know 

how the theory debate plays out in a parli specific context. sleazy counterplans are 

sleazy. delay, consult, 90, veto, exclude something ridiculous. many strategies are sleazy. 

if you can win a theory debate about why your sleaze is ok, and not really sleaze at all, 

then its pretty easy to win counterplan debates. theory is a pretty sweet game that not 

many really spend the time trying to master . . . but it lets you do so many things . . . SO 

MANY! 

Kritik Arguments: so this is really my bread and butter. i could easily survive on a k diet 

and be completely satisfied. most don’t really feel like that. so, i don’t really ask it. if 

you want to be a successful k debater, i find that the framework is the most important 

issue. what is fiat how does fiat function what is the role of the critic how should i 

understand the ballot what happens in the world because of the beliefs we hold what 

kind of power does language have how should the round be evaluated i think that these 

are all interesting questions, and a good k debate may or may not answer some or all of 

them. 

T and Theory Arguments: like everything else in my philosophy, its about what you can 

justify and win. if you can justify and win that topicality is about competing 

interpretations, and yours is better, and your def. excludes the government case, i guess it 

wasn’t so straight up topical. if the government team can win that their expansive 

definition is good for some reason, i guess that “squirrel” case was pretty straight up 

topical. should debates be about competing interps or abuse is extra topicality a voting 

issue are “spec” arguments sweet, do they lead to overspecification, does yours provide 

a brightline, or should gov teams overspecify so many questions, so few answers 

engraved on stone tablets. i also enjoyed well articulate offense on topicality. 

Approach to Deciding: i generally evaluate the impacts for the opposition versus the 

impacts for the proposition. i prefer for the debaters in a round to provide explicit 

weighing mechanisms that tell me exactly how to weigh the impacts. i will always default 

to weighing mechanisms provided for me by the debaters in a round. 

30

Presentation Preferences: presentations are presentations. if you make arguments about 

why your presentation style is best, those get evaluated like anything else. if you don’t, i 

won’t hold you to any style (and even if you do, i won’t hold you to a style, merely 

evaluate your arguments). i think that a traditional split block is kinda incoherent in 

parli debate, but i suppose i could be persuaded a different way. lor is a good time for 

impact calculus! I try to automatically exclude new arguments in the rebuttals, though i 

would encourage the teams in the room to call a point of order, because it’s the most 

predictable way to insure that i catch the new arguments. if there are lots of new 

arguments, there is a good chance the other team is way behind, and i will probably catch 

on. 

Church, Kim 

Los RIos Community College 


I have been teaching communication for 15 years. The last 5 years my focus has been on 

competitive speaking. I am the DIrector of Forensics of a full-service conmmunity 

college team. Our team competes in parliamentary debate, policy debate, and all 

individual events. I have taught argumentation and debate and I coach parliamentary 

debate. 



As a judge, i am not looking to intervene but instead to determine which side did the 

better job debating the resolution at hand. I do not believe in tabula rasa however i do my 

best to make decisions based on what happens in the actual round. I prefer to hear cases 

that are signposted and well explained. Stock Issues are crucial regardless of the 

resoution being fact, value, policy, quassi-policy, metahpor, etc. I actively flow debates 

and look to the flow when points of order are called. I am less impressed with jargon and 

more impressed with the student's ability to rationalize and justify their debate case in 

everyday language so the debate remains accessible to the common listener. 


: 

I consider presentation skills necessary to persuade the judge. This includes etiquette, 

demeanor toward partner and toward opposing team, the way in which students handle 

themselves during the debate (particularly when it gets contentious), and overall 

31

dynamism. I have no tolerance for arrogance, sexist/racist/homophobic language, or 

boring speakers. A speech without dynamism is like a well-written letter getting lost in 

the mail. If it doesn't get delivered, it never mattered what was said in the letter (or in the 

debate). 


Clash is what debate is all about. I find topicality to be a necessary evil. I see its 

importance but i find debaters run T too often. Off-case is fine as long as the team also 

clashes on-case. 


I am open to critical styles of debating as long as the debaters know what they are 

arguing. Too often, i find students running their coaches' critiques without a real 

understanding of what they are trying to say. Please do not use theorists unless you are 

familiar and well-read with said theorist. 


Points of information can be important but I see debaters overuse them all the time. Do 

NOT ask a POI just to take time from opponent. 

Cobb, Travis 

Oregon State University 


I am a former NPDA debater, and competed in Impromptu, Extemp, and Persuasive as 

well. Currently I am an assistant coach at OSU, and teach courses on argumentation. I 

am working on my Master's degree in communication and political science. 



Stock issues are critical to me. As the government team, when presenting a plan it is not 

enough to tell me why your plan is beneficial. You also need to provide the reason for 

32

change. Opposition teams, if you are able to tear apart the government's postition on 

stock issues, you will be much more likely to succeed. 


: 

In rhetoric, presentation plays a big part in whether or not an argument is accepted. 

Remember the three proofs as taught by Aristotle, Ethos, Pathos and Logos. Ethos 

represents credibility, in which presentation plays a large role. With that in mind, present 

complete arguments, and be warned, speed will not help you. I realize most people 

believe getting more information out than the other team is an advantage, but if I can not 

understand your arguments, they lose their affectiveness... 


On case argumentation is extremely important. If you rely completely on techniques 

such as topicality, resolutionality and kritiks, these only work if I agree with you. 

However, if I feel you are running them to take up time, or because that's what you had 

prepared in advance, these will not be highly regarded. 


Creativity is something I admire, but remember also that credibility is extremely 

important. If you try a performance debate, it may help you, or it may reduce your 

credibility. If you do it, do it well. Also keep in mind that creativity and novelty is not a 

replacement for good rhetoric and argumentation. 


I love debate, but not what it's becoming. I see a trend in which people rely less upon 

good argumentation, and more upon little tricks which their experience tells them will 

grant them victory. Good argumentation is about more than just confusing your 

opponants and rendering them speechless. I believe the argument in its entirity is 

important, and look at which team was most convincing overal. 

One last note, while I do look at the flow, and notice when teams drop arguments, it is 

extremely rare for me to make a decision based strictly upon the flow. While dropped 

arguments can become a problem, the fact that they were dropped is not enough in itself 

to grant a victory. 

33

Cole, Becky 

Hired 

1. Background: I competed in NPDA for Creighton University from 2002-2006. 

2. Decision making approach: I generally try to approach judging debate as tab as 

possible, within the rules of the activity. I will listen to any arguments you choose to 

present using any judging criteria you give me. 

3. Communication/presentation importance: I do think that NPDA is a communications 

event, and do recognize that the constitution discusses the “delivery” portion of the 

activity alongside the “content”. However, if both teams are capable and want to debate 

speed, I will be happy to flow that and will not punish them for that choice, as long as 

they’re articulate. If one team is not comfortable at an abnormally fast past, I would 

expect their opponent to respect any requests to slow down (but, please, do not see this as 

an invite to run an unnecessary speed argument – I’ll listen to it, but I’m not predisposed 

towards voting for one.) 

4. On-case argument importance: On-case arguments are as relevant as the round makes 

them. I do expect the government team to in someway affirm the resolution. 

5. Openness to critical/performance styles: Critical/performance style debate was 

generally not how I debated in college, but I am more than willing to listen and weigh 

those arguments. That being said, these positions will likely require more time and 

internal analysis on your part to ensure that I comprehend their impacts. 

6. Additional comments: I do enjoy smart, witty and friendly rounds – a little sarcasm 

between friends on opposite sides is no big deal – but, try not to be overtly rude or 

inconsiderate of your opponents. 

Corum Billman, Jenny 

I try to be as tab and as possible. In general, I don’t go for abuse arguments – I think I 

voted on abuse only once last year, and I probably wouldn’t do it again. I will, however, 

consistently vote for procedurals that involve precision, education, or jurisdiction. I think 

net benefits demonstrate competition on a counterplan. I’m fine with speed if you’re 

clear. I avoid considering new arguments, but it is the responsibility of the debaters to 

call them in rebuttals. I really like strategy, so apply positions to other positions and don’t 

be afraid to kick things. Bonus points for clear organization, frownie faces for making 

things up when you don’t know the truth. If you ask me, “So, do you have a paradigm” 

in the round, I’ll just shrug and not say anything. If you do have a specific question, 

though, I would be happy to answer it. 

34

Coulter, Michael 

Grove City College 


I am new to competitive debate, though I have been affiliated with our own program and 

understand the basic issues in a round. For your purposes, I should probably be 

considered a lay judge. I am a professor of political science and am well versed in 

political philosophy. 



My approach to debate has been informed by my understanding of the legislative process 

and the role of civil discourse. Straight-forward policy debates are particularly 

appreciated, but I am open to values cases as well. I am looking for clear explanations of 

arguments and very clear analysis on why your team should win the debate. 


: 

Highly technical debate or long excursions on why I should prefer one set of rules over 

another will not get my ballot. I believe parliamentary debate, perhaps more so than 

other formats, should be accessible to a general audience. If I can't follow your 

presentation (either because of style or because it seems unconnected to the issues at 

hand) you will not be rewarded. Persuasion, reasoning, and appeals to real world issues 

will be the most effective means of securing a win. And try to relax a little bit. 


Very important. I'm here to evaluate positions and policies more than to decide between 

different understandings of debate itself. 


Straightforward, issue-oriented debating stands a much better chance with me than 

anything else. You should probably not depend on arguments that would make no sense 

in the public square. 


35

Copi, Ryan 

Hired 

High School Policy/LD/NFA Judge/1 yr debating/3 yrs judging 

I am a flow judge. I hate resolution of fact debates, and I do not care if you default to 

policy. I also do not punish people for speed or for creative arguments. As a flow judge, 

I probably don't have to write that I want you to paint the picture for me--tell me why you 

win, clearly signpost, and pull things across the flow if they are dropped. I won't listen to 

new arguments in the rebuttal but feel free to point them out in case I miss them. 

I will listen to anything, including procedure, but don't abuse that. If it's clearly 

debatable, just debate it. I get bored and annoyed with resolutionality/T debates. If you 

are running a kritik, please make sure your link is crystal clear, and please tell your story 

logically. Do not assume I know what critical feminist jurisprudence is; explain it to me 

in your own words and apply it effectively through your link argumentation. 

Also, for purposes of disclosure, and because they say that your subconscious defines 

your decisions even when you don't know that's happening, I will disclose that I am a 

third year law student, and identify with the left. This does not mean I will intervene to 

inject my beliefs improperly, and I will be as tab. rasa as I humanly can. Overall, have 

fun, be nice to one another, grow, learn, and debate. 

36

Cress, Justin 

Western Kentucky University 


4 years LD & Parli at Western Kentucky University 

Undergrad degrees in Philosophy and Economics 

Currently working on an MA in Applied Economics 



I try my best not to intervene. I think that the "approach to decision making" is at issue in 

every round. I certainly have my own preferences, but expressing them before round is 

tantamount to pre-round intervention. 


: 

if I miss arguments because they are not communicated effectively, that's your fault, but 

that's the only scenario under which I could imagine the way you talk having an effect on 

the ballot. 


Again, the answer to this question is at issue in every round. Weigh arguments. 


I'm open to all arguments. There are many that I don't like very much, and if it's 

something trendy or critical I probably have not heard it before, so I may not fully 

understand it unless it is explained well. That said, run your argument and win it = a 

ballot for you. 


Parli has point of orders, i think that means it is your responsability to call them. If i 

were to call a point of order in my head during the LOR or the PMR, I'm pretty sure i'm 

debating for you. I won't do that. Call the POO, even if you think it might be annoying. 

Seriously, I'd rather have a fair round than an unfair one, and I seriously think that a 

37

judge calling an argument new for the other team is unfair to whoever is speaking at the 

moment. 

Damico, Tony 

Irvine Valley College 


Hey folks, it's Tony D here. I competed in Individual Events at Glendale and WKU, 

coached IE's at CSU Long Beach, and now coach Parli and IE's at Irvine Valley College. 

I understand more about debate than my background would indicate. Still, I privilege 

comm skills and a debater's rhetorical ability as long as it's non-alienating and 

complimented by sensibility. 



I tend to prefer debaters who keep their cool and help their critic along the road. That 

being said, my decision-making is tabula rasa. It's your job to tell me how you think I 

should weigh the round, and that doesn't mean just haphazardly throwing a criteria in 

there...justify your choice. I frame my decision in the context of the round, so my 

approach to decision-making really relies less on debate theory and more on intuition. 

Once I've assessed what's going on intuitively, I typically hope that you will confirm it 

using whatever tools you want me to weigh it out with. 


: 

You may be thinking....oh, I have to agree with this critic's paradigm in order to be in line 

with his intuition---not true! I pride myself on having a very flexible belief system and I 

only intervene in the round when I feel that someone is being plain profane (cursing is 

alright, I'm talking about sexism/homophobia/classism...). My current influences are 

anarchist hip-hop and Terrence McKenna. If you show that your incredibly rigid belief 

system is keeping you from seeing the big picture in the context of debate, it's going to 

hurt you more than making you seem "sure" of yourself. I love performance debate, 

namely ironic performance---it's unfortunate that most folks aren't smart enough to "get 

it" or see it's revolutionary significance. 


On-case argumentation is always a potential voting point for me, so don't get lazy. Also, 

don't be a jerk with a billion off case positions unless they're really asking for it. I 

38

personally am getting tired of hearing the same shelled-out T's over and over applied to 

every case when it's not warranted and I'm also tired of hearing Spec arguments that are 

infinitely regressive....of course, a strong Prop team should know how to affirm my belief 

that all this structure is there for a reason, but at the same time it can serve to mask the 

real issue driving the round. 


I privilege critical discourse, collaboration, and a sense of humor. Just because its NPDA 

doesn't mean you should take yourself too seriously. 


Let's have fun with it, and above all else be creative without becoming careless. 

Danielson, Brian 

University of Utah 


Brian Danielson 

University of Utah 

Approx. 7 years judging Parliamentary debate 

50+ debates judged this year 

Living the Parli lifestyle since 1997 



An Introduction: 

. . . Speaking-in-public (as Mailer liked to describe any speech which was more or less 

improvised, impromptu, or dangerously written) was an activity like writing; one had to 

trick or seize or submit to the grace of each moment, which, except for those unexpected 

and sometimes well-deserved moments when consciousness and grace came together 

(and one felt on the consequence, heroic) were usually occasions of some mystery. The 

pleasure of speaking in public was the sensitivity it offered: with every phrase one was 

better or worse, close or less close to the existential promise of truth, it feels true, which 

hovers on good occasions like a presence between speaker and audience. Sometimes one 

was better, and worse, at the same moment: so strategic choices on the continuation of 

39

the attack would soon have to be decided, a moment to know the blood of the gambler in 

oneself. –Norman Mailer, The Armies of the Night 

The nitty-gritty: 

Since you are reading this, it probably means that I’ll be the critic in your next round. 

Hopefully, you weren’t too confused by the introduction…but if you were, what follows 

should clarify any questions that you may have. If not, feel free to ask me anything you 

need to know before the round starts. First, a word about the activity we are engaging in. 

In my opinion, debate is much more than “just a game.” In round we should be 

addressing real world issues in a fairly serious manner, in order to prepare ourselves for 

the challenge of being an informed and active citizen in the world. At the same time, 

debate is a game that we choose to play and as such we should approach the activity with 

a good natured attitude. Therefore, I expect both teams to treat each other with civility 

and respect. Of equal importance, I want you to be having a good time in the round. That 

being said, lets jump to the standard issues that y’all want to know about. 

Topicality: I’ve been known to vote on topicality, but frankly I hate to do it. I hate to do it 

because the only time I really vote on T is when the government team has run a case that 

has no link to the resolution. So Gov’s, run a case that has a fairly clear link to the 

resolution and take the time to make sure I get the link. Opp’s if you are going to run 

topicality, run it like you mean it and put out a counter definition (telling me why it is a 

better def.), standards, and impacts. Additionally, if the gov has a pretty clear link to the 

res, I am unlikely to vote on T, so you might want to spend your time elsewhere. 

Res of Fact, Value, and Policy: In my mind there is a great degree of overlap between 

these areas. For example, I feel the best way for a government team to approach a “res of 

fact” is tell me whether or not this “fact” is good or bad, and then run a policy that makes 

the “fact” better. For example, if the resolution were “America is going to pot,” I feel the 

best way to approach this would be to state that the resolution points to the fact that 

millions of Americans have voted for patient access to medicinal marijuana yet the 

USFG’s policy toward the prohibition of marijuana is contradictory to democracy/sound 

medical policy and propose a policy that would best address the problems of prohibition, 

rather than just give me a laundry list of reasons why “America is going to pot.” 

Kritiks: Don’t be afraid to run one in front of me, I am more than willing to listen and 

vote on them. However, kritiks are dangerous b/c they can come back and bite you. I 

appreciate clear links to the both the rhetoric used and argumentative advocacies as well 

as an alternative with at least an explanation of how it will alter mindsets…sign your 

ballot as an act of resistance isn’t going to cut it. 

DA’s: Love’em….the key is making sure that the DA’s link solidly to case and are well 

impacted both in the constructives and the rebuttal. Opp’s can win with just DA’s but it is 

probably best to present both DA’s and a C/P to make sure you capture solvency. 

40

C/P’s: Can be either mutually exclusive or net beneficial to avoid the perm…preferably 

both. Opp’s, if you aren’t going to attack harms, it is probably in your best interest to 

have a C/P that solves the problems in addition to DA’s or a K. 

Rebuttals: They are a time for you to crystallize the round for me, not to respond to 

arguments (unless they are brand new in the MOC). Take the time to tell me the big 

picture, how your voting issues fit into the big picture, and hopefully a two worlds 

scenario to make it clear for me why I should vote for you. 

On a final note: Speed isn’t too much of an issue for me as long as it is clear. If your 

words are muddled you should probably speak slower. I do my best to give good nonverbals 

so pay attention to them. (If my head is down and I’m writing you’re in good 

shape. If my pen is down and my arms are crossed you might want to reconsider you’re 

line of argumentation…just a suggestion though.) Make sure that you impact your 

arguments and tell me why they are important in the context of this round. Disclosure and 

oral critiques make for better debating in future rounds and are an integral part of 

providing a positive educational experience. I’ll listen to just about anything but I won’t 

necessarily vote on everything. Be creative, be passionate, and have fun. And remember, 

“Sometimes one was better, and worse, at the same moment: so strategic choices on the 

continuation of the attack would soon have to be decided, a moment to know the blood of 

the gambler in oneself.” 

Peace. 

P.S. Whatever happened to the value of a well placed heckle 


: 

I am probably weighted to the side of argumentation rather than presentation in making 

my decision...although it never hurts to make it sound good while you're doing it. 

Speaker points are weighted just slightly to the side of argumentation with due attention 

given to presentation. Probably a 55/45 split... 


I keep a pretty good flow and pay attention to it. I would like to see more crystalization 

in the rebuttals rather than a line by line rehash though.... 


Cool.... 

41

Day, Joel 

Point Loma Nazarene University 


1 year judging parli 

5 years judging high school policy 

4 years as a competitor in high school policy debate 

2 years as a competitor in high school Lincoln Douglas debate 

4 years as a competitor in college Parliamentary debate 

Academic Debate Background: Competed in policy and LD (value) debate for 4 years in 

high school. Competed for 4 years with Point Loma Nazarene University in 

Parliamentary debate. Coached Parliamentary debate and individual events. 

Personal Info: 

Political Science degree with a strong emphasis in Peace Studies. Human Rights and 

Regional Structures of Security are my specialty. 

So, I really like the game of politics and do it for a living. Run political stuff in front of 

me with good analysis and I will be thrilled. Run it poorly and I will most likely want to 

drop you, so do so at your own risk. 

Don’t lie. If I catch you, your speaker points will be punished. If the other team catches 

you and I agree, you will most likely lose the round. Sorry. 

Moderate on international policy and on economics, liberal on social issues. 



42

I have a policy and parliamentary debate background and would probably describe 

myself as a neo-traditionalist judge for a couple of reasons: 

The traditional side 

· Dropped arguments are the easiest way to win/lose a round. But I need you to tell 

me HOW THESE FUNCTIONS. 

· Explain to me who is winning the round and why. I do not mind being told why 

your team should win or the other team should lose. Rebuttals are critical times for you 

to explain why I should vote for you: take me on a trip around the flow and write my 

RFD for me. I don’t like going line by line on rebuttals, just go for where you are 

winning and tell me how that functions against arguments you might be losing. 

· You should POO. When you POO, tell me where it is on the flow and I will most 

likely make a decision then and there, unless it doesn’t matter, then I will say under 

consideration. 

The not so traditional side 

· I don’t buy Tricot arguments. Neg should be ready for any type of case… in front 

of me, Aff is probably going to run policy. BUT, if value is run, there better be a 

functioning application of that value. 

· I like time sucks, kicks, critical Affs, but not so much on performative unless you 

know what you are doing. 

· Ks are cool. However, if your K is bogusly linked, I am going to be angry with 

you. More often than not, I vote against K because Neg doesn’t tell me how it functions. 

I will vote on fiat impacts way faster than most critique impacts, simply because I hate 

“prefiat” impacts that only operate in the round and not out of round. IE – don’t run a pre 

fiat native American language K if you can’t prove how it functions out of the fiat / 

debate game world. 

· I LOVE counter plan debate. A lot. It provides more clash, education and is realworld. 

I HATE counter plan debate that is not mutually exclusive. Unlike most judges, I 

treat MUTUAL EXCLUSIVITY as a jurisdictional issue and WILL NOT VOTE for a 

counter plan that is faux exclusive. Compeditiveness is not the same as exclusivity, 

because on a functional level, I can do both a bad idea and a good idea at the same time. 

In order for neg to win counterplan, there must be some structural reason why both 

cannot be done at the same time: timeframe, differing agency, opposite directionality etc. 

At the very least, Neg must prove attitudinal exclusivity of the two plans. 


: 

43

· Style and speaking ability are not reasons for decision. BUT. I like speed because it 

more often than not develops the argumentation. Developed arguments go a lot further in 

my mind than rhetoric. Speed as a strategy to disenfranchise another team sucks, but if 

you think the other team can hang, I can go as fast as you want. 


· I like well-defined burdens and resolutional analysis, as well as good debates about 

these things (topicality is fly by me). 

· I need impacts to decide the round. Policy is the best mechanism for this. For Neg, 

the best strat is probably a well linked DA… or 8 of them. 

· Blatantly policy resolutions call for blatantly policy cases, but the value 

implications of policy decisions are important and should be debated as well. 



That is about it. Feel free to ask for clarification before the round. 

Denomie, Dave 

Marquette University 





: 


44



Dave Denomie – Assistant Director of Debate, Marquette University 

1. 30+ years of debate experience – frequent judge (although fewer rounds in recent 

years) 

2. Topicality is a voting issue. However, topicality should be argued only when 

appropriate, not automatically in every round, or just for “something to say.” I tend to 

prefer rounds that focus on substance as opposed to semantics or debate theory. 

3. Counterplans are acceptable. They need to be non-propositional and welldeveloped, 

not just tossed out haphazardly. 

4. Disadvantages must have a direct connection to the Proposition plan/policy action. 

On impacts, disadvantages are given more leeway since evidential documentation is not 

used. Impacts should be linked and well-explained but can be creative and will be given 

credit if logically presented. 

5. ‘Kritiks’ of either team’s fundamental assumptions are acceptable. Your 

explanations should be clear and logical. Again, listening to lengthy and involved debate 

theory-based arguments are not my favorite way to spend a debate round. 

6. I prefer a conversational tone. All participants in the round should be cordial and 

respectful. 

45

7. Clash is the heart of debate. Teams should establish their approach to the topic, 

advance their arguments, and thoroughly refute those of the other team. In rebuttals, 

debaters should trace the evolution of the most important arguments, showing why their 

approach prevails. 

8. I do not wish to observe and judge ‘critical/performance styles’ of debate. 

Dilley, Benita 

Monmouth College 


I am currently the faculty advisor for a club based debate and forensics program at 

Monmouth College, a selective admission small liberal arts college in rural southern 

Illinois The team is self-coached, managed, and raises all of its own money to compete 

in tournaments. Because participation in debate and forensics in helping to prepare me 

for professional life, I couldn't stand by and allow students that had raised their own 

funds and prepared for tournaments be told they couldn't attend or travel, just because 

they didn't have a faculty member to travel with them. So I go along . . .as a volunteer. 

I competed in NDT debate in College and served as a professional NDT coach until 1992 

for the University of Iowa. I also spent many years working professionally in politics, so 

have participated in many "real world" public policy, fact and value debates. I teach 

argument, speech and various forms of communication and hold a doctorate in rhetoric 

and political communication from the University of Iowa. I have taught at Monmouth 

College, Iowa, University of Colorado and at Yale. While I participated and coached in 

NDT debate for many years, I love the higher standards of eloquence and civility 

exemplified in the parliamentary debate rounds I have seen and judged, but I am not an 

expert on the rules or procedures of parliamentary debate. 



As a judge I see myself as a supportive educator, assigned to evaluate the effectiveness of 

the arguments presented. Quality of argument and the support offered is important, but 

so to are the standards of very clear organization (I love sign posts and tag lines), clarity 

of synthesis in final speeches (discussion of the relationship of voting issues), eloquence 

and humor/fun in the round I hope to always be fair but carry with me years of 

46

approaching argument in collegiate and governmental situation from a policy and stock 

issues perspective. I am old enough to remember policy debate before CEDA and when 

inherency arguments were acceptable in NDT debate, and have seen the power of good 

policy argument in shaping federal and state legislation in my service as a government 

staff person 


: 

Very important! And I don't see any reason why clear, cogent argument cannot be 

delivered with eloquence, excellent engaging delivery and inclusive standards of content. 


I will evaluate the arguments as presented in the round. Unless an action/communication 

is clearly in violation of the printed rules of the tournament, I will not rule on it 

indepdently. And even if that situation were to come up, I would expect the debaters in 

the round to address it and discuss it within their times speeches if the debaters thought it 

was an issues critical to the decision. 


While I think performance art styles of presentation are wonderful, I am not sure that I as 

an argument evaluator I would see them an effective strategy toward debating the 

resolutions likely to be presented. But please feel free to invite me to your next 

performance art gallery show if you have one, and I promise to bring a cheese tray to 

share. 


I am not a seasoned professional parliamentary Director of Forensics. I am just a person 

who learned so much in participating debate and speech, I want to come along and help 

the little club team at my school enjoy and learn something from the NPDA tournment. 

Hopefully, if you are reading this, I will get an opportunity to meet you at Nationals. 

Good luck in your path to the tournament and your progress through it. 

47

Dirgo, David 

Creighton University 


Judging Philosophy 

David Dirgo 

Creighton University 

I have been involved in competitive forensics, in one form or another, for about 25 

years. Most pertinently, I competed in parliamentary debate as an undergraduate at 

Creighton (BA ’94), and have been an active volunteer coach for Creighton since then. 

I’ve decided that parliamentary debate is a lot simpler than it sometimes looks: Be 

smart and speak well. Do those things, and you’ll be fine. For the most part, I will vote on 

the substance of the arguments you present, and the impact those arguments have on a 

decision rule. I flow constructive speeches linebyline, but not rebuttals, as rebuttals 

generally reflect synopsis instead of linebyline response. (That doesn’t mean I’m not 

listening, or that failure to respond to a key argument is not meaningful.) 

I expect debaters to know the issues, offer intelligent and insightful analysis to 

support their claims, and explain how their advocacy should lead me to vote for or 

against the resolution. How you label those arguments--solvency, advantages, 

disadvantages, counterplans, counterwarrants, topicality, resolutionality, critiques with a 

‘c’, kritiks with a ‘k’, or whatever--is usually little more than semantics. I will be focused 

on the substance of the argument, the internal and external consistency of the argument, 

and whether the impact of the argument is clearly and persuasively articulated. In that 

regard, I tend to be an “analysis judge.” There are elements of persuasion, however, 

distinct from the substance of the arguments you offer in the round, and I reserve the 

right to consider rhetorical elements such as eloquence, humor, and demeanor when 

making a decision. (Generally, however, these will function only as “tiebreakers,” when a 

round is very close.) 

In that context, I am often asked about speed. Whether you are going “too fast,” for 

me, depends on whether your arguments have depth and impact. If you have a lot to say, 

then by all means say it, even if that means saying it quickly. Sometimes, you just have a 

lot to do and not much time to do it, and I understand that. The risk of speed, in my 

experience, is that for many debaters it comes at the expense of developed, meaningful 

argumentation, as debaters worry more about quantity than quality. So the short answer 

48

to the speed question is this: if you have a lot of good arguments, then make them. If you 

have a lot of notsogood arguments, you have bigger issues than rate of delivery. 

As in years past, I will try to make myself available to offer comments and answer 

questions after I have turned in my ballot. I prefer not to disclose a decision or discuss the 

round until the ballot has been completed and delivered to the ballot table. If any 

questions occur to you when you read the ballot after the tournament, you should feel free 

to e-mail me at daviddirgo@gmail.com. 



see above 


: 

see above 




Doty, Tim 

Lewis-Clark State College 


My competitive experience includes 4 years of policy debate in high school 

and 2-3 years of on-and-off NDT competition (a little CEDA—but it had just merged 

with NDT at the time). My coaching/judging experience includes some part-time, high 

school policy debate, a few high school policy debate workshops, and 10 years of on-andoff 

parliamentary debate experience at the college level. 



49

My background lends itself to a preference for policy debate, though I work 

hard to let the debaters in the round frame the decision-making calculus. I’ve seen one 

debate over a resolution of fact that I really enjoyed—it was a practice debate at a 

summer coop. I can’t recall any debates over resolutions of value that I really enjoyed. 

But don’t let this be discouraging; I know that it can all be very meaningful if done well. 

I just don’t know how to do fact or value well; and I don’t think that many other people 

do either. Competitors should debate in a way that is enjoyable to them. I will work very 

hard to keep up with you and I will try very hard to keep the issue of speaker points 

totally distinct from my personal likes and dislikes. In fact, it could turn out to be 

especially impressive if you can make a resolution of fact or value enjoyable to me. Do 

know that unless swayed otherwise, I will be weighing the impacts and timeframes at the 

end of the round. 


