If you are unable to come up with a better name for me, then you should just call me Andrew.

I debated for the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I have coached for Kansas State University and the University of Pittsburgh. I am currently a Visiting Lecturer in Rhetoric, Film, and Screen Studies at Bates College. My undergraduate studies were in Philosophy and Political Science. My graduate work has been in Communication (MA) and Rhetorical Studies (PhD).

I am most familiar with critical and performative approaches to policy debate. I have no problem voting on framework, topicality, etc. in clash debates. I am comparatively less skilled at adjudicating traditional policy debates.

In a bygone era of debate (c. 2013-2017), I wrote a judging paradigm that you can find at the bottom of this page. In retrospect, it appears quaint and mildly amusing. In all likelihood, it is not all that helpful any longer. Below, I have provided an update for your consideration. Oddly, this update is less specific but perhaps more useful for determining whether you would like to have me adjudicate your debates.

Generally speaking, I hold the following presuppositions about debate:

(1) policy debate is a mode of inquiry that uses competition to motivate participants to develop divergent lines of argument in their pursuit of knowledge that is related to a predetermined resolution

(2) the intellectual, social, and civic benefits of policy debate accrue primarily through sustained engagement with dynamic points of clash that emerge from the articulation of conflicting propositions and/or performances

(3) the outcome of any individual debate only reflects the extent to which a judge can justify the claim that the winning team was able to establish the persuasiveness of their arguments relative to those of their opponents; such decisions do not determine whether any particular argument reflects the truth of some matter

(4) the value of a proposition and/or performance is not intrinsic to untested arguments any more than it is tied to the outcome of a particular debate; it, instead, emerges as a consequence of its iterative development and refinement through practices of research, revision, re-articulation, and revaluation

(5) your value as a person and your contributions to this community are not determined or measured by your ratio of win to losses; much less does either of those things have anything to do with the way that a judge casts their ballot

As such, I tend to judge debates with preference for the following:

The affirmative should provide and defend a proposition and/or performance in support of the resolution. I would prefer not to judge debates that have nothing to do with the topic.

The negative should provide and defend compelling reasons to reject the proposition and/or performance advanced by the affirmative. I would prefer not to judge debates where negative strategy does not involve direct engagement with the affirmative.

Competition between affirmative and negative arguments should develop by way of clearly identifiable points of clash. I would prefer not to judge debates where the primary inclination is to avoid or eliminate clash.

Participants in the debate are responsible for identifying the points of clash that they would like me to evaluate. I would prefer not to judge debates where clash is assumed, embedded, implicit, unstated, or otherwise unclear.

The quality of a debate is largely correlated with the ability of its participants to identify and address the most significant points of clash by developing reasonable lines of inference in response. I would prefer not to judge debates where it is unnecessarily burdensome to track the ways that the participants determine and interact with divergent lines of argument.

The use of evidence to substantiate a claim or resolve a point of clash is often the best way to qualify the persuasiveness of arguments relative to those of an opponent; as a bonus, establishing reasons why argument evaluation should be guided by appeals to supplemental experiences, perspectives, expertise, and/or external standards of methodological rigor is pretty neat too. I would prefer not to judge debates where little-to-no value is placed in the use of evidence to substantiate arguments.

While I’m at it, here is some thinly veiled advice in a couple of ineloquently formed conditional statements:

If you would like to have me read the evidence that you have introduced in the debate, the likelihood of that happening increases dramatically if you include me in the email chain (aallsupgmail.com).

If you include me in the email chain with the presumption that I will read the evidence that you introduce in the debate, you should also know that the chances of me reading said evidence decreases dramatically when you include an unreasonable number of cards that end up not being read in your speech.

If you make me stare into the abyss (e.g., a “card doc” including cards that were not referenced by name in the rebuttals), I will entertain the possibility of letting the abyss star back at you (e.g., my blank stare when you ask how I evaluated x piece of evidence; I probably didn’t read it).

If you are worried that you are speaking too fast or that your words are too unclear for me to understand, you’re probably right. If you never question whether you are speaking too fast or whether your words are unclear, you should probably give questioning it a try.

If you consciously and willfully use discriminatory, prejudicial, and/or bigoted language to characterize, substantiate, or advance an argument (including, but not limited to, those pertaining to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, disability, class, income, language, heredity, etc.), you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.

If you attempt to leverage the competitive nature of this activity to try to justify some right to express and/or advance arguments that create to a hostile or otherwise discriminatory environment for members of a protected class, you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.

If your strategy relies on the expectation that you ought to be evaluated favorably for cruelty, humiliation, threats, or otherwise demeaning remarks that you’ve directed toward other debaters, judges, coaches, directors, etc., you shouldn’t expect me to recount much from the debate because I probably stopped listening and found a better use for my time.

Since nobody asked, here is a long-winded series of remarks on flowing, adjudicating, and RFD’s.

I will do my best to fairly adjudicate debates based on the arguments that were presented in the round. I do so, primarily, by referencing the record of those arguments as they appear on my flows. I have been flowing debates since I started debating in 2004. I’ve been using flows to reconstruct and evaluate debates since I started judging in 2013. I still occasionally miss arguments that my fellow judges happen to catch on their flows. Sometimes arguments which seem unclear on my flows end up appearing completely transparent on those of others. There have been many times where I did not record the same connections between arguments that those presenting them believe themselves to have expressed in the debate. I imagine that it has often been the case I may have decided a debate differently were I given a full transcript and the leisure to evaluate every detail, so as to avoid the possibility of having missed or misinterpreted something. Nevertheless, a flow is not a transcript and even the sometimes-indefinite delay in decision times when Harris is assigned to judge a debate is not sufficient to consider every detail of a given debate.

This is all to say that you should bear in mind that I perceive your arguments by both listening to your speech and recording them in writing; the latter serving as the primary basis upon which I will reconstruct arguments in the debate and determine who has won. You should be constructing and presenting your arguments in a way that is fitted to the various processes that are typically involved in judging this format of debate: listening, writing, reconstructing, and evaluating. For those of us who flow debates, we are listening to a constant stream of new information while simultaneously attempting to efficiently record, in writing, what we can recall from our immediate and longer-term memory of the debate. In that same process, we are trying to manage a number of considerations: how different claims relate to each other, the quality of evidence and the ways it is being applied to the debate, we consider lines of inference as they related to those uses of evidence while also comparing them with those that were presented in other speeches, we look for strategic options and anticipate the consequences of those choices relative to others, and so on. The threshold between listening and writing involves a significant degree of information processing that can easily go awry when claims are unclear, speeches are disorganized, connections between claims are unstated, evidence is missing or unhelpful, etc.

This is all to say that, for me, the best thing a debater can do to maximize the likelihood of success is to observe the following maxim: debate in such a manner that you are directing how I should be navigating the threshold between the information that you have presented orally and the record that I am constructing on my flow in writing. In all the time that I have been judging debates, the teams that have been most successful are those who find ways to make these processes work for them rather than against them. This means resisting the temptation to convince yourself that you will win so long as you simply state “x, y, and z.” In addition, you should consider how to communicate “x, y, and z” in such a way that they not only find expression on the flow but, also, that I know what to do with those claims/arguments and how they affect the other elements of the debate. There is no formula to ensure that, in each instance, you will resolve every contingency that arises at this threshold between listening and writing, but there are basic practices that you can do to help me manage it in potentially favorable ways.

(1) The most important practice is to ensure that your strategic choices (including any conditional sub-strategies; e.g., “if we lose this argument, you can still vote for us because…”) are absolutely clear, preferably from the start of a speech and/or the top of a flow. If your strategic choices only become transparent when I’m being post-rounded, that’s obviously a problem. Thankfully, it is easily fixable.

(2) Next, identifying and defining the key points of disagreement or clash can establish the foundation for my decision-making. I would rather take directions from you when it comes to the key issues that require resolution in order to render a judgment about the debate. This is an extraordinarily underused technique, yet it tends to reap significant results when done well. There should be debate over the issues that I must ultimately resolve, the sequence with which they should be resolved, and how I should go about resolving them.

(3) You should be making use of clear comparisons between arguments throughout the debate. Speeches in a debate should involve, well, debate. If I’m comparing one monologue against another monologue—each of which contains some self-serving and otherwise incommensurable criteria for evaluation—my decision will likely be no more informed than a choice that is based on the flipping of a coin.

(4) Building on this discussion of comparison, you should be developing evaluative criteria to help me determine the way that I should adjudicate those comparisons. Refutation is not just about saying something that is different or opposite than your opponent but give clear standards for how to evaluate divergent perspectives, inferences, items of evidence, etc.

(5) Regarding evidence, I will typically only scrutinize or compare evidence when explicitly directed to do so in accordance with some definitive question about it that needs to be resolved. I won’t use your end-of-round “card doc” to reconstruct the debate. If you would like me to review pieces of evidence from the debate, there needs to be a clear reason for doing so. When I review it, what am I likely to find? Why is it significant? How should I use that information? What does it mean for the debate? Keep in mind, I’m not evaluating the arguments being made in the evidence that you provide. I’m evaluating the arguments that you are advancing, often with the utilization of evidence as support for them.

Alright, some final notes on RFD’s. In the event that you believe that I have incorrectly decided a debate, you’re always welcome register your disagreement in person or in writing. I only ask that you engage those discussions with the understanding that my decision reflects the best justifications that I could surmise within the decision time and based on the information on my flow (and, to a lesser extent, what I can reliably recall from memory). We may not see eye-to-eye on a decision, but helping me see the debate from your perspective may have beneficial effects that extend beyond the specific debate in question. Nevertheless, it’s worth recognizing from the outset that I will not change a decision based on a post-round conversation. I will, however, listen intently to your perspective with the goal of learning from it. If necessary, I will offer additional details about my decision with the hope that I can provide further clarity as to the reasons for my decision. In these conversations, however, my inclination will be to diffuse conflict because I don’t believe that RFD’s and post-round commentary ought to be an extension of the debate (let alone its own separate debate). Instead, I believe that they should be reciprocal, dialogical, and ultimately pedagogical opportunities to reflect on the debate while simultaneously participating in an ongoing and iterative effort to determine the value (or lack thereof) of divergent and conflicting propositions and/or performances as they are shaped over the course of a debating season.

