Jamie Cheek 
Weber State 

Updated for 2015-2016

I have been involved with college policy debate for over 10+ years. This is my fifth year coaching at Weber State University.

General Issues: 

1. Impact assessment and comparative analysis of the debate are necessary. I will rarely call for evidence.
2. I think one smart analytical argument can take out several warrantless cards. Also, I am not as involved with the research-side of things anymore, so extra clarification about topic-specific things might be helpful. 
3.I like to keep track of prep time, and I will get cranky about prep stealing. 
4. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing at the first beep.

Specifics: 
Theory – I have few biases about theory. I think all theory is debatable, except probably dispo bad; I will vote every time that dispo is not bad by itself. I’d prefer if you’d just say it’s conditional. If you want to go all in on a theory argument there are a couple things you need to have: 1) a link 2) an impact 3) a justification that is both a reason why you should win but also a reason why what they did is enough to cost them the round. Also, Ben Warner once told me, “Everytime I see someone go all in on theory because they think they have to, they usually didn’t.” So keep that in mind, I think it is sound advice. I also think the phrase "Status quo is always an option" doesn't actually mean anything, just saying conditional. 

Topicality – Everyone always says they love a good T debate; I also fall into that category. I will tell you my default is competing interpretations. The hardest part about T debates is that teams are unwilling to impact their interpretation. This makes it very hard to evaluate, and forces me do that work for them, which I don’t like to do. 

Framework – My whole debate career I was definitely on the side of "Policy Debate Good." However, I am willing, and have voted for, other types of frameworks. I think the most important part of this debate is that there needs to be an interpretation, but also an impact. Not just link arguments or “fairness important,” but what your framework means for my ballot. I think framework debates often boil down to a card war with no analysis as to how I’m supposed to evaluate the round based on the framework that “wins”. Make your framework offense to help you win the round. 

K’s – Here is an area that I am very unfamiliar with. I’m not saying “don’t read the K in front of me.” I’m more saying “I probably don’t know exactly what X author says.” I understand a lot of the strategy involved with this type of debate, it is the more specific nuances that I am probably the weakest at. For example, any high theory K's are going to be a struggle for me, especially if it has complicated terminology that is specific to the lit base. Also, you can read whatever aff you want in front of me, as long as you have a reason to vote affirmative. Talking about the topic is nice, but not required. I also think that impact turns to FW are a reason to vote affirmative.

CP’s – You got them, read them. I think cp’s that result in the plan no matter what are abusive. I think tricky cp’s shouldn’t be too tricky that I don’t get it. I also think at some point during the debate their needs to a be a moment where there is a clear explanation of the CP and how it solves the aff and why it is competitive. Also, for me to revert to the world of the SQ in an instance where the aff wins a permutation, this needs to be clearly set up and articulated by the 2NR.

DA’s – I think there should be more disads in debate. However, as much as I read politix in college, you should not be fooled. I will not be up on the newest scenario, so maybe a little overview in the 2nc would be nice. I also think the impact turn is a bit of a lost art, aff’s should do this more often to disads.

Ryan Cheek

Assistant Director of Forensics

Weber State University

***Updated for Wake 2015***

This is my 12th year in college debate. I would like to be included on your email chain (ryancheek@weber.edu). For me, debate is the intersection of community, paraprofessional training, and gaming. I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. I will do my best to adapt to you. That being said, after eight years of judging, I’ve come to realize some of my own quirks and limitations more fully:

1. Clarity of thought is paramount. I often find myself voting for teams that can make complex arguments sound like common sense.
2. I can sometimes be facially expressive and I don’t think my expressions are counter-intuitive. If I give you a confused look, then I’m probably confused. If I give you a skeptical look, then I’m probably skeptical of what you are saying.
3. Debaters that can maintain eye contact and deliver a compelling speech are very impressive to me.
4. On occasion, and particularly in debates with a lot of perms, I will correct you in cross-ex in regards to what the perm texts I recorded you saying are.
5. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.
6. If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it.
7. I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
8. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.
9. Well explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot, but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
10. Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
11. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
12. I’m not a fan of two-person speaking. This comes in many forms. Debaters talking over each other in CX, partners prompting each other through extended monologue, performative elements that make it difficult to tell who is giving what speech, teams prepping very loudly with side commentary while the other team’s speech is going on, etc.  Please, one person at a time.
13. I like to keep time. When your timer and my timer are in conflict, mine trumps.
14. Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and jump/email the 1AC before the round start time.
15. I don’t want to adjudicate ethical challenges. If I have to do so, then be aware that presumption is on the side of the accused.