: 

I prefer a quick debate with a lot of good arguments. Though I’m not sure I would 

recommend “rapid fire.” For one thing, I’m not as sharp as I’d like to think I am. For 

another thing, my handwriting is really awful—the faster I write the harder it is for me to 

decipher afterwards. Finally, while I feel like “rapid fire” is a great way to introduce 

evidence after making a claim and establishing a warrant in the policy debate world, the 

standard of evidence usage in the parliamentary debate world is drastically different and 

to me, just does not lend itself very well to “rapid fire.” Having said this, I’ve flowed 

some very fast, impressive parliamentary debates. Distinguishing the very best speakers, 

in my opinion, are the skills of word economy and timing. The best speakers incorporate 

some speed with the ability to say more with less and know when to slow down to make a 

point. Perhaps the best speakers utilize rapid fire without really drawing attention to it as 

rapid fire. I don’t know…talk how you like to talk…if I don’t understand you, I’ll try to 

give you some warning. Don’t feel obligated to talk fast either…talking fast for the sake 

of talking fast and then leaving 4 minutes of speaking time up for grabs is not impressive 

to me. At the same time, don’t feel obligated to use all of your time if you don’t need it. 

One of the best IARs I ever gave as a competitor lasted about 45 seconds—I granted out 

a double turn to beat a team I had no business beating (it was one of the lowest point wins 

in the history of this activity). Above all else, slow down towards the end of the 

rebuttals—be sure and help me write a good ballot (I need all the help I can get). 


I guess it depends on the strategy of the negative...maybe I don't understand what is being 

asked for here. If the negative has a good counterplan-disadvantage strategy, then "oncase" 

argumentation would not seem to be as important than if the negative is defending 

the status quo. Or even in the case of defending the status quo, if there are disadvantages 

with really good uniqueness, link, and impact stories, I would think "on-case" debate is 

not all that important aside from making time-frame and impact analysis. However, it 

50

seems that at least mitigating the opponent's solvency mechanism can only make most 

counterplans and disadvantages more persuasive. 


Kritiks are fine—they generally work better with a counterplan that avoids the buy-in. As 

far as other types of cutting edge arguments such as performative ones…be careful…I 

can’t say that I don’t find them interesting; but I haven’t seen them enough to decide how 

they ought to weigh into a debate round. I am more or less convinced, for the time being, 

that debate belongs in the realm of a “rational-world” discussion (whatever the hell that 

means) as opposed to a narrative one. This is not to say that the 2 types of discussion are 

necessarily mutually exclusive of each other; nor is it to say that I wouldn’t be open to 

hearing arguments to the contrary—but make sure they’re really good arguments!! 


Doubledee, Steve 

Washburn University 


CEDA/PARLI 



Debate is a game. 


: 

'A fast delivery does not bother me. What does bother me is people who think they are 

fast but really they just sound like stammering morons. This means that clarity and 

articulation is very important to me. If you hear me shout "CLEAR" that means you 

should slow down or spit the food out of your mouth. 


Weighing Impacts 

I would like to see clear comparisons/weighing of impacts. So many times debaters just 

scream about how they have the biggest impacts, but do not couple that with the internal 

link/risk analysis to fully access those impacts. The team that does the better job of this 

will get my ballot every time. 

51

Defense vs Offense 

So many times I hear debaters say, “this is just a defensive argument” and then move on 

to the offensive arguments in the debate. This could be problematic if those defensive 

arguments are made to diminish the probability of the opposing side’s offensive 

arguments. For example: If an AFF presents and ADV that solves for a country specific 

civil war. 

The NEG concedes the AFF ADV and runs a POLX DA that impacts out to human 

extinction. AFF runs several defensive arguments against the probability of the POLX 

DA happening. NEG stands up and says, “these are just defensive arguments we 

outweigh”…Well maybe, but now the debatecomes down to a conceded civil war vs the 

probability/risk of an 

extinction impact---NEG concessions on the AFF’s defense could win the debate (for the 

AFF) if a good probability vs. magnitude analysis is 

provided by the AFF. Absolute solvency for a civil war vs. .000000000000001 risk of 

extinction….gotta side with the civil war:) 


Debate is your game...run what you will :) 


52

Dreher, Michael 

Bethel University 


I'm the Director of Forensics and Chair of the Department of Communication Studies at 

Bethel University. I've also been the webmaster for NPDA for the last 9 years. I've been 

competing, judging and coaching for nearly 25 years now -- this suddenly makes me feel 

very old as I type this! 

In terms of rounds judged this year, I've not been in many rounds, because we've had 

tournaments cancel due to weather and because I've been in a lot of tab rooms. So, I've 

only been in about 10 rounds this year -- but please don't confuse that with interest/desire 

in judging. I figure by about round 1 or 2, the rust should be completely off! 

You'll recognize me -- I'm the one with the big sketch pad. I've used it ever since I started 

debating - I write big! 



You’ll find that I tend to default to a policymaking paradigm unless the debaters argue 

otherwise. I’m happy to listen to other kinds of debates (i.e., fact, value, etc.). I do think 

there's a difference between fact, value and policy, and I don't believe all debates have to 

be policy. Value debates, when argued well, are quite cool. Value debates that aren't, 

however, can be pretty painful. 

In any event, I look to what the judging guidelines tell me as far as what my 

responsibilities are: The proposition team must affirm the resolution by presenting and 

defending a sufficient case for that resolution. The opposition team must oppose the 

resolution and/or the proposition team's case. 


: 

53

There is a need to strike logical, structured argument along with persuasive abilities. 

Many people come into parli with a policy background, which is fine – what separates 

the top parli debaters is their ability to adapt to whatever kind of audience they have. 

That said, as far as delivery is concerned, I generally prefer a moderate speed. I'll give 

you clear non-verbal cues if I'm not happy. 


If put into a policymaker paradigm, then of course, I weigh DA's and solvency takeouts 

against case. That said, debaters often overlook attacking case, which is a pity, since 

many cases are built on faulty warrants and claims. Joelle Purcell from WKY was one of 

the best in terms of case-side argumentation, and she'd be a great model for many people 

to consider. 

As far as topicality is concerned - I don't need a huge long standards/abuse block. Simply 

tell me what the violation is, why it's a violation, and then move on. I can't say I'm a huge 

fan of suicide T. 

Not all spec arguments are time sucks...if the spec is worthwhile, I'll vote there. Just 

make sure you tell me why the spec matters. 


I do have concerns in terms of certain kinds of performative debate that privilege 

narrative. As a scholar of narrative, I'm quite aware of the power of testimony, and its 

argumentative privilege. So, I'm probably not your best judge if performative is your 

style of debate. 

As far as kritiks are concerned: I'll listen,and occasionally vote on the K, but for the most 

part, I'd rather hear specific case-side argumentation and disadvantages if possible. 

There’s a difference between good kritiks and bad ones -- if it's really a DA, call it that 

instead of a K. That said, I do want you to tell me whether the K is pre or post-fiat and 

where the abuse can be found. 


Just because I use the sketchpad doesn't mean (to use the Ft. Hays term) I have to be 

“flogocentric.” I use the flow as a guide to help me remember; that doesn’t mean you’ll 

necessarily drop the round if you miss the 8th point off the third subpoint on the impact 

scenario. What it does mean is that I look to the reasonability of both positions before 

determining whether that matters. “Lump and dump” done well is just fine with me. If 

you can cover everything by grouping, go for it. 

54

Drutman, Paul 



4 years High School 

4 year college @ UW 

currently coach at UPS 



Absent a specific framework, I will defer to a policymaker paradigm. I am not really sure 

how to evaluate fact debates, so it is probably best to run a policy or some form of an 

advocacy in front of me. 


: 

Go as fast as you’d like. I typically enjoy a faster rate of delivery, but by no means 

expect every debater to do so .I do not believe that spreading is a substitute for wellwarranted 

arguments, so go fast but just have warrants. Your speaker points will reflect 

the quality of your arguments and strategic choices made in rounds, not verbal 

presentation. All debaters start out at a 27 and either go up or down based on what 

happens in the debate. 


Case arguments are important if you are defending the status quo. Case is not important 

if you are running a CP that claims to solve for the harms of the 1AC, Duh. 


I enjoy a good critical debate, but there is probably nothing worse than a bad critical 

debate (well maybe a fact round of any sort). If you are going to run a kritique, you 

should probably have a pretty good knowledge of the position. Pulling up your old cap 

bad backfiles will generally not do the trick. I like critical positions with explicit 

frameworks, saying that fiat is illusory is not enough. I prefer critical positions with 

narrow and specific alternatives, this doesn’t mean that I will automatically drop you if 

you say “reject the aff” or something along these lines. I’ve read a decent amount of 

critical literature, but I expect you to be able to explain the arguments as opposed to 

simply name-dropping Foucault or Deleuze. 

55

Performance is fine as long as you actually make arguments. Don't expect to pick up my 

ballot just because you performed better than your opponent. I've also seen a number of 

irony debaters this year, but must admit that I am not a fan. 


Two basic principles underline my philosophy. First, I believe that debate is about 

having fun. Play to your strengths and do what you do best. This means that you should 

make whatever arguments you think will win you the round. I am fine with you running 

Baudrillard, and I am also fine with you running Delay and Politics. Second, I privilege 

well-warranted arguments and smart strategic decisions. Development of arguments is 

important, and I think that this is difficult to accomplish in a 45-minute debate round if 

you are going for 6 positions in the LOR. 

Dont expect to pick up my ballot on "fact good" or RVI's on T. Absent a specific voter, I 

will default to rejecting the argument and not the team on things like PICS, Consult, 

Delay, Severance, etc. 

Fiorta, Tim 

University of Notre Dame 


Currently, I am a second year law student (and second year Parli coach and judge). I 

debated Parli for 4 years as an undergrad. Before that, I did 3 years of policy in high 

school. 



Basically, you tell me. Make me do as little work as possible, and we will all be happier 

at the end of the day. 


: 

Certainly, communication skills impact your persuasiveness. However, assuming you can 

make coherent arguments, presentation will only impact your speaker points. 


56

Depends on the round. I generally prefer substantive on-case debate to seeing canned 

DAs or kritiks, but the round is yours to make as far as strategy goes. Run 4 DAs or just 8 

minutes of T. Doesn't bother me. 


If you want to do something like this, make sure you have a very good handle on the 

theory behind your performance and that you can explain it well. But also please make 

sure that it actually has some meaning and is not just for the sake of messing with 

opponents. And please, no sock puppets. Just trust me on this one. 


I can flow speed, and I will judge accordingly if that's how you set up the round, but I 

don't LIKE speed. I think that part of this exercise is developing speaking skills one 

might actually find useful in the real world, rather than being policy without cards. Other 

than that, let's not take ourselves too seriously. Have fun. Make some jokes. Life's too 

short to stress about debate. 

Franke, Melissa 

Pacific Lutheran University 


11 years judging parliamentary debate. 



I see myself as a policymaker, broadly defined. I make decisions about policy, the 

impacts those policies might have, and often, the critical implications of advocating 

particular policies or arguments. (Read: I like policy debates, critical debates, and 

various mixtures of the two.) 


: 

To be honest, I don't know how much presentation/communication skills figure into my 

decision making. On an overt or explicit level, they don't, but I'm not sure how much 

57

they factor on a subconscious level. While they don't serve as a basis for decisionmaking, 

I do have a few preferences: 1) succinct tags for arguments, 2) some slight 

pauses when moving to a new position or sheet of paper, 3) clear speaking. I would like 

to give your arguments as much consideration as possible and have found that your 

argument is more likely to make it onto my flow and into my head if you speak clearly, 

pause some, and have succinct tag lines. Also, I don't like it when debaters are rude to 

each other. 


The relative importance of on-case argumentation is completely dependent on the round. 


I'd like to think I'm open-minded about different approaches to debate. I haven't seen 

much performative debate, though, so I'm hesitant to make pronouncements about it. I'm 

definitely willing to listen to anything and am happier when there is a justification for 

doing what you're doing. I'm fine with critical debate. 


Moderating my previously reactionary feelings about fairness and ground, I ask only that 

debaters measure and weigh claims (and support) about fairness and ground. I find that 

many claims about ground and fairness require me to intervene to make decisions 

regarding them (I have a hard time determining how much prep time you’ve lost and how 

unfair that makes the debate), and I am uncomfortable doing this. Of course, there are 

many circumstances where these claims are necessary, and I find myself voting on them 

more than I thought I would, but it’s helpful if you can provide ways to evaluate those 

arguments fairly. Because I’m more or less a policymaker, arguments about vagueness, 

advocacy shift, etc., are more compelling when they also include impacts to decision 

making in a policy arena. 

I don’t require a point of order to discount new arguments, but you should call the point 

of order if you are worried that I might miss it. 

Because I learn so much from listening to and judging debates, I don’t like to be very 

prescriptive in my judging philosophy. Debaters frequently change my mind about 

arguments, types of arguments, and specific issues. I try to be very open-minded about 

arguments and debate styles. For the most part, you know what works for you, and I look 

forward to hearing it! 

58

Funkhouser, Eric 

University of Arkansas 


This is my first year involved with parliamentary debate. I have not been involved with 

debate for the previous decade. Before that I participated in high school policy debate 

and Lincoln-Douglas debate, and judged such debates while in college. 



I am fairly tabula rasa. I am always open to topicality arguments, however, so long as 

they single out what I take to be a non-trivial violation. 


: 

These are certainly secondary, for me, to the argumentation. But, I do expect politeness 

and civility. 


Important, but not essential for an Opposition decision. 


Uncertain. 


N/A 

59

Garcia, Eric 

Biola University 


12 Years experience judging debate 9.5 Years experience judging Parli 3.5 years of LD 

value 

debate in high school 4 years of NDT policy debate in college 9th semester coaching 

parliamentary debate. 



I am a flow judge. Because of my policy background, I will understand "fancy" debate 

terms 

like: turn, perm, critique, topicality. Although I have a predominant policy background, 

this does 

not mean that policy is necessarily the best style. Feel free to adapt yourself to the 

arguments and 

resolution and not concern yourself with policy type terms. As Bruce Lee put it, "The 

highest 

technique to hope to achieve to is to have no technique." 


: 

Not important to the decision, but can have an impact on speaker points (especially in 

cases of rudeness). 


For my decision calculus . . . I look at advantages vs. disadvantages at the end of the 

round. 

Dropped arguments make my ballot so easy. Dropping topicality will be an easy decision. 

Dropping turns or disadvantages will be an easy decision if they outweigh the other side. 

The 

funny thing is that most debaters go to the dropped stuff in their final minute or 30 

seconds and 

expect it to be persuasive. Going to the drops first, instead of making me wait for it and 

wade 

through lots of ink will improve your speaker points. For policy topics I will be a policy 

maker, 

most teams use CBA anyway. For value/fact topics I will follow the criteria that 

Gov/Opp 

60

debate out. 


I have grown to love critical debates. I will begrudgingly listen to performance debates. 


I am a topicality fiend. I love it more than most judges do. I have been known to vote on 

potential abuse when argued. Also, most Opposition teams will lose my ballot because 

they come out with no offensive 

arguments. Try to keep it simple in your refutation. Most teams forget to say "perm" 

when 

answering counterplans. Many teams don't even try to turn DA's. I would love that. Much 

of the 

above, with some tinkering, can be done with value resolutions. Just give examples of 

how your 

value is the best in the round and why. 

Gardner, Kasey 



Experience : First Year Grad Student High School: 1 Year of Policy College: 4 Parli, 2 

NFA-LD School(s): Moorpark/WKY Feel free to use all positions and arguments that 

you wish in front of me and I will do my best to evaluate them fairly and honestly. I don’t 

think it is the purpose of a judging philosophy to tell you what I will and not “like” in 

debate but rather how to discuss it. Speed is not an issue as long and you are clear and 

make sense. This argument applies equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole. In 

order to enhance your clarity you should use examples, theory, or well warranted 

analysis. The above being said I find myself not voting for a lot of performance but that 

doesn’t mean I don’t think it is legitimate, just poorly run often. I appreciate being told 

how to evaluate arguments especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, 

ect.) Standard tools of impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, 

timeframe, and probability. You should call points of order in front of me, but save them 

for instances that matter. If the round is a slaughter, let them go, you will be fine. There 

are a few things I don’t find persuasive, one of them is excessive prompting and tooling 

of your partner. Another is rudeness to the other team on a personal level, as opposed to 

the argumentative level. Finally, please get to my round on time. I will enforce the 

tournaments forfeit rule, being excessively late is not cool. As for my own rule, it is about 

5 to 7 minutes if the tournament doesn’t have one. 

61



Feel free to use all positions and arguments that you wish in front of me and I will do my 

best to evaluate them fairly and honestly. I don’t think it is the purpose of a judging 

philosophy to tell you what I will and not “like” in debate but rather how to discuss it. 

Speed is not an issue as long and you are clear and make sense. This argument applies 

equally if you are not fast but unclear as a whole. In order to enhance your clarity you 

should use examples, theory, or well warranted analysis. The above being said I find 

myself not voting for a lot of performance but that doesn’t mean I don’t think it is 

legitimate, just poorly run often. I appreciate being told how to evaluate arguments 

especially if they are on different planes (critical, case, theory, ect.) Standard tools of 

impact calculus are paramount as well; such as magnitude, timeframe, and probability. 

You should call points of order in front of me, but save them for instances that matter. If 

the round is a slaughter, let them go, you will be fine. There are a few things I don’t find 

persuasive, one of them is excessive prompting and tooling of your partner. Another is 

rudeness to the other team on a personal level, as opposed to the argumentative level. 

Finally, please get to my round on time. I will enforce the tournaments forfeit rule, being 

excessively late is not cool. As for my own rule, it is about 5 to 7 minutes if the 

tournament doesn’t have one. 


: 




62

Garner, Kevin 

Texas Tech University 


Parli Rounds judged this year: 100+ 

Non-parli rounds judged this year: College LD 10+ 

Years judging debate: High School: 6 College: 1 

Years debated: College: 4 

School debated at: William Jewell College 



I default to a net benefits paradigm unless told other wise. I recommend you all establish 

this and tell me how to evaluate pre/post fiat, if such a distincion exists. Strong 

viewpoints Nope. I keep my personal views out of rounds, however, offense arguments 

can hurt your speaks, so watch the rhetoric. 


Presentation: Meh. Speed Ks: Very high threshhold for voting on this Key issues vs. 

Spread: Whatever you think is strategic LOR: Do what you do Splitting Block = No 

No! You will know when I think you are taking too long to begin speaking, I will ask 

for the order. I put my pen down the second the timer goes off. I protect teams, so 

Point of Orders are not required, though do them if you want (just dont over use them). 

New positions are fine. 

 


The trichotomy sounds like a term from Star Wars, certainly not from debate. Every 

resolution can be (and should be) interpreted as a policy. I will not vote against teams 

automatically for running a fact/value case, however, I have a low threshhold for voting 

on fact/value bad. CPs should be presented prior to protected time, however, I am fine 

with the Opp doing this and allowing the remaining time to be used for questions, even if 

protected. I will let the teams debate out the theory as to why this is a good/acceptable vs. 

bad way to do so and vote accordingly. Performance/Ks: I am admittedly more of a fan 

of the policy vs. CP/DA debate, but I do not exclude any arguments from a debate round. 

Make sure there is an alternative. Aside from that, just debate. I like impacts, not 

internal links. Size does matter, along with probability and timeframe...all good terms to 

63

use with me in the back of the room. Inherency...really! I guess since my career was 

ended on the argument I should listen to it...oh wait...NO! Unless the case has already 

passed, do not waste your breathe. Structure: If I can clearly flow it, whatev. 


How do I react to kritiks w/o alternatives I stand up and yell and leave the room...umm, 

I react by flowing the kritik that has no alternative. Are you asking should they have an 

alternative Then yes is the answer. PoMo/Word/Performance Ks: Debate them if you 

choose Framework: Most underdeveloped and argued against element of the K; the 

framework does matter 


If you say that an "x" argument is for cheaters, you will lose my ballot! There is a 

difference b/w claiming that an argument is bad/should not be ran vs. making a personal 

attack against a team. If a team has cheated that is to be determined by the board and not 

in the round. So be careful how you frame your arguments. Good luck and have fun! 

Feel free to ask me to clarify any of my comments or if you would like additional 

information. 

Glenn, Cathy 

Saint Marys College of California 


4 yrs CEDA (Chico State); some policy (UMKC). 2 yrs coaching/judging parli 



I'll flow and evaluate what you argue, and I don't have any particular adherence to a 

paradigm. If you argue for/against trichot, I'll weigh those arguments the way you tell me 

to. If you don't give me a way to weigh, then I have to intervene, and I'm more inclined to 

support the legitimacy of a trichot than not. If it's a "straight-up" policy round, stock 

issues are obviously important, but how to weigh stock issues in relation to each other 

and other issues is up to your argumentation. Without that, I have to intervene, and I'm 

inclined in a stock-issues paradigm toward weighing terminal impacts (via solvency and 

d/a uniqueness): case advantages vs. disads. 

64

I am NOT tabula rasa. I'm a critical scholar and pedagogue and that professional 

approach influences my critique of the round. If this concerns you and you can't adapt, 

strike me. See more below. 


: 

Fast is usually fine; be clear, organized, and structured. Smart and clean issue selection in 

rebuttals is worth many speaker points. 

I'm finding that I'm repulsed more and more by arrogance, and my facial expressions in a 

round will tell you when that's the case. (My former coaches would find this ironic given 

my own approach as a competitor.) You don't have to be "nice," but you should avoid 

bashing your opponents over the head with ad homs, with critical theory that they clearly 

aren't understanding (e.g., by interrupting a speaker with unnecessary PoIs), or with 

unnecessary speed. This is especially true if your advocacy is ostensibly "educational" 

and/or "transformative" (i.e., critical). Arrogance in the "service" of education is 

extremely unhealthy, in my view. As importantly, arrogance and a healthy critical project 

(that moves toward social justice) are mutually exclusive. An arrogant critical advocate 

simply inverts and discursively reproduces the oppressor/oppressed dichotomy in a 

debate round, which is, of course, bad. If you disagree and/or can't adapt, strike me. 


Depends on the round and the other arguments on the flow. 


Critiques (Ks): I consider WHAT is argued FROM my position as a critic. That means 

argue what you want; I won't intervene (that is, make arguments for the other side or 

dismiss an argument out of hand). At the same time, I'm not tabula rasa--I'm not 

evaluating your arguments from some mythical view from no-where 

(objectivity). As a critic, I evaluate arguments from a particular perspective, and my 

perspective (or critical orientation, in McGee's sense) is informed by my work in 

philosophy of communication, critical theory, and cultural criticism (for your purposes, 

poststructural, queer, and postcolonial). 

I also take critical advocacy (and "the" critical project) very seriously, and self-reflexivity 

(think Spivak’s and Bhabha’s contributions) ought to be a part of that advocacy, in my 

view. Without it, your advocacy simply reproduces the "invisibility" of the positivist 

scholar and the consequent harms in a debate round. You should also understand that I 

am not a note-taking mechanism in the back of the room: I expect to be moved, at both an 

65

intellectual and affective level, by your critical advocacy (narrative or not). In this mode, 

you always already invite me to interact from my perspective with your advocacy, and 

that always already assumes the risk that my interaction and response may not be to your 

benefit in winning the round. 

You should also know that I get grumpy when a critique or procedural based on warrants 

that assume language is important (because it constitutes reality) is cavalierly kicked in 

favor of a games-paradigm strategy. I'm all for games (love them, in fact), but if you want 

to me engage at a criticism level, it's best not to violate my trust in your intellectual 

honesty or the intent of your critical advocacy (strategy and intellectual honesty, 

incidentally, are not mutually exclusive in a games-paradigm). If any of this worries you 

and you can't adapt, strike me. 

That said, an adequately developed critique, for me, includes a relevant 

philosophical/theoretical framework, a clear link story to the affirmative or resolution, 

compelling impacts (terminal or not, depending on the critique) with a weighing 

mechanism, a viable alternative, and warranted voting issues. Defending against a 

critique in front of me, then, would include pressing these issues. My comments above 

should also give you ideas about what might be considered in defending against a 

critique. 

Performance/narratives: I’ll evaluate performance qua performance (think Butler and 

Conquergood for performance/performativity and Pollock for performative narrative). I’ll 

consider the quality of the aesthetic (evocative/affective impact) of the 

performance/narrative, how well the arguments are developed using that aesthetic, and 

the critical advocacy impacts (not necessarily terminal, depending on the critical 

argument). Again, you invite me to affectively interact with your advocacy in this mode, 

so see my comments above about that risk and decide if you want to assume it. If all you 

have prepped are crit/perf/narr positions to run and aren't enamored by the risk, strike me. 


Politics: Again, I’m not tabula rasa—assume I understand how complex and vague 

political processes are and be sure that informs your analysis and your answers to the 

other team’s challenges to your scenarios. For me, politics stories need especially strong 

link scenarios; in other words, my threshold is pretty high on these positions and if you're 

blowing off answers that don't seem important, you're taking a big risk in front of me. I 

also read, so lying is also not smart. 

Procedurals: I love meta-debate; please be structured and support your claims (running or 

defending against the position) with sound analysis, not just blipped assertions. 

That's it. Ask if you need more specifics, and I'm happy to oblige. 

66

Grace, Jeremy 

Rice Univ. 


Judging, coaching, and competing since 1983. 

Parli, LD, & IE background. 



I attempt to base my decision on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using 

my own decision-making philosophy as much as possible but will if the round demands 

it, ergo, no one gives me a criteria. 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 be factually incorrect (if you are 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. 

No one is tabula rasa. I can think in different ways so policy, fact, or value is fine with 

me. 


: 

Speak well and do not be rude. It is more difficult to give you a win if you are not 

likeable or professional. 


Weigh the MPX. That being said, this is not a race to count body bags. REALLY! How 

will corn subsidies to lead to nuclear war in Iceland Please attempt to avoid making 

absolutely ridiculous claims. 

The argument’s weight depends on how strong it is. I think line-by-line vs. "big picture" 

is an artificial divide anyway. This can vary by round. I would say 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. 


If you "perform" I will judge you on the actual quality of the performance. Perform away, 

but if you drop all case you will probably lose. 

67

If you love performance I would suggest that you take part in individual events rather 

than bashing them. 

I have yet to vote on a critique as I do not understand people who declare employ 

totalities to critique totalities. The more K's I see the more I begin to believe that far from 

being liberating, hyper post modernism is more akin to fascism. 

I am not interested in killing people for the good of the Earth. 

We are the state, so I will not vote to destroy it. 

Please actually know what you are talking about. 


I will not disclose. 

Have fun! 

Don't lie. 

Graham, Steven 

San Joaquin Delta College 


Steve has two years of forensics experience and has traveled throughout California to a 

number of highly competitive tournaments, and he has judges dozens of open rounds of 

debate. He also has been a speech teacher for mayn years, and is up to date on current 

events and current issues. 



Will vote based on how the arguments are best weighed out through impacts in the round. 

Stock issues, adherence to the trichotemy etc... are all very important, but if you want to 

win the round, show why those are important, and how the otherside does/doesn't uphold 

these. Don't focus so much on the lingo, but instead focus on the arguments and how they 

are developed to help/hinder your case. 

68


: 

Because of his experience as a speech coach first, and a debate coach second, speed isn't 

unreasonable, but being able to understand the flow of the debate and weighting your 

arguments is important. 


Arguining on case, and line by line critical to win a debate. Show me where your 

arguments are, and why theirs are less important. 


Reasonably open to various approaches to debateing, but professionalism and courtesy 

should not be compromised. 


Have fun! This is a learning experience! 

Graham, Todd 

Southern Illinois University 

I have a policy debate background. I like rounds that are policy debate rounds. Plans, 

advantages, disads, counterplans, etc…all make for better debates. Comparing examples 

does not lead to good clash, but it does lead to judge intervention. Think of me as a 

policy maker. 

Performances: While I have voted for hand puppets (sock puppets actually require 

socks), I wouldn’t bank on any repeats soon. A performance is not more persuasive to 

me than any other single warranted argument. Usually it is less persuasive. 

You must make arguments to win a debate. Those arguments should be clear enough to 

allow the other team a fair chance to respond. (Eg, critiques, metaphors, irony, 

narratives, personal advocacy, etc...) 

69

Critiques: Again, I prefer policy debate. However, when on the government, your plan 

advantages can be critical, just as a net benefit to a counterplan can be critical. Either 

way, you still had a policy. I have voted for many critiques, but I am not a hack. I think 

critiques should have realistic alternatives. Some critiques make little sense to me. 

Maybe this helps. When my team ran Baudrillard in policy debate on the aff and neg all 

year, here was my philosophy: 

I would not vote for my own team this year, 

But I hope you do. 

I would not vote for our affirmative, 

Whatever it is. 

I would not vote for our negative arguments, 

Because I don’t really get them. 

I do not understand why line-by-line is bad, 

So I guess I am part of the problem. 

My team has used an extra strike just for me, 

Since they cannot risk me accidentally judging them. 

Indeed, I say this with love in my heart, 

But I would not vote for my own team this year. 

Fiat for critiques: 

Both teams can argue that their advocacy is a good thing. That essentially means the 

government defends their plan as U.S. government action. Arguing a critique and saying 

that fiat is illusory doesn’t change the fact that government teams should still get the 

chance to access their impacts. 

70

Fiat for politics: 

I think that fiat means the government gets their plan passed now. This “debate” about 

politics should begin after the passage of the plan. So politics links that argue about who 

voted for what and by what margin make little sense to me. Note: that also means that 

most “political capital” links seem either out of place or incorrectly argued in many 

debates. EG., Why would the president spend political capital to pass a plan that he 

never liked in the first place Why would it be seen as an olive branch He NEVER 

would have done the plan (that’s inherency). I think most opposition teams are asserting 

(actually fiating) these links, and they seem ridiculous to me. Fiat doesn’t mean you get a 

link to politics automatically because legislation was passed. Make some arguments 

about the specific government plan and the political ramifications of it being passed. I 

think fiat means the plan was passed. The government gets to fiat it into existence. So 

debate the political process that happens AFTER the passage of the plan. That still leaves 

plenty of political process disads. 