When debaters utilize post-round conversations to help others learn more about their arguments and to help those involved in the debate to understand the ways that they think their arguments ought be evaluated, I often find myself more likely to perceive and consider argumentative subtleties and nuances that I didn’t notice initially when evaluating debates in the future. Generally speaking, I am unlikely to engage as openly or be receptive to post-round commentary that is demeaning or otherwise aimed at diminishing me or anyone else involved in the debate. Such conduct is not necessary to get me to admit to my own ignorance or to compel me to confirm that I may have made a mistake. I am quite willing to do so upon recognizing the error of my ways. If our differences in perspective are impossible to reconcile through constructive dialogue, in the absence of intimidation and bullying behavior, then the best remedy is to strike me in your judging preferences. Ultimately, none among us is immune to charges of ignorance and error; everyone involved debate (myself included) still has much to learn about whatever issues happen to be at stake in a given dispute. If we can’t find ways to resolve those issues without cruelty, humiliation, threats, and the like, then I’m not convinced that we can sincerely champion the virtues of dialogue, deliberation, and debate that supposedly drive our commitment to engage our disagreements in this activity.

That all being said, I realize that wins and losses do often function as a kind of social currency in debate. I also realize that there is no way to completely avoid using them, consciously or unconsciously, as a way to measure our own sense self-worth or to determine whether we are meaningfully contributing anything to this activity. I felt those pressures when I debated, at least. Mixing competition with education and advocacy is often a dangerous proposition. It can be downright destructive to self-esteem and the bonds of community and belonging. The optimistic promises of a platform for creativity, expression, and advocacy meets its limits when evaluation and judgement can have the effect of limiting opportunity and access (whether that involves the ability to participate in elimination rounds, denying enjoyment of the social currency that comes with it, etc.). I can’t claim to know how to resolve these effects and preserve the competitive structure of the activity. The best I can offer is to adjudicate debates transparently and to communicate the reasons for my decisions with honesty and care. My hope is that none of my decisions have the effect of diminishing your sense of self-worth or your value in the debate community. If my RFD has the effect on you, I encourage you to either tell me directly or ask a mutual friend or colleague to relay that sentiment to me. My preference is to, hopefully, find a way to make amends. Barring those (hopefully) exceptionally circumstances where there is a need to have difficult conversations about offensive language, objectionable lines of argument, or unacceptable conduct, my goal is to communicate both wins and losses in ways that demonstrate the respect that you deserve and the consideration that your arguments are owed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is my expired paradigm

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Biographical Information:

I am in the second year of a doctoral program in Communication and Rhetoric at the University of Pittsburgh. I helped coach at Kansas State University for two years while earning an MA. I debated for 5 years at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

II. The Big Picture

Evidence:

First, this is a competitive academic activity and I expect the evidence you introduce into the debate to meet a certain level of intellectual rigor. This does not mean that every piece of evidence needs to be from a peer-reviewed source (although it is often preferable) but it should contain a coherent argument (i.e. claim and warrant). Hint: one line cards rarely (read: never) meet this standard.

Second, quality always trumps quantity. The “strategic” decision to read a bunch of cards that either come from questionable sources or fail to make a coherent argument will never beat one well-warranted card. This shouldn’t be controversial yet somehow debate has conditioned otherwise intelligent people to think otherwise.

Third, question your opponent’s sources. This is a quick way to get favorable speaker points from me. Do your opponent a favor and tell them that their sources are unqualified. Do me a favor and explain why I should disregard certain pieces of evidence because they aren’t academically credible and unfit for this academic community. Bottom line: read unqualified/bad evidence at your own risk.

Paperless Information: Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive/send the email. If you are doing an email chain then you should include me in it (my email is aallsup[at]gmail.com).

Good Speaker Points 101:

1. Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
2. Clarity: If I cant hear/understand your argument I will not flow/evaluate it
3. “Extinction” or “Nuclear War” is not a tag. Tags include claims AND warrants
4. Author name extensions are insufficient. Don’t do it. Make an argument and use the evidence to support it
5. Cross-X is a speech and it will factor heavily in speaker point distribution. I reward good questions and responses.
6. Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate

III. Argument Specific:

Topicality/Theory:

First, I am not the judge for you to stake the round on arbitrary interpretations. You need to be able to defend that your interpretation presents a useful norm that should be universalized within debate. That being said, I default to competing interpretations but have a decently low thresholds for critiques of topicality/theory when interpretations are wholly arbitrary.

Second, if you want to win a critique of topicality/theory you must prove that the exclusion of the affirmative is worse than the negatives ability to expect a fair, limited, or predictable debate.

Third, I tend to side with the idea that conditionality is a beneficial and educational tool in debate. The affirmative will have to win a decisive and tangible impact in order to get me to vote against conditionality. That being said, there is a point at which conditionality can be abused and that abuse trades off with good scholarship. I’m not the person to read nine conditional advocacies in front of. At a certain point there is an inverse relationship between number of advocacies and good arguments that demeans the purpose of engaging each other in this competitive academic forum.

Fourth, you can read your agent/actor counter plans and I will evaluate them fairly but I certainly will not be happy about it. My belief is that the negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. I don’t think competition based on the “certainty” of the plan is productive or interesting.

Fifth, my default is that most theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you think you can win a reason to reject the team then go for it. I guess we will find out what happens.

Counterplans: I’m not a fan of conditions/consultation counterplans. I think they should be both textually and functionally competitive. The negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. If you’re affirmative, don’t be afraid to go for theory. However, as mentioned before, I often find theory to be a reason to reject the argument not the team. As a former 2a I am not even in the ballpark when it comes to word pics/floating pics. Reading it as a critique solves your pedagogical net benefit. QED.

Disadvantages: Higher risk almost always beats a higher magnitude. You should always make disad turns the case arguments. You must provide some sort of impact calculation in order to have me interpret your strategy favorably.

Politics:

First, the story has to match. Please don’t make me listen to a scenario that doesn’t have matching parts. If the uniqueness and link evidence don’t assume the same politician/group of politicians then you lose.

Second, explain the implication of core defensive arguments. If Obama has no political capital or if the negative is missing a crucial internal link then you need to explain how that affects everything else they are saying.

Third, surprisingly I find myself enjoying politics debates more and more. Don’t hesitate to go for it when I’m judging. Just be smart about it – put your logical-analytic skills to work and make the debate worth listening to.

Critical Affirmatives and Framework:

First, I don’t think framework is a voting issue. Framework is a means by which I determine how to evaluate the round.

Second, topicality is absolutely essential to winning a framework debate when you’re negative.

Third, you need to prove that your interpretation can offer the possibility for the same education as the affirmative has provided to emerge. The best way to do this is to offer a topical version of the 1ac. Another way to do this is provide other topical examples that produce the same pedagogical effect as the 1ac.

Fourth, you also need to prove some competitive reason why the negative has been disadvantaged by the affirmative. More importantly, you need to prove why this violation of competitive equity impacts or implicates their education impacts.

Critiques:

First, the worst thing you can do is read a critique that you have little-to-no knowledge about or practice debating. Critiques are hard to win. I loved debating them. They’re all I debated. However, my experience has led me to conclude that I should have a high standard for those who wish to read critical arguments. It’s better for you (because you learn more about an absolutely fascinating literature base) and it’s better for me (because I don’t have to listen to bad scholarship).

Second, framework against the negative critique is rarely a winning strategy. Reading a bunch of cards is rarely a good strategy. Find the 2 or 3 crucial issues you need to win and win them with good arguments. For example, instead of telling the negative they need to provide a policy option, why not just win that policymaking is the best way to solve the impact to the critique?

When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously

Do what you want.  I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things

Will update again for Northwestern -with a longer paradigm

I think the game is best when students are comfortable and presenting arguments at a high level. I will try my best to adjudicate the debate in front of me. Here are some things to keep in mind:

1. I'm decently versed in anti-blackness literature. So if that is your thing, awesome. I'm excited to hear your particular work. Just know because of my background I have a high threshold for that argument set. If it's not, that's ok but just know I expect arguments to have a certain level of depth to them and won't just vote on arguments that I don't understand.

2. I haven't judge alot on this topic. So different topic phrasings have to be parsed out for me.

3. I'm all about the link and impact game

4. Not a fan of the overly confrontational approach

5. Slow down on analytics

6. I'm very expressive judging debates so pay attention to the non-verbals

7. FW is cool with me - has to be impacted well.

8. DA/CPs are cool if explained well.

9. Will vote on condo - not a fan of conditional planks

Hope this helps.

Dave Arnett

Director of Debate, University of Kentucky

27th year judging

Updated September 2023

Go ahead and put me on the doc chain davidbrianarnett@gmail.com. Please be aware that I do not read along so clarity and explaining your evidence matters a lot. Many debates I will ask for a compiled document after the round. I reward clear line by line debating with mountains of points and wins.

Better team usually wins---X---------------------the rest of this

Team should adapt---------------X----------------judge should adapt

Topics-X----------------------------------------------Topics?

Policy-----------------X-------------------------------K

Tech--------------X-----------------------------------Truth

Read no cards----------------X---------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality bad-------------------------------X---debate should be hard

Nothing competes------------------------------X---counterplans are fun

States CP good--------X------------------------------States CP bad

UQ matters most----------------------X-------------Link matters most

Line by Line-X-----------------------------------------Flow Anarchy

Clarity-X------------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Lots of evidence--------------------------------------X-lots of really good evidence

Reasonability--------------X---------------------------competing interpretations

29 is the new 28---X-----------------------------------grumpy old guy (true for other reasons but less so on this)

Civility-X-------------------------------------------------My Dean would cancel our program if they saw this

Revised: 3/20/14

My first year judging at the NDT I had an important conversation with Dallas Perkins that still impacts my thinking about judging today. I expressed to him a bit of my anxiety about judging and the possibility of ending someone’s career. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said something to the effect of “People should ask two things when determining who the good judges are: 1- Do they try their hardest? 2- Are they willing to vote for the team that won no matter who they are?” Over the years I have found that these characteristics are simple in theory and sometimes difficult in practice. If I have the honor of judging you then I will most assuredly make a mistake somewhere, but I will strive to try my hardest and vote for the team that won no matter who they are.

How do I determine who won?

Rather than prescribing a set of argument preferences, I think it may be more productive to articulate my decision-making process because I think that we are at a moment where my preferences are not as important to me as helping debaters understand how I evaluate debates. Here is how I generally try to decide a debate: 

1- I start by isolating the central questions of the debate: The second the debate is over I write a list of questions that I need to resolve. Sometimes I can do this without actually looking at my flows, but after I write the questions down I go back and check my flows to make sure I am not missing any major controversies. The key part of this stage is forcing myself to determine the issues that are essential to my decision versus things that *may* become relevant assuming certain teams win certain things.