Finally, I love debate and the community that it generates. Competition is fun, but is ultimately secondary to the communal nature of what we do. I don’t treat my job as a coach/critic much differently than I do my job as a teaching faculty member. In both spaces, pedagogy is my primary responsibility and I promise to do my best to live up to being the educator you deserve. 

Glen Frappier

Gonzaga University

Years Judging College: 24

Updated for 23-24

Rounds Judged on Nukes Topic: ZERO. FREE STRIKE!

If there is an email chain going around with the speech docs please include me. gfrappier@gmail.com.

I appreciate smart, quick and clear debate. If you’re unclear I will let you know once or twice but after that it’s on you.

I prefer argument characterized by depth and substance and generally despise when a laundry list of unwarranted claims is passed off as good argument. The best debates seem to be those where the debaters are doing a lot of comparison of the arguments and evidence. I always thought Ross Smith's lecture on "Extending An Argument" did an excellent job of capturing the essence of the depth I appreciate. If you haven't seen it, you really should google it.

Speaker Points. I find I award speaker points based on the 3 broad categories or content, organization, and delivery. A smart, quick, articulate debater who reads good evidence, makes well reasoned arguments, and effectively manages the flow can expect good points. Flashes of brilliance and displays of exceptional debating are always rewarded. Poor debating, bad evidence, being mean, poor decision-making will all hurt your points. The scale has clear trended up over the last few years and I intend to adapt to those broader trends.

Evidence. This is the lifeblood of a persuasive argument. We all interpret evidence differently so if yours is open to multiple interpretation tell me what your reading of it is and why thats the preferable interpretation. It should be qualified. Evidence from experts in a field with a lifetime of experience thinking, researching, writing and publishing on topic is more persuasive than a blogger with no credentials, or an undergrad working on their degree.

The affirmative should advocate for a topical example of the resolution. I’m open to different interpretations of how plans/advocacy should function, but I tend to believe that a community agreed upon controversy/topic serves as a valuable point of stasis.

Cross Examination is binding. I do my best to pay attention and flow CX. Great CXs payoff in points (and sometimes wins).

Counterplans. There are those I find more of a stretch than others theoretically, but generally tend to err neg on most theory questions.

Critiques. Sure, why not. If you have a link to the aff and an impact then it sounds like you have an argument and i'll listen to it. Still, i don't read much K lit these days and probably will not be familiar with the literature you're relying on for your argument. In those cases its in your interest to slow down and explain.

Note: Philip Johnson-Freyd's philosophy is here. 

Will Gent

Debate Coach, Puget Sound

Background:2 years of college policy debate and 1 year of parli debate at Puget Sound. 4 years of HS policy debate in Oregon. Majored in International Relations.

This is by no means comprehensive. I’ll update as the year goes on and make it more topic-specific. Any questions, just ask.

General: Chances are you’ll be much better off going for what you’re good at in front of me than adapting to whatever it is you think my notion of debate is. Some big picture stuff:

-          Impact comparison. At the end of the day, you need to be telling me what offense you’re winning and why it’s important. Do this through detailed impact comparison and analysis.

-          Arguments must have a claim, a warrant, and an impact.

-          I have high evidence-quality expectations.

-          I’ll try to be expressive while judging. If I can’t understand you, I’ll yell clear a couple of times. The onus, however, is on you; if it looks like I’m not actively flowing, you should increase your clarity.

K’s: Critiques are strategic options and I prefer that they be as topic-specific as possible. While I enjoy the k, you should know that I have a relatively limited exposure to critical literature; if you presume that I’ve read and put a significant amount of thought into your particular critique, we’ll both likely end up feeling disappointed at the end of the debate. For me, the most compelling critiques are those that are accompanied by a wealth of examples and nuanced explanation – I may not have read your author, but if you give me something to latch onto, we’ll both be better off.