For parliamentary debate, I will follow what seems to be the norm for counterplans. 

They are unconditional (just like plans) unless otherwise noted. This consistency of 

advocacy and arguments seems more appropriate for parliamentary debate, given no CX 

and fewer rebuttals. 

New arguments: Points of order are part of parliamentary debate. They allow both sides 

to explain why arguments are new or why they are legitimate extensions. Without these 

explanations that follow points of order, I cannot know for certain if an argument is new. 

Therefore, without a point of order, I will assume all arguments originated in a previous 

speech. If I end up voting on an argument that might be new in the rebuttal, it is not my 

fault for not noticing it, but the opposing team’s fault for not pointing it out. Don’t 

expect me to do the work for you. 

T debates are fine. Plans should be topical. 

Spec debates are okay, but harder to win in parliamentary debate given the limited 

amount of prep time the government team has to write their plan. It would be nice if the 

plan specified whatever it needs to. Opposition debaters need to show some actual abuse 

in order to win them. Burdens are higher for spec debates. But sometimes a spec 

argument makes sense. 

71

Reverse Voting Issues are for people who cannot debate. 

I try not to intervene in rounds. I’m also a critic of argument. Those two concepts 

conflict quite often. I wish I could tell you the bright line of which arguments are so 

terrible that they don’t really need much of an answer, and which arguments, while 

counterintuitive, still require solid counterarguments. My suggestions: First, try to make 

good arguments that have solid foundations. Then you won’t have to worry. Second, 

don’t count on me to debate for you. In most cases, I will not intervene. But I think 

parliamentary debate should not encourage judges to be 100% tabula rasa. I find debaters 

just make stuff up way too often, both about world events and about debate theory. So, 

while I try to give the debaters the benefit of the doubt, it is possible that I could 

intervene based on false facts or just bad arguments. Perhaps you will be able to tell by 

my nonverbal and verbal communication if your argument won’t be getting my ballot. 

Granger, Marcus 

Carroll College 


Name: Marcus Granger 

Parli coach at Carroll College 

Years competing: 8 

Last year competed: 2007 

Years judging: 1 


4 Years Parli/IEs at Carroll College. High school LD x 4 and Congress x 3. 



I try to be tab, but I’ll admit that I rarely find myself voting for performance or K. I’m 

open to either of these, but I have yet to see performance run well in a round I’ve judged. 

I wouldn’t punish you for running these arguments, but do so knowing I have a higher 

than average threshold. I think you’d prefer that I be honest about this rather than claim 

to be fully tab. I’ve routinely voted for poorly run Ks than went dropped by the other 

team, and there’s nothing wrong with a good K. Again, the flow takes precedence and 

intervention might be the worst of all debate sins. 

72

See below in “cautionary notes” below. 


: 

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

making: 

If I can understand it enough to flow, communication won’t be my Reason for Decision. I 

reflect communication in speaker points, but persuasion helps a lot in a “he said, she 

said” debate. 



Rebuttals should weigh arguments, whether on case or off. 






4 Years Parli/IEs at Carroll College. High school LD x 4 and Congress x 3. 

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

making: 

If I can understand it enough to flow, communication won’t be my Reason for Decision. I 

reflect communication in speaker points, but persuasion helps a lot in a “he said, she 

said” debate. 


Rebuttals should weigh arguments, whether on case or off. 



I vote on the flow and do my best to check my biases at the door. I sometimes see debates 

I don’t like, but I hate intervention most of all. It’s not your job to debate me. I would 

describe my concepts of debate theory as “average.” Who wouldn’t Anyway, I’ll do 

whatever you ask and I’m fine with meta debate. I use my concepts of theory until you 

offer me your own. 

My requests: 

73

1. Basic courtesy. 

2. Voters…so I don’t have to pick them for you. 

3. Impact comparison…so I’m not left picking the ones I like. 

4. Sign-posted flows and good roadmaps. 

My Quarks: 

1. I will only vote for in round and articulated abuse. 

2. Call all new arguments in rebuttals—so both sides get a chance to respond. 

3. Speed is fine. If my pen is in the air I’m crying out for help. That happens rarely. 

4. If the round becomes “yes it is, not it isn’t” I’ll revert to the best analysis and story 

Cautionary notes: 

I try to be tab, but I’ll admit that I rarely find myself voting for performance or K. I’m 

open to either of these, but I have yet to see performance run well in a round I’ve judged. 

I wouldn’t punish you for running these arguments, but do so knowing I have a higher 

than average threshold. I think you’d prefer that I be honest about this rather than claim 

to be fully tab. I’ve routinely voted for poorly run Ks than went dropped by the other 

team, and there’s nothing wrong with a good K. Again, the flow takes precedence and 

intervention might be the worst of all debate sins. 

Decisions: 

I examine each argument in turn and then look to see if it was weighed in the rebuttal. If 

the rebuttals attached weight to a winning argument, things are looking up for that team. 

If neither team weighed anything in the rebuttal I am left picking arguments that I think 

will outweigh. Standard CBA/Net Ben stuff. 

Haas, Benjamin 


the standard matters on topicality 

kritiks should be intelligent and have alternatives that compete 

I will not vote for a speed criticism, in an imaginable universe 

I think debate is a competitive collegiate activity 

I think education as a voter/standard on any argument is probably dumb unless it is 

topicality because that is probably the only place where debaters actually can educate 

have fun 

if you do unconventional things you should be able to argue why it is legitimate 

I will vote for spec args but kinda secretly hate them 

I think that the tri cot is dead, run a plan 

I think Walt Fischer is cool tell a good story 

chill out mean people make debate less fun 

I don’t care what you wear... I like red hats 

74

speaker points are based on good arguments 

don’t lie 

I don’t read the news as much as you might assume 

I don’t think capitalism is good, but will vote for it if I have to 

I think the offense is key to winning (as opposed to defense, not kindness) 

you should think about striking me… seriously 

back to kritiks, you should have read the books/authors you talk about 

I do not believe in objective truth, but some things are unjustifiable 

if you have questions feel free to ask me… 

http://toothpastefordinner.com/021308/conspiracy-chart-2008.gif 

Hahner, Leslie 

Truman State University 


With over 11 years of involvement in competitive debate, I am a well-rounded critic. I 

competed in NPDA, and NFA-LD. I coached both these forms of debate as well as 

policy debate (NDT). In addition to my general knowledge of contemporary political and 

policy-making concerns, I am well-versed in critical theory and reading strategies. 



For the most part, I am a judge who keeps a tight flow, and use that flow to adjudicate the 

round. For me, this means the debaters must tell me how to weigh arguments on the 

flow. Thus, I will typically take on the judging perspective advocated by the debaters, so 

long as that advocacy is persuasive and maintained in round. Should the debaters fail to 

make an advocacy, I typically default to policymaker or simply a critic of arguments 

(who wins what in round). 


: 

Debaters should be able to cleanly and clearly articulate and sustain arguments. The 

relative speed and/or style they chose to use in this process, for me, is irrelevant. If you 

speak fast, fine. If you sit while you debate, fine. If you chose to stand and speak slowly 

in order to make your advocacy, more power to you. But, please, make arguments, 

articulate them well, and provide some warrants. 

75


At a minimum, debaters should be able to respond to the case, illustrate how it interacts 

with off-case argumentation, and (if gov) be able to uphold their advocacy. If the opp 

wishes to go for a an off-case argument, please illustrate how the case interacts 

(generates, begs, initiates, etc.) with the off-case, do not simply presume that I will do 

that work for you. 


I am very open to critical/performative styles of debating. But, rest assured, I have seen 

this a lot, in forums that allow for a more developed and nuanced articulation of critical 

arguments. This means please use critical theory wisely: show how the gov/opp 

necessitates the critical argument, the interaction of debate with the critical theorist, and 

how I should adjudicate the kritik/performance. If you are opposing a critical argument 

using a policy/traditional framework, try a both/and approach with me: don't tell me that 

this argument is simply bad, but instead tell me why its bad in this round, and the ways in 

which it undercuts, obfuscates your advocacy...etc. 


Harvey, Korry 



Overview: My background comes primarily from a policy making paradigm. A specific 

plan often tends to offer the best focus for debate. However, I understand that not all 

resolutions are translatable into “policy” language, and feel that the resolution should best 

dictate the type of debate to be had. In those cases, the teams should clarify what 

framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how it should be evaluated (a weighing 

mechanism). I have no problem with critical debates and am willing to listen to any 

framework the teams feel is appropriate for the debate. I think that debate is both an 

educational exercise and a game—that’s what makes it fun. 

76

Unique consideration: I am hearing impaired. No joke-- I wear hearing aids in both ears, 

and am basically deaf without them. As such, clarity is particularly important for me. I 

am working very hard to understand what you say, I’d appreciate if you help me out a 

little. 



See above. Although I don't believe complete objectivity is truly possible, I do try my 

best to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate 

process. 

Criteria should be carefully thought out. What is to be weighed should be identified along 

with how the weighing takes place. The opposition team should feel free to offer counter 

criteria. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates are 

based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” definitely has 

weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the rest of the debate and is not 

automatically a round-winner. 


: 

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 “their next argument.” Your “next” and my “next” may very well 

not be the same thing. 

Some may call me a dreamer, but good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick 

presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying 

things. Also, please feel free to actually enjoy yourself. Debate should be fun. 


I find that case debate, while a very effective strategy, is rarely practiced by debaters. 

This is unfortunate, as it usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. I can 

understand, however, 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. 


77

See above. No problem, as long as it is well excuted (which makes it no different than 

traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates). 


Topicality/Theory: While I’m not particularly fond of theory debates, I realize they have 

their place and will vote on them if they are validated. However, screaming “abuse” or 

“unfair” is insufficient for me. I am far more concerned about educational integrity and 

an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t 

mean they have no ground-- be creative. Generally, cases that are hiding from the subject 

matter of the resolution are logically weak, and subject to critique for refusing to address 

important issues. 

Procedure: Please note that I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that 

identify “new” arguments in rebuttals. You are, however, welcome to make points if you 

feel it is warranted. 

Style: While I have no problem with them, 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 or dig your arguments; 3.) You don’t need to 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, etc.; you know the order, go ahead 

and speak; 5.) I will include thank-you time in speech time, but (largely a result of my 

hearing impairment) appreciate a brief, non-timed roadmap beforehand. 

Helder, Tyson 



I was a policy debater in high school and a parli and ld debater in college. I am currently 

a law student and help coach both high school and college debate. 



78

I will do my best to vote where the debaters in the round tell me to vote. That requires 

more than saying the word "voter," providing a justification - even if it seems incredibly 

obvious to you - is critical. It is probably worth noting that I have a negative "knee-jerk" 

reaction to positions that are under-developed. In no way does that mean I will not vote 

on them, but you will have to give me a pretty convincing reason by the end of the debate 

to do so. While I do not personally adhere to a trichotomy or really any other philosophy, 

I will not reject arguments supporting those ideas. Should the debaters fail to provide a 

voting mechanism (weighing the arguments and providing a decision calculus), I tend to 

default to a policy-maker. 


: 

I prefer effective debate and that will change depending on any given round. Having the 

best argument can be the best form of communication, but there is no one way to 

communicate. Of course, if I cannot understand you - either because you are not making 

sense or are not enunciating (regardless of speed) - that is only going to hurt you. If you 

are worried about it, it is usually pretty obvious if I'm flowing or not. 


Questions like this always seem like a waste of time. No one argument can be relied 

upon to win every round. Can on-care argumentation be sufficient to win a debate 

Certainly, is it always Depends on what is being argued. If you want me to vote solely 

on case, then say so, justify that argument and I will. I think that in general a solid 

strategy is a well developed on-case and off-case strategy. 


If you want me to vote on something, then you need to explain it and tell me why it is 

important. I have no problem voting for any position, but if I do not understand it based 

on what you tell me in round, then you will have a hard time winning the position. 


79

Hoag, Andrew 

San Diego Christian College 


I competed in debate for 6 total years, 2 in high school NFL LD and 4 in parli for Point 

Loma Nazarene University. I have coached and judged some form of debate for the past 

five years, including acting as Director of Forensics for San Diego Christian College for 

the past two years. I am currently working on my MA in American Literature and am 

relatively well read on literary theory. 



I will adopt whatever means of decision-making the teams ask me to adopt. That means 

of decision-making is always up for debate, so feel free to engage in 

framework/procedural debates. If neither team is willing/able to tell me how to decide 

the round, I will default to net benefits, policy-maker paradigm as that tends to be the one 

most commonly expected by debaters. However, different types of argumentation (such 

as narratives, performance, micropolitics, etc.) do change the nature of the game and the 

nature of my position as a judge. If you are going to make any of these arguments, please 

do put some work into how I fit in as a decision-maker. As for the order of deciding 

certain types of positions, if no argument in made otherwise, I will first evaluate 

topicality (or a kritik of topicality if one exists), then kritiks, and then case/disads/cps. Of 

course, that order is up for revision in each round if arguments are made to that effect. 

On the trichotomy, I believe that there is no necessary connection between the words in 

the resolution and a certain type of case. Also, I personally think that all three types of 

debate case either contain the other two or tend toward the direction of the other two. To 

argue that fact, value, and policy cases are wholly distinct arguments seems to me to be 

artificial and unnecessarily limiting of the discussion. That said, if you want to make a 

trichotomy argument or present a fact or value case in front of me, you can. Just like any 

other argument, you must be willing to defend it against any attack the other team makes. 


: 

While presentation and communication are important to a certain extent for my allocation 

of speaker points, these elements do not factor into my decision. I vote on warrants and 

impacts. 


The case is as important as the debaters make it in the round. If it's still there at the end 

of the round, it will definitely factor into my decision, just like any other argument. I do 

80

not believe that there is any type of argument that necessarily makes the case disappear 

from the round. There are ways to make a case argument still relevant in any sort of new 

opposition strategy thrown out there (even T), but it is the responsibility of the 

government to make those arguments. 


I am open to any style of debating that the competitors wish to employ. This does not 

mean that I will automatically vote for a non-traditional style of debate just by virtue of 

running it; you must still defend your position and weigh the impacts of your style 

against the articulated impacts of the alternative style provided by the other team. I have 

voted for non-traditional arguments, but only when they are won. Personally, I like to see 

performance and narrative debate entering into parli. I experimented with similar debate 

styles near the end of my debate career, and I greatly enjoyed it. You are definitely 

allowed to make such arguments in front of me; of course, you are also welcome to argue 

that such arguments are inappropriate/unsuccessful/or whatever else you want to argue. 

Just remember to have fun. 


House, Josh 

California State University at Long Beach 


Parli Rounds judged this year: 50+ 

Non-parli rounds judged this year: 0 



School debated at: Wyoming 



I focus on comparison (the government just needs to show their case is stronger than their 

opponents) although I think that can certainly include a comparison of the rhetoric that 

the debaters usewhich team's advocacy is best. I certainly lean to the left, so I suppose 

I'm going to be sympathetic to arguments that go left. But if your leftist hippy crap (and I 

say that with love) gets beat by some well executed conservative crap (less with the love) 

then I'm going to vote for the conservative crap. The arguments I have a hard time 

81

imagining could be made in a way I could vote for them include things like racism, 

bigotry, or hate are good...so that's a big surprise. 


: 

Good vocal variation and presence in the round can make arguments easier to understand 

and more persuasive. Eye contact and gestures are not important to me. I would rather 

have teams focus on a few issues so that arguments can be developed well and compared 

to one another, but if a team spreads with a bunch of positions for strategic reasons that's 

fine. All that I ask is that at some point you make some choices instead of constantly 

expanding the round. The LOR can make whatever strategic choices she wants. As long 

as the positions the MO doesn't cover were initially covered in the LOC they can talk 

about them again. However, I don't think the LOR should be making new arguments. 

After a few seconds I would prompt them to begin, and a few seconds more I would start 

time. If there are a lot of papers for everybody to get in order I would allow for a little 

more time, but 1520 seconds is probably too much. I will listen to the end of an 

argument if it finishes a second or three after the end of the speech time but 10 to 15 

seconds is way too long. I will allow new arguments if the other team does not make a 

point of order on it. I think a PMR can make arguments about which arguments are new 

in the LOR and why I shouldn't allow them. However, if a team makes two or three 

points of order on a particular position or argument I won't make them keep standing up 

as long as it's being discussed. That is because while I generally feel like I shouldn't do 

the work for the debaters of deciding which arguments are new and which aren't I also 

don't want a team to feel like they have to interrupt their opponents 15 times in 5 minutes. 


I've come to appreciate creativity in the construction of case much more over the past two 

years or so. Both in the content and form, I enjoy teams who take risks and try something 

new. Of course, that doesn't always mean I'll vote for you if you do that, but I'll be much 

more interested in the round and I honestly think that makes a difference for critics. If a 

gov team wants to run a fact or value case they're going to have to explain very clearly 

how I am to evaluate the arguments and weigh the round. Opp teams should either 

respond to the gov on the gov's terms or should provide a justification for not doing so. I 

think plans and counterplans should be presented with enough time to clarify text. If a 

team doesn't present it until protected time but still allows a clarification that should be 

fine. Performance or kritikal gov cases are fine, except that you run the risk that I'm a 

little slow and don't get it. Then again, that's sort of always true. And really, I like the 

crazy, I'm not going to lie. I like impacts to be as specific as possible. If they're going to 

be about nuclear war or the environment or the economy that's fine, just tell me why 

those things are important and how they should be evaluated in the round. I think huge 

impacts and more realistic impacts, just so long as they're explained well. If two sets of 

impacts are being compared and both are explained equally well, I suppose the huge 

impacts would be better. Inherency is of minimal importance to a gov policy case, and 

only important at all if the opp makes it important. Cases should be structured. Or not, 

82

depending on the argument. But if your argument would be better suited to a case with 

structure I would like it to have some. 


Kritiks without alternatives should have explanations for why they don't have one. At the 

end of the round I don't want to vote against the other team, I want to vote for you. So, if 

rejection is your alternative you should make it clear to me what I get out of rejecting 

them that means I should vote for you. I haven't seen a "word" kritik in a long time, but 

if I did see one I would want it to be structured in some way. I'm not going to vote for 

you just because you say that something they said is offensive. I would like to see more 

performance kritiks. I, along with a lot of other people in this activity, don't always 

understand what is going on when I see one. I think that's because it's so far removed 

from what I expect coming into the round. That's not going to change unless more people 

run these types of positiong, and since I think they have something valuable to offer I 

think they need more exposure. Then I, and others, might be more prone to "get" them. I 

generally thing arguments like wrong forum are very persuasive unless they at the very 

least 1. are very specific to the position being run 2. tell me why it's bad that they are in 

this forum and 3. tell me what the correct forum is, that I might seek it out. 

Hunt, Jeannie 

Northwest College 


My background is actually in policy debate. Prior to coming to Northwest I coached 

policy for 7 years. I have been coaching and judging Parli for the last 3 years. There are 

very few arguments I don't like to hear - I am pretty game for anything. 



I try hard to be Tabula Rasa. obviously that means you have to establish the framework 

for me - I'm not going to do work for you. I will vote on Topicality, but not just becasue 

you are upset that the Gov. turned the value round into a policy - there should be some 

clear topicality violations. I will follow the framework you present. 


: 

83

Speed is fine, as long as it is clear. The only real communication problem I have is poor 

behavior. I expect you to be nice to each other, and I will not argue with you about any 

decision I make. 


A good debater is going to cover on and off case. As I said above, I will go with your 

flow. 


If you run a K, you better represent the ideals of that K. I like critical arguments and 

rounds, I have no problems with project debate, but I do expect you to live up to your 

own standards when presenting these positions. 


Hunt, Steven 

Lewis & Clark College 


40 years in debate starting with NDT moving to CEDA and then to Parli Have judged 

final rounds in NDT CEDA and NPDA 



I am a critic of argument ala Balthrup article JAFA I listen to all arguments but have 

minimum standards for real/good arguments. Claims must have warrants. There must be 

real links for disadvantages, critique. I am not a particular fan of performance. 


: 

You need to be organized Cleverness repartee count in your favor. You must not speak so 

rapidly you are not clear. 


84

I like straight up substantive on case argumentation. 


Not a fan. 


Gov must establish a decent prima facie case. Opp must attack this case trying to win 

topicality significance solvency or disadvantages or claiming a better counterplan Claims 

should be supported with facts, analysis, statistics, some forms of proof. CLASH in 

debate is good. In rebuttals I want to see voting issues claimed and weighted versus the 

opposition. Showing knowledgeability about the resolution is viewed very favorably. 

Showing ignorance of the resolution is viewed unfavorably. 

Iberri-Shea, Danny 

Northern Arizona University 


I competed in both parli and policy debate (8 years). I have directed the NAU forensics 

team since 2005. 



I am open to a variety of interpretations. The upper left section of the flow (definions, 

burdens, etc.) is very important to me. Too many debaters simply say "net benefits" 

without explaining what that means. I like specific and unique burdens/criteria. 


: 

If an audience member can't decode a message appropriately, any decision-making would 

be based on partial or unclear information. 

85

Look for non-verbal gestures that indicate that you have lost your audience. Are they still 

taking notes Do they look confused Use your intuition as a guide. 


On-case arguments are very important. Straight refutation is responsible for laying to rest 

many affirmative cases over the years. Additionally, negative positions that avoid 

offering rejoinder to the affirmative case risk being outweighed or turned via the on-case 

solvency and advantages. 


I am open to this. It does not mean that I will vote for a team just becuase they are 

creative or breaking out of some medium of "oppression." Debaters must be smart. Tell 

me why drawing pictures or maintaining silence is an example of a "speech act" that 

serves to advance a particular claim. 

In opposition to performance, teams might advance a counter-perfomance of a kind or 

simply attack the performance for failing to prove the topic to be true. I will rarely reject 

topicality outright without some work. 


NPDA nationals is kind of like Bruce Lee's, Enter the Dragon. Students come from a 

variety of dojos to try their unique style of kung fu against others. There is no correct 

style. There is only contextually correct applications of style. Have fun and do what you 

do best (rather than what you think the critic or your opponents "expect" to hear). 

In my previous years of judo experience, I witnessed several occasions where a black belt 

was thrown to the ground by a white belt who only knew one move/trick. You could tell 

in that instant, however, that the white belt probably practiced that one technique 

thousands of times that month. For the black belt, however, it was clear that they were 

just getting cocky and fancy with thier approach to victory. Stay focused on the moment 

and never underestimate your opponent, or over-estimate your critic (assume that they 

will vote for old time favorite positions based on political/ideological preferences). 

Appreciate each round and learn from diverse forms of style and technique. Debate is as 

much personality as it is book taught theory. 

86

Jensen, Kris 

Hired 

Critic background 

I competed for four years at Willamette University. I coached two high school debate 

teams in Anchorage, Alaska after undergrad. I’m now attending Law School in Michigan. 

Decision-making 

I try to be as tabula rasa as possible in evaluating rounds- any means of upholding the 

resolution is potentially valid. That said, my default preference is policy, as such cases 

often provide the cleanest method of judging the round. 

Relative importance of presentation 

Low. Manner and style of presentation does not influence my determination of the 

winner of the round. It does, however, factor into my speaker point calculus. Brisk 

delivery is acceptable, but delivery that leaves me grasping for the last three statements is 

not. 

Relative importance of on-case argumentation 

Not required but often very effective. I think an opp team can win strictly off-case, but 

doing so makes their burden that much higher. Mitigating/turning on-case material can 

reduce the burden on the off-case. 

Openness to critical/performative debate 

I’m open to performative debate. That doesn’t mean I know how to evaluate it. I 

encourage those who wish to perform to propose some clear method of evaluation. 

I only vote for a kritik in the rarest of cases. Feel free to wow me with your kritik, but be 

warned you have a tough road ahead. 

Additional comments 

• Regarding Topicality, I think it is a valid though often overused argument. While 

I’ve voted for it, I’ve also proved sympathetic to teams which respond to a given 

T attack by properly pointing out it was a time suck that devalued the debate - and 

awarded points and the win accordingly. A case where the gov fails to uphold the 

resolution, or where the ground loss is clearly identified and the ground loss 

explained, will be met with favor. 

• I do not require that CPs be non-topical. 

• Regarding points of information, a team that refuses to entertain any but asks 

many will be penalized. 

• Jargon is fine- but if it leaves me with a quizzical expression, it would be best to 

offer an explanation of it. 

87

Joffrion, Chris 



4 years high school speech 

4 years parliamentary debate for Louisiana College 

4 years coaching parliamentary debate at Texas Tech and Western Kentucky 



Fairly tabula rasa. I don't think it is possible to totally bracket myself from the decision 

making process, but I attempt to do so as much as possible. If you tell me where to vote 

and why, impact your arguments and weight them against the arguments made by the 

other team, you will greatly reduce the amount of intervention that has to occur in order 

to make a decision. 


: 

Your delivery is only important insofar as I am able to understand your arguments. It is 

more often the case that debaters just mumble or are otherwise unclear than that they are 

going to fast. I will say "CLEAR" once. After that I will just stop flowing. 


I don't think it really matters where you make the arguments. I think off case arguments 

often function as case turns, etc. More importantly, the off case might out weigh the case 

debate. In such situations this sort of analysis should be made, and it should be made 

prior to the LOR/PMR. Claiming that the off case out weights or turns case in the rebuttal 

is a new argument and should have been made sooner. 

I can promise the case defense will NEVER win my ballot. I don't care if the case does 

not solve 100% or if the harms are not as bad as they say they are. If there is even a 1% 

chance that the harms exist and a 1% chance that the plan might solve then without 

offense from the opp, I will ALWAYS vote gov. If the world post plan is even slightly 

better than the world pre plan, I will vote gov. 


To be honest, critical debates are not my favorite type of debate, but I will listen, I will 

flow, and I have voted for critical positions in the past. You should know, however, that I 

88

hold critical positions to a very high standard. First, critical arguments MUST have an 

alternative/advocacy. This alternative/advocacy does not have to solve 100% for the 

implications of the criticism, but it must generate unique for the criticism. By this I mean 

that the alt/advocacy must illustrate a possible means by which we might escape from the 

implications of the criticism. Second, the alternative/advocacy MUST have a clear text. I 

will not vote for a vague plan because I am usually unsure what it means. I feel the same 

way about vague alternatives. I have no idea what, "reject he mindset of the affirmative 

and rethink your world view" means. If I don't know what it means then it can't functions 

as a means of illustrating a way out. 

With regard to performance debate...again not my favorite, but I will listen, flow, and 

have voted for performative positions in the past. In order to have any hope of being 

successful with your performance in front of me, there are two things you must do. First, 

you must rationalize/justify a need for your performance over traditional debate styles. 

You don't get to be different for the sake of being different. Second, you must prove that 

your performance satisfies the need. If you can do both of these then feel free to perform 

to your hearts content. 

WARNING --- Under no circumstances will I ignore or set aside the framework of 

parliamentary debate. If you performance can not function within the speech order, time 

limits for each speech, etc. then you should save the performance for another judge or 

just strike me. 

For those of you encountering performative/critical affirmatives - DO NOT ATTEMPT 

TO FIT A ROUND PEG IN A SQUARE HOLE!!! It is unlikely that your disads, case 

arguments, etc will function inside the framework established by the PMC. If this is the 

case you must either show that their framework is flawed or change your arguments. If 

you are conceding or losing the framework, then you are probably in a whole lot of 

trouble if you are running generic arguments. I don't think it's the responsibility of the 

gov to grant your arguments access to the round. I don't think it's abusive to claim that a 

disad doesn't link to the plan, nor do I find it abusive to claim that your disad can not be 

evaluated under their framework. Adapt or die (or show that their framework is flawed). 


I prefer policy oriented debate, but will listen to and have voted on positions that claim to 

uphold the trichotomy. I think value v. fact v. policy is a matter framework, and you must 

defend your framework decisions. 

If an argument is not extended by the MG/MO the PM/LO does not have the right to 

resurrect the argument in the rebuttals. These sort of extensions are new arguments and 

will be treated as such. If you want it for the rebuttal if better be extended by your 

partner. 

89

You do not have to call a point of order for me to ignore a new argument. I will protect in 

the rebuttals. Feel free to call the point to ensure I realize the argument is new, but do not 

feel as if you have to call every new argument just to keep me from evaluating it. 

If you have other questions, just ask. 

Johnson, Brooks 



I debated four years of NDT policy debate at Baylor University. I went to the 2007 NDT. 

I am now the Assistant Director of Debate at Western Kentucky University. 



1. I prefer the debate to be one about the desireability of the 

plan versus a competitive policy option, alternative, or the status quo. I will pretty much 

default to this framework if another one is not introduced in the debate. Plan focus is 

important. Links and impacts to positions should be a reason to reject the plan, not just 

one warrant the Aff used to support the plan. However, if you have an alternative 

framework and can debate why it should be adopted, I will vote for it. Or if you are an 

AFF that does not have a plan, I will vote for you if given reasons why a plan is bad. 


: 

You need to be able to communicate...beyond that... you will NEVER lose a round 

because your not wearing a tie. 

1. Speed As long as you are clear, you can go 

as fast as you want. Blitzing through a T violation or a theory shell will only hurt you. 

1. Speaker points I try and keep myself close 

to the mainstream on these. I shouldn't go below a 25 unless you cheat, and if you want a 

29.5 you better be amazing. 

90


1. I love case specific strategies. These need to 

have offense against the case advantages. Contrary to popular belief, you must have 

offense against a case. I will rarely vote on defensive arguments alone. 


1. Poorly debated critiques are probably the 

most torturous thing I can imagine enduring. On the other hand, well debated critiques 

are among the most exciting and probably what I would prefer to hear. A good k debate 

for me involves specific links ( Do not say, “they use the state and the state is bad” or 

“it’s pretty evident there is a link to capitalism” these are not arguments to me), some 

impacts, and an alternative. Alternatives are best if you articulate what my role as a judge 

is and how that role relates to the ballot. They’re even better if you can solve the case. 