2- Specific questions I tend to ask myself after almost every debate:

-Assuming both teams won all their arguments, who would win the debate?

-Is there a major execution error?

-Is there a team lacking offense on any given position?

-Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence?

-Is there significant argument interaction?

3- I determine which questions require reading evidence. Ross Smith taught me that starting with the evidence first can result in decisions that de-emphasize the important argument interactions that the debaters work hard at establishing during their speeches. There are lots of questions, however, where the quality of the evidence is an essential component of resolving a key question of the debate.

4- Dueling Banjos: After I figure out the issues that need evidence I create little duals on my flow between the relevant arguments in the mini-debate.  It is helpful when I read the evidence or examine the arguments to think of it in terms of a mini-debate so that I don't get caught up thinking about the potential implications of the evidence or argument for issues beyond the part that I am trying to resolve. If I don’t do this then I can get lost down the rabbit hole.

5- Devil’s Advocate: After I answer all the questions I have come up with right after the debate, I play devil's advocate with myself two times. This is something that I learned from David Heidt. Basically, I write a mini-ballot for the team I think has won the debate. Something super short like "I vote AFF because I think the case impacts happen faster than the DA." Then, I pretend I am the other team and cross ex myself on the "what abouts?" I often end up determining that the "What abouts?" are good arguments that are just not in the debate. Sometimes, however, the "What abouts" force me to look at something I may have overlooked. I would say that 85-90 percent of the time I vote the way I wrote the RFD but sometimes I realize I was overlooking something important.

6- I isolate issues in the debate that "test my judge philosophy" so that I can tell the debaters after the debate that other judges may vote on X but my personal philosophy is Y because _____. Here is an example: at our district tournament a couple of years back I was on the bottom of a 2-1 when the 2ar forgot to go to a sheet of paper where the Neg had extended an argument that the status quo solved all the aff so vote neg on presumption. The other two judges thought it was bad and didn't vote on it. I am still at the stage of my judging career where bad arguments need to be called bad arguments. So, I voted neg and explained that the aff was winning the rest of the debate, but that in my view of the debate was decided on something technical. Inevitably, this happens about once a tournament.

7- Preventing the RFD that never ends: After I make my decision, I sit down and write the first 45-60 seconds of my decision out so that I can read aloud the short synopsis of how I voted. This is something I learned from Will Repko. For panel debates, I tend to write out a good chunk of my RFD just in case someone takes longer to decide and to ensure that I keep my comments concise. I have found that often times the debaters want to focus on the central question(s) of the debate and my ramblings about other things turns out to be less interesting to them.

8- The Triad:  Sometimes it varies on the situation, but I try to give exactly three pieces of advice for both teams. Numbering the advice and limiting it to 3 helps me not wander around my RFD with random pieces of advice. I have found that the thing that really makes debaters angry is when I have voted against them and then flippantly say something like "you could have done X better" and the debaters freak out and say "Dude, this is my overview where I said X exactly like you just did!" The key to avoiding those interactions is for me not to venture into random musings on the fly.

9) Personal judging idiosyncrasies:

I usually decide any theory debate as an "option of last resort" for the team that needs it to win.

I usually decide a link debate first before worrying about uniqueness because of my belief that uniqueness is often a question of the direction of the link.

I usually wear head phones to try to minimize being influenced by other judges.

I usually go up to the debaters to call for cards and hand them a sheet of paper with list of cards I want so as to not influence the other judges. This isn’t as relevant if there is an email chain going.

I usually ask to go last (or later) if I am on the bottom of a big split (4-1) so I can get a sense of where I split with the majority of judges.

I usually go for a walk around the hall once before I come back and look at my whole list of questions and my thought process to make sure I am comfortable with it before I sign my ballot.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

Jarrod

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Debated at Gonzaga, Currently Judging for Navy -

Email: jenna.bauer95@gmail.com - yes you can put me on the doc chain.

I did primarily CP/DA/Case debate in college and that's what I'm familiar with. I'm helping out with research at Gonzaga this year so I'm fairly familiar with the climate college topic. This is what I think that I think about debate, but I intend to continue updating as I judge more and learn more about what I think.

Affs: I like plans that defend the hypothetical implementation of the plan and are topical. You can read your other affs in front of me but I'm more inclined to think that reading a topical plan is important and good for debate. At the very least you should have a stasis point that is in the direction of the topic and then tell me why that's important.

Ks: I'm most familiar with gender based Ks, I do not know much about this area in general and I will not understand you if you throw out a bunch of buzzwords. If you want to read a K, I like a clearly articulated and specific alternative that does something and explains to me why that thing is important. I am inclined to believe things can always get worse. If you are set on going for your K, make sure your explanation is on point and your links are specific to the aff.

DAs: I like them, I'm willing to assign 0 risk of a DA, especially if the link is really bad. I do a lot of elections/politics work. I will still vote for you if I know your DA is a lie and the other team doesn't call you on it, but I won't be happy about it.

CPs: I have always been a 2N - I lean a little negative on CP theory, but you should point out when you think they’re cheating and can definitely win if you debate the theory well.

***Added after recieving an email for clarification on my thoughts on Topicality - response below****

Topicality:

Short version: Affs that Intend to be T, I can be persuaded either way, but most likely lean a little neg. I dislike affs that never intended to be T and am likely to be persuaded by framework.

This topic in my opinion has the potential to be really large or really small depending on the 'acceptable standards' that the community sets on affs that are intending to be topical so your questions are important to me and I hope to answer them well.

Framing for how I think about T - I have always been a 2N and tend to be slightly neg leaning on most things. However, T was never really my A strategy except against teams that were blatantly non-topical so my bias might not be as apparent in this area.

Topicality for affs that intend to be T - I would say at the beginning of the year I'm more willing to listen to all affs and hear what they think a reasonable interpretation of the topic should be, but I think limits are important especially on this topic. I can definitely be persuaded either way. While I think aff creativity is important, the research burden for the neg is also a major concern for me.

Topicality for affs that don't intend to be T - I don't like when teams do not have plans. No plan at all is probably a non-starter for me because it doesn't meet the requirements I list below in the stasis point section.

- Distinction between Framework and Topicality: When I debated I made a distinction between Framework and Topicality. A lot of people don't think there's a distinction, obviously. I think the distinction is based on the explanation of the link to the argument and the impact. Framework, for me seemed to be about what kind of educational paradigms are endorsed, whereas T was more about the effects on the topic and debatability for the neg. These are in many ways artificial distinctions, and both T and framework are often deployed as encompassing both these arguments because different teams have different conceptions of what framework means. Because of this, I'm fine with whatever teams want to call it - Framework or T - and however you explain it is how I will judge. If you would like to separate T and framework and read them both that's also fine with me both can persuade me.

- Stasis point: When reading/debating a non-topical aff the most important thing to me is that there is a stable controversy that isn't one sided that both teams are prepared to debate. If the negative wins that these conditions do not exist I am very likely to pull the trigger on T/Framework. In order to meet all the requirements above, I think it's necessary to be at the very least in the direction of the topic so the neg can debate the aff. I value in-depth debate of the affirmative and give a lot of weight to "topical" versions of the aff in these debates.

*****End email*****

In general, you should be kind to everyone in the round. I really really don’t like rudeness. Especially when it is directed at your partner.

I debated with Binghamton University and previously helped coach Vanderbilt University.

I'm going to try and keep this short and simple. Here are some general thoughts:

Cross-Ex: I love a good cross-ex. I will flow it sometimes if something sticks out to me or if someone tells me to flow it. It's probably binding.

Theory/Topicality/Framework: Go for your theory args if you think you have a legitimate claim. You need to prove substantial in round abuse. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. Topicality is definitely not my area of expertise but I'll vote for it. If you're going for it in your last speech make sure to spend most of your time on it to convince me that it's so important that I should decide the round on it. I'll vote for framework if you win it; however, if the aff can show that they are reasonably related to the topic then I think you should be able to engage them in some way.

Kritiks/Critical Affs: Kritiks are what I am most experienced in, although I did not run many 'high theory' kritiks. My familiarity does not mean however than I will just autovote for you because you're running a k. I will hold you to a high standard when running these arguments. Also, don't just assume I know your kritik; you still have to explain and warrant it out. Try to get specific links from their 1AC/2AC rather than just using generic links.

Counterplans: The best counterplans are usually case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates. I'm not a huge fan of consult counterplans but I will vote for them if you win them.

Disads: Uniqueness is key with disads. Impact framing and a clear, defined link are generally necessary to win your disad.

Case: Case arguments are a great tool that usually go underutilized. Make sure that if your strategy is to go for a specific case argument that it's not a two second blip in most of the debate and then the 2AR spends six minutes on it.

Most importantly of all, have fun and do what you do best!

Hello, friend.

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

More to follow at a later time but here is the jist:

I think that the affirmative should do something and have an interpretation that gives both sides equal opporunity to win based on pre round preperation and in round execution. I think negatives should respond to the affirmative and tell me why they are wrong. 

K- I probably haven't read the literature base but I have done debate long enough to see most K's. I think an aff's best opportunity for offense is the alternative and generally find rejection alt's to be unpersuasive, the negative needs to go a step further and say what I'm rejecting in favor of and how that occurs from my ballot.

Theory- For me to vote on it I think the argument must be made coherently originally (Link, warrant, impact) then expanded upon and developed by later speechs. Half sentence theory arg that are shadow extended won't cut it . Conditionality is probably fine to an extent but can be done abusively. I generally don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team rather an excuse for the aff to go wild on the perm debate. Agent CP's are okay. Delay/Consult /Review cp's I'm less a fan of but have run/voted for them. 

DA's- yes please, politics, tradeoff etc. I like them.

Case- Case debate is under utalized and a good block can really do some damage by investing time here.

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning


Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adrienne F. Brovero, University of Kentucky

Closing in on 30 years coaching
adri.debate@gmail.com

Please label your email chain subject line with Team names, tourney, round.

Your prep time does not end until you have hit send on the email.

❗Updated 3-27-24 - I am REAL serious about the highlighting thing below - many cards are literally unreadable as highlighted and if I find myself struggling to read your evidence, I will cease to do so.

❗This is a communication activity.❗

Clarity - Cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is, whether online or in-person.

Highlighting - Highlighting has become a disgrace. Highlighting should not result in anti-grammatical shards of arguments. Highlighting should not result in misrepresentation of the author's intent/ideas. Quite frankly, some highlighting is so bad, you would have been better served not reading the evidence. When highlighting, please put yourself in the judge's shoes for a moment and ask yourself if you would feel comfortable deciding a debate based on how you've highlighted that card. If the answer is no, reconsider your highlighting.