Counterplans and Disads: Yes, please. Well-executed, specific CP-DA strategies are an integral part of negative strategy, especially as the year goes on. In particular, I enjoy the politics disad and anything related to IR.

Theory:

-          Slow down.

-           I err neg on almost all theory issues and presume that theory is a reason to reject the argument (exceptions discussed below). This is not to say that I will refuse to vote aff on theory; if condo is your most strategic 2AR option, it would be a fool’s errand to go for anything else. Just know that it might be an uphill battle.

-          Counterplans should be written in a textually-competitive manner. Delay, Consult etc. are likely illegitimate, but you will still need to win the theory debate in order for me to reject these arguments.

-          While I err neg on conditionality, condo is probably more of a reason to reject the team.

T:

-          Slow down.

-          As a 2A who lost on T quite a lot, I likely have a higher threshold than most on topicality. The neg needs to show how the aff’s counter-interp results in ground loss or abuse. This does not mean that there needs to be in-round abuse for me to vote on T.

-           I’ll default to competing interpretations.

-          T is always a voting issue.

-          For the love of god, do not make this debate a spec debate. 

Background:

My name is Zach Tschida and I am currently coaching Policy and Parli debate at Whitman College. Last year I coached at the University of Puget Sound and judged at 31 tournaments (mostly parli tournaments and high school policy tournaments, but I judged at Gonzaga, UNLV and the WNPT). I competed in debate for seven years total throughout high school and college, and I spent four years at UPS competing primarily in parli debate.  I have a year and a half of college policy debating experience.

Disposition and Preferences

My most fundamental belief about debate is that, at least in terms of what arguments ‘should’ be available to each team, access to theory allows debate to be self-correcting.  As a result, I do not believe that any type of argument is inherently prohibited.  Of course, I lean in particular directions on various theoretical issues (to be discussed below).  Since I am uncomfortable with ignoring any argument simply on principle, I think it is incumbent upon each team to present any objection to their opponents’ argument selection.  Because I think theory has the power to correct imbalances in debate, I am always willing to adjust my predispositions to the particular debate.

I am committed to giving equal weight to all types of arguments, but I do particularly enjoy Kritiks and Theory.  I do not wish to encourage you to alter your strategy in favor of my preferences, although I realize this is somewhat inevitable. If you enjoy debating a politics DA, for example, then I would much rather watch that debate because you will likely be able to present your favored arguments in a more nuanced and persuasive manner. 

In terms of speaker points, my range is 27-29.  I prioritize rewarding strategic decisions and clean execution of those strategies.

Specific issues:

Theory

I enjoy theory debates that are well contextualized and thoughtful. 

In terms of CP theory, I think conditionality is good, not really compelled by conditionality bad unless there are more than 2 conditional strategies and the squo – but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote on conditionality bad if you mishandle it.

If your 2NR strategy includes a CP or other advocacy that was originally identified as conditional, I will not evaluate the world of the status quo (I will only consider the CP as your advocacy) – unless I am explicitly told otherwise.

PICs are generally legitimate, but I do find the theory against some subsets of CPs to be pretty compelling.  For example, I am typically persuaded by theory against delay and consult CPs.

Kritiks

In general, I would not say I am ‘well-read’ on all fields of literature, but I would say that I have a decent understanding of most types of kritiks.  I majored in Economics and Political Theory, and consequently I am most familiar with Kritiks related to those fields – but I always enjoy hearing arguments that are novel to me. 

I think K Affs are acceptable and, if deployed well, can provide thoughtful insight specific to the topic.  As I said, nothing is ‘off the table,’ so I do not automatically bind Affirmatives to presenting a topical plan text.

However, because most Kritiks fundamentally argue that we should be responsible for our rhetorical choices, I think this places a reciprocal burden on teams advocating Kritiks to defend their choices.  In this sense, if you read a plan text, I think you are responsible for defending its hypothetical enactment; if you do not read a plan text, I think you are still responsible for defending a stable and well-articulated advocacy.