Performance All debate is a performance, isn’t it 


1. Topicality: These are not my favorite 

debates. However, a really smart T violation is awesome to judge. I don't think "in round 

abuse" needs to be proven; competing interpretations and reasonability are frameworks 

on how I should evaluate topicality, it’s probably a good idea if you talk about these. 

Warrantless time trade off RVI’s are just ridiculous. 

2. Theory: Again, not a favorite debate of mine. If it's 

dropped, I'll vote for it, but I prefer a substantive debate over a theory one. Lame theory 

arguments against Kritiks are almost universally unpersuasive. However, I'll definitely 

vote on theory if sufficiently impacted. In general, PICs and conditionality (to an extent) 

are ok neg arguments. 

1. Rudeness My basic standard is that if you 

are killing a team (particularly younger kids or less successful kids), there's no need to be 

rude. If it's a close debate or if there's some historical bad blood between the debaters, 

you can act however you want. I'm extremely unlikely to ever be offended by something 

you say in a debate, no matter how rude you think you are. 

91

1. Also, I have perhaps a high threshold for 

arguments that are obviously stupid. I am confident that you can discern these as well as I 

can but will disclose that I count among them many theory args like "must define all 

words" or "aff choice." 

1. I don’t take myself very seriously and neither 

should you. Humor is always more engaging than hostility. I love to reward funny debate, 

even if I am, but preferably if anyone I know is, the butt of the joke. 

Johnston Huntington, Terilyn 



* High School Policy: 1 year (1998-1999) 

* Collegiate Parliamentary: 4 years (2000-2004) for Bethel University, St. Paul 

* Assistant Forensics Coach: 2 years (2005-2007) for Bethel University, St. Paul 

Education: 

* B.A. Political Science, Bethel University (2004) 

* M.A. Theological Studies, Bethel Theological Seminary (2007) 

* M.A. Candidate: International Studies (International Relations, International Security, 

Intelligence), University of Denver (2009) 



I am a fairly straight-forward, policy-leaning judge. I will rely on the flow and the 

organization of your rebuttal speech (tell me where to vote, don’t force me to choose) to 

make my decision at the end of the round. Above all, I like to see organization and 

eloquence in the presentation of your advocacy along with logical, TRUE argumentation. 


: 

92

I really appreciate a combination of eloquent oratory and solid argumentation. I feel that 

there are few debaters that can effectively speed and not negatively affect their delivery. 

Despite this, I will always vote based on argumentation. The flow and decision come 

first, the speaker points come second. I will deduct speaker points for rude, offensive 

behavior and/or blatant arrogance. I have no qualms about giving low-point wins (though 

have only done it a handful of times in four years of judging). 


I expect the government team to 1.) Uphold the resolution, 2.) Logically support its case, 

3.) Use proper actors to achieve the plan’s goal (for example, if you use the UN as your 

actor, you’d better understand how the UN works—I hate it when political agencies are 

used improperly), 4.) Conceivable and applicable impacting of argumentation, especially 

harms (make me care about the problems you’re citing), 5.) Respond to opposition 

argumentation (If your MG has problems getting through the Gov case and Opp 

responses, strike me now because dropped arguments will likely seal loss of my ballot), 

6.) Crystallize pertinent voting issues. 

I expect the opposition team to 1.) Provide me with offense (I don’t care what sort of 

argument it is, just give me something), but don’t bite off more than you can chew 2.) 

Construct arguments, especially disadvantages, properly, 3.) Address the Government’s 

case (don’t waste the Gov’s prep time) and show me why it won’t work and/or isn’t a 

good idea to implement, 4.) Ask questions if the case is misunderstood—I will not accept 

“We don’t know x about the Gov’s case” if you didn’t make the effort to clarify that issue 

through Points of Information, 5.) Reserve topicality for true offenses, I despise time suck 

T, 6.) Do not kick out of off case positions. If your LO puts out three DAs and a CP, then 

the MO had better be able to get through all DAs, responses/turns, AND get to both 

cases, 7.) Crystallize pertinent voting issues. 


When choosing how to address the resolution, keep the spirit of the resolution in mind. 

The resolution is the defining mechanism in the round. I don’t mind meta-debate unless it 

disintegrates into a path of argumentation that no one (especially me) cares about. 

I like policy debate and its consequent argumentation (kitiks, topicality, disadvantages, 

counter plans, etc.) However, run these arguments correctly. If at all possible, I don’t 

want to intervene in order to determine whether or not a counter plan is permable or not 

(I find the “he said/she said” perm argumentation little more than tedium). Make sure that 

you impact arguments and draw conclusions between arguments. I will not connect the 

dots for you (nor do I expect that you would like me to do so). I also do not mind speed 

93

unless it affects your speaking clarity and/or analysis. Please take a decent number of 

Points of Information. I will accept complaints of ignorance and lack of clarity ONLY if 

POIs are not recognized. 


I expect all competitors to be courteous and respectful to one other. I have little patience 

for rudeness. Kindness and respect will go a long way in prying speaker points out of my 

stingy hands. When the round is done and my ballot is cast, the round is done. Do not 

argue with me about my decision. Make sure that the debating experience is an enjoyable 

one for you, the other team, and me. 

Jones, Alan 

Arkansas State University 


High School Policy - 2 years 

Parli - 4 years 

LD - 2 1/2 years 



I default to policymaker, but the debate can set the framework for the round. 


: 

I'm not a huge style critic. I'm fine with speed and whatever else (performance, irony, 

etc.). 


I evaluate all parts of the debate as the teams make the arguments important. i.e. if its an 

inherency debate and thats what you want the debate to be about thats cool, its all up to 

you. If you want it to be about 8 off, then thats cool as well. You make the debate, i just 

evaluate it. 


Like stated above, I'm open to anything. 

94

Jones, Steven 

Grove City College 


I debated in both high school and college, and have kept up with it for some two decades 

now. I'm a professor of social science by vocation, but I also serve as the debate coach at 

Grove City College. I have probably judged 50 or so parliamentary debates in the last 

two years, and more than that if you count LD rounds. 



I tend to be a stock issues guy, but most of the time I find that debaters prefer me to adopt 

a policy maker paradigm, and that's fine too. In value rounds (which I actually like if 

they're done well) that can get a little tricky. I generally prefer policy cases if that's what 

the resolutions seems to call for. I give the government a lot of leeway on topicality, but 

once it's lost the round is over. There must be in-round abuse for me to take topicality 

seriously. Counterplans are fine. I keep a pretty tight flow, but superior analysis and 

argumentation will beat the line by line if it's pretty shallow. 


: 

I don't mind moderate speed, but your presentation should be intelligible. In its best 

moments, debate is a model for constructive public discourse...if your presentation 

undermines such discourse you can assume that I won't find it persuasive. I find it 

nonsensical to cultivate skills that will only serve you in this one activity. I'll tell you if 

you're going too fast. 


Pretty important. Though I have no trouble voting on off-case positions, I don't like to 

see Opp teams totally ignore the case. 


Generally I will not use my ballot to advance an agenda other than the one established by 

the resolution. I'm open to critiques, but they should be well thought out and have 

specific relevance. I expect you to make arguments...if you want to perform, I'm not the 

judge for you. 

95


If you make statements of fact that I know are nonsensical it will be hard for me to take 

you seriously. 

Klinger, Geoff 

DePauw University 


Background: Policy and LD debater for four years in high school. NDT and CEDA 

debater for DePauw University (1984-1988). M.A./Ph.D. at the University of Iowa. 

Director of Forensics at Hanover College (1995-1999) (NEDA debate). Director of 

Forensics at the University of Utah (1999-2003) (NPDA debate). Director of Forensics at 

DePauw University (2003-Current). 



To be sure, parliamentary debate has evolved fairly quickly over the last few years. I 

celebrate the various forms and manifestations of parliamentary debate. The strongest 

debaters are those who blend elements of argument with performance. These days, I 

hesitate to be too prescriptive in terms of the debate I like to see. Its up to individual 

debaters to find a style that best suits them. Nevertheless . . . I like debates where there is 

a certain amount of 'resolutional fidelity.' I like teams to argue the resolution, not morph 

it beyond recognition. I like all types of arguments and am especially drawn to those that 

are more unique, sophisticated, and intellectually engaging (e.g. a well-developed kritik 

is often more compelling than a generic political disad with weak links). I especially like 

arguments that seem authentic and sincere. Final arguments that engage in comparative 

analysis (recognizing that both teams have ground upon which I can vote and explaining 

to me why your arguments are preferable) are always nice. Above all, I hope that you 

enjoy and treasure this activity. gk 


: 

see above 


see above 

96


okay :) 


Kroeker, Faith 



I competed in collegiate parliamentary debate for two years and have judged parli and LD 

for the past two seasons in multiple circuits. 



I try to be tabula rasa as much as possible. I do not believe that all rounds must be policy 

(in fact, I welcome good value and fact rounds), yet I do not strictly hold to the 

trichotomy. 


: 

I believe that parliamentary debate should be logical, informed, articulate, persuasive, 

respectful, and courteous. I won’t vote you down based on presentation, but your speaker 

points will definitely reflect your presentational skills. 


If Opp runs only off-case and the Gov says, “Extend case”, I will. I think that sometimes 

Opp teams implicitly phrase DAs as ‘a priori’ issues forgetting about on-case 

argumentation. Of course DAs and solvency take-outs can (and should be) a place for 

great case interaction. DAs should be clearly linked to case and not just run since you 

prepped them out. 


If they are clearly explained, I am open to these styles. Just be careful that your 

arguments aren’t lost in lingo and speed. 

97


I don’t like superfluous T arguments, if you run T you’ll need to make your argument 

very convincing. That having been said, I will pull the trigger on T if I have to do so. I 

like real world impacts (not nuke war or genocide), and very strong link scenarios. I 

don’t like “prep time abuse” arguments since I think that parli should be a realm for 

creativity and quick-thinking. Also the “we didn’t have internet” argument is not 

convincing, so Gov run cases that you understand. Both teams should take a reasonable 

amount of POIs. 

Landry, Luke 

University of Oregon 


4 years high school policy debate. 

4 years college parliamentary debate. 



i default to a policy maker if no one tels me otherwise. however, i am willing to evaluate 

the round by any criteria the debaters see fit, so long those criteria are articulated. this 

does not mean that i come to the round free of bias or thresholds, just that i attempt to do 

my best at viewing the debate on your terms. 


: 

i guess this is where i'm supposed to say that i'm ok with speed. i am, but i will caution 

you that my pen isn't as fast as it ought to be, so if you start getting blippy or not ever 

pausing, i'll probably miss something. 


i mean, it's probably a good idea, but i'm not going to punish you for your strategic 

choices. 


98

to be honest, they just bore me a little. i've voted for it in the past, and i'm sure i will in 

the future. if you want to run these args and make me happy, you should do some solid 

work on the alt and link levels. i want to know why your k is competitive and i want to 

know what my ballot is going to do. 


if you're running a spec, you need to find a way to demonstrate abuse. i'm just not 

comfortable voting for potential abuse. regardless of why, i just feel like i always have to 

intervene in some way. show me a case list on limits, run the disad you lost links to, just 

do something to demonstrate how their interp is bad for the round. that said, no one said 

you have to go for your specs, and i'm never going to punish you for running them, unless 

you just really get it handed to you on an rvi or k or t or something. 

Lane, Gina 

William Jewell College 


I have been the Director of Debate at William Jewell College since 1985. Our program 

was a policy program until 2002. 



I try to be open to a variety of debate arguments, but I default to a policy analysis in a 

net-benefits paradigm. I'm not a fan of the trichotomy. I think the critical element of any 

debate is for debaters to compare argument impacts in the round and tell me what my 

decision calculus should be. The most common mistake I see is debaters who run a lot of 

arguments and leave them all in play to see what sticks. This almost always creates 

shallow debate that invites judge intervention. 


: 

I flow at a pretty fast level, but you need to articulate well. Unlike other forms of debate, 

I can’t ask for cards at the end of the round to reconstruct arguments, so I have to get 

your arguments on the first hearing. You have the responsibility to communicate. 


99

Case turns are nice, but it seems that most rounds I am comparing impacts of off-case to 

case. 


These are creative approaches, but I prefer a clear explanation of how to weigh such 

arguments versus traditional debate arguments. I also prefer a conceptual link to the 

resolution. I’m sorry, but I have a difficult time understanding the oppressive nature of 

fiat. I have voted for this argument, but I don’t find it particularly persuasive. 


Lauzon, Rebekah 

Northern Arizona University 


4 years high school policy 

4 years NPDA at Northern Arizona University 

3 years of NFALD 

1st year coaching/judging at NAU 



I revert to policy making unless told otherwise and vote based on the flow. I think that a 

policy can adequately prove a resolution true, so I don't see the need for trichotomy 

arguments. While I prefer to a policy, I won't punish a team for running fact or values. 


: 

Presentation matters little when it comes to my decision, only affects speaker points. 


On-case defense can be effective to minimize the risk of case impacts, especially coupled 

with offense some place else is a compelling reason to vote. Defense alone is generally 

not good enough. Weighing and terminalizing case impacts are extremely important. 

100


Totally fine by me. Like anything else they should be well warranted. I prefer to see 

specific solvency arguments for your performance and alternatives, especially if your 

alternative is reject. I need a little more explanation than "reject solves" You can win 

without these things, but it would make things easier. 


Speed is fine, although if a team asks you to slow down it might behoove you to do so if 

you care about your speaker points. You should call points of order, but I wont flow new 

arguments even if you don't call them. You should demonstrate abuse on any theory 

arguments including topicality. 

Liberto, Nickie 

Wheaton College 


I'm an assistant coach for Wheaton College, but debated for three 

years at Vanguard University in Southern California. 



I will vote on the flow as much as humanly possible. I like clash, 

humor, speed and sarcasm. Give me examples and a real 

weighing mechanism with which to weigh the round so I don't have to 

make the decision on my own. 

Overall I believe you can try and educate me on the trichotomy of 

debate, but they aren't debates that I am fond of watching. Actually, 

I'd rather poke my eyes out than watch a 

fact/value debate. If you 

insist on running some sort of fact or value case, please provide a 

framework with which I should judge the round-- preferrably one that 

gives your opponents equal ground and isn't a totology. (Is that even 

possible) Do not tell me that there is some rule in the NPDA 

rulebook about trichotomy unless you are prepared to whip out your 

copy of the rules and show me where you found it. 

101


: 

I am not afraid to tank your speaker points for being exceedingly rude 

to your opponents or loudly arguing in the middle of my RFD. Please 

make jokes, be snarky, have fun. :) I have no problem with friendly 

points of information or talking to your partner in round, unless of 

course the person seated does more talking than the person standing. 

Please reserve calling a point of personal privilege unless your 

opponents are actually calling you names or throwing things at you.I think fast debates 

are fun and 

educational. This year I have not had a problem with debaters being 

too fast—but I have no problem telling you in-round if you are. 


On case, I like real-world impacts as well as terminal impacts. All 

babies being vaporized in a global thermonuclear war are fine to 

debate but make the links clear and tell me why I have to care and why 

it should matter in the debate at hand. 


I will vote on Kritiks (Aff or Neg), T, "Spec" arguments, and just 

about any off case you'd like to run, provided that it has the 

necessary elements to make it worth my time. Give me standards, 

violations, etc. and make me want to vote for it. Bad kritiks and 

poorly constructed T arguments make me cranky. I would rather see a 

counterplan than straight-up DA's in a round as I think it's more 

real-world and honestly more fun to watch. I have a hard time keeping 

a straight face when I hear politics disads, but that doesn't mean I 

ignore them. The risk calculus in these arguments needs to be made 

clear to me from the onset—just because ONE extra senator happens to 

be persuaded to vote for some bill in Congress shouldn't mean that 

we're going to go to war with Japan… unless of course you provide me 

with the link! 


Please feel free to email me at nicoleliberto at gmail dot com if you have any further 

questions. 

102

Livingston, Ashleigh 

Point Loma Nazarene University 


I debated Parli for PLNU for four years. I have been coaching PLNU's team for 3 years. 



I prefer to watch rounds over important issues that tell me why my vote matters, provide 

clash, impact their arguments, as well as add to the educational realms of debate and 

remind me why I give up my weekends to still be a part of this activity. I pretty much 

buy anything as long as you can back it up with theory. If you are running a Kritique, tell 

me if it is pre or post, and how that plays into my ballot and impacts the round. If you are 

running Topicality, please tell me if it is a priori and actually give me believable 

standards to care, and I will gladly listen to it because it is an important part of debate. If 

you are running a counterplan or a perm, what does that mean or add to the round. 


: 




Other than that, I think the criteria debate is the most important so be sure to filter your 

arguments through it or else you force me to intervene, which I HATE TO DO! Call 

points of order, just because I know they are new, doesn't mean that you do, and 

remember to pull through your partner's arguments in the rebuttle because I don't want to 

have to do the work for you. 

Congratulations on making it to this tournament, hopefully you can make me laugh and 

not be glued to your flow the whole time, and I look forward to being your critic. 

103

Long, Shelby Jo 

Rocky Mountain College 


Director of Forensics - Rocky Mountain College - 2 years - (2006-present) 

Communication Studies Professor - RMC - 2 years - (2006 - present) 

ADOF - University of Montana - 2 years - (2003-2005) 

Director of Parliamentary Debate - Lewis and Clark College - 3 years (2000-2003) 

Participant - Carroll College - 4 years (1995-1999) 

Participant - Trinity College, Dublin - Fall semester 1999 



- Policy maker 

- tabula rasa 

- I believe important/substantial procedural debate is important for the activity 

- If you want to run res of fact or value - fine, just clarify the decision making paradigm 

you wish the judge to use for the round 


: 

- Important to be respectful of the judge and the other team 

- If i don't understand your message, or you don't warrant your analysis - I will not 

consider it a valid argument. IE tag lines are not arguments 


Important, but this is often directed by the debaters 


I am open as long as you justify your framework and warrant the analysis 


104

Martin, JJ 

Abilene Christian University 


Speech & debate experience in high school & college. 



Practical, daily life impacts. 


: 

Very important 


Very important. 


Not very open. 


Believes Parli should be able to be judged by a lay person, prefers argumentation to 

technicalities. 

Massey, Michelin 

University of Colorado at Boulder 


Michelin Massey judging philosophy 


105

Cannot judge University of Colorado at Boulder 

Competed in NPDA from 1996 until 2000 - Eight total years of competitive debate 

experience – 11 years of debate judging/coaching experience. 

I’ve judged approximately 30 rounds of parliamentary debate rounds at the Mile High 

Swing, Pt. Loma, and NPTE. I’ve judged another 100 rounds of high school LD and 

policy debates. 



I do my best to minimize my role in the round. I want you to debate the way you feel 

most comfortable. I have my preferences that are listed here; but, ultimately, each round 

is your own. Treat it as such. Have fun! 

In general, I vote for the team that does the best job in prioritizing the impacts of the 

arguments they’re making in comparison to the arguments that their opponents are 

making. How you create those hierarchies is entirely up to you. Perhaps you prefer a 

value-criterion model; maybe you establish a decision-rule through an independent voting 

issue; you may even possibly just ask me to do a body count. Tell me the framework I 

ought to use to judge the debate and I will do my best. I’ll flow your arguments 

diligently in this pursuit. 

Particular issues: 

(1) Theory arguments: I like them if they are run 

properly and have a full explanation about why the argument is relevant to my decisionmaking. 

(2) Critical and performative arguments: I like 

them if you can explain the philosophy to justify your argumentation/methodology. Be 

prepared to answer arguments from your opponents why they’re bad. Please ensure that 

you explain why the argument is germane to the topic/your opponent’s case. 

106

(3) Disadvantages/counter-plans: Go right ahead. 

If you’re the opposition and the other team has a plan, I suspect that you may want to use 

these. 

(4) Speaker points: I’m not a miser, but I’m not 

liberal about giving them out either. My range is usually 22-28.5. If I give you a 29, I 

think you’re awesome. If I give you a 29.5, I think you’re the kind of debater who could 

be in the quarters or beyond at the tournament. If I give you a 30, you’re probably the 

best debater at the tournament and should win the whole thing if you debate like that all 

of the time. 

(5) Speed: I don’t care. Clarity is my only 

concern. 

(6) Disclosure: if you want to know, I will tell you 

my decision and explain the reasons behind that decision (as allowed by the rules). 

(7) The rules: I signed a contract saying that I’d 

abide by them. I’m a man of my word, so you should know them well enough to avoid 

complaining about following the rules as stated. 

If you have any other questions, feel free to ask. 


: 




107

Maus, David 



I competed at the collegiate level for four years in parli (I was an NPDA All-American) 

and also competed in LD. Before that I did policy debate in high school. Thus, I am very 

comfortable with policy-style debates and all that come with them. But that being said, I 

also appreciate that there are (at least potentially) differences between policy and parli, 

and so I don’t mind if the round I’m about to judge (which you are probably competing in 

if you’re reading this), doesn’t look exactly like a CEDA-NDT round. 



You tell me. Honestly, I try not to have strong opinions on these positions as a critic 

because I want you to have a decent chance of talking me into adopting whichever 

paradigm you think I should. 


: 

These skills won’t affect my decision in the round (who I pick up and who I drop) but it 

might affect your speaker points if you’re absolutely hapless and unpleasant to listen to. 


If you only run off-case and the Gov says, “Extend case”, I will. But quite frankly, I 

believe that there are other ways for the Opp to interact with the case, like weighing 

impacts or using DAs as solvency take-outs. 


I’ve yet to judge a performative aff, which means I don’t have a record on this, so if 

you’re really bold you can be the first and see how it goes. I enjoy good critical affs, but 

the chasm between the really good critical affs and the rest is incredibly vast in my mind. 


108

I’ve voted on some pretty wacky arguments this year, like the “Manitee running for 

President” DA and an Aff that convinced me I could still use my ballot to take a stand 

against imperialism even though his case had been thoroughly shredded by multiple Ts. 

So feel free to run crazy positions in front of me, and don’t blow your opponents off if 

they do. 

Conversely, I have yet to vote on potential abuse or on Dispo CPs bad because they force 

you to debate multiple worlds. That doesn’t mean that I’m incapable of buying either. It 

just means that if you want to win on either of those positions (or any number of other 

cliché arguments), you’ll have to run something other than the standard theory blocks. 

Mavity, Joey 

Azusa Pacific University 


I have a lot of experience in parli debate. 



The set of all things possible in any particular round swamps the context of any particular 

philosophy. Since my philosophy is not a stagnant object to be grasped and tamed, I'll do 

my best to highlight my particular oddities. As a quick overview: 

1) Establish and defend a criterion for the round. Good criterions make for good fact 

debates. Bad criterions make for bad policy debates. Without telling me how I should 

view the round, how can you expect my ballot 

2) Establish and defend your interpretation of how arguments interact. Arguments about 

how to weigh impacts against each other should be presented early and often. The 

rebuttal speeches should not be the first time I hear arguments about how to weigh. 

3) Pick the arguments that matter and win them. This means you have to take risks. But 

taking risks and going for an argument is far less risky than trying to go for everything 

and failing. 

109

4) Call points of order. If I'm not going to intervene in weighing arguments, why would I 

intervene in deciding whether or not a particular argument is new I wouldn't. 


: 

Very little 


The on case / off case distinction is artificial. Impacting my ballot is what matters. 


Very open 


Theory – I tend to view theory arguments on two levels. First, you need to establish and 

defend your vision of what debate should look like so that you can weigh their violation 

of that vision against your normative interpretation. Second, I tend to view theory in 

terms of what you justify, not merely what you actually do. This means I give slightly 

more weight to potential abuse arguments by default. 

MG Skew – I hate that parli is ill-conceived in terms of speech allocation. Please do not 

use structural flaws of parli to exploit the lack of rebuttal speeches. I don't usually do 

anything if you do; it just makes me really, really not like you. If the other team presses 

the argument, I might give it weight. 

Nonverbals – I tend to be expressive as a critic. If I don't understand something, or if I 

think what you're saying is silly, you'll see it on my face. Do with that information 

whatever you will. 

110

Menapace, Carrie 



I competed in parli debate for 3 years at Northern Arizona University and dabbled in LD 

along with numerous individual events. I did 4 years of LD and Congress in High 

School. 



I try to flow every word possible so I can be as tabula rasa as possible. That being said, if 

you aren't organized I will guess where to flow something. If an issue isn't resolved by 

the debaters I will be forced to resolve it in the most logical way possible. I think the 

PMC is an incredibly strategic speech and shouldn’t be discounted in the debate as soon 

as the off-case arguments appear. If done correctly it can gain a lot of offense for the gov 

early in the round. I’m not very compelled by the trichotomy. I like plans. If you chose 

to run a fact or a value, by all means you are more than welcome too, but do so with the 

understanding that the opp can engage that debate in any way they deem fit. I’m ok with 

that being done procedurally, through a counter case, or counter-warrants. The only thing 

I ask is that case has good internal links and impacts that are clearly terminalized. 


: 

Rebuttals are different than member speeches. They should integrate the line by line into 

the overall strategy explanation of the round. I normally give better speaker points to 

those that make better arguments. I care about presentation skills insofar as I think you 

should probably use full sentences and not look like a bumbling fool, but I don't think 

debate should be dueling oratories. 


You shouldn't drop case. If you lose the off-case and don't have any case arguments you'll 

lose the round. If you lose off-case and still have turns and solvency takeouts on case, 

you could still win. 


111

The link, internal link, and alternative are really important. Have a better link than “plan 

costs money and that’s capitalistic…” The alternative should solve the K, if it doesn’t I 

probably won’t vote for it. The alternative should be clear. You should give the other 

team opportunities to ask questions about the alternative if they want too. I don’t know 

what pre and post fiat mean. I mean, I do, but I don’t know why the PMC isn’t a speech 

act or why I shouldn’t care about the case impacts too. If you disagree with me, fine, just 

give me a reason why I should look to the K first in the round. I don’t automatically 

assume my ballot is a tool. Perms on the K are good to run if they have good justification 

and the teams that run the K should probably have good answers to them. If you chose to 

run positions like performance and irony you need to have a REALLY good reason why 

that form discourse or performance would solve for whatever it is your kritiking. I will 

warn you though that I prefer the DA/CP debate. 


Speed is fine; if I can’t understand you I’ll yell clear. However, don’t exclude other 

debaters if they ask you to clarify or slow down. I don’t like people who are rude. You 

can be aggressive and you can be assertive, but there is a thin line between being 

assertive and being rude. I’ll tank your speaks if I think you were unnecessarily rude. I 

don’t time road maps. You don’t need to thank me, so please don’t spend 30 seconds 

doing so. Please be organized. Call point of orders. However, when you call them tell me 

specifically what argument you think is new. ONLY the person giving the rebuttal should 

respond and tell me why it is not true. Don’t argue back and forth. 90% of the time I’ll 

decide if it’s new or not and tell you because I think the ruling is important to the rebuttal 

strategy. Don’t split the opp block. 

Michels, Matt 

Hired 

1) Policy Debate 6 years (CX and *blech* LD) , NPDA 3 years (94-97) 

2) Games playing, stock issues would probably be my default 

3) Presentation and Communication should facilitate the arguments being made, but 

substance matters more than style to me. 

4) Solid argumentation is king. 

5) Open but it better be compelling 

Miller, Greg 

Rice University 

Background: Four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate in high school. Four years of 

parliamentary debate at Rice University. I’ve debated, judged, and coached LD on the 

national circuit (TOCs, MBA Round Robin, etc.). In parli I competed on the national 

circuit (deep out rounds at Claremont, Wyoming, NPTE, etc.). 

112

Decision-making: I will do my best to make my decision based on the arguments made in 

round, but the more I’ve debated, coached, and read in general, the more I’ve realized the 

idea of being tabula rosa is a myth (Locke abandoned the term tabula rosa for describing 

the mind so I think it’s pretty ignorant of people to claim that as a paradigm given that all 

the empiricists abandoned it as a view). I hated it when judges seemed biased against my 

debating style, so I will do my best to try to judge your arguments based on the view of 

debate they assume. 

Importance of presentation/communication skills: If you want to go fast, you’re free to do 

so. However, I think that most debaters try to go faster than they should. You’re probably 

better dropping down a gear from top speed since your thoughts will be more collected 

and your arguments more succinct. Stupid is stupid at any speed, so just sound smart. 

Relative importance of on-case argumentation: I don’t have any requirements for this. 

Just explain why whatever argument/strategy you’ve selected is the most important to the 

debate. 

Openness to critical/performative styles of debating: I’m open to them, and ran them on 

occasion. However, I think that they’re usually poorly done and don’t consider the 

dynamics of the disputative nature of debate. Make sure you fully understand and can 

articulate the thesis of your position. If you’re debating a critical position in front of me, 

engaging the thesis of the position itself rather than making a slew of ‘wrong forum’ or 

‘kritiks bad’ arguments is probably the better strategy. 

Random other points: Unlike most judges when I debated, I won’t throw T out simply 

because the MG says there is no in-round abuse. I’ll listen to the entire debate and really 

like to see substantive impact analysis on the standards debate and relation to the voting 

issues. Also, I like to see an impact calculus at the end of the LOR and PMR. 

“The dude abides.” - Lebowski 

113

Moran, Susanna 

Hired 

1. Critic Background 

Former debater, practicing attorney with trial and 

appellate level work, law professor. 

2. Decision-making approach 

Coin flip. No really, I like to have a rubric so 

nothing gets 

undue weight. 

3. Relative importance of presentation/ communication 

skills in decision-making 

Very important. 

4. Relative importance of on-case argumentation to 

critic in decision-making 

Also very important but in reality presentation can 

be even more 

effective than logic, reason, ethics. 

5. Openness to debate theory and critical/performative 

styles of debate 

I don't know what "debate theory" is, but I'm open to 

it. 