SERIOUSLY - LINE-BY-LINE. NUMBER.

If you like to say "I will do the link debate here" - I am probably not the best judge for you. I would prefer you clash with link arguments in each instance they happen, as opposed to all in one place. Same is true for every other component of an argument.

• Qualifications - read them. Debate them.
• Line-by-line involves directly referencing the other team's argument ("Off 2AC #3 - Winners Win, group"), then answering it. "Embedded" clash fails if you bury the clash part so deep I can't find the arg you are answering.
• Overviews - overrated. Kinda hate them. Think they are a poor substitute for debating the arguments where they belong on the line-by-line.

Things that are prep time:

• Any time after the official start time that is not a constructive (9 mins), CX (3 mins), rebuttal (6 mins), or a brief roadmap. Everything else is prep time.
• Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
• Asking for cards outside of CX time. ("Oh can you send the card before CX?" - that is either CX or prep time - there is not un-clocked time).
• Setting up your podium/stand.
• Putting your flows in order.
• Finding pens, flows, timers.

Debate like this: http://vimeo.com/5464508

MACRO-ISSUES
Communication: I like it. I appreciate teams that recognize communication failures and try to correct them. If I am not flowing, it usually means communication is breaking down. If I am confused or have missed an argument, I will frequently look up and give you a confused look – you should read this as an indication that the argument, at minimum, needs to be repeated, and may need to be re-explained. I am more than willing to discount a team’s arguments if I didn’t understand or get their arguments on my flow.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I have grown uncomfortable with the amount of profanity used during debates – do not expect high points if you use profanity.

Paperless/Prep Time: Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your un-clocked time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• Unless both teams instruct me otherwise, I will flow both teams.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX. I carefully check the 2AR for new arguments, and will not hold the 2NR accountable for unpredictable explanations or cross applications.
• I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. This doesn’t mean I always do. I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date, so do not expect me to always know what you’re talking about when you solely refer to your “Henry 19” evidence.
• I reward those who make flowing easier by reading in a flowable fashion (road-mapping & signposting, direct refutation/clash, clarity, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.). If you are fond of saying things like "Now the link debate" or "Group the perm debate" during the constructives, and you do not very transparently embed the clash that follows, do not expect me to follow your arguments or connect dots for you. Nor should you expect spectacular points.

Evidence:
• I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I pay attention to quals and prefer they are actually read in the debate. I am extremely dismayed by the decline in quality of evidence (thank you, Internets) and the lack of teams’ capitalization on questionable sources.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument it makes has been communicated to me (e.g. the card was mumbled in the 2AC, or only extended by cite, or accompanied by a warrantless explanation, etc.).
• I also don’t like reading the un-highlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team.
• I should not have to read the un-highlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument and a coherent thought. If you only read a claim, you only have a claim – you don’t get credit for portions of the evidence you don’t reference or read. If you only read a non-grammatical fragment, you are running the risk of me deciding I can’t coherently interpret that as an arg.
• I don’t like anonymous pronouns or referents in evidence like “she says” without an identification of who “she” is – identify “she” in your speech or “she” won’t get much weight in my decision.
• If you hand me evidence to read, please make clear which portions were actually read.

Decision calculus: Procedural determinations usually precede substantive determinations. First, I evaluate fairness questions to determine if actions by either team fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the aff or neg. Then, I evaluate substantive questions. Typically, the aff must prove their plan is net beneficial over the status quo and/or a counterplan in order to win.

MICRO-ISSUES
Topicality & plan-related issues:
• The aff needs to have a written plan text.
• It should be topical.
• T is a voter. Criticisms of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing.
• Anti-topical actions are neg ground.
• Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how nontraditional advocacies or demands are meaningfully different from plans, other than they are usually either vague and/or non-topical.
• On a related note, I don’t get why calling one’s advocacy a performance or demand renders a team immune from being held responsible for the consequences of their advocacy.
• In relation to plans and permutations, I value specificity over vagueness – specificity is necessary for meaningful debate about policies. However, please do not consider this an invitation to run dumb spec arguments as voting issues – absent a glaring evasiveness/lack of specificity, these are typically more strategic as solvency args.

Critiques/Performance:

Adjudicating critique or performance debates is not my strong suit. Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read very much in the advanced political philosophy or performance studies areas. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the critique turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff many years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the critique means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the critique to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the critique indict, with what impact on those harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the critique turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

I strongly urge you to re-read my thoughts above on “Communication” before debating these arguments in front of me.

Counterplans:

I generally lean negative on CP theory: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional, international fiat, agent, etc. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels – if the negative has to fend off multiple reasons the CP is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. “Do both” is typically meaningless to me – specify how. The status quo could remain a logical option, but growing convinced this should be debated. [NOTE THAT IS A FALL '18 CHANGE - DEBATE IT OUT] Additionally, another shout-out for communication - many theory debates are shallow and blippy - don't be that team. I like theory, but those type of debates give theory a bad name.

Other:

I like DAs. I’m willing to vote on stock issue arguments like inherency or “zero risk of solvency”.

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Neil Butt -- Vanderbilt University

District: 6

CEDA Region: Southeast

I have judged ADA/CEDA/NDT since: 1992

I have judged policy debate since: 1988

Background:

I debated for George Mason University 1988-1992.

I coached for George Mason University 1992-2000.

I coached for John Carroll University 2000-2005.

I coached for Wayne State University 2005-2008.

I was Director of Debate for Vanderbilt University (2010-2019).

My email is: neilsbutt@gmail.com. I would like to be included on email chains.

***Updates for October 2018***

The recent ADA rule change to further limit decision time may be too much for me. There were good reasons to put caps on decision times (in fact I probably WAS one of those reasons), but this further cut leaves me concerned that I will not have enough time to make a thorough decision and generate useful feedback. I will probably be limiting my judging even further this year, and intend to limit myself to Novice and/or JV debate, to mitigate the impact of the lack of time.

Framework (Modified again)

The affirmative should advocate a topical course of action. How we determine what is topical is still up for debate.

This document has a concise list at the top for pre-round scans, and more detail below. Right before the round you probably just want to know what to avoid, and are probably not interested in my rationale for why you should avoid it. If you are figuring out long-term prefs, the nuances may be more relevant.

Short Version: Be Nice. Be Clear.

Basic Stuff

Judging time

In the past, I have tended to take a while. Recent community moves to reduce decision time have sometimes made me feel rushed. If this is a concern for you, read more on this below.

I am also likely to just call for speech documents, rather than individual cards, after the round. I am not going to read everything, reconstruct the round, or steal your cards (though I might get cites)—I just want to save some time by eliminating the need to find specific cards and create new documents.

Prep time

I run prep until the other team (not your partner) has the flash drive. For more specific prep scenarios, see below.

Arguments

1. If the negative counterplans, presumption shifts affirmative. The negative must win a clear net-benefit (more than a "direction arrow") to win the debate. This shouldn't really change how you debate, but it helps me resolve “ties.”

2. Absent specific arguments otherwise, if the 2NR extends a conditional CP, I will not consider the SQ as an option, i.e., I won’t make that decision for the negative. If the 2NR kicks the CP and goes for case, that’s fine.

3. I’m OK with most Kritiks, so don’t panic because you saw my position on Framework above. Most of the Kritiks I have judged recently haven’t relied on winning a framework debate anyway. If you are negative and running a Kritik with an alternative that operates outside of a policy framework: I would like to consider myself agnostic in Framework debates, but my voting record in close framework debates seems to favor “traditional” frameworks lately (more below). I am definitely happiest judging a case debate, maybe with an advantage counterplan and disadvantages, but I have voted for a lot of other stuff.

4. If you win “Fairness Bad,” you lose (for reasons that should be self-evident). You can obviously feel free to make arguments that contextualize fairness, as long as you aren’t making a totalizing claim.

5. Don’t ask me to assess individual debater emotions or sincerity. Do not make the claim that you are sincere and they are not. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt unless there’s evidence to the contrary.

6. I probably have a lower threshold for voting on theory than most judges, but I do have a threshold, that threshold has actually gone up a little. I am not going to vote for something that I couldn’t initially flow. The key is starting clear. Most 2AC blocks I hear on theory are unflowable.

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

You should be clear and should not rely on me to intervene to make you clear.

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t get every cite initially when I flow, but I listen carefully for references to specific cites, especially in the rebuttals. That said, I don’t think “Jones ’98 answers this” is an argument. “Jones ’98 says fertility is high now so the turns aren’t unique” is much better.

Tags that are a paragraph long totally defeat my ability to flow them. It generally results in me writing down random words that are somewhere in the tag, which may or may not enable me to get references to them later in the debate.

You need to identify what you are answering—don’t assume I know.

If you think there is a new argument in the 1AR or 1NR, you need to point it out. If I hear them in the 2NR/2AR I will try to find and disallow them myself.

The Rest

I take ethical issues very seriously. If you argue your opponents are taking evidence out of context, then that will become the only issue in the round, and you better be able to prove it.

I pay attention to CX. I don’t flow it, per se, but if you say something in CX I will hold you to it unless there was an obvious misunderstanding or something. It’s OK if there are more than two participants in CX, but not at the same time, and please don’t marginalize your partner.

I like debates about evidence qualifications and bias, and don’t see enough of them.

I like clear debates (fast or slow)—though maybe you should slow down a little for analytical/theory/critical arguments as those can be harder to flow.

Be nice (to EVERYONE). That includes, and is especially true of, your partner. I don’t care if your partner IS a tool—they’re putting up with you too and you’d be nowhere without them.

ADA Rules

If (and only if) I am judging you at an ADA tournament: ADA Rules. I am a firm believer in the ADA. I don’t like all the rules, but I regard that as a reason to try to amend them, not to selectively enforce them. I will self-impose rules that apply to me, but I leave most infractions to the debaters to point out (e.g.: full cites, counterplan theory, etc.). Don’t bother arguing that I shouldn’t follow the rules. Feel free to debate about how the rules should be enforced, and whether certain “punishments” fit certain “crimes.” I will vote on these issues (I have done so in the past).

