Lance Allen

I competed in Parli and IE’s for 4 years at Mckendree University and have now coached for 7 years.

I think this means that I have a diverse background of knowledge for most types of debate. I am comfortable in quick K debates and also comfortable in more traditional rounds. I have experience in high level college LD rounds and I also have lots of experience with first year novice rounds. While am I am competent in a K debate, I am most comfortable in a case/DA/CP debate. This means the K needs to be well explained. I tend to weigh Magnitude and Probability before timeframe until you tell me otherwise.

You should feel comfortable running any position in front of me! The most important thing is that it is well explained and well defended.

Joe Blasdel

McKendree University / Belleville East High School

Updated: 1/7/23

I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree in 2003 (mostly NPDA, some LD and IEs) and have been doing so ever since. I have also coached debate at Belleville East (PF and LD) for the last two years.

This is broken into four sections: #1 PF Specifics, #2 HS LD specifics, #3 NFA LD specifics, #4 NPDA / general thoughts.

#1 PF Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS PF (in no particular order):

1. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponents' arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will also flow the debate on three 'sheets' - the PRO case/answers, the CON case/answers, and the rebuttals (summaries/final foci).

2. I will not flow crossfire but I will still pay careful attention and view it as an important part of the debate.

3. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#2 HS LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging HS LD (in no particular order):

1. I have researched and coached students on the current NSDA topic and am broadly familiar with the issue.

2. I will carefully flow the debate. This means it is important for you to carefully answer your opponent's arguments as well as extend arguments in rebuttals that you want me to evaluate. I will flow the debate on three 'sheets' - framework, AFF case/answers, NEG case/answers.

3. I view the value/value criterion portion of the debate as framing the rest of the debate. When the framing part of the debate is not clear, I generally default to a cost/benefit analysis in evaluating the substance part of the debate.

4. I don't have any particular expectations about rate of delivery - faster, slower, etc. is fine.

5. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

I look forward to judging you.

#3 NFA LD Specifics

Here are some helpful things for you to know about me in terms of judging NFA LD (in no particular order):

1. During the debate, I will flow what's being said rather than read the speech docs. I will review speech docs between speeches and after the round.

2. While carded evidence is obviously important in this format, I also appreciate warranted analytic arguments - probably more than the average NFA LD judge.

3. Having not judged a lot of LD of recent, I'm unsure if I can flow the fastest of debates. If I cannot flow due to clarity or speed, I will indicate that's the case.

4. If you have other questions, feel free to peruse my more extensive parli philosophy below or ask before the debate.

#4 NPDA / General thoughts

Section 1: General Information

In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.

On trichotomy, I tend to think the affirmative has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I don’t see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. I’m also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.

If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If you’re calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.

I’m not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ‘new’ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ‘new’ PMR arguments.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).

Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I’m open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than the average NPDA judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, it’s important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, it’s likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.

Performance based arguments…

Same as above.

Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position that’s run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework – I’m not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an ‘average’ threshold. I don’t vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a ‘high’ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, I’m probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.

Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?

All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I don’t have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.

Background: My name is Alex Boehne (pronounced [BEY-nee] for those interested). In high school, I completed 1 year of Public Forum and 3 years of Lincoln-Douglas at Triad High School. I currently attend Southeast Missouri State University, majoring in cybersecurity with a minor in networking security.

I've got three big paradigms that usually decide the round for me:

1) ((!!!LD ONLY!!!)) Value debate - almost any debater can throw a bunch of facts out there and hope the judge understands what those facts mean, but good debaters can effectively take the cards that they have and link those back to their value and criterion. Remember: your V and VC are ultimately what you are supporting, and your evidence isn't going to be very useful if you can't say why it supports your argument.

2) Flow organization - this was my biggest challenge as a debater, and it just boils down to being able to effectively travel through the flow so I have the opportunity to track your arguments. Just make sure you make it clear with an off-time roadmap how you'll be traveling through the flow, and make sure to go down the flow so I can track your arguments. It's a lot harder to vote for you if I don't know where your arguments are going!

3) Voters' issues - so many good debaters ignore this one and make it way harder for good arguments to win! Make sure you allot yourself time to crystalize your arguments in voters and explain to me why you believe that you have won the round that I just watched.

Other than that, I don't have any preference for conventional or unconventional strategies (excluding abusive tricks), new ideas, or talking speed. When in doubt, I'm happy to answer a specific question you have about the round and how I'll be judging (although this is pretty much all of my thoughts). Best of luck!