Morton, Ryan 

University of Montana 


MA (in progress) Communication Studies 

BA Economics 

8 years of debating 

2 years coaching and judging NPDA 



114

Case Arguments: 'Values imply actions. Run a policy if you d like or use examples and 

analogies to support your value claim. Opp teams should still have offense on value 

propositions. Fact resolutions can be handled with examples and analogies by both 

teams. Plans or counterplans should be presented during time the other team can ask 

questions. I m open to alternative case constructions. I like reasonable impacts. If 

nuclear war is a "reasonable" possibility then its fine as an impact. I don t like impacts 

that are "Increased Happiness." What am I suppose to do with that I also don t like 

when debaters explode impacts for the sake of having large impacts. I don t think I have 

or ever would vote on Inherency. If plan makes the world better I ll probably vote for it 

with or without inherency. I m pretty open-minded about case construction. Do what 

works best for you. Traditional structures work well but if you ve got something better 

try it.' 

Disadvantage Arguments: 'I see impacts as a function of possibility times magnitude. 

Sure I m weighing the impacts for my judgment but poor link stories/uniqueness will 

lessen the impact. A strong disad should be a strong causal argument with all its 

components. Don t skimp on any part of your disads; its all important. Answers to 

disads should exploit the weakness of any part of the disad. Turns are good too.' 

Counterplan Arguments: 'The counterplan should be a distinct advocacy. Delays 

consultations PICS don t tend to create distinct advocacy in most rounds I ve seen. If 

you think you can do it better go for it. Topical C/Ps are ok with me (and encouraged). 

A perm is whatever the Gov says it is. Don t assume anything. Explain everything. 

Make POIs if the Gov isn t being clear. I haven t seen a conditional C/P yet so I m open 

to it.' 

Kritik Arguments: 'I react poorly to K s without alternatives. Post-modernism is ok with 

me. Word K s are ok. Performance is ok as long as it stays in the room and offers viable 

ways for the opposing team to address it. Framework arguments are important to me as 

most teams mess this part up the most.' 

T and Theory Arguments: 'T is typically a waste of time in front of me. I think teams 

should adapt rather than run procedurals unless the Gov is clearly abusive. Opp needs to 

prove the Gov interpretation is bad. Extra T is to sever advantages but not a voting issue 

for me typically. I don t tend to like SPEC arguments. Vagueness is warranted if the gov 

shifts.' 

115


: 

Presentation Preferences: 'Good speaking is often overlooked. Good speakers will gain 

an edge with me. Those that aren t so refined won t be punished. Teams should focus 

on key issues. Rebuttals should all present voting issues. The line by line should already 

have been done in the constructives. MO and LOR should not split duties. A few extra 

moments here and there don t bother me. 20 seconds would warrant a "Let s get going" 

from me but I wouldn t punish the team. Speakers can finish their last sentence over 

time. They should not make a new point. I ll say stop if it gets out of hand but won t 

punish the team. New arguments in rebuttals should never be made. New positions in 

the MG and MO aren t terrible as long as its not 5 new positions.' 


Approach to Deciding: 'I focus on comparison. I ll vote on any issue you bring up in the 

round. Be prepared to explain counterintuitive arguments in greater depth than others. 

Sensitive issues should be treated with a degree of sensitivity appropriate (abortion 

nuclear war euthanasia etc.). 


Go for it! 


Myers, Sarah 

Rocky Mountain College 


Theater Tech Professor - Rocky Mountain College - 3 years 

IE coach for RMC - 2 years 



116

Must be clearly defined by the debaters. 


: 

Extremely important. I don't have a debate background, so the policy jargon is 

unfamiliar to me. 

I don't like speed. 

I like big picture debate 


Very important - I like the clash of issues and the weighing of arguments 


I am not familiar with these styles 


Neesen, Bill 

California State University at Long Beach 


Non-parli rounds judged this year: College Policy 25+ High School policy 15+ LD (none 

:) 


Years debated: 7 (4 highschool policy/3 College policy) 

School debated at: Millard South/OCC/CSUFullerton 

Case Arguments: That is a crazy amount of questions. Here is the simple look way how 

to debate/construct the case in front of me. Pick what you want to defend, be it policy, 

fact, or value and defend it. If you do not defend the type of resolution you might lose. I 

do not care which one you use. I have no problem with performance or traditional debate. 

Up to you, just defend why your choices are good because the other team may not agree 

with you. I could care less about the what level the impacts are. Choose one level or have 

many different levels (I always believe that more is better).I is a dumb arg unless it is all 

117

gone and then it is still odd in parli were you really have no proof. I would always say 

that it is better to have plan text were they can ask questions about them. 

Disadvantage Arguments: I think all parts are equal and that you can argue them at any 

level of impact (really see above). On the whole more links and more impacts is always 

good. 

Counterplan Arguments: I think counterplans are sweet and a pretty good argument (why 

make you own ground...steal theirs :). As to types of counterplans, have a defense of your 

choice. PERMS are a test unless you tell me otherwise and then as always defend it. 

Kritik Arguments: I love the "K"!!! I Also understand a lot of this material which means 

that you better not lie or really mess is up because if they other team knows it better and 

can point it out your toast (I would never intervine with my knowledge but it can be used 

agaisnt you). Also I am not sure how I feel about a real performative controdiction. A 

large part of me says that if language is so important and what we do in the round is key 

then why do you get to link to your K, but as always you must debate it out. Also tell 

me how the K fuctions in the round if you want it to be prefait you better say so and 

justfy it. If you do not tell me how the K functions then who knows how it will go. Kinda 

up to what the other teams says. 

T and Theory Arguments: I do not mind theory but I might have a slightly higher burden 

than some judges. I have and will vote on all theory but it better not be a mess if you 

want me to vote on it. Oh and I hate RVI on T (time suck args) but will also vote on them 

if really mishandled by the aff (yes aff :)). 

Approach to Deciding: I really leave it up to the debaters I honestly will use more of a 

policy making approach if not told otherwise. Also you need to tell me how arguments 

work, like the K, or I will do it myself but who know what will happen then. Honestly 

I leave it up to you so,With great power comes great responsibility. Hence use it or who 

knows what will happen. 

Presentation Preferences: Could care less debate is about how arguments work and to 

learn about research and the world. I do not care how you dress, were you speak from, 

what you really sound like, if your partner talks to you once and awhile (never good if 

overdone because it makes that person look dumb). 

118

Newkirk, Daniel 

Biola University 


Coaching and judging parli for 3 years. 



Tabula rasa. 


: 

Not overly important. 


Important if it is brought up in the round by the debaters. If the debaters choose to go off- 

case, they must provide justification for their move. 


I am open if there is strong justification offered by the team who chooses to perform. 


I am a flow judge. I like to see a good impact debate. I am open to procedural arguments. 

Please offer strong warrants for your claims. Please feel free to ask if you have more 

questions. 

119

Nichols, Jason 

University of Wyoming 

Years competing: 7 yrs – high school and college (policy, CEDA/NDT). 

Years judging: 4 yrs in toto. 

Juris Doctor – Loyola University Chicago School of Law 

Bachelor of Arts – Oral Communication – Weber State University 

I have a very liberal take on the types of arguments that I like to see in debate. I enjoy 

straight-up policy debate as well as the K and performative debates, though my 

preferences are for the latter two. No arguments are really out of bounds for me except 

obviously offensive ones. If you want to have a laid back intelligent conversation about 

the issues, then I will be an excellent critic for you. Additionally, as far as policy is 

concerned, I require well articulated internal link scenarios with terminal impacts that 

don’t always end in nuclear annihilation or extinction. I will also vote on well explained 

and developed topicality and other procedural and theory arguments. 

Stylistically, I am fine with speed so long as you are crystal clear. Finally, while a little 

competitive banter is an important part of the activity, and adds to the competitive 

camaraderie, please don’t be rude to your partner or to the other team. Arguments are not 

stupid, etc… Try using adjectives like “insufficient” or “inadequate” instead. 

Nishie, Karen 

Vanguard University 


3 years of parliamentary competition 5 years as head coach/director of forensics at 

Vanguard University. 



I believe in the trichotomy of debate, but I also give room for the debaters to make 

decisions about how they want to approach the resolution. I do, however, believe that the 

government has a burden to uphold the resolution and the opposition a responsibility to 

negate either the resolution proper or the government case. I understand procedurals and 

believe that they serve a function, however, my preference is always good argumentation 

and clash. Performative debate is not something that I understand -- or prefer. I'd like to 

120

say I'm tabula rasa, but I'm not sure any one truly is -- I do know things, but I vote on 

where you tell me to -- within the realm of reality. 


: 

I believe that for me to cast a meaningful vote I must understand and be persuaded by 

your argumentation. To that end, you need to be articulate -- don't mumble, or try to 

speed me out of comprehension. I flow what I hear -- so make sure I hear what you think 

is important. Humor is always appreciated -- meanness or rudeness (including profanity) 

is not appreciated. 


On case argumentation is vital to win my vote. Taking me down rabbit trails is to be 

avoided. Avoiding the case proper is to be avoided, not upholding the resolution (gov) is 

to be avoided, get what I'm saying You however, tell me what the voters are, and 

hopefully, you've made a strong enough case for me to vote for you. 


Critical -- within the realm of reason...I'm not a big fan of running a "pet K" to avoid the 

topic -- and Kritiks out of pm seem ridiculous to me. Performative debate is never a good 

idea in front of me...I don't have a poet's soul -- leave that to interp rounds. 


I love parliamentary debate -- I don't love a lot of the changes that I see happening (read 

comments above). I feel that most of us are in this event to enhance our speaking skills 

and make us better critical thinkers -- if you are in it because it's a game -- I'm probably 

not the critic for you. Have some fun, make some good arguments, make me think ...this 

is what I tell my team -- be brilliant, don't suck. 

121

Noonan, Tom 

Marquette University 

1. Over 20 years of debate experience – frequent judge (although fewer rounds in 

recent years) 

2. Topicality is a voting issue. Arguments must be clearly organized and must include 

some type of competing interpretation on keys words or phrases of the motion. While I 

tend to give latitude to the Proposition and have no interest in the minutiae of violations 

and standards, I will vote for the Opposition if compelling comprehensive argument is 

presented. 

3. Counterplans are acceptable; however, be sure to offer a justification as to why it 

would be clearly net-beneficial/preferable – that should include solvency. 

4. Disadvantages must have a direct connection to the Proposition plan/policy action – 

or the Opposition counterplan/policy action for that matter. 

5. ‘Kritiks’ of either team’s fundamental assumptions are acceptable; however, such 

complex theoretical arguments require thorough analysis and substantial time to develop 

and my skepticism/scrutiny of these arguments is heightened. 

6. Always speak at a moderate pace. Style and substance are of equal weight. I will 

not take a lot of notes during the debate, thus it is the debaters responsibility to 

“conceptualize” the arguments presented. I’m not so much interested in the line-by-line 

of debate as I am with overarching theoretical issues and frameworks. 

7. Focus on direct refutation and clearly identify your opponent’s arguments before 

responding to them. In the rebuttals, place emphasis on the major issues that you feel that 

you have going for your side. Weigh them in comparison to your opponent’s position 

and offer the most compelling rationale you can as for why I should write the ballot in 

your favor. 

122

8. I do not wish to observe and judge ‘critical/performance styles’ of debate. 

Norcross, Brian 


In the past, I have said the following sentence in language that people have found 

ambiguous so I will make it clear. I hate fact and value cases and want to pound my head 

on the desk repeatedly every time someone runs one in front of me. I have no idea how 

to judge these rounds and inevitably wind up intervening for one team, as there is never a 

good way to weigh the arguments. Offense wins rounds. Running only defensive 

arguments and relying on mitigating their case is a good way to lose a round (although I 

will be pleased that you made my decision easy). Impacts are good (you might even 

want to weigh those impacts in the rebuttals, but that might be asking too much). I will 

vote on most arguments, but fewer arguments that are well developed are better than lots 

of bad ones. The reality is that I will try and judge the round how you tell me to, but the 

further you get from standard plan / counter plan debate the more random my decisions 

will become. 

O'Grady, Brendan 

Texas Tech University 



Non-parli rounds judged this year: A dozen or so NFALD rounds 

Years judging debate: 2 Parliamentary and NFALD Debate Styles 

Years debated: 4 Parliamentary Debate 

School debated at: South Orange County Forensics ('01'03), Arkansas State University 

('03'05) 



123

I focus on comparison, stock issues, proof of resolution and rhetorical effectiveness 

relative to the arguments made in the round as to how any of these are to function in my 

decisionmaking. I look to the criteria/criterion first for a framework or understanding 

of how to view the arguments made. Tell me where things weigh and why they are 

weighed there in the round. For reference, my default theory setting for theoretical 

weighing order is as follows (from firstconsdiered to lastconsidered): 1) Prefiat, 

preprocedural implications (criticsm, rhetoric, etc. as argued in the round.) 2) Prefiat 

procedural implications (topicality, etc. as argued in the round.) 3) Fiatlevel procedurals 

(vagueness, specification, etc. as argued in the round.) 4) Postfiat, nonprocedural 

implications (solvency, advantages/disadvantages, competition from CP, etc. as argued 

inthe round.) Please note that this is only what I hold as a general understanding of 

where things weigh. If you do not tell me where/how things weigh, I may or may not 

default to my personal understanding of theory, which I hate doing as I consider it an act 

of intervention. Vaguelyworded prompts as to where/why I weigh a point on the flow 

will be ultimately given my discretion as to how I consider them. I hate doing this, but 

when you simply say "___ is an independant voter" I don't know what the hell that 

means. 


: 

I will start time when you start talking. If an unneccessarily long time passes between 

speeched (as determined by my discretion) I will prompt you to begin and start time 

when you start talking. If you do not start talking soon enough for me, I will see if the 

other debaters are ready and start time. I will stop flowing arguments if they begin 

after time expires you may finish your pointm, provided that it doesn't take longer than 5 

seconds or so. After you finish, I will tell all the debaters exactly what made it onto my 

flow from the end of a speech as neccessary. 


I do my best to vote for/against any type of case based upon the arguments made in the 

round. It is legal to present a plan/Cp in the last minute of a constructive, if not 

especially nice or always strategically beneficial to a team. I "like" types of 

cases/impacts functionally to the point at which they are/aren't able to weigh enough 

under the argued criteria/criterion to merrit the ballot. I don't think that being a "huge" 

impact is neccessarily exlusive of being a "realistic" one. Usually it's a matter of how 

much time one spends arguing specific warrants and scenarios. Inherrency is as 

important to a gov. policy case as it functions based on arguments made in the round. 

While I sincerely try not to invest my own opinions of debate into the round, it should be 

noted that I am most deeply able to enagage in debate theory when it is policyoriented. I 

don't mind counterintuitive arguments, as I think they are a matter for argument to make 

them make intuitive sense. Run what YOU are bets able to argue, as I hope this is as 

significant a factor in how I vote as how I learned debate. 


124

I react to criticism presented without an alternative based upon how the arguements made 

by the debaters in the round play out. I am willing to vote for/against "postmodern", 

"performabce" and "framework" arguments of criticism based on the arguments made in 

the round. Kritiks are as effective a way to win my ballot as any other. 


OLeary, Kevin 



Started in 1982. 



Who said I'm a critic Who said I'm making a decision So I guess it depends. 


: 

Little other than be yourself and play nice with others. 


Usually doesn't hurt, often helps. 


Very. 


Interpret the resolution as you like—metaphor, satire, claim of fact, claim of value, claim 

of policy, etc. I don’t believe that one way of interpretation is necessarily better or worse 

than others. Whatever you do: (a) have a sensible explanation of how your interpretation 

“links” to the resolution, (b) have a sensible explanation of what the ground is for both 

sides in the debate under your interpretation (e.g., What does the opposition have to do to 

negate your case). None of this precludes another viable interpretation, the loss of some 

125

argument or ground for the opposition, the existence of a more limiting interpretation, or 

the opposition being caught off-guard or ill-prepared. So the latter is hardly justification 

for voting on a procedural argument if you play your cards right. 

Feel free to run CPs, kritiks, disads, impact turns, so-called “counter-intuitives,” 

whatever. All substantive arguments must get a fair shake if debate is going to be a place 

that matters. As with every judge, investing in sustained impact assessment will help 

your cause. Impact assessment for a kritik (and things like kritiks) should include a 

discussion of the framework(s). 

I strongly believe that the government must defend the whole of its PMC 

plan/case/advocacy throughout the round. I strongly believe that language matters, that it 

constitutes the world we inhabit. This does not mean, however, that the post-fiat level is 

necessarily less meaningful than the pre-fiat level, nor does it mean that a policy/fiat 

approach has to operate exclusively at the post-fiat level. 

Olsen, Rob 

Whitman College 

Experience 4 years policy HS 4 years parli College 2 year coaching/judging 

Philosophy: Cases: 

Policy cases are definitely my preferred case style. However, I will listen to value and 

res-of-fact cases, conversely, I will also listen and enjoy hearing arguments explaining 

why value and res-of-fact resolutions cases are bad. Make your plan specific. I’ll listen to 

vagueness, and plan specification argument. I strongly dislike critical affirmatives. 

Speed: 

I do not like speed in parliamentary debate rounds. I think teams use it as a method to 

exclude warrants from their 

arguments and to exclude slower teams from debating. I can handle speed and if you 

choose to go fast, warrant your 

arguments. Your speaker points will probably drop if you go fast. I will also tend to give 

more weight to arguments 

that are slower and more fully articulated. 

Topicality: 

I like topicality, and I think it can be run against clearly topical cases and still win the 

round for the opposition. That 

being said, I think running topicality against a topical case can be a strategic tool. I am 

fine with topicality being 

126

kicked by the negative. I rarely buy RVIs unless very clearly articulated and warranted in 

the MG and gone for in the PMR. 

Disadvantages: 

I am fine with whatever disadvantage you want to run, but there are some qualifications. I 

don’t like all of your disadvantages ending in nuclear winter. Make the impacts realistic, 

or at least have one more realistic impact and maybe one nuclear impact/lots of death 

impact. If you are running catastrophic impact, explain the internal link story very clearly 

and have real warrants. I enjoy listening to environmental impacts, but not global 

warming. Too often people screw up the global warming debate, so if you choose to run 

global warming, have a really good scenario. For the government, put offense on 

disadvantages. I like disadvantages on counterplans. 

Counterplans: 

Counterplans are cool. For me, you can run any type of counterplan, PICs, delay, consult, 

topical or whatever. At the same time, I will listen to arguments against those types of 

counterplans. I don’t usually view arguments like “consult bad” as a reason to reject the 

team, but more often a reason to reject the position. If you want me reject a team on 

“consult bad,” then you need to make it a clear voter in the PMR. 

Kritiks: 

I really don’t like kritiks. I think parliamentary debate is the worst possible forum for 

discussing critical ideas. I will listen to Kritiks but in order to win on a K you need to 

have a legitimate alternative, none of the wanky reject, or use your ballot-as-a-tool 

alternatives. I prefer counterplan-type alternatives. I think the kritik functions on two 

levels, an alternative to plan and a solvency take out/turn. If you are going for the K as a 

solvency turn be very explicit and go for it in the PMR. I will listen to language kritiks, 

but if the mistake was accidental, I probably will not vote on it. If it is a systemic use of 

bad language, then the K becomes more legitimate and the alternative of reject actually 

makes sense. 

Olson, Tiffany 



I'm relatively new to parli and the field of debate. I have four years of college I.E. 

experience and 10 years of I.E. coaching experience. During the last few years, however, 

that focus has shifted to Parli. **I tend to look for simple but strong arguments, clarity 

and strong speaking. Please be clear and organized in your flow. It’s better for both of us 

if I don’t have to search for what argument I think you might be addressing. **I am 

willing to listen to most claims, but it is the debater’s job to clarify why something is or is 

not a voting issue and to do an effective job of weighing the round. **I also appreciate 

rebuttals that actually give me clear voting issues under your criteria and reasons why I 

should vote for your team. **Feel free to run topicality/counterplans/kritiks as long as 

127

they are warranted, properly constructed and clearly explained. **If the other team drops 

an argument, tell me why it is important. **Reasonable speed is fine with me, but if you 

are not clear and articulate, it will affect your speaker points. 



Perry, Joelle 

Hired 

8 years competing in parli/nfa ld/limited prep 

I default to a policy maker paradigm and have a soft spot for procedural arguments. 

I am open to critiques, but do not have a philosophy background so make sure you 

explain your position well. 

I have no problem with speed, and will let you know if you are going too fast or become 

unclear. 

I should also mention that I do not assume in round abuse is necessary to win on T, but 

can be persuaded otherwise. You do not have to call points of order. I will ignore new 

arguments in the rebuttal, but feel free to call them to ensure I catch it or for strategic 

purposes. Other than that, make sure your impacts are clear and give me a way to 

determine the winner (especially if you are running some type of performance based 

argument). Don't be mean and enjoy yourselves. 

128

Plush, Matt 

University of Wyoming 

4 years high school policy debate, 4 years college parliamentary debate, 3 years judging 

I am pretty open to a lot of arguments. I really enjoy clash in debate, and rounds that have 

clearly articulated ways to vote, reasons for arguments, weighing not only of specific 

arguments--but weighing of issues all the way up to and through how to ultimately write 

the ballot. I will try to put as much work into my decision as you appear to put into the 

debate. Some arguments are harder to win in front of me (e.g): reasons why criticisms are 

theoretically not justified in terms of things like in what sort of forum we are 

participating, T or 

theory without articulated abuse, or factually proving the resolution true and/or valuing it 

as true without specific advocacies. To avoid this writing turning into a large list of 

arguments, I would encourage people to ask specific questions about their arguments 

and/or arguments they want to run in front of me. I'd be happy to tell you whether those 

arguments are easier or harder to win in front of me. 

I'm pretty liberal and lefty, I find those arguments are ones I end up voting for more than 

righty and conservative things--but feel free to run whatever. Good luck. Have fun- 

especially that part. I wish people 

looked like they were having fun, had fun, and--even, gasp, were funny. But--then again, 

I'd strike me. 

Pogge, Paul 

University of Notre Dame 


I graduated from Notre Dame with a degree in Finance in 2006 and now am a second 

year law student at Notre Dame. I have no debate experience and this is my first year as 

a coach. I recently attended my first debate tournament. 



129

I have not adjudicated before in competition, but in practice have based decisions on the 

clarity of points and overarching policy concerns. 


: 

I have difficulty flowing speed. I place a high emphasis on clarity of presentation and 

articulation of quality points instead of quantity. 


I think other arguments can be appropriate, but I feel that the greatest emphasis should be 

placed on on-case arguments. 


Let's not do those. 


I think logically and can understand points, but debate 'jargon' and excessive speed 

present difficulties for me in flowing arguments. Be clear, concise, and emphasize a few 

critical points in developing your argument, for I feel that it is difficult to enhance a 

strong position around a list of unsubstantiated support points. 

Poor, John 



John Poor 

University of Colorado 

Judging Philosophy: NPDA 2008 

Debated policy at Whitman for 2 years, 1 year at the University of Denver. 

Consistent coaching of high school policy and LD, as well as college parli. 

130



My background is in policy debate, and as a general matter, I tend to default to a 

policymaking paradigm in the absence of some reason to evaluate the discussion on some 

other level. That said, I’ll listen to and vote on just about any kind of argument. I 

recognize that it’s not really possible for a judge to be truly “tabula rasa,” but I really do 

try to stay out of the way and let the debaters decide the outcome. When it comes to 

unconventional strategies, my only real requirement is that debaters be able to justify 

whatever framework they advocate. Regardless of which arguments are on the table at 

the end of the debate, I tend to reward good, clear impact analysis and impact 

comparisons. The less work that I have to do to reconstruct the debate, the higher the 

probability becomes that my decision will comport with the debaters’ expectations about 

how the issues should be weighed. 


: 

Talk as fast or as slow as you want; if you’re unclear, I’ll let you know. You don’t need 

to thank me or the other team for showing up – we all chose to be here. Be funny, be 

sarcastic, but please don’t be mean or overtly rude. And, above all, have a good time. 



Crituques play an important and continuously evolving role in academic debate, and I 

have no reservations about considering them on an equal plane with other kinds of 

arguments. That said, it is important for teams that go for criticisms to develop their 

framework & demonstrate why their critical perspective ought to supersede any 

countervailing policy considerations. In that vein, “our criticism is pre-fiat,” without 

more, doesn’t usually do it for me – I expect good critical teams to make arguments about 

why it’s important to evaluate framework-level arguments before worrying about the 

policy impacts. 


131

I like a good T debate, and I like a good debate about any other procedural or theoretical 

issue. I don’t like voting on trifling cheap shots that expand exponentially in subsequent 

speeches (I tend to allow new answers when that happens), but thankfully, those tactics 

don’t seem to be particularly common in Parli. On T, I’m open to viewing the debate as 

being about either competing interpretations or in-round abuse – it’s up to the debaters to 

set the parameters for the discussion. Government teams are free to eschew affirming the 

resolution if they’d like, provided they can defend what they do better than the opposition 

team can attack it. 

Purcell, Jen 

Hired 

4 years of college experience—WKY in NPDA and NFA LD. Judging NPDA and NFA 

for 2 years. 

Hi. I'm a flow judge and very much prefer to be in a policy framework. I will not punish 

you in any way if you default to policy on resolutions of value and fact. I need you to 

logically order your arguments, signpost individual arguments clearly, roadmap your 

speeches, and be generally organized. I will listen to anything- just proceed logically. I 

will not, for example, fill in the dots on a kritik for you. Critical race theory, for you to 

run it, must be well-developed, well-explained, and well-applied. If you don't have a 

good explanation of the theory, you don't understand it enough to be running it. If you 

don't have a clear link, you are canning it and forcing the application, which is equally 

painful. Overall, I have voted on T, kritiks, cases and counterplans of all sorts. I will 

honestly listen to anything and vote for anything, so long as you develop it on the flow 

and show me why you win it. I do not care about speed. However fast you want to go, I 

will 

be able to flow you. Your opponents may request you slow down, and in that event, I 

think you should do so for reasons of competitive equity, To the best of my ability, I'm a 

tab judge. I think there are 2 exceptions: 

1. I do not pretend to be completely in control of the subconscious impact on my decision 

making apparatus. That said, I will disclose that I am a very left leaning, third year law 

student. What those things mean in terms of my decision making on the subconscious 

level are up for consideration. 

2. Exclusive language: I will seriously dock your speaker points if you choose to employ 

racist, sexist, or orientation biased language. Practice verbal hygiene, and make the 

round inclusive and accessible to everyone. I will listen to kritiks on this issue happily. I 

132

will not flat drop you for that language unless your opponents choose to put it on the flow 

and you lose that argument on the flow. 

Last, have fun and debate. This is your activity, your nationals, and your advocacy. I'm 

approachable, and rarely bite--shoot me any questions via email @ zarathustradome at 

gmail dot com, or even before the round. Good luck in your final preparations. Don't 

forget good water bottles because of the elevation :) 

Reinstedt, Dane 

Temple 


I did policy debate in high school and CEDA/NDT debate in college. I have coached 

Parli for 3 years since graduating from college - one year each for Lewis & Clark, 

Claremont, and Temple. 



I try not to bring my own predispositions into the debate round. I believe that the round 

is yours to choose what arguments you would like to run and I will do my best to be as 

impartial and fair in judging whatever is placed in front of me. If no other paradigm is 

brought into the round I will most likely revert to being a policymaker. I feel 

comfortable voting on any sort of position so long as it is well argued. I believe that the 

crux of good argumentation is reasoning. Claims unsupported by examples or warrants 

tend to be empty. 


: 

Presentation and communication skills are unimportant to me in my evaluation of the 

debate. I see debate as being about the arguments and the content rather than the 

presentation. I would rather here a well constructed argument than a piece of flowery 

speech any day. As far as speed goes, feel free to go as quickly as you like, I will keep 

up. 


133

I don't see the distinction between on-case and off-case argumentation as being 

important. What is more important is the distinction between offensive and defensive 

arguments. Making only defensive or mitigating arguments on a position means that it is 

highly unlikely you are going to win that position. These arguments can be useful for 

minimizing impacts when it comes to weighing the round, but standing alone are 

generally insufficient. 


I am open to critical debates. Much of my own debating experience in high school and 

college focused on criticisms. For better or for worse I think this has led me to having a 

somewhat higher threshold for seeing critical positions as being well argued. I think that 

as a result of the time constraints in Parli debate critical arguments often tend to be 

reduced down to buzz-words and catch-phrases rather than substantive positions - if you 

want to argue critical arguments in front of me, I am certainly open to them, just please 

try to have thought them through and have the reasoning as well as the vocab available to 

you. 


Reynolds, Jessica 

Texas Tech University 

Parli Rounds judged this year: 5060 

Non-parli rounds judged this year: 20-30 LD, 5-10 policy, 2 IPDA 



School debated at: University of Montana 

Case Arguments: In terms of fact and value cases and resolutions, I will listen to any type 

of case as long as the team can beat the topicality or any arguments against the case's 

particular construction. However, I have a very strong preference for policy cases. I will 

also vote for kritikal and perfomrance cases. Although I feel that presenting plan or CP 

text in the last minute of a speech can be abusive, I will only vote on that kind of abuse if 

the other team makes it an argument. Inherency arguments aren't very persuasive to me 

unless the exact text of plan has been passed. I like any impact that is explained well and 

is accompanied by solid internal link analysis. I prefer that competitors prioritize the 

impacts for me, otherwise I will usually default to arguments that win on the probability 

and magnitude level (I evaluate that analysis equally), and then on timeframe. 

134

Disadvantage Arguments: Big DA's with minimal links are not as persuasive as DA's 

with solid links, but I will often vote on risk if there is no offense against the DA. The 

DA's link and internal link analysis is most important to me, followed by impacts and 

then uniqueness. I will vote on any kind of DA as long as it is warrented well, although 

politics DA debate can become very muddled. When answering DA's, I have voted on 

defense before, but I strongly, strongly prefer offensive answers. 

Counterplan Arguments: I will vote for any type of counterplan as long as, when 

challanged, the opp team wins the theory debate. Perms can be a test or an advocacy, but 

I like perm (and CP) texts to be clear and stated sooner, rather than later. I will only vote 

on CP theory if it has clear voters. Otherwise, I will jsut reject the position. 

Kritik Arguments: I do not vote for kritiks that do not have alternatives. Alternatives and 

alternative solvency are very important to me in a kritik debate. Framework arguments 

are also important. I will vote for any type of kritik, as long as the team wins it. Again, I 

prefer argumetns with good analysis. However, on language kritiks, I have a slightly 

higher threshold unless what another team said is blatantly offensive or if the K is 

dropped. 