More Detail

Judging time

I’m a slow judge (deciding—not flowing). Left to my own devices, I take a while to decide. The recent community moves to reduce decision time have impacted my judging. While it has been great to finish before all the restaurants close and to get a little more sleep, it has definitely affected how I decide rounds. It is no longer “the best decision I can make,” it is “the best decision I can make in 40 minutes” (or 30 or whatever the specific tournament calls for). I have to take shortcuts and don’t get to double-check things. The most difficult part has been generating feedback. In novice and most JV rounds, I still have time to generate a lot of suggestions and talk to the debaters after the debate. In many varsity rounds, I generally have to focus exclusively on the decision, and find it is more difficult to answer questions like: “What should I have done differently in the 1AR?” (though I will, of course, still try).

Prep time

Given that I have less time to decide, and your stealing prep comes out of my decision time, I am getting more strict about prep time. Yelling “Stop prep!” annoys me. “I'm ready,” or something similar serves the same purpose without grating on me. Either way, if you are paperless, I am going to keep running prep until the other team gets the flash drive. If you give it to your partner first, I am still running prep time. If you didn’t already set up your collapsible lectern, that’s prep time. When your partner asks you a question about the 1NR after you have given the 2NC roadmap, that’s prep time. When you are out of prep time and aren’t moving fast enough to start the 2NR/2AR, I’m starting speech time. I hate to be a curmudgeon about such things, but fair is fair (and I want time for my decision—see above).

Frameworks, Projects, Performance, etc.

*My philosophy evolves when I grow uncomfortable with how my decisions work out. I have been increasingly uncomfortable with my decisions in Framework debates (and just judging them in general). I have had to explain to teams that they lost to an approach they could not have been reasonably expected to be prepared for, and I have had to vote against teams that, given their framing of the debate, saw my decision as a rejection of them as individuals (which is obviously not how I saw it, but I don’t get to decide how they see it). I have reluctantly decided that I need to narrow the focus of the rounds I judge. Please do NOT read my change in philosophy as an endorsement of one approach over another. I realize that it functionally plays out that way if I’m judging you, but that begs the question of whether I should be judging you. In a world of ubiquitous MPJ, I see it more like registering for one class instead of another, and/or like picking a section based on how well that instructor matches what you want to get out of the class. I realize I could resolve this in the other direction (e.g., I won’t accept any framework arguments, so anything goes), but I also have to be realistic about my preferences and expertise. Traditional and non-traditional approaches are both potentially educationally valuable, just like different classes are. “Women, Rhetoric, and Social Change” and “Argumentation and Debate” could both be good classes, but while I could teach the former, given that I’ve done graduate work in Feminist criticism, why would I when Bonnie Dow can do a much, much better job? [This section is really just a brief synopsis of my decision—there’s more I could say, and am happy to discuss it if you would like.]

Since I might be judging a negative team with a Kritik that assumes a non-policy framework, I’ll include elements from my previous philosophy: My recent record on framework debates has been about 50-50. As indicated above, I’d like to think I can be completely open on these issues, but I’m not sure I am, and my shift regarding Topical affirmatives certainly highlights this. My Dissertation was about how we teach argumentation and debate, so I like the issues involved in Framework debates (“traditional” and “non-traditional”), but don’t like how many of the framework debates I’ve judged play out. The arguments I’ve seen tend to mutually indict each other’s assumptions, making resolution very difficult, absent some work by the debaters to clear things up. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile my desire not to intervene with what I feel is my responsibility as an educator. At any rate, just make sure it’s clear. I won’t vote on anything I can’t understand, but if you can get me to understand, I will listen.

Theory

I think teams let their opponents get away with far too much. Some Affirmatives succeed with cases that there is no way a Negative could be prepared for. Some Negatives succeed with counterplans that don’t leave the Affirmative a shred of ground. I’ll buy that just about anything is legitimate, but I’ll also buy that just about anything is illegitimate (by the way, Affs DO NOT win 70% of the time). Absent the imposition of rules (like what the ADA used to do), the only way to check unfair or anti-educational practices is with theory debates.

I default to policymaking and/or stock issues if that seems to be the assumption the teams I’m watching are making (and I prefer to view the debate as a policymaker), but it is easy to change my default perspective by making some arguments that I should view the round a different way.

Other than ethical issues or fairness issues, I don’t like punishing people much. For example, I think it would be very difficult to persuade me to vote against someone because they used the wrong pronoun a couple of times during a speech (and yet, I have done just that in at least one round—so much for preferences and predispositions…).

It kind of blows my mind that current community norms seem to be that people have to “mark” cards during their speech, but that negative teams don’t have to identify the nature of the counterplan until CX…

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

Clarity is your responsibility. It used to throw me off when judges interrupted my speeches, so I’m reluctant to intervene in yours. I’m also not sure what the threshold for intervention should be. If I just missed a non-critical word or two, we are probably both better off if I don’t interrupt. If I can’t understand you for several seconds in a row, I’m likely to yell, “Clear!” I’ll do that a couple of times and then give up. If I can flow the words but don’t understand the argument, I’ll just hope it gets clarified in CX and ensuing speeches. I am even more reluctant to intervene when I am on a panel, because if the other judges are getting it, I don’t want to throw you off (of course they may be thinking the same thing, and you may be digging yourself a hole and not know it…).

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t like to make applications or cross-applications for debaters. It begs the question of whether they knew about the application in the first place. So if you assume something “obviously” answers something else, you might be disappointed.

Speech docs seem to be undermining some folks’ ability to flow and follow a flow. Since I rely on my flow, this can be a problem. You still have to answer analytical arguments that are not in the speech doc. You shouldn’t answer arguments they didn’t make. While teams should not be giving you a messed-up speech doc, you also should not be up in arms because the 1NR gave you some solvency cards they didn’t get to at the bottom of the document.

So…

My philosophy seems more grumpy than it used to. I think it is just a matter of having to spell things out that I didn’t have to before, given trends in what debaters do. I wouldn’t read too much into it. I’m not actually especially grumpy, and I’m happy to answer your questions.

I totally love debate. I wish I could still debate. Good Luck folks!

Email chains: hcall94@gmail.com

Coach at Mason (2016-Present)

If my camera is off, I am not ready. Please do not start your speech yet or I will likely miss things. Thanks!

Top Level Things:

Tech > truth (most of the time)

Depth > breadth

Strategic thinking/arg development/framing of args > 10 cards that say X

I won't take prep for flashing/emailing, just don't steal it.

If a paradigm is not provided for me to evaluate the round, I will default to util.

I don't keep track of speech time/prep. Please keep your own.

Unless I am told not to judge kick by the 2AR, I will default to judge-kicking the CP or alt (in open).

I won't vote on things that have occurred outside of the round (ie pre-round misdisclosure).

Do not include cards in the card doc if they were not referenced in the 2NR/2AR but they do answer arguments your opponents made in their speech. If you didn't make the arg, I'm not going to read the card.

2:15 judge time is the bane of my existence. I apologize in advance for going to decision time in nearly every open debate. I like being thorough.

Online Debate:

Please. Please. Please. Start slow for the first 5 seconds of each speech. It is sometimes so hard to comprehend online debate, especially if you are even slightly unclear in person.

Make sure to occasionally check the screen when speaking to make sure we aren't frozen/showing you we can't hear you.

I am very understanding of inevitable online tech failures.

Cards:

Main things I end up looking to cards for:

- To clarify questions I have about my flow based on arguments made in the 2NR/2AR.

- To compare the quality of evidence on well-debated arguments. If both teams have done a good job responding to warrants from opponent ev + explaining their own ev, I will look to evidence quality as a tie breaker for those arguments.

- To determine if I should discount a card entirely. If a card is bad, say that. I will then validate if the ev is bad, and if it just doesn't make arguments I will not evaluate it in my decision. If I'm not told a card is bad and the arg is dropped, I'll give the other team full weight of it regardless of ev quality to preserve 2NR/2AR arg choice on arguments dropped by the other team.

•  
• I will NOT use evidence to create applications that were not made by debaters to answer the other team's arguments. 

Theory:

2021 update: I'm fine with unlimited condo. I am very unlikely to vote on condo but will if it is certainly won.

Other theory stuff:

If theory comes down to reasons that the specific CP is a voter, I view it as a reason to reject the arg and not the team. To be clear, I will not vote someone down for reading a certain type of CP or alt based on theory args alone. Independent CP theory args are highly dependent on whether there is quality evidence to substantiate the CP.

DAs:

There can be 0 percent risk of a link.

Bad DAs can be beaten with analytics + an impact defense card.

Uniqueness isn't given enough credit in a lot of 2NRs/2ARs.

Link typically precedes uniqueness. You should do framing for these things.

DA turns case/case turns DA gets dropped A LOT. Try not to do that.

I miss judging politics debates.

Ks v Policy Affs:

I prefer line-by-line debates and very much dislike lengthy overviews and convoluted alt explanations. I will not make cross-applications for you.

I prefer Ks that have specific links to the topic or plan action significantly more than Ks that have state or omission links.

It is important for you to win root cause claims in relation to the specifics of the aff rather than sweeping generalizations about war. This is especially true when the aff has arguments about a certain countries' motives/geopolitical interests or reasons behind corporate/governmental actions.

Outside of something that was blatantly offensive, I believe that all language is contextual and words only mean as much as the meaning attached to them. Thus, args like "we didn't use it in that context" are convincing to me. I can be persuaded to vote them down, but I am going to be more biased the other way.

Some of the below section is also relevant for these debates.

K affs v Policy Team:

The aff should at minimum be tied to the resolution. Novices should read a plan during their first semester.

Honestly, I would just prefer to resolve a debate that is aff v. case defense + offense specific to the aff (reform CP w/ net benefit, etc) over framework. If you go for framework/if you're giving a 2AR v it, below are some random things I think about clash debates. This is not exhaustive, nor does it mean I will automatically vote on these arguments. I will vote for who I think wins the flow, but in close debates, these are my leanings:

- I dislike judging debates that solely come down to structural v procedural fairness. I find them nearly impossible to resolve without judge intervention.

- Fairness is an internal link. There are multiple impacts that come from it.

- K affs are inevitable and we should be able to effectively engage with them in ways other than fw/t when they are based in discussions of the resolution.

- Ground and stasis points in debate are important for testing and arg refinement.

- Arg refinement can still occur over the process of the aff even w/o a plan if it's in the area of the resolution. Everyone should have X topic reform good cards to answer these affs/go against the K.

- Being topical is not the end of debate.

- Affs that are directly bidirectional are not a good idea in front of me and T should be the 2NR.

- Creativity can exist with plan texts and is not precluded by defending one.

- Affs garnering solid offense from sequencing questions is one of the best ways to win my ballot in these debates.