I value logical reasoning over evidence, although compelling evidence cannot be ignored. I strive for impartiality and open-mindedness when evaluating arguments. Effective rebuttal strategies should encompass both offense and defense (not just defense), and I appreciate when debaters engage with each point individually rather than skirting around them. I have experience in college parli and have judged LD and public forum so I understand the importance of clear communication, although I prioritize the substance of arguments over delivery style. Fairness and equal opportunity for both sides are crucial to me. I value the ability of debaters to effectively establish and defend their chosen framework, though I also recognize the importance of flexibility and willingness to engage in a constructive exchange of ideas. While I appreciate debaters' commitment to their framework, I understand that finding common ground can be valuable in fostering meaningful discourse. While defending your framework is important, I don't necessarily expect you to outright win on it. If a framework is not provided by either side, I default to util. Professional conduct and adherence to debate etiquette are expected, and I rely on clear links to impacts to understand how arguments lead to their intended outcomes.

I believe that debate is an educational thing. Do not just read cards; analyze them and show me how they connect. I like to see a lot of impact weighing. I am also good with speed. For Lincoln Douglas, make sure you carry your value and vc through the round and show me how your case upholds them.

I'm an NPDA debater of 3 years and I debated for 5 generally.

all I ask is that you speak slowly enough for me to flow easily and have good clash with counterarguments.

In my debate rounds I’m heavy on framework and facts because debate is about facts and not our personal opinion so let’s keep it real—stick to the facts, no made-up stuff. We’re here to learn and challenge each other, but that doesn’t mean being rude. Keep it chill. Remember a good debate is about respect and understanding. So, let’s keep it simple, stay cool, and make these debates a place where we all grow and learn together!

Experience: As a “seasoned” debater and judge with 2 years of experience in High School debate at Belleville East and 1 year of college debate at Mckendree University, I bring a detailed understanding of the format, rules, and principles of debate to my judging role. I did both LD and Public Forum in high school so I have experience in both events as a competitor and as a judge.

Philosophy: I believe in evaluating debates based on the clash of ideas, logical reasoning, and persuasive argumentation rather than relying solely on technical skills or speaking prowess. I prioritize clarity, coherence, and depth of analysis in arguments. Speed is not an issue for me as long as I can understand your arguments. Argumentation is the sole purpose of debate so make sure you are addressing all of your opponents arguments and extending your own. Not only are you trying to convince me your side/argument is better, but you are also trying to prove it and that cannot happen if you are dropping arguments. Cross X is between you and your opponent so as a judge I do not flow it. You and your opponent should not be facing each other, you should be facing me but that does not mean I am actively involved. Make sure to bring up any points from Cross X that you would like me to flow in your speech.

Vibes: Overall, have a good time and argue your heart out. This is a learning experience and designed to be educational and enjoyable. Also this is a positive space so please be CIVIL with your opponent. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to ask. Good luck!

:)

New: I'm Aurelia Montgomery, a judge coming with Belleville West. I've been judging for two years, exclusively in the Illinois circuit. I have no problem with speed of delivery. VC is very important to me. I have no specific expectations of formatting. I really like voter's issues (please do them!!!) but I can make a decision without them. Please extend arguments. In the case of argument vs style, argument will trump every single time. I don't have a preference on framework. Yes, there does need to be at least baseline evidence, although rhetoric is appreciated.

Old: Very heavy on framework (debate content is important, as are etiquette and following courtesy norms), it is the most heavily weighted factor in my judging philosophy. Cases and rebuttals still have to be factually correct, but the philosophical basis is more salient.

I expect debaters to be kind to each other, debate is a friendly practice in polite argument, not an opportunity to be rude to your opponent. This also ties into etiquette, points can (and will, depending on context) be lost if the debater doesn't follow courtesy norms (biggest ones being standing/facing the judge when talking, and ensuring everyone is ready/letting the judge know when you start). Going over on time is part of these norms, and points could be taken off depending on severity and reoccurrence.

But again, decisions rely almost entirely on framework, excluding extremely inappropriate conduct and flawed (ie fabricated or clearly misapplied) evidence. That also includes opinion that is presented as evidence.

I am a former Lincoln/Douglas and collegiate debater and a current litigation attorney. I learned many important skills during my time in debate that are applicable to various real world settings. Real world communications do not involve speed reading. A judge in a courtroom would hold me in contempt if I made an oral argument by seeing how fast I could read my notes. Likewise, I do not like speed. I like debaters to present their cases in a logical and persuasive manner. I also appreciate clash. Clash is best obtained when both debaters signpost their arguments and tell me where on my flow an argument should be noted. Finally, I appreciate being told why I should vote for you. Make it easy for me to record your arguments and to vote for you and I probably will.

Last thing- I am a fan of including the opinions of philosophers and historic figures in your cases. We may be debating current issues but I bet Aristotle, Socrates, Rawles or Bentham have offered opinions that are applicable to the topic at hand.

Last, Last thing- Have fun. This is a fun and rewarding activity. Don't take this or yourself too seriously.