T and Theory Arguments: I will vote for procedurals, although they are not my favorite 

argument. On topicality, I think abuse voters are the strongest, but I will vote for 

competing interpretations if it is a good argument. I place a lot of importance on the 

standards debate when a topicality is run. Overall, I think topicality can be a strategic 

argument, even if the government is pretty straight up. I like spec/vagueness arguments, 

although I think enforcement specification is one of the weakest spec arguments, as is 

funding specification (usually run funding spec with some other arument to prove the 

abuse). I think it's pretty hard to win these types of arguments if there isn't some type of 

articulated abuse though. 

Approach to Deciding: I focus on comparison. I will make my decision based on what 

each team tells me to vote on, otherwise I default to evaluating the round through net 

benefits (see above for how I weigh impacts). The only issue I think I would have 

difficulty voting against is reproductive rights. I would try to judge argumetns against 

reproductive rights fairly, but it would be more difficult for me. 

Presentation Preferences: In terms of speaking style, I leave it up to the teams to set the 

speed/tone of the round. I don't mind fast rounds with a lot of positions, but I do feel that 

by the end, debaters should try to narrow down to key issues, or the round can become a 

huge mess. I allow teams a few seconds to begin or wrap up seeches, as long as it is not a 

ridiculous amount of time. I'll let you know if you're reaching that point. I don't listen to 

new arguments in LORs/PMRs, but it's a good idea to make them anyway in case I miss 

one or might not initially see the argument as new. New positions in the MG and MO are 

fine, but running new argumetns in the MO is just risky because the PMR gets to answer 

them. 

135

Roberts, Chris 

Purdue University 


I competed in both high school and collegiate level debate. As a college debater, I 

competed on both the CEDA and NFA LD circuit. 



I believe there are four: policy, value, quasi-policy, fact (this was influenced by my 

CEDA background). I will listen to cases run as value as opposed to policy (not every 

case needs a plan). However, the Government team gets to define how the judging 

criteria will be determined (but this is still debatable by the opposition). 

I tend to like on case clash and traditional stock issues debate. 

TOPICALITY 

Yes, it is a voter. Sometimes it is a reverse voter (dependent upon abuse). In short, I 

rarely vote on Topicality unless some form of unique abuse is proven in the round. 

Please be sure to have clear standards and a counter-definition. I rarely vote on T in 

metaphorical rounds of Parli debate. I will listen to counter-standards, so run them 


: 

You should know that I have quite the odd hearing problem, or hearing loss, present in 

both ears. I don’t wear hearing aids because, per my ENT and Audiologist, the benefit 

would be minimal and I have learned to adjust to the loss over the years. Yes, I can hear 

you; yes, I can engage with you. Hearing loss is more complex than that. What it does 

mean is that I have difficulty hearing certain ranges of sound—the mid/lower decibel 

levels of “normal” conversation speech. The strange thing is I can hear people speaking 

softly, and hear them in the higher decibel levels of “normal” conversation speech—it’s 

just a particular range in the middle that I cannot hear. The hearing loss is usually 

referred to as a cookie-bite loss, since the audiology chart looks like someone took a bite 

out of a cookie. My cookie-bite loss becomes problematic when debaters engage in high 

rates of delivery where the pitch of their voices tends to go up, and the loudness of their 

delivery tends to go down. Sometimes, these debaters will weave in and out of my 

hearing range. If you are speeding, you better be LOUD, and you better be CLEAR. 

136


On Case Clash/DA’s 

I tend to give leniency on “uniqueness” for opposition/negative teams when running 

DA’s. Especially in NFA LD where Affirmatives can build a very tight case, or in Parli 

where the Government can interpret the resolution to specific parameters. DA’s always 

help, but I will flow on case responses too. There are still stock issues to consider, 

including harms, solvency, inherency, and minor repairs. Run those on case, and you 

might have my ballot—you can seal the deal with a DA. 


The K Debate 

The only time I have voted for a K is when the Government/Affirmative completely 

mishandled the position and demonstrated inferior debating abilities. Other than that, K’s 

that critique language or other mindsets are flowed and as long as the Government makes 

reasonable responses, I will not weight the K in the round. I tend to use a policy-maker 

paradigm in that regard and I want to move towards the plan debate as quickly as 

possible. 


I tend to be conservative in my judging. 

Roberts, Sean 

Carroll College 


Name: Sean Roberts 

Years competing: 4 at the collegiate level for Carroll College 

Last year competed: 2007 

Years judging: 1 

4 year high school LD debater in Washington State. 

4 year Parli debater at Carroll College. Fifth at NPDA in 2007. 

137

Education: Degrees in Finance and Political Science. 

Career: Financial analyst for a medium-sized banking concern in Montana. 



Fundamentally, I’ll make my decision according to the criteria you give me in the round. 

If you want to run a values debate or “res-o’fact” go for it—just be prepared to justify 

your decision if the other team wants to challenge it. In terms of policy debate, I think of 

myself as a policy maker. This is because I see policy debate as competition between the 

plan and the status quo and/or a counter-plan—my job is to decide which option is better, 

your job is to tell me what the implications of each option are, and (this is the important 

part…) what “better” means. If you think I should do something else, convince me, but in 

lieu of an argument on the matter, that’s my default position. 

While I certainly attempt to avoid letting my personal beliefs and biases influence the 

way I judge, I firmly believe that no one can ever be completely tabula rasa. I will not 

consciously intervene in a round. 


: 

No one speaks 1000 words per minute or takes tremendous gulps of air mid-syllable in 

the real world. Since I presume that’s where you’ll eventually end up, now would be a 

good time to start practicing for it. Speaking well and making good arguments are not 

mutually exclusive, and in fact, communicating well bolsters an argument by improving 

the credibility of the speaker. 

That said, I won’t pick you up or drop you based on presentation by itself. I judge the 

round on the flow. Naturally, if you are speaking in such a manner that I cannot flow you, 

well, that’s a problem for your position because as far as I’m concerned it doesn’t exist. 


How much time and effort will be spent arguing on-case is purely a strategic choice that 

the Op gets to make in the LOC. If Op believes it can win entirely off-case, go for it. 


Critical debates are often poorly argued and messy; it’s not your fault, Parli is simply not 

designed with sufficient speaking times and number of speeches for critical arguments to 

fully develop (the rule against evidence in rounds is also problematic for kritiks as it 

leads to somewhat wild generalizations on philosophical points). I’m not anti-kritik, but 

please run it well and know what you’re talking about inside and out. 

138

Performance debates are just pure trash. It’s one team trying to win by placing the other 

in an awkward situation to which logical response is nearly impossible. Feel free to strike 

me based on this if you want—I don’t care to see your performance debate any more than 

you care for me to judge you on it. 


Robertson, Kylie 

University of Oklahoma 


I competed in policy debate and attended both CEDA Nationals and The National Debate 

Tournament. I then coached policy debate as a graduate assistant at Pepperdine 

University and as a Co-director of Forensics at Pepperdine. I have been a graduate 

assistant working with the forensics program at the University of Oklahoma for one 

season. 



I am most comfortable as a policymaker, but, debate is a game and I am willing to listen 

to most of the arguments you want to make. I don't mind value or fact debates as long as 

you tell me exactly how I am to evaluate the rounds. 


: 

The only way I can evaluate your arguments is if you present them clearly. Presentation 

is very important. I have no problem with speed as long as you are clear. 


I will vote for any on or off-case argument as long as you give me a good reason to do so. 


I have no problem with critical arguments as long as they are clearly developed and 

deployed. I find myself often compelled by permutations on critical arguments, so if you 

are opp, make sure you clearly tell me why I shouldn't be compelled by the perm. I am 

139

not a fan of performance "debate." I often find that arguments seem to be missing and I 

don't like to make my decisions based on what I believe your are trying to say. I believe 

that results in an intervention on my part nine times out of ten. *** We all signed an 

agreement to abide by NPDA sexual harassment guidelines. I don't want to listen to any 

narratives about your sexual experience because it creates a hostile environment. If you 

feel compelled to do so, please strike me when you are filling out your judge preference 

sheet. 


Please be gracious to your partner and to the other team. I don't enjoy debaters who are 

disrespectful to their partner and their competition and usually don't award them with 

very high speaker points. 

Romanelli, David 

Loyola University Chicago 


I debated in CEDA when we did quasi-policy, value, fact and policy. I have coached 

CEDA, NDT, LD and parli. I think the resolution is the focus of debate. Speed and hyper 

specific policies are some times troubling in parli. I flow. You should point out the new 

arguments made in the rebuttals. It is your job to compare arguments. 



I look to the resolution and the arguments offered by the debaters to help guide my 

decision. Some would like to see this as only policy debate; yet not all the resolutions 

support that. You can indeed have an intelligent and interesting debate about facts or 

values as well as policy. 


: 

It is the arguments that matter. If I can't understand you it's not an argument. 


Depends on the round. I think it is important to challenge the Governments framework 

early. 

140


I have no interest in performative debate (unless the resolution specifically calls for it). A 

K may apply but I'm not a fan. 


Ross, Scott 

Hired 

I did parli for the now-defunct University of Missouri squad and the 

now-defunct Drury University parli squad. I went to three NPTEs, with 

decent success at my last one. The type of debating seen at that 

tournament is what I enjoyed when I competed and what I like to see 

when I watch/judge rounds. 

Policy debate is far and away what I prefer to see, and I approach it 

as a policymaker via net benefits. Stock issues never made sense to me 

and I don't care for the trichotomy. There are times when value is a 

defensible format, but I would STRONGLY discourage running fact 

debates and will vote on 'fact bad.' 

As a label count me as a flow judge, concerned only with 

argumentation. Presentation doesn't matter and I don't need on-case if 

you don't want to give it. Follow the line-by-line and cover 

everything. That being said, I'm not a tab hack. I view rounds with a 

wide-angle lens and I think arguments become intertwined all over the 

flow: if you say something in three places and they only answer it 

twice, that doesn't mean you get a free ride with the third. Likewise, 

if an argument relies on several steps to be true, your opponent 

doesn't have to answer every level of analysis if they take out the 

foundations. And just because someone doesn't say "T is a voter" in 

the LOR, doesn't mean T goes away. Essentially I'm saying arguments 

are interdependent and stretch across positions and taglines, and I 

view them thematically. But still be sure to cover. 

My requests for you are: 

1) Make sense/don't make dumb arguments. I'm a flow judge, but I will 

get and have gotten lost when I don't know what a debater's saying 

because it's nonsensical or irrelevant. If it doesn't make sense I 

don't know how to weigh it. 

2) Debate what you can win. If you're running stuff you don't like 

141

ecause you think it'll make me happy, chances are you're not going to 

debate well and it's going to be a bad round. If you know you can win 

with a particular argument/style, don't worry about whether it'll make 

me happy. Good debates make me happy. 

DEBATE STYLE: I vastly prefer quality to quantity in argumentation. If 

you can provide either empirical examples or logical justifications 

for your arguments I will love you and probably vote for you. Nothing 

is more important to me than intelligent arguments. I think this 

activity is being abused by people who prefer to spread their 

opponents than make quality intelligent arguments. I'm not against 

speed by any means, but I will always value strong, logical arguments 

over a flood of shallow assertions. 

SPEED: I was never a speed debater, but rarely had any problem hitting 

the fastest folks in the activity. I'll tell you if you're too fast 

for me. Also, see my above point about quality of argumentation. I 

will vote on (and often agree with) intelligent speed critiques, but 

those seem to be rare. 

SPECIFIC POSITIONS: 

1. On procedural / theory issues, I have almost no set views and am 

happy to let you debate it out about what should/shouldn't be allowed 

in a debate. I believe in rejecting the argument, not the team. 

2. Meta issues: I like competitive equity best, but I don't think you 

need proven abuse and will vote on competing interps. Education will 

almost never be a voter for me. 

3. Critiques: I see them as just another argument – pre/post fiat 

doesn't make sense to me. Generic critiques (of the state, of 

capitalism) are just fine, but I often find them shallow and easily 

answered. If your utopian critique lacks a solvency mechanism, that's 

a problem. I don't understand post-modernism, so Foucault and Derrida 

will be hard-pressed to get my ballot. 

4. Crazy arguments: I love big-hitting positions that lead to nuclear 

war and extinction, but I expect you to do it well. Saying "caribou 

are key to biodiversity which prevents extinction" is not an argument. 

Give me internal links and fleshed-out scenarios that make sense, and 

you can be as crazy as you want. Real radical stuff (wipeout, spark) 

tend be poor arguments, but can be effective if people aren't 

prepared. 

5. Alternative Discourse (performance, PMC critiques of fiat, etc): 

simply put I tend to not understand its role in debate. For that 

142

eason alone I would advise against it. I see debate as a competitive 

activity in which the judges choose between two mutually exclusive 

options – if your nontrad advocacy doesn't give me something to vote 

for and your opponent something to argue against, I don't know how to 

weigh it and probably won't vote for it. 

6. I love uniqueness debates.

ushstrokes, or that details can count heavily in proving big arguments. I don’t hold Parli 

case/plans to the same level of proof that I might in CEDA/NDT since they are 

constructed in 15 minutes without direct access to very much research. Disadvantages, 

solvency arguments, or counter-plans share the same burden of proof that the government 

does. Impacts are very important, but the establishing the links are critical. 

Debaters should be well read in current events, philosophy and especially political 

philosophy. Poorly constructed arguments and/or blatant misstatements will not prevail 

just because someone happens to not respond to them. While I attempt to minimize 

intervention, claims like “200 million Americans a year are dying of AIDS” does not 

become true just because it might be dropped. I think your word is your bond. If you say 

it with conviction, you are attesting that it is true. If you are not quite certain, it is 

preferable to frame a claim in that manner. The prohibition on reading evidence in a 

round is not carte blanche to make up whatever unsubstantiated claims you think may 

advance your arguments. 

I also think it is the debaters’ job to debate the resolution, not my own views on styles of 

debate I prefer to hear. If a resolution has strong value implications, please debate it as 

such. Likewise if there is a strong policy slant, debate it as such. Additionally, I do not 

feel that there is only one way to debate. As such, I will not try to implement unwritten 

rules such as the Government must argue for a change in the status quo. They certainly 

should if the resolution requires it, but may not have to if it does not. I think the 

resolution is key to the debate. 


: 

I enjoy case clash, smart arguments, exposing logical fallacies, using humor, etc. . . I 

dislike rudeness, overly quick delivery, or presenting counter warrants rather than 

engaging case straight up. I will try to make the decision based the content of the 

arguments and also rely on delivery for determining speaker points. It is not uncommon 

for me to give low point wins. Strong speakers are capable of logical errors that can sink 

their case. 




Having said that I do have some a priori biases. Since I believe the resolution is what is 

being debated, that has implications on counter plans. My a priori belief is that they 

144

should not be topical and should be competitive. Just because the negative team finds 

another, perhaps even “better way” than the affirmative chose, to prove the resolution is 

true, does not seem to me to automatically warrant a negative ballot. I am certainly open 

to good theory debates, but in fairness, you should know my beginning basis of 

understanding on this issue. And although I participated and enjoyed NDT and CEDA 

debate, I think the speed of delivery in that format was built around the need to read 

evidence and specific research to back up the claims and warrants. The absence of such 

evidence reading in NPDA should invite more considerate and slower argument analysis, 

not provide opportunities to shotgun out more, less developed arguments. I believe the 

reason for not allowing researched evidence briefs to be read in this particular format of 

debate was to encourage public focused debate, which implies a slower rate of delivery. 

Safran, Rachel 



Years competed in debate: 3 years HS policy, 1 year college policy, 3.5 years college 

parli. 

Years judging: 6 years judging HS policy, 2 years judging college parli/policy 

Parli rounds judged: 100+ 



My preference and default is to evaluate within a policymaker paradigm, but that does 

not mean you can't propose and defend a different framework. I do not believe in the 

trichotomy, in fact I encourage teams to use policies as a way to test fact and value 

statements. However, I will not intervene against teams who choose to interpret 

resolutions as such. In general, I think debate is for the debaters so I try my best to stay 

out of it and make as "objective" of a decision as is humanly possible. 


: 

145

Speed is fine, in fact I enjoy a quick pace but by no means expect it. I appreciate speakers 

who are clear, articulate and engaging but that only affects your speaker points not my 

decision. 


If neg is defending the SQ...case args are important. If neg is defending a CP that claims 

to solve the case...case args are irrelevant unless comparative to CP solvency. Duh. 


I have to be up front that winning a K or performative advocacy can be somewhat of an 

uphill battle in front of me, but that doesn’t mean I never ran one or that I won’t vote for 

them. In fact, I have voted for far more kritiks the last 2 years than I ever thought 

possible. The opp should have a clear, defensible and textual alternative and they have to 

justify their framework. Just saying fiat is illusory doesn’t mean anything to me. I see no 

distinction between the pre and post fiat worlds within the context of a debate round, so 

you have to provide warrants for why the K should be evaluated before the case impacts 

or how it turns/outweighs them. Personally, I have trouble with the notion that my ballot 

is tool for political discourse or will somehow affect the “real world” as it seems to 

trivialize real discourse by making it contingent on a flow game. That being said, I do 

appreciate philosophical arguments and nuanced discussions of how language/our 

assumptions function in the debate forum, I just don’t think saying “prefiat” means I 

ignore the case. I personally believe personal narratives and performances like irony, etc. 

risk making debate a race to the bottom without a purpose. I am certainly interested in the 

theories behind these projects, I have just yet to see them deployed effectively. Bottom 

line – I work just as hard not to let me personal views on critical arguments enter my 

decision making calculus as I do to keep my political views out. If you win the K, I’ll 

vote for it. 


The debate should come down to warranted risk analysis. Give me measures of how your 

case/disad/K outweighs something with specific evaluative mechanisms like magnitude, 

timeframe, probability, reversibility, etc. We all know debate is a game, and last time I 

checked games were supposed to be fun…so have some of that too.If I am judging you, 

dont be alarmed. I generally wear a Predator mask during rounds. 

146

Sanberg, Savannah 

Hired 

1.) My critic background: - Competed in Interp for Colorado State University 1995-97 

Qualified for Nationals 95 -96 

Debate Critic since 2000 - 8 years 

National Debate Critic - 2 consecutive year 

2.) Decision Making: I base my decision on the overall round, not any small issue. 

For example, does the Proposition offer definitive terminology - 

dictionary terms for case arguementation - is it Topical 

Is it easy to flow are you being consistent. Are you adding 

new arguments in your Rebuttal 

3.) Presentation: This is a relatively key factor. Delivery style- How do you express 

your presentation- it is not the major deciding factor, however, it has a small 

impact on your overall perfomance. IF you read line by line and there 

is some relative cohesiveness then I may vote in your favor. If you give an 

academy award performance and it doesn't make any sense. Then I may not vote in your 

favor. 

4.) On case argumentation: Again, Topicality: How relevant are you being to the topic 

How far does the plan text allow for alternative argumentation. Who is at most, defining 

the intrepretation of the round. We never will fully be able to argue the authors 

framework or intent of the resolution. Topical. 

5.) Critiques: This is a touchy issue. Critiques are best executed for me as a critic, when 

they make sense. Offer definitions, be specific: Abuse is poor refutation; an easy 

argument to claim - give me substance. 

147

Scanland, Dave 

United States Air Force Academy 


I competed for USAFA, primarily in Parliamentary Debate for 3 years and this is my 

second year judging for USAFA. 



I try to be tabula rasa. 


: 

They are important, but not necessarily a part of the overall decision-making. 


On-case argumentation is important and should be done. Debaters should not avoid case 

debate. I vote on off-case argumentation as well. 


I have not been that impressed with most critical or performative positions that I have 

seen. 


No. 

148

Schabot, Daniel 

Cameron University 


Seven years of coaching and judging parli. Two years of coaching CEDA/NDT. 

Competed in CEDA/NDT for four years. Competed in High School LD for one year. 



The debate in the round is dictated by the debaters. I will evaluate the arguments and 

counter arguments presented in the round. 


: 

Presentation should be clear. Otherwise arguments are more important than presentation. 


I believe that the affirmative advocacy should be countered by the negative team. The 

teams in the round determine how that advocacy is countered. 


Any style is fine as long as arguments are explained. Do not expect me to complete 

arguments for you. 


Make well explained (good) arguments and clash. 

149

Schnoebelen, Jim 



My background: 4 years NPDA, 4 years of NFA-LD, 9 years experience coaching both 

on the collegiate level. 



• I enjoy value and fact rounds, so don’t get tied to Policy simply because it’s your 

preference. Always make sure the resolution is appropriate for the case you run. I will 

vote on cohesive, cogent Tri-cot. arguments. • When judging policy-esqe rounds, I 

adjudicate from a stock issues perspective. In other words, I don’t just want to see DAs; 

do some work on the case. 


: 

I absolutely believe in the communicative value of NPDA—it is a venue of debate that 

should be accessible to anyone, not just debate addicts, regardless of who comprises the 

House. This will weigh significantly in speaker point assignment in preliminary rounds, 

and in my decision-making during out rounds. On that note, don’t even think of speeding 

in front of me—if I won’t allow it in NFA LD, I certainly won’t allow it in NPDA. I like 

the often-forgotten niceties of the event—don’t forget the thanks you portion of the 

speeches, and to be collegial. I will not vote for you if you are rude, crass, unkind, or use 

unprofessional language in front of me—period. This often, for those of you who are 

fond of using it, INCLUDES OVERLY SARCASTIC DISCOURSE. 


EXCEPTIONALLY IMPORTANT--I am so sick of judging rounds where I flow the 

PMC and then, because of where the debate goes (off case), cast the case aside and never 

look at it again. This doesn't mean that I need random defense on the case; it is fairly easy 

often times to put some elegant offense on the case in the form of turns, and I also am not 

against some mitigation of harms or solvency--again, I judge (in policy rounds) from a 

stock issues perspective. Thus, If I'm not convinced of solvency, I can and will vote on it. 


Performative styles: No--dear God, NOOOOOOOO! If you're going to run irony in front 

of me, you might as well take a shovel to the side of my head because I'd likely have a 

150

etter, more fun, and more educational experience. Yes, I coach at Washburn, but so do 

two other coaches and my debaters enjoy myriad strategies in winning rounds, some of 

which I love and several of which I abhor. In other words, just because you've seen my 

cherubs run it in a round, don't assume that whatever style you saw is something that I 

will enjoy. Kritiks: I do not want to see Kritiks in my rounds. I think that, while they may 

be, theoretically, a valid form of argumentation, they are typically poorly constructed and 

executed. Please don’t run these unless there is an instance of abusive language used in 

the round. 


• I do not want to see Topicality run in my rounds, as it is often either a time suck or a 

waste of time. Unless there is a BLATANT abuse of the resolution by the Gov., I do not 

want to see Topicality. There is very little expectation of predictability in NPDA debate, 

by its very nature, and often, Opp. teams will simply run most of the strats they prepped 

anyway. In short, focus on the substance of the issues and not on the technicalities, 

please. And for the record, going suicide-T in front of me will likely turn in to just that: 

suicide (see my comment about performance styles and shovels above...) • I will vote for 

counter plans but WILL NOT buy CPs that are Topical. Debaters on the Gov. cannot 

simply say “It’s Topical!” and I’ll vote against it; I need an explanation about the 

effects/implications of the Opp. running a Topical CP. But if these arguments are present, 

I will likely vote an Opp. team down for running a Topical CP. 

See, Lindsay 

Patrick Henry College 


I competed in NDPA for 4 years (Patrick Henry College). Last year I coached parli; this 

year I am the assistant coach for PHC’s moot court team. My academic background is in 

political theory/law. 



Overall, I approach judging from a policymaker standpoint and will usually defer to that 

approach unless you lay out a clear, alternate framework that is fair to both teams (yet 

also plays to your side’s strengths). I find policy rounds usually have better 

151

clash/warranted arguments; however, I’m up for whatever interpretation makes for the 

most compelling round. 


: 

I think parli at its best is clean, well-organized, and rhetorically powerful. While I’m a 

flow judge who will be looking closely at your analysis and warrants, persuasion is not 

based on logic alone. Reasonable speed is ok, but your arguments and presentation 

should always remain accessible to a well-educated audience. Spreading is not a 

substitute for quality arguments, and superior analysis within a given argument will 

usually beat line-by-line. 


Clash is key, although I don’t necessarily care if it happens on-case or off-case. It’s fine 

for opp to drop case if the arguments are strong, well-warranted positions and not an 

excuse to debate pre-prepped positions instead of dealing with case. Avoid using 

procedurals as a strategic ploy and rejecting an opportunity to engage with important and 

relevant real-world issues. 


A good Kritik is rare – a strong critical debate sustained throughout the entire round still 

rarer. I’m open to listen and vote on a K, but I have a high threshold for a well-argued 

critical position. The same is true for performative rounds. 


A defensive opp team rarely wins my ballot. I usually default to gov if their advocacy is a 

good idea and might/will likely work, unless opp goes on the offensive. 

Provide analysis for all your arguments! It’s not in your best interests to assume I will 

agree with you that being too conservative/liberal/etc. is a bad thing. 

152

Strategic issue selection in rebuttals is important and very impressive -- an important 

factor in both my ballot and your speaker points. 

Shephard, Kimberly 

The Colorado College 


Debate Experience: 4 years high school LD 

4 years parliamentary debate at Colorado College 

Background: BA in Classics-History-Politics from Colorado College, 1 year Comm MA, 

beginning a PhD program in history w/focus on gender and sexuality. 



The majority of debates in parliamentary debates are policy oriented. Therefore, I tend to 

view most debates through the net-beneficial criterion. Whatever team makes the world a 

better place or saves it from becoming a worse place, I will vote for. That being said, I 

will listen to res of fact/value but as the government team, you will need to clearly build 

me a way to adjudicate at the beginning of the round. Conversely, I will also listen to the 

fact/value bad. 


: 



I really like Ks but they tend to be problematic for a couple of reasons. One, links tend to 

be ridiculously weak. “Promoting a hierarchy” or “Entrenching power relations” is not 

enough of a link for me. Additionally, I think Ks rarely offer a valid alternative other 

than me giving the K-arguing team a ballot. Give me something more substantive than 

“Fiat is illusory, punish the other team.” Also, the theoretical framework is really key for 

153

me so make sure that the framework, the link and the alternative come out really clearly 

in the shell. 


Concerning debate theory, I enjoy it but I really think that the majority of the more 

complex/technical arguments and theory often go under-explained in parli rounds. 

Therefore, if you want to go theory-heavy in the MG/MO/rebuttals, please make sure to 

put clearly explain your arguments in the context of the round. Blipping out PICs bad 

does nothing to tell me why PICs are singularly bad in this particular round. 

One of the things that annoys me the most is the impact of dehumanization. Yes, some 

impacts are so terrible that they do dehumanize people but I see the word thrown around 

so frequently and often inappropriately in parliamentary debate that it makes me cringe a 

little bit. Please make sure that if you decide to use it as an impact, that you truly use it in 

the most dire and tragic of circumstances. 

Topicality is fine and I enjoy a good clash in terms of competition interpretations debate. 

However, it is the opposition’s job to prove significant ground loss (real or potential) 

before I will vote there. 

For opposition teams, I really look to see a cohesive strategy. Don’t go for everything in 

the MO/LOR and better yet, your positions should strategically work together to win you 

the round. I see the opposition team as always playing a game in the round. That being 

said, I also am really impressed for opp teams who find it in themselves to do some really 

good on-case argumentation. We so rarely talk about case anymore that on-case 

arguments can truly refreshing. 

While I can handle speed perfectly well, I only really like clear speed. Loud gasps of air 

are annoying, distracting and detract from your credibility. I’ve lived at a 6000 foot 

elevation most of my life whereas many debaters are coming from sea level-2000 feet. 

Therefore, I am no stranger to witnessing people having issues with altitude. You need to 

calculate the thinner air into your speaking speed. 

154

Sietman, Dan 

Cedarville University 


I have never debated competitively nor have I had any formal training in debate per se, 

although I did my undergraduate work in Political Comm, and therefore have training in 

argumentation, persuasion, etc. I began judging Parli five years ago when my wife was 

hired as the Cedarville University Debate Coach. As many of you can attest, my judging 

philosophy has changed considerably over the years. 



I believe that Tabula-Rasa is a wonderful ideal, so I will try not to intervene in the round; 

however as a human being I believe that it is an unattainable ideal, thus all I can do is 

promise to try my best to vote only on that which is said in round. Having said that, 

please recognize that I am not an idiot; just because something is said in round does not 

mean that I am bound to accept it, regardless of whether the other side responds to it. I 

believe in Tricot, so I probably won’t buy your Tricot-Bad press. I believe that in most 

cases “normal means” covers stock issues adequately. 


: 

I believe that debate is a rhetorical exercise. It is important to me that you present your 

arguments clearly such that a total stranger to the debate community could walk into the 

room and be able to render a decision. Good delivery enhances your credibility. I have a 

few pet peeves: 

The Humpback: I dive into my flow, speak until I run out of breath, surface for air, and 

spray the room with the spittle hanging off my lower lip. (For the love of all that is 

holy…BREATHE.) 

The Demon: There are fast talkers and then there’s SPEED. I can flow quickly, but if I 

don’t like your speed, I will stop flowing, and I will adjudicate based on persuasion 

alone. Oh yeah, and your speaker points will suck. (Someone call an exorcist.) 

The Screamer: I am blissfully ignorant of ALL my surroundings, most notably the 

acoustics in my room, and I scream at the judge from three feet away. (Someone get me a 

cotton ball; my eardrums are bleeding.) 

155


I encourage Opp teams to present off-case positions, however understand that I give Gov 

teams wide latitude under their right to define, so run Topicality with caution, especially 

because I will vote on RVI’s if asked to by the Gov. K is cool – run ’em if you got ’em. 

Remember that if you under-cover or fail to cover case, and if I don’t buy your off-case, 

then you lose. 