- Debate itself is good. Gaming is good. W/L inevitable. The goal of a debate is to win.

K v K:

If you happen to find me here, give me very clear judge instruction. 

Speaker points:

They're arbitrary. I've given up trying to adapt to a scale but I do try to give speaks based on the division and tournament. Here's some important things to note:

- Confidence gets you a long way.

- If you prevent your opponent from answering in cross ex, that won't bode well for speaks and I will be annoyed.

- I will not give you a 30 because you ask for one. Though I will give birthday and Senior last tournament boosts.

- If I'm not flowing something, and you notice I am staring at you, you are being redundant and should move on.

Melanie Campbell

Georgetown

University of Kansas

Updated Kentucky 2015

Big picture

“I do my best to judge rounds from the perspective presented by the debaters. I have voted for just about every kind of argument imaginable. […] I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate. […] The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue or to stimulate social transformation. That said I do have some preferences.” - Dr. Harris

I reward debaters who work hard, demonstrate robust knowledge of the topic, and come in with well-researched strategies.

Good debaters recognize that they are almost assuredly losing at least some arguments in the debate, and account for this in the rebuttals.

Post-GSU Military Presence Thoughts

After judging a few of these debates, I’ve become increasingly skeptical of vague aff answers to ‘what does significantly reduce military presence in X region/country mean.’ The vaguer the aff is, the more I find myself giving the neg leeway on link/CP competition questions. When you read an aff about Air-Sea Battle, and you won’t clarify whether your purposefully vague plan removes our carriers from the region, I feel like this: http://i.imgur.com/UVbALQs.gif. This topic is awesome and has real topic disads – let’s debate them.

I also tend to think the aff only gets to fiat a reduction of presence, and generally must defend decreased presence in the region is good.  So relocating troops to mainland Japan or another base in Okinawa is probably competitive. I also find it hard to reconcile why CPs that increase military presence in the same region as the aff shouldn’t be competitive.

Arguments

Topicality - It’s a real thing. Reading an aff all year or nebulous 'it's the heart of the topic' claims do not make you topical. I default to competing interps and think that even questions of reasonability generally require the aff to extend a counterinterp that is reasonable.

Disads – There can be such a low risk that any rational person would consider the risk to be zero in their decision calculus. The idea that because 'you are controlling X issue means that their is only a risk of Y issue' is not incredibly persuasive - the fact that CIR is going to pass seems to have no impact on whether the plan is popular, nor does the (un)popularity of the plan dictate the status squo's chances of CIR passage.

Try or Die – Can be useful if a) there is a chance of 'trying' being successful b) the other team doesn't also 'try'

Counterplans - I tend to be neg leaning on cp theory questions, however, I’m increasingly convinced that there is a clear distinction between the mandates of the plan the effects of the plan – counterplans that compete off the first are fair game, counterplans that compete off of the second probably aren’t actually competitive. Caveats to this: a) counterplans that are clearly in the literature b) I think the neg should get CPs that compete off of positions the aff has explicitly taken in their speeches or CX. So if the aff reads an adv to federal action or cards that say only congressional action solves, the neg should get the states or court CP.  (tl;dr – the cx answer of ‘we’ll defend X for DAs but not CPs’ makes me cringe).

Limited conditionality is good and I default to the 2NR’s world unless otherwise explicitly instructed that the squo is an option.

Kritiks – Are fine, especially if you fall under the ‘KQ/economics of speed’ category and not the ‘I love Baudrillard’ category. Ks of the affs mechanism/fundamental premise are more persuasive than random rep Ks of an aff impact or links to the state being evil.   

The paradigm is split up into things you might want to know before the tournament when doing prefs, and things you might want to know before a round.

Email address for chains and debate-related contact is rcdebate2@gmail.com

For Prefs:

1) Accommodations - I have difficulties with processing auditory information and verbalizing my decisions. I would appreciate some level of accommodation, primarily that y'all go clearer and slower, especially on tags, and signposting/labeling of arguments in the rebuttal speeches. Clear signals of when you are moving on from an argument are also welcome - I flow on my laptop, and often end up flowing upwards of 2/3rds of what you say verbatim pretty much straight down with some attempts at matching up arguments on the flow, but I need some help/signalling from debaters as per when one argument ends and another begins. Please email me at the address above regarding questions about decisions not asked during RFDs or further lines of clarification.

2) Framework - I am not often persuaded by framework/T-USFG negative arguments, so I'm not a safe bet in those rounds. When I do judge those rounds, I am more persuaded by arguments focusing on potential material educational benefits of debate than fairness (fairness is not an impact, as I do not understand why debate is an intrinsic good), but it's still a pretty uphill battle.

3) Experience - did LD in high school, four years of policy in college, and this is my fifth year of coaching and judging as a graduate student assistant. I largely read critical arguments and have judged mostly k-on-k debates and clash rounds, with a few policy rounds thrown in. I was a 2A, and the critical affirmatives I wrote were largely high theory shenanigans related to race, war, and imperialism.

4) Orientation to judging - I consider judging to be a job - I'm in the pool because it's related to obligations tied to my employment. I respect debaters time, effort, and scholarship and try to give feedback that will help refine argumentation and scholarship. Further, I don't have any strong identification as an educator, a blank slate, or a rational policy/decision-maker. This means that, especially in critical rounds, I would appreciate some instruction regarding how I should be viewing/judging the arguments in the debate, but otherwise I'll just default to what's in the next bullet point. I enjoy learning while judging, so new ways to see things or just some fun facts are always appreciated speaker points-wise.

5) How I judge - I see my role in debate as the person that has to be persuaded to press either the affirmative or negative button on tabroom based on what happens in the round. The affirmative should probably make a claim to doing something good, and the negative should say that whatever the aff did is either a) bad or b) doesn't do anything good. I start my decisions with framework/framing arguments - who's told me what the function of the debate should be and how to judge who has done that function better. I then evaluate either a) what's up with the aff in the 2AR based on what can be mobilized from the 1AR - how is it being extended, does it still do stuff, etc. and/or b) what core issue(s) of the debate the 2NR has identified/hinges on.

I often have some idea of b) going in to the 2AR, which entails I generally have some sense of what the aff would need to address to win (i.e. prove their advocacy is still good and 'solves' in some way), which leads to some quick decisions on my part - if my decision takes a while, either I'm trying to figure out how to word my decision properly and/or I'm very confused about what's happening/missed something. I care a lot about good warranting in the last speeches for arguments you're going for, and of course clear judge instruction and weighing. I'm not the most technical judge, but I do care that important arguments are answered although I would like the function of whatever dropped argument is being extended to be explained. You're better off going for a few well explained arguments rather than trying to cover everything.

For this next part, these are largely preferences/tendencies in how I view things based off of my experience with judging, and are subject to change/what happens in rounds.

Before a round:

1) Evidence quality vs analytic argumentation - I like good evidence, and I do not mind when debaters apply evidence in creative contexts, but evidence that you read is not by itself an argument. I often read evidence while it's being read in a speech, in cross-x, or during prep time because of my difficulties with processing auditory information. I don't think you need a card for everything, and also value good extrapolation of warrants, analysis and comparison of authors and citations, and applications of evidence.

I appreciate historical and contemporary examples (and metaphors/analogies), especially when it comes from your evidence, but I also need those examples to be well explained - an example is not in and of itself a warrant, but they're pretty essential for me to understand your argument and find what you're saying persuasive. Examples help concretize your warrants and make your argument something I can understand better - it's okay to kind of treat me like somebody who doesn't easily understand what people are saying, especially when they say it very quickly. Jargon's fine but we might not agree on the meaning of stuff so explain what you actually mean when you can.

2) Presumption - it's real, and if I don't think the 2AR sufficiently defends that the aff is good in some way the chance I end up voting negative at least a bit - also, it's not often that presumption is the best 2NR, it should be paired with some offense. I probably am amenable to presumption arguments because I think case debate is important. You don't have to put stuff directly on case flow, but aff's get away with so many things they shouldn't especially when it comes to how well their internal links are supported by the evidence, and it pains me to watch 2Ns miss some of that stuff.

I start my decisions (in my head) with the question of presumption/what the aff does, so keep that in mind. I tend to let negative alternatives get away with murder (although please don't call random alt related arguments a floating PIC it's really confusing for me) it despite having been a 2A, so watch out for that and point out when they don't haven't extended warrants. I can be persuaded that presumption flips affirmative, but that might just be because I don't entirely understand that phrase.

3) Framework (not T-USFG but for policy aff v k or k v k rounds) - I don't care as much about fairness, but I do think that both policy and critical teams should be forwarding arguments about how debate and arguments works and how I should be judging them. Debate theory arguments supported by actual theoretical arguments (be they critical or not) are valuable. For policy affs, I think of framework as a question of you telling me why talking about a plan might actually lead to the impact being addressed. For the negative, you can do some real damage here - tell me why the aff can't resolve what it's talking about, and what you're doing differently. I'm cool with whatever epistemology/ontology/affect/performance/ethics stuff you want to talk about.

I do think that people can make good arguments for how and why debate 'does things,' because it's a weird community full of some weird repetitions, but it's a question of how you explain that (and if you think debate doesn't 'do anything' you really gotta tell me what that means). Questions of 'spill over' and 'the ballot' are often red herrings for more substantive analysis of how the relationship between debaters, debates, policy debate as a format/medium of speech, the debate community, academic institutions, and 'the real world' works, so less debate jargon and more explanation helps.

4) Links and Perms - I really appreciate a good link argument with a quotation from the affirmative, an example, and an impact. You don't need a card for your links, as good analysis applied to specific parts of the aff will do the trick, but cards can help a ton. I appreciate depth of a link rather than several link arguments.

I don't often care for most 'no perms' debate theory arguments (like method v method means no perms bc advocacy can shift kind of arguments), and in those cases I would be more persuaded by no perms arguments grounded in theories of performance and speech (taken broadly) applied to debate. I'd prefer that the neg wins a substantive link as a DA or some degree of mutual exclusivity/trade-off. It helps me understand the difference between the aff and the neg better when DAs to the perm that are not just link arguments are applied to how the aff has explained the permutation. "Do both" is rarely enough in the 2AC, and by the 1AR I would like to know how the perm works more in depth - framework arguments about debate help here.

5) Overviews - I prefer short overviews that give me a primer on what to expect for the rest of the 9 minutes on the line-by-line + identification/flagging of important arguments (like links, tricks, and turns case stuff), but if you gotta do the long overview go for it, they are fine but a bit difficult to flow - it would be appreciated if you made the lines between the different chunks of argument you're making more clear if that's the case. It's easier for me to flow when debaters slow and then speed up; otherwise I fail to catch certain key warrants. It's also fine if you don't care too much about the flow and do whatever.

6) Theory - both policy and critical arguments rely on theoretical premises, and I'd appreciate when folks are ready to make them explicit. Theory should be a building block in a broader argument, so the arguments you make don't have to use evidence from authors that are 100% theoretically consistent with each other, but you should still be somewhat prepared to defend the political implications, associations, and (mis)uses of the theoretical dispositions your evidence is tied to. Big contradictions between authors and lit bases, however, do matter. I'm sympathetic to arguments about how theory functions in academia/academic community for better or for worse, but it's not necessarily only tied to that context.

Winning big theory thesis claims does not always mean that you win the debate (unless such claims go uncontested, and even then I need a brief explanation for why that matters). Theory is significant as a way of explaining how stuff works and how to engage in stuff, but an advocacy can be good (and a link valid) even if you 'lose' parts of the theory debate. I see theory and praxis as intertwined but sometimes it's worth making the distinction to explain warrants, so focusing on highlighting both (or explaining how they might be one and the same) helps me out when I am making my decisions.

Ultimately, I have come to conclusion that debate is a game but this game also has real life effects on the people who choose to participate in it. Therefore,BE NICE, HAVE FUN, and DO YOU!!!

I have found in my time debating that there are a few things that debaters are looking for when they read judging philosophies (including myself) so I’ll get straight to the point:

K's:I’m fine with them and have run them for quite some time in my career. However, this does not mean run a K in front of me for the fun of it - rather it means that I expect you to be able to explain your link story and the way the alternative functions. I find that most teams just make the assumption that the Aff doesn’t get a perm because "it’s a methodology debate". That’s not an argument, give me warrants as to why this is true if this is the argument you are going to for. K Aff's are fine often times debaters lose sight of the strategic benefits of the Aff, So a simple advice I can give isDONT FORGET YOUR AFF!!

DA's:In general I like strong impact analysis and good link story. Make logical argument and be able to weigh the impact story against the Aff.

CP’s: I am open all types of CP’s you just have to prove the competitiveness of said CP and make sure it has a net benefit.

FW: Again….Debate is a game but this game has real life implications on those who choose to engage in it. I think FW can be strategic against some Aff’s but don’t use it as a reason to not engage the Aff. Win your interpretation and weigh your impacts. Aff’s: don’t blow off FW answer it and engage it or tell me why you are not engaging in it.

Theory: Not a big fan of it, but make sure you slow down as to ensure I get all the arguments you are making. But do you!

Cross X: I think this is the best part of debate and LOVE it. Don’t waste those 3 min, they serve a great purpose. I am ALWAYS paying attention to CX and may even flow it.

***Please remember that I am not as familiar with the high school topic so don’t assume I know all the jargon ***

Last but not least,watch me!(take hints from the visual cues that I am sending)

elyse.conklin@gmail.com

I graduated from the Comm Masters Program at Wake Forest where I coached for two years (2015-2017). I coached Whitney Young Magnet (2010-2014) and Walter Payton College Prep (2014-2018). I am not currently coaching and spent the last couple years working as a pastry chef. I have a good base knowledge of the topic, but I might need some clarity on more niche references to argument trends, particularly T if you want to talk about other team's affs as examples of good or bad education.

“Who did the better debating” will always be the last question I ask myself before hitting the Submit button unless there is an extremely pressing reason not to. This also means I'm hesitant to vote for a team that wins one argument but loses the rest, “cheap shots” have to be well-impacted.

I judged quite frequently when I coached and am well-versed in most areas and styles of debate. I tended to coach "high theory" teams (whatever that means), but I think in order to be good at debate you have to engage and understand what other people are saying. If someone described me as a "technical" judge, I would be pleased. Judges who say "Plan or GTFO" or the reverse are doing everyone a disservice.

I am more dispassionate than dogmatic when it comes to substance -- I try to reward quality, up to date research related to the topic, and to respect the work of debaters and coaches by giving my best effort to give a well-explained decision. At the same time, I'm very willing to vote on presumption if the other side has not given me a coherent, justifiable reason to vote for them. The most direct and creative impact turns from any ideological standpoint make for fun debates. Heg and cap good args are fine enough, but I need these positions to be contextualized within current political events and trends, not only theory and impacts. By the final rebuttals I tend to flow straight down and line them up the best I can, but I prioritize typing the content as much as I can during the speech.

Time your speech, your partner's speech, the other team, and prep. If suddenly it seems like you have given a 12 minute 2AC, I will become even grumpier than usual and dock everyone's speaks .1

Background

It is hard to say what I'll be judging you in. I have done a little bit of a lot of things, and a lot of a few things in debate. I would say I identify first and foremost as an extemper. Though this is becoming less true the more debate I coach and judge. My primary debate knowledge base comes from time coaching and judging college parliamentary debate (NPDA). If you are looking to categorize me as one type of judge that's not a bad bet. I've dabbled in CEDA/NDT/CX. Judge a lot of IPDA in college, that's become my primary debate coaching/judging area. PF and LD at high school tournaments with the occasional college LD mixed in.

I would say I am average in theory debate, familiar enough with K's to follow and solid at flowing as long as it is clear and not incredibly fast. If I ignore you and start reading your speech doc exclusively, that's a sign to slow down.

General Philosophies on Debate

In my opinion the debate round is an educational space first. Now, how you define that can be up for debate. I will always appreciate a topical aff, but am not afraid of non-topical positions if they are justified through an educational framework and establish that there is no topical version. I can follow critical theory, and generally enjoy hearing those cases, but will also love and follow political, economic, social etc. Impacts.

As far as topicality goes, I usually lean aff. If you are neg and the aff isn't topical, run T, just make sure to prove abuse and the impacts that it had in round. You might have an alternative definition that is better, but if you don't tell me why it matters then I won't vote for it. Prove the abuse, prove the impact of that abuse. I'll consider both in round and out of round impacts. Don't ignore a T because you think I won't vote for it. I will vote for a topicality press even if I think it's bogus, if the aff just ignores it.

If it is a policy round/format, I am looking for stock issues. Aff has the burden to prove their plan solves a legitimate problem that isn't going away anytime soon. That plan ought to be topical. I am pretty flexible around different formats of debate and approaches to resolutions. But if you are running a policy case make sure your stock issues are present.

NOVICE DEBATERS... Just because it is in the/a provided packet doesn't make it topical. The packet is to help you learn debate, not to help you avoid topicality arguments. You should learn those too.

IPDA Folks... I will vote on a topicality/abuse argument if it is well run and clearly abusive. But most of the time it comes more down to which definition wins to help frame the decision. I think in all my years in IPDA I voted on T once and it was because it was reasonable and not responded to.

Specific Evaluations

These will be framed from a negative position but you can cross apply them to the aff as well.

Dis ads: I will evaluate impacts above all else. Give me something tangible and real. On the other side, if you are attacking a DA or Advantage the link chain is a good place to find offense. I am not a fan of super low probability impacts. Magnitude, timeframe, scope... good to go... low probability though are easy to dismiss for me.

The K: I like Ks. I think it is important to question all our assumptions about government, power, even debate itself. Have a good alt. I don't vote on a K because the government sucks... we all know that. I vote on a K because you provide me something else to vote for.

Counter plans: Similar to the K, I need something else to vote for. I won't vote Neg simply because you poke holes in the Aff case (stock issues being the obvious exception), I need to vote FOR the neg not AGAINST the Aff. I will buy squo arguments, but I usually prefer a counterplan. PICs are also good.

Condo: I think conditionality is stupid. Pick a position and go with it. I know the neg has the right to the squo but if you spend half the round embracing the fact that the status quo is bad for a counter plan I won't buy a sudden switch. that's not fair to the Aff and it's not fun for me if you to suddenly change your advocacy. I am aware that this is not some debate formats allow/encourage conditionality. If for some reason I am judging one of those... just remind me that that's the norm.

IPDA: I will lean on whatever judging criteria you give me. I have, on numerous occasions, voted against the better debater (or even one that won most the points) because the framework went uncontested and favors one side. I won't do work for you, so please be direct and don't just concede definitions because your worried about time.

Speaker Points

Here is how I think of speaker points. The round is won and lost off the evidence and argumentation. Speaker points are about style, execution and how what happens happens. So...

Clarity: I have to be able to understand your arguments. That means they need to be organized clearly and stated concisely. I also have to be able to understand your voice. I can listen fairly quickly but it must be articulate, clear, and have intent behind it.

Tag Development: I look for tags that are concise and direct. Tell me exactly what you are arguing. I am trying to evaluate the round, if I have to take extra time to interpret your tags that brings you down. I always tell my debaters "Don't be cute, be explicit". A cute tag is fun, but won't help your points and might confuse me.

Cross X: Cross X is extremely important in policy debate. It is the only time that there is a direct exchange. My first rule is that you must be respectful to the other debaters. If you are rude then you will be dropped. I also look for strategically used questions. What do you achieve and how do you use it. I would say a strong cross X can do more for speaker points than any one piece of case construction.

Delivery: Mostly an IPDA (sometimes parli) thing. Talk to me. Don't spit evidence and hope that I listen. Look me in the eye and explain to me how this all works. But do not think that "even, calm and indifferent" will win me over. If you are talking about sensitive topics and seem indifferent, I will assume you don't care and you will lose points. Passion is just as important as composure.

David Cram Helwich
University of Minnesota
28 years judging, 20-ish rounds each year

Quick version: Do what you do best and I will try to check my dispositions at the door.

Topic Thoughts: We picked the wrong one (too narrow, needed at least sole purpose). Aff innovation is going to require NFU-subsets affs, but I have yet to see a good argument for a reasonable limit to such an interpretation. "Disarming" creates an unanticipated loophole. Process counterplans that are not directly related to nuclear policymaking seem superfluous given the strength of the negative side of the topic literature.

Online Debate: It is "not great," better than I feared. I have judged quite a few online debates over the past 3 years. Debaters will benefit by slowing down a bit if that enhances their clarity, avoiding cross-talk, and actively embracing norms that minimize the amount of "null time" in debates--watch for speechdocs and download them right away, pay attention to the next speaker as they give the order, be efficient in getting your speechdoc attached and sent, etc.