Debate is about the clash of warranted arguments. I don’t care if you can rap your PMC 

(although if you could rap your Member Speech I might be grudgingly impressed), and I 

don’t want to see your interpretive dance. There is a wonderful class of events known as 

IE’s in which you may compete and win. Go forth and conquer. Over there. If you try 

your performance out on me, I will give you tips on how to make it better. I will also vote 

you down. You have been warned. 


Sietman, Rebecca 

Cedarville University 


Since I grew up in Japan, I did not have the opportunity to debate in high school. During 

my college years, I was a policy debater, after which I left the debate community to 

pursue a master’s and PhD. While I did the bulk of my graduate work, I judged at a few 

debate tournaments but had no coaching experience. When Cedarville hired me as 

Director of Debate, we decided as an institution to join NPDA. This is my 5th year 

coaching parli, and my judging paradigm continues to develop the longer I coach. 



156

Because I abhor judge intervention, tabula rasa is my ideal. I will vote based on the 

arguments made in the round to the best of my ability, but I recognize that I can never be 

a true “blank slate.” (For example, the team that ran “parents should abuse their children” 

would tell you that I voted them down.) 

While I believe that there are different kinds of claims, I do not believe that any given 

resolution must be interpreted in the exact same way. Gov teams can run the type of case 

they want, and Opp teams can argue against the Gov’s interpretation. Thus I will listen to 

both “trichot good” and “trichot bad” arguments and vote based on the flow, in the same 

way that I would vote on any other procedural in the round such as topicality. 

If Opp teams want to run “stock-issue” arguments, that’s fine with me... but please do not 

expect me to vote on them unless you use them as an offense (e.g., “E-spec”). 


: 

I believe that debate is an inherently different activity than IEs. I am not nearly as 

interested in hearing a “pretty speech” as I am in hearing argumentation. I won’t finish 

the arguments for you, so it is your job to provide more than just assertions. Provide clear 

links and internal links, give warrants for your claims, and weigh the impacts for me. 

Weighing the impacts is especially important at the end of the round—show me why 

you’ve won the debate. 

To use a silly analogy, substantive arguments are the cake and good communication skills 

are the icing. I hate icing by itself, but I love the icing when it’s on the cake. 

157


On-case argumentation is as important to me as the debaters make it in any given round. 

If everyone drops case, then it will probably not factor into my decision at all. On the 

other hand, I expect offense from both teams, so Opp needs to do more than just make a 

few mitigating arguments on-case to win my ballot. 


Please know that while I appreciate both song and dance as artistic expressions, I prefer 

not to see those things in a debate round. So if you like to sing or dance your way 

through the PMC (or any of the speeches for that matter), you should probably strike me. 

Given that my judging paradigm has evolved significantly during the past 5 years that I 

have been part of the NPDA community, I am open to other so-called "critical" styles of 

debating as long as the activity is still a debate and is not just another opportunity for 

your favorite IE event. 


Simas, Libby 

University of California, Berkeley 


I have been a policy debate coach and judge for the past 6 years. I also competed in both 

policy (6 years ago) and parli (7 years ago). For most debaters, that is all the information 

they need to put me in a category! 



158

Being from a predominantly policy debate background, I am certainly able to view the 

round as a policy-maker. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, but if you say something 

that is just plain out-and-out incorrect, I can't vote on that argument. In a policy case, 

harms, plan, solvency are important to me. I HATE fact interpretations of the resolution. I 

am fine with value interpretations, but make sure your criterion is clear. I typically don't 

vote on topicality unless the abuse is proven, and while you don't have to run the 

argument you know the aff is going to link out of, you do need to give me what the 

specific argument you can't run is. I don't ever vote on potential abuse. Unless you tell 

me otherwise, I evaluate the round looking at procedurals first, kritiks next, and finally 

post-fiat implications. I really, really, really dislike theory (PICs good/bad, severance 

perms illegit/legit, etc.). I especially hate theory when it's importance isn't explained and 

it's spoken at 200 words per minute. If your theory argument is really important to you, 

spend some time explaining it's implication on the round and on the argument. I have yet 

in my years of judging voted on theory. 


: 

I am a flow judge. Speed is really not a problem for me, so I don't really care if you look 

at me while talking or are able to use flowery rhetoric to prove your point. Be clear and 

concise and smart. Prove your point using examples from reality, don't just assume you 

can make a claim and then it must be true because you said it. I like teams that can be 

smart, make great argumentation and can be funny/witty while doing it. For the most 

part, I see myself as the part of the debate equation that makes it possible for you to do 

what you love, so while I will like it if you adapt to me, really, I will adapt to you 

presenting the arguments in your style too. 


Just taking out solvency usually don't mean the neg wins for me. Counter-plans don't 

have to mutually exclusive as long as they compete on the net-benefit level. All disads 

must link. I don't know what else to say about this stuff. On case args are good, but 

typically not enough for me, it's good to have some off-case offense too. 


Here's my answer to this directly from my debateresults.com judging philosophy: 

KRITIKS/PERFORMANCE/ACTIVISM: I like kritiks that are agued well. 

Unfortunately, many times kritik arguments become unruly and vague; if you can keep it 

clean and tangible I very much enjoy the philosophical aspect inherent in many of the K 

debates. You do need to make it clear, however, what you are trying to accomplish with 

your criticism/activist stance. Why are you arguing this position as opposed to others 

There should be a good reason; otherwise you’re just speaking meaningless words. 

Something you should know, though, is that I feel that a judge can bring their own 

knowledge and study of a subject into the round when the position is asking them to look 

at identity or their own consumptive practices. If you ask me to look at myself and how I 

159

can help, that means I get to bring in the weighing mechanisms that I would use in my 

life to help me make a personal decision, mechanisms that you may have no idea about 

but that I have done research on. Also, it is important that you tell me the role of the 

judge in the round. I am currently working on trying to figure out what the point of the 

judge is in the performance/activist round, so if you want me to try and look at it the way 

you do, you need to tell me your views on the idea. Finally, I will not vote for affirmative 

or negative teams that claim to use critical arguments as a way of advancing pluralism in 

the debate community while silencing the other team’s voices through certain models of 

adjudication or not allowing them to access the kritik. Also, I am a fan of critical 

positions; however, many performance projects don’t mention the critical aspect of the 

performance, which is what I consider to be a large reason why performance is so 

powerful. If you are going to do a performance, you need to explain how this is 

advancing the/a critical theory, don’t just perform and not explain to me why this 

particular performance helps to illustrate critical theory. 


Simon, Ammon 



Rounds judges this year: 100+ 

I debated for four years parli at Wheaton, although the first few years were spent trying to 

figure out what the heck was going on (my first year was our parli program’s first year). I 

attended NPTE last year and attended NPDA in some form or another (one year was just 

spent watching) for four years. You’ll probably recognize me as the tallest person at the 

tournament. 



My overarching principle in judging rounds is to vote on the arguments that are made in 

the round, without any sort of bias for or against a certain style of debate, a type of 

argument, or any sort of political considerations. In that respect, I have a fairly simple 

judging philosophy. Debate well, no matter what the format, and you’ll do fine. If you 

are in a hurry, you can probably skip the rest of this and you’ll do fine. 

160


: 

I don’t consider presentation/communication skills in making a decision, although it will 

play into my speaker points. 

I have no problem with speed as long as you are clear and the other team doesn’t make 

arguments to the contrary. I try to keep a fairly comprehensive account of the arguments 

made in round, and I will be flowing on a laptop, so be sure to hit the line by line, or 

gives reasons why you shouldn’t. I haven’t seen many NDT rounds, but I haven’t seen 

too many parli debaters that were too fast for me to flow. If you are going too fast for me 

I will try to let you know. 


On case argumentation might matter- it depends on what your off case argumentation is. 

If you need it to make it so that your off case disads outweigh, then it matters, if you run 

a CP that captures all the case, on case might not matter as well. 


I don’t have a priori problems with specific types of positions- topical counterlpans, 

PICs, politics DAs, kritiks, MPA, etc. But I also recognize that I do have some biases that 

I will have to acknowledge at attempt to prevent, so let me explain those. 

1. I never really liked kritiks as a debater. Never really ran them too often, and found 

some of the kritiks to be mind numbing and pointless. That does not mean I will not vote 

for them and I’m sure I’ll find myself voting for them a lot. That just means that you 

should be sure to run them well with a good link story, explanation, and alternative. I’m 

not familiar with too much critical scholarship, so be sure to do a good job of explaining 

what they mean. Don’t expect me to fill in any of the details. But, if your bread and butter 

is a K, by all means run them in front of me. 

Along the same lines, I never personally liked any of the micro political, ironic, or 

performance positions out there. That is probably my strongest bias and I hate judging 

these kinds of rounds with a passion, but I recognize it and will do my best to keep it out 

of my decision. This will be the hardest for me, but I’ll try to do it. 

2. With politics, I am conservative but I will vote for any type of argument across the 

spectrum and ran many arguments across the spectrum. All this means is that you 

shouldn’t run a liberal argument and expect me to automatically buy the assumptions and 

161

fill in the details (but I could also say the same thing about conservative arguments). But, 

if you warrant your arguments or if they don’t question the assumptions 

I’ll have no problem voting for any type of argument across the spectrum of extreme left 

to extreme right. 

3. In terms of more traditional parli theory. I really hope you run policy (not fact or 

value) in front of me. I don’t believe in the trichotomy but will vote on it. I love topical 

counterplans, ran PICs a lot and would be very happy to see a plan v. counterplan debate. 

I also can’t stand fact debate. But, if you want to run procedurals saying the contrary, go 

right ahead, but know that I have biases against your argument that I will have to try to 

counteract. 

4. I won’t vote on a procedural without some sort of demonstrated abuse, but you might 

be able to convince me otherwise. 

All in all though have a great time and debate the way that you do best, and if you have 

any questions for me before or after the round, don’t hesitate to ask. I will fill out my 

ballot and be happy to answer any questions that you may have. No need to do any of the 

fluffy thank you’s and traditional aspects of parli in front of me unless you are truly 

thankful for me being here for a reason besides that I showed up. 


Siver, Christi 

University of Washington 


My name is Christi Siver and I am a PhD candidate in political science at UW. I have 

been helping coach the UW speech and debate team for the past five years. I received my 

Master’s in International Relations and International Economics from Johns Hopkins 

School of Advanced International Studies in 2002. I received my BA from Lewis and 

Clark College, where I competed in CEDA for four years. After graduation I coached 

CEDA/NDT at Lewis and Clark through 2000. 



162

The primary thing I look for when judging a debate is offense. The government has the 

advantage here in that their offense is usually their case. The opposition must not only 

disprove the government case (since it is hard to disprove any case 100%), they must also 

provide an offensive reason to vote for the opposition. This offense can come in many 

forms – disadvantages, counterplans, critiques, or opposition cases (in resolutions of fact 

or value). 

Another general comment would be to use rebuttals strategically to highlight the reasons 

you want to see on the ballot for your win. There is no reason in the last rebuttal that you 

need to extend every argument made in the round – that defeats the point of the rebuttal. 

Choose the arguments that you are winning and minimize the arguments that you are 

losing in a manner that allows you to give the debate a sense of conclusion. Finally, I’m 

not a huge fan of the race to magnitude. I prefer that teams evaluate and compare their 

arguments on risk, probability and magnitude. 

Procedurals – I think procedurals (topicality, vagueness, spec) are crucial tools that allow 

the opposition to challenge abusive government interpretations. However, I have pretty 

high standards for how these are argued; the opposition needs to provide a counterdefinition 

or interpretation and explain why this establishes a better standard for the 

debate. Voting issues, like all things in debate, are not a given – you must impact your 

arguments, even topicality. 

Value/Criteria – Even though I come from a policy background, I think that value and 

criteria are greatly underutilized by most debaters. They provide an excellent way to 

exclude the other side’s impacts and focus the debate on your ground. The also are 

immensely helpful to the judge; without some value hierarchy, how do I compare war to 

economic recession to losses of liberty without intervening based on my own value 

hierarchy. The criteria of net benefits without a sense of what is important is meaningless 

to me. 

Resolution Analysis – I think the government has the burden to explain and justify their 

interpretation of the resolution. This helps clarify the debate from the beginning and 

prevents debates in which both sides are making arguments that don’t really contradict 

each other. In the case of something other than a policy debate, governments should spell 

out gov and opp burdens also make the debate clearer for the opp and the judge. 

Impacts – Every argument needs to be impacted in a way that explains its relation to the 

overall debate. This is where value and criteria can be helpful in highlighting the most 

important substantive impacts. Impacts, however, are also crucial in procedural 

arguments – i.e. why is the gov interpretation or opp counter-interpretation bad for this 

debate At the end of each argument, you should answer the following question: why is 

this important If you do that, it will stop you from making irrelevant arguments and 

clarify the debate for both sides. 

Clash – The complement to impacts is clash. If one side does not engage the other side’s 

arguments, then it becomes very difficult for the judge to make a decision. More than just 

the appearance of clash, however, is necessary. Each argument should evolve throughout 

163

the debate, which means both Members have the responsibility to engage the other side’s 

responses rather than just extend their partner’s analysis. Rebuttals should be a 

comparison of the gov and opp philosophies, where they are in conflict, and what 

standards should be used to determine which is best. 

Flow – Good flowing is key for a good debate because it helps both sides track the 

evolution of arguments. I keep a strict flow and try to protect both sides from new 

arguments in rebuttals. That means it is important for you to tell me where you want me 

to put your arguments on the flow. I do think that both sides should call points of order if 

they think the issue is new and could influence the outcome of the debate. 

Opp Strategy – I do not appreciate splitting the block. Like all theoretical issues – this is 

potentially open to debate, but my bias is against it. I can’t see how having the opp go for 

12 minutes of arguments, and then having the PMR answer those arguments in 5 minutes, 

serves the educational purpose of debate. 


: 

Performance – Debate is about the oral clash in arguments, and I am more than a 

glorified note-taker. Unless room logistics are prohibitive, I prefer that you stand to 

speak. 

Finally – Courtesy is very important to me in the debate. I like to see a highly charged 

debating of the arguments, but do not like it when the clash over the arguments translates 

into a clash between individuals. Treating each other with respect will keep heads cool 

and lead to better arguments in the debate. 


I like case arguments. See above for more detail. 


I think utilizing these kinds of strategies comes with a unique set of costs and benefits. 

While I may have a particular perspective about these strategies, I am open to listening to 

them, and will decide based on arguments in the round. All the standards set up above 

still apply. 


All that being said – this is your activity. Play to your strengths and have fun. 

164

Soto, Jen 

Hired 

Background of the critic 

I competed for four years in both I.E.'s and parli debate. I also tried 

parli and policy LD once. I have judged all three types of debate this 

season, though I have usually been given open parli ballots. 

Approach of the critic to decision-making 

I base my decisions soley on the flow. I don't believe in doing the work 

for you. I'm not a big fan of trichotomy, but I'll vote on it and any other 

off case position (including T, K, vagueness, etc...) if it is run properly. 

Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in 

decision-making 

I think one of the best things about debate is that it builds communication 

skills. But at the end of the round the better arguemention on flow wins, 

regardless of how well it was presents. I have given out low-point wins in 

the past. That being said, I vote on the flow and I can only write so fast. 

If you're talking really, really fast, don't be suprised if I don't have 

everything you say on the flow. 

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in 

decision-making 

If you are going to ignore all of the on-case arugments, make sure you win 

your off-case/outweigh on-case. I am open to all styles of debate, just 

justify whatever you are running. 

Stein, Darryl 



4 yrs parli - Cal 

2 yrs coaching parli - Western Washington 

Scattered BP and CEDA experience 



165

I'll evaluate the round however you tell me to. Tell me how to evaluate the framework 

debate, too. 


: 

If a team convinces me that I should look to something other than the arguments, then I 

suppose I'll look to something other than the arguments. I'm fine with grouping, crossapplying, 

and any number of tricks that let slower teams beat faster teams, but don't 

expect me to vote for you because you're prettier. Debate isn't a beauty contest, otherwise 

we'd all be losers. Not that we aren't all losers anyways. 


It can be very helpful for you. It's as important to my decision as you make it. 


I'm happy to hear it. Ideally there's a framework for evaluation, but if you don't want to 

make one explicit, that's your call. 


Everyone says this at the end of all their philosophies, but seriously, pay attention this 

time. HAVE FUN. This is your debate, I'll try to evaluate it as fairly as possible, and if 

you want to know what I'd like to see, it's good arguments run by people enjoying 

themselves. It should be your spring break. You should be making bad life decisions on a 

beach in Mexico. But you're here instead because there's something you like about this 

activity. 

straub, sara 

University of the Cumberlands 


High school L/D for 3 years. In college competed in L/D 1 year; Parli 4 years. Assistant 

coach 3 years. I am probably the youngest ‘old school’ judge around. 



166

The debaters determine who gets my ballot. To the best of my ability I will not intervene 

my own ideals into the debate. I will evaluate the positions advocated in the round solely 

as they are presented. I do believe some parli resolutions support fact/value cases in 

addition to policy. I believe fact and value cases provide a unique opportunity to have an 

intelligent, interesting and educational debate and therefore, are just as legit as policy. 

That being said, if an opposition team chose to run a “fact bad” position and the 

affirmative did not counter in any way whatsoever, though it would pain my heart, I 

would vote on the dropped “fact bad”. I take the same approach to topical counter-plans. 

While I believe counter-plans should be non-topical, an opposition is free to run a topical 

counter-plan and pray that divine intervention clouds the affirmative’s ability to point out 

topical counter-plans still uphold the resolution, thus winning the ballot for the 

affirmative. My point is, while I won’t throw out a position based on my own personal 

beliefs, it is not hard for affirmative teams to throw out these two particular positions for 

me. 


: 

I have yet to see a round I couldn’t flow however, I don’t recommend testing me. Speed 

should be used to further build arguments and efficiently refute the flow, not to spread 

unwarranted blips of pretend points and fluff. Arguments, which ultimately are the most 

important facet of the round, should be presented in a clear, precise and structured 

format. Signposting is a must. I don’t like to do your work for you and if I’m not sure 

where you want your argument on the flow I will most likely not write it down or, 

depending on how much Starbucks I’ve had that day, I will jot it down at the bottom of 

my flow where I stick random, not linked arguments that I usually don’t vote on. 


The job of the affirmative is to prove the Resolution true. The opposition, in whatever 

way they deem appropriate, should counter the affirmative advocacy. 


Any style is fine as long as positions are explained in an easily understood manner. 


Regardless of position (K’s, T’s, specs, etc.) I like good arguments. I dislike bad 

arguments. If you have a good argument, run it. If you have a bad argument and nothing 

else, run it anyway and hope the other team doesn’t realize how bad it is. In this way 

debate is like a Chinese buffet; try a bit of everything until you find the one that tastes 

like chicken. The easiest way to win my ballot: Don’t Suck. 

167

Stroup, Kristopher 



1 year CEDA, 3 years NPDA, 3 years NFA-LD. 3 years debate coaching in grad school 

(U. of Ohio), now a coach at Truman (3rd year). 



I'll flow. I won't make the naïve claim to be tab, but the debaters determine what makes it 

onto the flow, and it's your job to tell me how the round gets evaluated. Anything else on 

this form is just good-faith disclosure of the position I would take if we were chatting in a 

bar about points of theory. I list it for transparency's sake, but will try to keep it to myself 

and off the ballot unless you put it there. 


: 

If I can't flow you (which means you have to be either wicked unclear or a level of 

blazing fastness heretofore unknown to NPDA), I'll have a lot of trouble making coherent 

sense out of your arguments. 


I tend to think the opp has to either garner a 100% solvency takeout, demonstrate 100% 

status quo solvency/plan adoption, or have offense to win the debate. You pick which of 

those is easier. I rarely find myself voting for completely defensive argumentation. 

Where you stick it on the flow is up to you. 


If that's your thing, roll with it. In the interest of disclosure, I have to admit that I am 

personally a fan of switch-sides debate where you do different stuff every round, and 

tunnel-vision adoption of a single position on both sides every round seems antithetical to 

that. That doesn't mean that I won't vote for it, and I've found myself doing that a lot this 

year. My academic background tends toward the poststructuralist side of life, and I would 

self-identify as a Foucaultian with some tinges of Marx and Deleuze around the edges. 

I'm not sold that kritiks absolutely have to have alternatives all of the time, and floating 

PICs seem a particularly dubious theoretical choice in that department. As with 

everything else, it comes down to what you can defend, though. 

168

Stutzman, Jacob 



I did CX all through high school, four years of parli, little bit of NFA-LD, and I've 

coached parli for a couple of years (though not this one). I'm working on a PhD at Univ. 

of Kansas studying religious and political rhetoric. 



Debaters should ultimately decide the form and substance of the round. This includes 

critical and performative arguments and the application of the trichotomy. Tell me what 

sort of framework you want me to use to evaluate the arguments and then weigh your 

arguments through that framework. Framework debates are not, in and of themselves, 

round-winners but s/he who wins the framework debate obviously has an advantage when 

I turn to write out the ballot. If you don't specify a frame (or weighing mechanism or 

criteria or whatever), then I pick the one that makes my job easiest. Tell me how I should 

understand and evaluate your arguments, however they may be presented. Without an 

articulated explanation of how the argument should be understood and evaluated, I will 

get cranky and unpredictable. 


: 

I vote on arguments and assign speaker ranks/points based on presentation. When poor 

presentation interferes with the effective communication of arguments, those arguments 

generally don't get onto the flow. Unless the tournament specifically prohibits the 

practice, I am willing to give low-point wins, but that does not usually happen. 


Impact your arguments within the round for me. Make an argument, win it, then tell me 

why winning that argument moves you toward winning the round. I vote for the 

arguments that are impacted well, regardless of where they are placed on my flow. 


I'm fine with critical/performance arguments, provided you have a framework that tells 

me how I should evaluate the arguments. 


169

Swan, Andrew 

United States Air Force Academy 


I competed for four years at Willamette University. I wasn’t especially successful. I now 

coach at the United States Air Force Academy. My academic work is in the fields of 

international relations, corporate law, and airline economics. 



I try to be as tabula rasa as possible in evaluating rounds. My default preference is 

policy, but I am sympathetic to trichotomy argumentation. I think that policy action can 

be an effective and sufficient manner by which to argue that a purported fact or value is 

valid. 


: 

Low. Manner and style of presentation does not influence my determination of the 

winner of the round. It does, however, factor into my speaker point calculus. I 

accommodate (within rationality, I suppose) any style of delivery that best allows a 

debater to convey the substance of his or her case. I do not mind if debaters choose to 

debate while seated. Manner of dress doesn’t influence my decisions. Brisk delivery is 

acceptable. 


Not required but often very effective. I think an opp team can win strictly off-case, but 

mitigating/turning on-case material can reduce the burden on the off-case. 


170

I’m open to it. Please note that I sometimes do not understand how to evaluate or 

contextualize performative approaches. This isn’t to say I don’t appreciate the effort; 

rather, I’d encourage those who wish to perform to propose some clear method of 

evaluation. 


On T, I accept either ground or truth-based standards. If an opp team argues the former, I 

prefer to see two things- (1) a clear demonstration of the alleged ground loss and (2) a 

brief argument as to why that ground should have been the opp’s. In other words, it’s not 

enough, in my view to say “We lost x and y positions because of the gov’s nontopicality.” 

I also want to hear “Positions x and y were legitimately ours to begin 

because a and b.” 

I do not require that CPs be non-topical. 

Please contact me if you have any questions about my paradigm. 

andrewswan@yahoo.com 

Swift, Crystal-Lane 

Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge 


Director of Forensics 

Louisiana State University 

I coach NPDA, IPDA, L/D, and IEs/Former Assistant coach for Individual 

Events/occasional parliamentary debate coach at Ball State University. I have judged 

thirty rounds of parliamentary debate and ten rounds of Lincoln-Douglas this year. This 

is my fifth year exclusively judging, and I also judged two years of novice and junior 

171

competition, off and on while I was competing. I competed for five consecutive 

semesters for Palomar Community College and California Baptist University in 

Communication Analysis/Rhetorical Criticism, Dramatic Interpretation, Duo, Impromptu, 

Informative, Parliamentary Debate, POI, Poetry, Prose, and Speech to Entertain/After- 

Dinner Speaking. 



Overview: 

I render decisions about rounds from a tabula rossa perspective. I do not (consciously) 

allow my opinions to influence the round. Complete arguments make it on to my flow. I 

will weigh the round however the debaters instruct me to do so. 

Issues must be weighed, especially in rebuttals. Show how your side is winning and why 

your arguments are better. Although line-by-line is the most important factor, the big 

picture must be addressed as well. Give impacts to your arguments. 

Under view: 

I am fairly conservative, but I do have a heart. Try not to negatively over generalize 

about groups of people. 

I will do my best to make my decision based on the arguments on the flow and I have no 

problem awarding a low-point win. 

I will award speaker points on how pretty you talk and the win based on the 

argumentation on the flow. 

I reserve the right to intervene and trump the flow if you are excessively (and I mean 

EXCESSIVELY) rude. 


: 

Delivery 

Go as fast as you want. I can flow fairly quickly, but be CLEAR. If the other team 

kindly asks you to slow down, please do so. 

I award speaker points based on delivery and the win based on argumentation. If you 

choose to sacrifice your speaker points for the win, or vice versa, that is up to you. 

Please, whatever you do—DO NOT BE RUDE! 


Top of Case/Government Team: 

172

I believe that the government team has free reign to define the resolution. However, the 

link and analysis used to get to the specific definitions is vital. Hence, “canned” cases are 

fine—as long as the government fully justifies, through argumentation how the case fits. 

The Prime Minister constructive must fulfill all stock issues of the given resolution. I 

will vote on resolutionality, but only if the opposition brings up and wins that position. 

Therefore, if the resolution is a value, please do not run a plan, etc. If you aren’t sure if 

you are resolutional or not, spend time on resolutional analysis to prove to me that you 

are. 


Opposition/Government Game Positions: 

I do not particularly like topical counter plans, but I will vote on them if they win the 

round. On counter plans, you must prove to be competitive, mutually exclusive, and 

comparatively advantageous to win. 

Counter warrants are fabulous opposition arguments, and if run properly can win you the 

round easily. Value objections are essential to defeat a government’s value and criterion 

in value rounds. 

I absolutely love meta-debate (debate about debate)! Run topicality, kritiks, off-case 

positions, etc. (when warranted) and you will make me happy! I will vote on T, K, RVIs, 

etc. as long as you show me how it wins the round As an aside, I do not like language 

kritiks, but I will vote on them if you proved compelling enough impact to them. 


Overall, my strength is argumentation and theory; my weakness is current events. I 

prefer not to disclose in round, but would be happy to discuss rounds after my ballot is 

turned in. I see debate as a game, and rhetorical impacts tend to be more persuasive to 

me than "real world" impacts. However, I will do my best to listen to both sides and 

weigh things the way you, the debaters tell me to. Good luck and HAVE FUN! 

173

Taylor, Kevin 

Carroll College 


Name: Kevin Taylor 

Years competing: 2 H.S. 4 College at Carroll College 

Last year competed: 2007 

Years judging:1 

Background of the critic 

Single White Male from the Suburbs of Denver, CO. Currently working as a corporate 

recruiter. Likes, movies, sports, camping, river rafting. Dislikes De-dev, Cap-K, Politics 

DA’s, and Alien-Lizard People from another dimension. No F/C’s. 



I like policy but it’s a debate argue what you will, just make sure I get it. 


: 

If you cannot effectively convey ideas you will fail at life, and lose debates. Speaking 

well in a speech should be a given. That said I will never drop a team that is technically 

winning but sounds bad. The flow is ultimately more important. I will just take away 

speaker points and birthdays, that’s what they are there for. 


Relative to what 

On-case > nonsensical claims of fancy 

On-case < debilitating disadvantages 


If I understand the argument I will write it down on a piece of paper, then I will write 

down any objections to that argument. Then I will look at what I have written down and 

decide if I think the argument makes sense…then I will move on to the next argument. 

Then I will take a nap. 

Debate is fun, let’s do that. If you are not having fun, it shows. 

174

Tiongson, Edwin 

Irvine Valley College 


I'm the Director of Forensics at Irvine Valley College. Although I competed in Parli when 

it was in it's infancy stages (95-97), I have been coaching the event since 1999. I've been 

a part of the coaching staff to see the IVC/SOC Parli Debaters win the community 

college national title at NPDA from 2002-2007. I haven't been to NPDA since it was at 

Oregon State. Lately I've been coaching all forensics events. I'm typically the coach who 

gets debaters started and then I would typically hand them off to Gary Rybold (our main 

debate coach). Regardless, I've judged numrous rounds and I'd consider myself a B/Aparli 

critic. 



I'm more of a stock issues judge. I don't mind the trichotomy arguments. Make them 

compelling and worthy of my attention. I do believe that policy topics should be policy 

rounds. I'm open to making a value round into a policy round as long its justified and 

worthy of my attention. 


: 

I do enjoy communication skills in a round. Don't go so fast so that I can't understand. 

Please take into consideration if I have to work too hard to flow the round, you're going 

to fast. Regardless, humor is a plus and helpful. 


I believe that they should be made. Make sure you don't simply abandon the on-case 

positions and run suicide T. I believe that offensive is important but still poke the holes in 

the GOV's case. 


I'm not a big fan of performance debate. This is only the case because I have yet to see 

one. I'm not so open to it and I'm not sure how I'd react. It's your debate do what you like 

but I'm use to watching a non-performance type of a debate. 


175

Troyer, Ken 

Sterling College 


Competed in policy debate in High School. 4 years of CEDA debate in college. 

High School Policy Debate Coach for 13 years. Parli Coach at collegiate level for 2 

years. 



I consider myself to be tabula rasa, however the limited time afforded in parli often 

precludes teams giving much attention to such a claim. As a result, I have no problem 

going policymaker or stock-issues as suggested by the nature of the round. If no 

argumentation is made as to paradigm, I will default to policy maker. 


: 

So long as speech doens't preclude my ability to flow, I don't generally use 

presentation/communication as a factor in decision making. Not that I mind anyone 

waxing poetic, but it probaly won't play a critical role in the round. 


It's always a nice change of pace to hear some on-case debate. I feel as though to many 

teams forget about the role of mitigation and prefer to focus all energy off case. 

However, that having been said, it'll be tough to pick up a ballot without real off case 

offense. 


176

Not a huge fan of such debates, but that is not to say that I am not open to the style. 

Teams need to be sure to justify their decision and provide ample rationale, rather than 

simply assuming I see its merits. 


I prefer to vote for rather than against. If you run the K, please offer a legitimate 

alternative, perhaps even a counterplan that doesn't bit the K. If you love negation theory 

and riding both sides of the fence, be sure to offer clear reasoning as to why I should 

share your view. 

Tuttle, Matthew 

Carthage College 


High School Policy Coach for 6 years. Taught Public Speaking for 8 years. Parli coach 

for three years. 



tabula rasa, stock-issues, policymaker, flow judge. 


: 

More substance than presentation. 


Off and On are fine, make sure off links well. 


I don't like performative styles. 


177

Vanderpool, Tyler 

Arkansas State University 


Assistant Coach - Arkansas State University 

4 Years NDPA, LD, IPDA, Worlds - Arkansas State University 

High School CX/Miscellaneous judging and volunteering 



I have my own preferences, but I don't let them affect how the debate is supposed to go. I 

feel the flow is the most objective format for which to determine the round. 


: 

Outside of clarity and word economy, it's not that important. I only ask that you don't 

repeat yourself. I'm not going to flow things twice. 


Given the parameters of the round, I generally weight it how you ask me to weigh it. It's 

nice to see some on-case argumentation, but it's not required. Remember to go the extra 

distance and impact out your offense. 


I will listen to anything as long as a clear framework is presented. I don't want to have to 

weigh it against other arguments in the round unless you do the work for me. I want to 

know how your advocacy affects both my ballot and the other debaters (which is 

generally covered in the link story) and how it functions in the round in terms of impact 

calculus. 


178

I don't care how fast you go as long as you are clear and sign post. 

I don't care what arguments you run as long as you tell me how they compete in the 

round. I don't want to weigh procedurals vs. k's without you telling me how to weigh 

them. This is also relevant to multiple procedural arguments and theory. 

I want impacts either qualified or quantified. I should not have to articulate in my head 

that nuclear war is greater than dehumanization or that dehumanization is a 

gateway/internal link to greater harms. 

Please feel free to ask me any other questions at the tournament. 

Veden, Mary Lynn 

University of Washington 


Years competed—10 

Years coached—9 

Experience: 

Coaching NPDA and IE’s at Lewis & Clark for six years. In first year of Ph.D. in 

Communication at University of Washington, where I’ve coached for four years. 



So, with that…It is your round, and your education at stake. My job is to evaluate and 

offer insight on the round that took place. I appreciate smart strategic thinking more than 

the careless application of tactics that may contradict one another. Weigh things, don’t 

just give me exploded impacts at the end of the round; make a persuasive comparison 

within a clearly established framework, (how and why I should make those comparisons.) 

If the framework is contested, that’s fine too. (Which means yes, I am OK with 

procedurals and specification, as long as they are warranted and well-argued.) 

179

Generally I am fine with all kinds of positions, but have a higher threshold for some 

arguments than others. Certain positions will require more work than others (reverse 

voters on T and PICs are two examples that come to my mind) in order for me to vote for 

them. This doesn’t mean I won’t listen, (and haven’t voted on them in the past) just that 

you need to do the work to convince me. I’m very happy to listen to critical positions and 

the pushing of boundaries within debate, but be prepared to accept the consequences of a 

pre-fiat advocacy. (In other words, if you claim the rules of the game should be subverted 

primarily to win it, prepare to defend that choice.) I like positions to have good clear 

links—I would rather be persuaded by a probable argument than be overwhelmed by 

magnitude but when that’s the way the round goes, (ie if the impact isn’t answered) so go 

I. 

Other than that, I’m pretty open. I’m pretty convinced as a student of rhetoric that the 

distinctions between different debate formats are artificial; good argument is good 

argument. (My reaction has ranged from amused to exasperated to the attempts of many 

to normatively police the activity through the formation of “gated communities”, 

capricious assertions of what makes a “good” “public” “speaker” and what constitutes 

“jargon”.) I’ve never judged a parli round I couldn’t flow, (and I write a lot of stuff 

down) but I have seen people spread their own partners out of the round as well as 

attempt to be speedy but only succeed in speaking faster than they themselves could 

think. Claims need to have warrants, especially in evidence-free debate, and many 

speakers who fancy themselves “fast” are often forgoing warrants and creating 

subterfuge. This year in particular I have occasionally had some difficulty keeping up 

with certain teams—I can write everything down, and you may even be warranting your 

arguments well, but I’m left with a flow that feels flat in terms of analysis—aka I didn’t 

have time to really think about your arguments as I was writing them down, (and I can’t 

call for cards to fill things in at the end, nor can I just assume that we’re all on the same 

page) and as such I don’t know how much of a service I can provide in those situations. I 

will tell you to slow down if that starts happening—kindly humor me. I also like it when 

people speak well and clearly, but if you aren’t making substantive well-structured 

arguments, a emphatic delivery isn’t going to help you. And have fun. Make the round 

interesting--you only stand to keep me awake and enlivened—that can only be a good 

thing. 


: 




180

Vemuru, Vamsi 

NPDA Hired Judges 


Debated for four years for Texas Tech (2003-2007) 



I feel that the debaters should tell me how i should evaluate the round. In the event that 

they fail to do so, I will vote based on magnitude, probablity, timeframe, etc. of impacts 

discussed by either side. 


: 

I have no preferences regarding presentation. Dress how you want, speak where you 

want(or as fast as you want). Just make sure that I can understand you; otherwise ,there 

will be dashes on my flow where your arguments should be going. 


This is of no genuine importance to me. I believe that debaters should be able to decide 

what and how they want to debate. 


I prefer non-traditional styles of debate, mainly because i find them easier to evaluate. 

This doesn't mean that anyone is forced to run critical arguments in front of me or that 

they will be penalized for not doing so. Run what you want; just be aware i am a better 

critic when faced with critical arguments. 


181

Vertican, Griffith 

Concordia University, Irvine 


- 2007 NPDA National Champion 

- 2x Captain of PLNU Debate Team 

- Head Coach of Apollos High School Policy Club 

- Assistant Head Coach of Concordia University 



For the most part I'm really open to all sorts of arguments this includes: Conservative 

Arguments, Hedge, Politics, Kritiques, and PIC Counter Plans. Feel free to run anything 

in front of me as long as it is clear and well warranted. For example I’m entirely open for 

the negative team to run a topical counter plan, but I’m also open for the affirmative to 

argue that topical counter plans are illegitimate. Just be prepared to defend or attack the 

theory. 

Politics & T - I like well run politics that have a clear brink/uniqueness story. I prefer the 

net benefits debate, but I’ll vote on procedures. Topicality debate should center on 

reasons to prefer your interpretation, thus impact your standards. Articulating ground loss 

can increase the likelihood of winning the procedure debate. 

Personal Bias - I don’t know if anyone is truly tabula rasa, but I do strive to not inject my 

own view points. However, know that I find morally repugnant arguments less 

persuasive. I believe my job is to evaluate the merits of the arguments not insert my 

personal bias. This means for example, that I’m not only open to the Cap Bad K, but also 

open to arguments why Capitalism is Good. Just provide good warrants, impacts and 

frame work. 

Speed - As anyone who watched my semis round last year can tell you… I don’t prefer 

the super fast rounds. However the vast majority of my decisions are made strictly on the 

flow. I do think super speed takes away from the communication aspect of this activity 

and thus may harm your speaker points. 

Net benefits is my default criteria unless I’m told otherwise. 


: 

182

Communication skills can influence your speaker points, but will not likely decide the 

outcome of the round. I tend to first vote on the flow. Appropriate humor is always a 

plus. Don't be rude to your opponents it makes you look bad and will potentially harm 

your speaker points 


More important for net benefits debate. Less important for Kritique and Procedure dbate. 


I'm open to it just provide solid frame work, warrants and impacts 


Much of my life during college and since has revolved around teaching Parli debate, 

learning advance theories and attending debate camps. I have invested a good chunk of 

time into this activity and its probably the reason I'm still single ^_^ 

That's all to say that I love debate and I enjoy its educational aspect, so debates that have 

substance, clash and are educational are always preferred. 

Vradenburgh, Holly 

Patrick Henry College 


I majored in history and spent two years on the PHC moot court team. I am from 

Knoxville, Tennessee and have watched many parli rounds, although I have never been a 

competitor. 



I am a tabula rasa judge; willing to listen to any argument that is well-articulated and 

compelling. 


: 

183

Very important. Words are meaningless to me if I do not have the time to comprehend 

them or if they are not presented in an understandable way. 


Very important. I think the education value of debate is found in engaging the topic 

presented. 


I do not appreciate any deviation from classic debate style. 


I appreciate debaters who are thorough and demonstrate knowledge of technicalities, but 

who also do not ignore the style and ethos of effective communication. 

Wallace, Eric 

Concordia University 


3 years in high school policy, 4 years in NPDA competition, first year coaching 

BA in psychology, current Master's student in English 



I look at the link stories that stick together through the round (competing systems) and 

then impact-weighing. I usually take the line-by-line and consider whether the argument 

makes a difference in the larger picture/"worldview" of the round. If you do that work 

for me, that's a great rebuttal speech. 

184

If a team wants me to adopt a particular decision-making method, I'll go with it as long as 

I know (1) why I should adopt the method and (2) how the method functions, especially 

in relation to the ballot and the ground for the other team. In general, I'll go with 

whatever you want to do as long as I know (1) why you're doing whatever you're doing, 

(2) why I should care about your argument, and (3) where you want me to flow whatever 

you're saying. 


: 

In my mind, argumentation is primary and the presentation skills should only be used to 

support the argumentation. For example, sometimes you have to speed to get the 

necessary, effective arguments into the round. That's cool. However, if you think 

"speed" just means lots of wheezing and yelling, that's not a presentation that helps your 

argument. However, the higher speaker points are not necessarily tied to the winning 

team so bad presentation does not mean you lose the round. 


Unless Opp delivers a specific reason for doing so, ignoring case altogether annoys me. 

Run whatever off-case you want and I understand the strategies there, but I do like to see 

some kind of argument interaction on-case. Even just 1 minute on-case is fine. 


My experience with critical/performative styles is very limited but I don't have a problem 

with it. In the rounds I've judged, teams using those argument styles seem to forget that I 

still have to deliver a completed ballot to the ballot table. In those rounds, the team 

utilizing the style needs to be very clear on what their framework says about the ballot, 

what it means, and how I should fill it out. 


185

Walts, Chuck 

William Jewell College 


I am a policy judge. I like policy. Policy is better than fact or value. Every resolution is 

policy. I debated and coached CEDA/NDT for years so I like policy. 



I defualt to net benefits. 


: 

If I can't understand you I can't flow you. 


Offense wins debates. 


Critical/performative styles of debate went out with grunge in the early 90's. 


Do not thank me for judging the round, I have to be here. If you must call me Mr. 

Adjudicator, it is actually Dr. 

186

Weaver, Scott 



4 years high school policy, 4 years NPDA at Colorado College, 2 years coaching, 

currently Director of Forensics at Colorado College 



I view debate as a strategic game that rewards critical thinking, research, and practice. 

I’m most comfortable evaluating policy debates and voting “on the flow.” I’m open to an 

alternative framework so long as there is a clear and explicit criterion. I’m not convinced 

one exists for “fact” and “value” cases. I self-identify as tabula rasa but am probably 

closer to policymaker for the purposes of most in the community. 


: 

I evaluate the arguments in the round. Presentation and communication skills are only 

important in that they make it easier to flow you. I think speed is a part of the game and 

am unlikely to vote on "speed bad." 


I really enjoy a good case debate as part of a cohesive negative strategy. Case debate 

alone will not win you the round unless there are turns that function as offense. You don't 

need to argue the case to win my ballot and often case debate is unnecessary due to a 

counterplan. 


I will vote for kritiks but my threshold is pretty high. Put differently, my idea of 

“winning” a kritik debate and yours may be very different. Your time will be better spent 

with procedurals and case versus status quo or a counterplan. I reward teams that debate 

the case, when it is appropriate to do so. 


187

I prefer depth over breadth of argumentation. I have grown weary of unwarranted, unevidenced 

claims. The “capitalism is evil, the state is evil, DUH!” lines of argumentation 

that often turn up in kritik debates are a key offender. I may agree with your argument, 

but making sweeping generalizations and claims popular with many in the community 

doesn’t relieve you of the burden of proof. 

I prefer that questions of theory be resolved during the round. My default is to view 

procedurals as questions of competing interpretations. Demonstrating in-round abuse will 

often lower my threshold for voting on a procedural/theoretical objection but isn’t 

necessary to win my ballot. My personal views on theory tend to be “liberal,” meaning 

permissive. If you think something is unfair, point it out and explain why I should 

consider it in my decision. If you don’t, chances are high that I’ll let it slide. 

Rebuttals should weigh competing arguments/positions and then impact them to the 

ballot. Put differently, I want you to tell me why you’re winning a specific portion of the 

flow and why controlling that portion of the flow wins you the debate. As a corollary, I 

greatly appreciate strategic issue selection. You don’t need to win every argument; you 

need to win a combination of arguments that make a persuasive case for your side. Put 

differently, don’t go for everything. Take a few risks, have the discipline to jettison the 

positions you don’t need, and then go for broke. 

I don’t listen to new arguments in rebuttals, but call points of order to be on the safe side. 

Have fun, learn something, and don’t prevent others from doing the same. 

West, Tim 

Hired 


Debated for four years for Texas Tech 2003-2007; volunteer coach with Texas Tech 



I believe that debate is a game played by the debaters. My default role as a critic will be 

to evaluate all argumentation that the debaters put on my flow unless I am instructed to 

do otherwise. I strive to be as tabula rosa as I possibly can. 


: 

188

I personally do not care about the rate of delivery but if it becomes an issue, my flow will 

become will determine how fast or slow the round should be unless told otherwise. 


I really have no opinion on whether debaters go "on case" or "off case" but I think there 

is a difference between offensive and defensive argumentation--go for impacts. 


I am open to any style of debate; performance, suicide procedural, disad/cp, and critical 

debates are all fine to me. 


Have fun and do whatever you want to; it is your round. 

Whalen, Kristina 

City College of San Francisco 


I am a well established coach/judge/director in the policy debate community. I have been 

coaching parliamentary debate for two years. I consider myself a "critic of argument. 




: 




189

Whearty, Brandan 

Palomar College 


I competed in Parli for 3 years at NAU, did my graduate work under Matt Taylor at 

CSULB, and have coached for Palomar College for 4 years. 



I tend to view debate as a negotiation between the government and opposition over what 

will happen during the 45 minutes of engagement. This means that whatever parameters 

both teams agree on are ok. I will listen to fast technical debate, slow rhetorical debate, 

and alternate forms such as performance with equal interest. I will listen to Topicality, 

C/Kritiks, Vagueness, Value Objections, Resolutionality, etc. Remember that just 

because it’s a procedural issue it doesn’t mean tags will suffice. Asking me to drop a 

team on procedural violation requires a warrant or two. I will also listen to Reverse 

Voters if they’re warranted, so be careful with bad T and K that you link to. ;-) 


: 

Though I consider myself a flow critic, I am becoming increasingly frustrated by laundry 

lists of taglines filling in for substantial, warranted analysis. To put that another way, I 

won't intervene to make your blips mean something, and if you can't keep track of your 

own answers, don't expect me to. I think that the words, “because” and “for example” are 

important, and you should probably use them a lot. If you outspread me or lose me on the 

flow, I’ll let you know. FYI, I have repetitive stress injuries to my hands which make 

prolonged, high speed flowing painful. 


While I certainly require the negative to cover case, I think a smart affirmative should use 

those concessions count. 


A quick way to get on my bad side is to disrespect other events in our activity. “This isn’t 

CEDA, so you’re bad” isn’t an argument that makes any sense to me, especially since as 

communication professionals, you’re supposed to know better. I would never dream of 

190

disrespecting a colleague’s life work, and I expect the same of you. This is especially 

irritating since the style that many assume defines CEDA refers to a small subset of 

possible strategies. I coached at CSULB while their policy team broke at the NDT 

running hip hop performance, if that helps. 


I collect ACTUAL TURNS. People use the word ‘turn’ a lot in parliamentary debate. 

This confuses me, because it is usually followed by an argument like, “They don’t solve 

enough”, “other bad things will still happen”, or “is not.” If you make an actual turn, I 

will probably pound happily on the table to let you know. On points of order, I will not 

intervene to discard new arguments unless you tell me to. That means if one team allows 

the other to commit highway robbery with a Mighty-Morphin’ Power Disad which 

suddenly sprouts Kritiky real world impacts in the LOR, I will not discard it unless Gov 

tells me to do so. If both teams want me to intervene and throw out arguments I see as 

new, mention it in the round and I will defer to your collective judgment. I appreciate 

lighthearted jabs, and heckling is fine as long as it is funny rather than rude. If you have 

ever wanted to run an extreme or bizarre advocacy, I may be your best chance to pick up 

on it. Enjoy yourselves, be nice, and speaks will be high. Critics of 

Whearty, Marquesa 

University of California, San Diego 


My background. I have done 2 years community college debate for Palomar and debated 

11/2 years debate at UCSD. My partner Zachary Schultz and I had a good run and 

qualified for NPTE last year and had a respectable showing at NPDA as well. I ran the 

team as well as debated. In my “other life” I train horses and have worked at both large 

and small animal veterinary clinics. 



Without instruction from you I default to a net benefits, policymaker paradigm. I am fine 

not doing this but you need to tell me if you want me to do something else. 


: 

191

This is your platform do as you wish. 


I am not particular about arguing on case or off case. I will listen to argument regarding 

why both or neither are important. 


I am open to any and all forms of debate. 


Here are some of my likes and dislikes: 

• I don’t like rudeness. I appreciate sarcasm and mocking as much as the next gal 

however I don’t like it when people are mean just for the sake of being mean. 

• I don’t like warrant-less arguments. While I realize back filling warrants has become 

the norm in many debates doing this in excess is abusive and I will give the other team 

leeway for abuse arguments. 

• I like examples and feel they are necessary to good debate rounds. 

• I am fine with speed however spreading out a team of less experience than you just to 

be mean is not cool and I will give leeway to abuse arguments. 

• I am fine with procedurals but please tell me how they function and why they are 

better than your opponents arguments. 

• I hate liars. Please don’t be one. 

• I like interesting stuff. If you have something wanky/crazy you want to run I am a 

great critic to do that in front of. 

• I should probably add, I am a critic that gives a lot of facial expressions. Generally 

you can tell by my nonverbals what I am feeling. That means pay attention to me. If I am 

shuffling my papers back and forth and it looks like I am searching for where you are on 

the flow I probably am, so help me out and tell me where you are. If I look confused, I 

probably am, so try telling me your argument in another way or giving an example to 

prove your point. 

• Finally I believe debate is about advocacy. That is why I love it so much. So please 

tell me something real, don’t be a jerk and have fun. As long as we do that everything 

will be fine. 

• Also, if you want to know how I judge ask any Southern California debater. I have 

been judging quite a bit this year and they can give you good advice. 

192

Whitsitt, Travis 



I did 4 years of parli at Colorado College, 3 years under Bonnie Stapleton and my senior 

year under Chris Shaw. 



I view debate as a competitive game, nothing more. The game does have certain rules, 

but I will listen to arguments about why those rules are illegitimate if you care to present 

them. I will vote on anything as long as you give me clear reasons why I should. 

I hate to say I have zero tolerance for anything, but I will have a lot of trouble evaluating 

a fact debate. Unless you can provide me with a coherent framework for evaluating such 

a debate, I think fact debates default to counting examples or warrants, which is not a 

productive use of anyone's time. However, if you think you have the fact framework that 

is objective and usable, then feel free. 


: 

I try to stick to the flow. If someone tells me the sky is green, I treat it as gospel until you 

tell me something else. I think I'm pretty good, but I'll yell "clear" if I can't understand 

you. 


For the love, though, weigh impacts. Really. Please. Otherwise, I do it for you, and 

someone gets very angry that I didn't do it their way. 

Have fun, be rude or cordial, I don't care. Just win and be smart. 


My conservative politics will not play into my evaluation of your arguments, so run 

whatever you like. I will be pleased if you bother to warrant leftist arguments rather than 

assuming their intuitive truth like you can with many judges, but I won't punish you for 

not doing so (unless, of course, your lack of warrants allows the other team to beat your 

arguments). 


193

On procedurals, I don't tend to buy potential abuse, but that doesn't necessarily mean you 

shouldn't run it, just that you'd better be able to defend it. I have a lot of trouble voting for 

criticisms without alternatives, but I will listen to reasons why I should. 

Wilson, Andrew 

Lewis & Clark College 

Parli Rounds judged this year: '80+' 



School debated at: 'Lewis and Clark College’ 

Case Arguments: I like well structures advantages with clear links and well articulated 

Impacts. I am not a fan of Fact/Value cases, however I am willing to listen to whatever 

you tell me. If you do run a plan, make sure to provide a clear plan text, solvency points, 

and how you would like me to weigh the round. I appreciate clever cases as long as it is 

arguably topical. 

Disadvantage Arguments: I need clear link stories that are specific to the Gov plan. 

Please give me warrants, facts, and a scenario for your position. I like very indepth and 

specific scenarios as they make it easier for me to get to your inpacts. Impacts need to be 

more than blips or reversal of harms. Give me Timeframe, magnitude, and propensity 

arguments to make my decision easier. Of course, I really need D/A’s to stay consistent 

throughout the round. If the position shifts or new links are explicated in later speaches, I 

am more likely to give the PMR some slack. 

Counterplan Arguments I believe these to be the best opp strategy if at all possible. 

Make sure to provide me with well-warranted theory arguments out of the LOC shell to 

ensure clarity during the round. I love listening to good PERM debates so gov teams 

need not worry too much. I have no bias towards conditionality and I am willing to listen 

to any sort of counter plan theory for either side. 

Kritik Arguments: I considered myself to be a D/A, Counter plan, Topicality debater 

when I debated, however I love to listen to Kritiks. I am looking for two things, 

however. First, a K cannot just be a really non-unique D/A. You impacts must in some 

way relate to the Government team case specifically. You should do this anyway if you 

are running K’s, don’t just make them Generic. Second, I sometimes get confused on K 

debates, especially positions I have not heard before. Be very careful to be clear and 

comprehendible, especially when shelling out the K in the LOC. 

Any pre-fiat debates: You must tell me how these arguments function within the 

debate round. Do more than just say pre-fiat comes first. I need impacts and warrants in 

order to evaluate pre-fiat arguments within the scope of the round. 

194

T and Theory Arguments: I would say my threshold for voting on T is very high, 

however I like T debates so don’t hesitate to try if you want to, just make sure you win 

your standards or I wont vote on T. I really like abuse arguments and am most likely to 

vote for T on abuse, however I will listen to any voter presented. 

Speed: I have on occasion been spread out of rounds (Texas Tech will verify this). 

Please don’t go as fast as you can, but don’t be afraid of speaking swiftly. If you go to 

fast I will yell “clear,” but rarely will it effect your speaker points or my impression of 

the team in the round. 

Presentation Preferences: I put very little emphasis behind the traditional quirks of our 

activity. Dress, speed, thank you’s, etc make no difference to me. Have fun and please 

don’t get angry at each other, were all here to compete, not to fight. 

Wonnacott, Mark 



I did Illinois policy for 4 years in highschool, between 1999 and 2003. To date myself, I 

was involved with the kritik before the popularization of the framework debate. I then did 

parlimentary debate for McKendree College between 2003 and 2007. I also did LD 

debate between 2004 and 2007. I am now an assistant coach at McKendree University. 



This is a really open-ended area. I have no idea what to write about and so am basically 

going to ramble. Because of the diversity of styles at the NPDA, I feel it is important to 

say that I want to adjudicate the kind of round you want to have. I do see value in the 

rhetorical 'persuade-offs', but, to be honest, i do not feel very comfortable adjudicating 

them. If there is a difference of opinion about what kind of round the debaters feel they 

should be having, that discussion should be made transparent. More concretely, I see 

debate as a game of competing advocacies, and my ballot endorses the better advocacy. 

What constitutes an advocacy, much less a better advocacy, is something the debaters 

must discuss, unless they want my view that an advocacy is a course of action some actor 

should take, and better means least disadvantageous. I tend to view ground as the 

195

terminal impact to procedural arguments, and generally need a reason why a given 

practice damages ground to reject it. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on counterplan 

theory, and am willing to vote on T absent abuse if it is presented well and defended as a 

matter of jurisdiction rather than ground. I find fact debates tedious and value debates 

murky, but am willing to listen to them, because I am an awesome servent of the activity. 


: 

I have no idea what good 'presentation/communication skills' are and even less idea how 

they ought to factor into my decision. I guess if I can't understand you, I will give you a 

verbal prompt of some kind, and that if I can't understand you, it becomes difficult to 

determine how your arguments interact with your opponents'. I also think if you are 

trying to be funny and are not, it's just awkward and I am likely to punish you in speaks 

for that. If you are being mean or rude, please do so under the pretense of being funny, or 

else it is also awkward for me, and I will punish you in speaks for that. Other than those 

areas, I tend to be a bit of a points fairy. You will have to work very hard to get less than 

a 25 from me, and I usually give out one or two 30's in a 5-round tournament. I tend to 

use speaks to reward creative, courageous, or otherwise interesting strategic decisions or 

very skillful/knowledgeable argumentative handiwork. I guess this would also go here, 

but please be prepared to defend all your rhetorical choices. If you call a group of people 

by some sort of slur or use otherwise violent language as a means of humor, be prepared 

to defend that as humorous or otherwise valuable. 


Relative importance of on-case argumentation to what I think on-case argumentation is 

more important than sunshine but less important than chocolate milk The successful 

employment of on-case argumentation can be tremendously important in some rounds, 

less so in others. Debaters conceed arguments all the time to gain strategic advantage. If 

you think it's strategicly beneficial to conceed the case, do it. If the other team can 

leverage the case against your arguments in a meaningful way, then you probably made 

the wrong strategic decision. 


As I said before, I view debate as a game of competing advocacies. An advocacy 

generally takes the form of Actor X ought to undertake Action Y. Actor X can be 

anything until the other team tells me why it can't. So long as you have a textual 

advocacy like that, I am perfectly comfortable adjudicating your debate. If there is 

something else you plan to do, I would ask that the other team have the choice of 

engaging your argument or engaging your framework, and that you specifically explain 

196

the significance of the ballot so that I know what I am doing by voting for you. If I don't 

know, I'm unlikely to do so. 


Woods, Steve 



Debated policy at Kansas State University, Coached at KSU, Florida State, Vermont, 

Willima Jewell, and currently director at WWU. Have been exclusively parli for 3 years. 



I tend to use the flow as a template for the round. I tend to default to policy making 

paradigm, though open to other ways of seeing the round and criteria if clearly explained 

and fit to the context of the round/resolution. 


: 

Good humor, being pleasant and positive interaction with the others in the room will be 

rewarded. Content is more important than style, but both in combination are appreciated. 


"defensive" arguments can be valuable for both prop and opp. A poor case does not take 

much off case to off set, or even any if internally incoherent. While not exactly 

"presumption", the prop does have a huge advantage, they should probably win the 

debate for me to vote for them. Conversely generic and non-linked opp arguments will 

not go far. Read that last statement as specifc to "spec" and other procedurals if you like. 


Has to link and be thoughtful. Generic arguments won't be rewarded. Arguments I have 

seen you run several times this season will be weighed less heavily. 


197

Worth, David 

Rice Univ. 


Judging and coaching since 1993. 

Parli Policy background. 



My decision is based mostly on how the debaters argue I should decide; I avoid using my 

own decision-making philosophy as much as possible but will 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 you are 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’ll judge based on given criteria. This might include a stock issues approach, a 

comparison approach, a "proof of the res/case" approach, or an advocacy approach. I 

can think in more than one way. This also means that the mechanisms for deciding the 

round are up for debate as far as I m concerned. 


: 

Speed: OK as long as you are clear. --Use of gender-culture-orientation neutral or 

promotion language: I d rather see you try to be inclusive than not. 


The argument’s weight depends on how strong it is. I think line-by-line vs. "big picture" 

is an artificial divide anyway. This can vary by round. I would say 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. 


Fine with me. 

Don't lie. 

198

Wyman, Jim 

Moorpark College 


I have been involved in debate for over 46 years. I debated for 4 years in High School 

and 4 years on the National Debate Circuit. I have coached and judged for the last 36 

years. Until 11 years ago I coached only in traditional, policy debate. I taught for the first 

13 years at the Arizona Debate Institute. 11 years ago I discovered Parliamentary Debate 

and it rejuvenated me as a Coach. 



I don’t like speed debate; and I want real world arguments. I do not intervene, but I will 

weigh the credibility of arguments: thus, if an argument is not responded to, but it has no 

credibility or weight, I will ignore it. I won’t issue Points of Order sua sponte (the same 

is true of introducing my own arguments for a decision). I believe there are three types 

of resolutions. I have always described my paradigm as using a judicial model (I am a 

non-practicing attorney). 


: 

As long as I can understand what is being said, the presentation and communication skills 

would be reflected in speaker points rather than in the decision-making process. 


While I would vote on off-case arguments if they overwhelm the government case, I 

prefer clash and the willingness of the opposition to engage the government on their 

ground. To an extent I prefer the stock issues as the focus. 


· I will listen to any arguments that are legitimately presented. In other words, I will 

listen to topicality/resolutionality; and I do believe it is a voting issue. I don’t really like 

Kritiks (or however it is spelled), but I will listen to the argument 

· I like well structured arguments 

199

· I believe there are three types of resolutions (fact, value, and Policy) 

· On Points of Order: I consider not only its legitimacy, but also your judgment in 

raising it. 

· I like humor and tenacity; but I don’t like condescension and being obnoxious 

· Go ahead and tell me what you think are the voting issues - let’s see if we agree 


200

here - College of Arts & Sciences - Bethel University

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?