Evidence: I believe that engaged research is one of the strongest benefits of policy debate, and that judging practices should incentivize such research. I am a bad judge for you if your evidence quality is marginal—sources, recency, and warrants/data offered. I reward teams who debate their opponent’s evidence, including source qualifications.

Delivery: I will provide prompts (if not on a panel) if I am having trouble flowing. I will not evaluate arguments that I could not originally flow.

Topicality: I vote on well-developed procedurals. I rarely vote on T cheap shots. T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. Debaters that focus interpretation debating on caselists (content and size), division of ground, and the types of literature we read, analyzed through fairness/education lenses, are more likely to get my ballot. I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as a “definition”—intent to define is important, whereas proximity-count “definitions” seem more valuable in setting the parameters of potential caselists than in grounding an interpretation of the topic.

Critical Arguments: I have read quite a bit of critical theory, and will not dismiss your argument just because it does not conform to ‘traditional’ notions of debate. However, you should not assume that I am necessarily familiar with your particular literature base. I value debating that applies theory to the ‘artifact’ of the 1AC (or 1NC, or topic, etc). The more specific and insightful the application of said theory, the more likely I am to vote for you. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is vitally important, for both “policy” and “K” teams. Absent contrary guidance, I view ‘framework’ debates in the same frame as T—caselist size/content, division of ground, research focus.

Disadvantages/Risk: I typically assess the ‘intrinsic probability’ of the plan triggering a particular DA (or advantage) before assessing uniqueness questions. This means that link work is very important—uniqueness obviously implicates probability, but “risk of uniqueness” generally means “we have no link.” Impact assessments beyond shallow assertions (“ours is faster because I just said so”) are an easy pathway to my ballot, especially if you have strong evidentiary support

Theory: I will not evaluate theoretical objections that do not rise to the level of an argument (claim, data, warrant). Good theory debating focuses on how the operationalization of competing interpretations impacts what we debate/research and side balance. Thought experiments (what would debate look like if the neg could read an unlimited number of contradictory, conditional counterplans?) are valuable in drawing such comparisons. I tend to find “arg not team” to be persuasive in most cases. This means you need a good reason why “loss” is an appropriate remedy for a theory violation—I am persuadable on this question, but it takes more than an assertion. If it is a close call in your mind about whether to go for “substance” or “theory,” you are probably better off going for “substance.”

Counterplans: The gold standard for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I am more suspicious of multi-conditionality, and international fiat than most judges. I am probably more open to condition counterplans than many critics. PICs/PECs that focus debate on substantive parts of the aff seem important to me. Functional competition seems to make more sense than does textual competition. That being said, I coach my teams to run many counterplans that I do not think are legitimate, and vote for such arguments all the time. The status quo seems to be a legitimate voting option unless I am instructed otherwise. My assumption is that I am trying to determine the "best policy option," which can include the status quo unless directed otherwise.

Argument Resolution: Rebuttalists that simply extend a bunch of cards/claims and hope that I decide things in their favor do poorly in front of me. I reward debaters that resolve arguments, meaning they provide reasons why their warrants, data, analysis, sources etc. are stronger (more persuasive) than those of their opponents on critical pressure points. I defer to uncontested argument and impact comparisons. I read evidence on questions that are contested, if I want the cite, or if I think your argument is interesting.

Decorum: I believe that exclusionary practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner (intentionally engaging in hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist etc. acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.”

Use an email chain--establish one before the round, and please include me on it (cramhelwich@gmail.com) . Prep time ends once the speechdoc is saved and sent. Most tournaments have policies on how to deal with "tech time"--please know what those policies are. I do not have a strong opinion on the acceptability of mid-speech prep for other purposes.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Please put me on the email chain! And feel free to email me questions. michaelcrenshaw94@gmail.com

About Me:

I debated college policy with Liberty University for three years. I coached and judged my final year of college. I'm a computer programmer in Charlottesville, VA.

General Stuff:

* Role of the ballot: I believe my job is to sign the ballot for whichever team does the best job convincing me that I should do so - whether by endorsing a plan that would prevent nuclear war, addressing some form of oppression... or whatever else.

* Spreading: Spread, but be clear. I've been out of the game a while, and my flow is meh. Theory blocks should be especially clear. Read my face expressions.

* Jargon: Being technical is good. I'm technical. I'm a programmer - if I'm not technical, something breaks, and I end up working on a weekend. Using jargon is not the same thing as being technical. "Prefer our interp, direction of the topic lets the aff shift, justifies condo" is no better than "queer (non-)relationality is already always overdetermined by the anti-texturing forces of heteronormativity." Stop thinking you're better than other people because you like your jargon more. Being technical means everything you say is relevant and warranted, not that it's said in a way that you think sounds cool.

Topicality:

I will vote on whatever arguments win the debate. I tend to think affs should be in the area of the topic to aid predictability and increase education. But you can convince me otherwise.

If you like framework, read it. I can be convinced every aff should be 100% topical. Show why the aff is bad (or their getting a ballot off the aff leads to bad things).

I have a high threshold for believing other people shouldn't be "allowed" to do things. This means you must understand the 1NC framework block your coaches gave you, and you must meaningfully extend its main concepts (interp, link, impacts) through the 2NR, applying them to the aff and the way in which it was deployed.

Kritiks:

I like them. Get a link to the aff, and explain it well. Read an alt that makes sense, and explain it well. Read an impact, and explain why the perm(s) can't solve it while the alt alone can.

Don't fall back on K goop. Hoping the opponent isn't well-versed in your lit base isn't a strategy - it's you being narcissistic and wasting everyone else's time. If they don't "get it," explain it. Your ideas are good, right? Don't be afraid of other people learning what they are.

Disads:

Yes. The more specific the link, the better. Make your impacts interact with case.

Counterplans:

Process CPs are shady. Word PICs can be shady, but sometimes make good sense.

Conditionality:

Again, I have a high threshold for telling people they're not "allowed" to do something. If you think their getting to read two CPs and a K makes all our lives worse, I might be persuaded to vote them down.

Dumping a 15-point jargon-filled condo block isn't the way to convince me. Pick one or two reasons their way of arguing is annoying and makes us all want to go home, and spend some time talking about them.

Theory (Novice Specific):

Please no Battle of the Blocks. I'm not a good enough flow nor smart enough to fairly evaluate who read the better block. Make comparative arguments in final rebuttals instead of re-reading blocks, or I will probably just skip to evaluating substance. I think for me to do otherwise is counter-educational for novices.

Note: In JV or Varsity, I'll do my best to sort out your stuff. But don't expect to love my decision. In novice, I'll skip the theory debate and tell you to make arguments instead of repeating blocks.

Etc.:

Emailing docs before stopping prep boosts speaks.

Be nice. If you can, be funny. Have fun and learn!

Explain it so a 12 y/o could understand and you should be fine. The 12 y/o is as intelligent as you are, maybe even smarter, probably less prone to the self-sabotage of needing to be the smartest person in the room that embarrasses most debaters away from asking the stupidest, most rigorous questions (of themselves and others). There's just a knowledge gap. Would the words you choose equip an audience to effectively explain the concepts you need understood to others? You're not being evaluated as a student—even though close study is indispensable. It doesn't matter that you get it. You're being evaluated as a teacher whose job it is to teach other teachers. Good luck!

I’m a very technical judge. If I don’t have an argument written on my flow (because it was a claim without a warrant or you were verbally unclear), then I will not evaluate that argument in my decision. For example, if the opposing team concedes an argument, do not simply repeat your claim and point out that the other team has dropped it. Rather, you should repeat your claim, communicate its warrant(s), and explain what the concession means for the rest of the debate.

Substance

When it comes to DAs and case turns, I’m a sucker for quality timeframe analysis. If you win a sizable risk of the fastest impact in the debate (preferably one that turns your opponent’s impacts), you're likely in a good spot. I’m a skeptical person though, so I usually end up comparing low-risk scenarios.

Critiques of what the plan tries to do/does make sense to me. Critiques of what the plan doesn't try to do/doesn't do confuse me. I'm unlikely to ignore the benefits of the plan, metaphysically flawed as it may be.

Theory

It is difficult to persuade me that other theory arguments outweigh topicality. The burden is on the team advancing the theory argument to prove that it’s a voting issue rather than just a reason to reject the argument in question.

I think two non-contradictory advocacies for the negative is reasonable. That said, I'm more persuaded by “multiple contradictory conditional worlds are specifically bad” arguments than simple “conditionality is generally bad” arguments. My interpretation of conditionality is that the status quo belongs to the negative no matter what. Therefore, if the negative wins that conditionality is legitimate and goes for a conditional advocacy in the 2NR, I will still be willing to weigh the status quo against the plan.

Counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. Textual competition means the counterplan excludes some of the plan text. Functional competition means the counterplan's advocacy differs substantively from the plan. Any reason why textual or functional competition alone is a poor standard for evaluation is remedied by requiring both standards.

Fiat is durable. I won't vote on "rollback/lack of funding" arguments.

My ballot doesn’t do anything besides say whether you won or lost.

Updated October 13th, 2017

Update 4/1/2023

*If you are scanning this philosophy as a nonmember of the community, seeking out quotes to help your political "culture war" cause you are not an honest broker here and largely looking for clickbait. I find your endeavors an unfortunate result of a rage machine that consumes a great deal of quality programs without ever helping them thrive or grow. Re-evaluate your life and think about how you can help high schools and middle schools around this country develop speech and debate programs, core liberal art educational, to improve the quality of argumentation, that otherwise is lacking. In the end, as an outsider looking in, you are missing a great deal of nuance in these philosophies and how they operate in the communities (multiple not just one) around the US and the world.

If you have landed here as a representative of Fox News or an ally or affiliate, I would like to see the receipts of the bias that has and continues to perforate your organization from Roger Ailes to Tucker Carlson and more. Here is my question, when you learned about the Joe McCarthy era of conspiracy theory, along with the hysteria and demonization of potential Americans who are communist (or sympathizers) and "pinko" (gay or sexual "deviants"), is your gripe with McCarthy that he had a secret list without evidence, or do you recognize that a core problem with McCarthy is his anti-democratic fear that there actually ARE communists, gay, trans, bisexual, Americans?

My next question is when and where you think it is acceptable for a person with strong beliefs to exist in democratic spaces. Bias is inevitable and part of this debate game. Organizations attempt to manage types of bias and coaches and debaters learn how to adapt to certain bias while attempting to avoid problematic bias. What do you think? Would right leaning presidential candidates vote for an argument that affirms trans athletes in sports? Should a trans judge leave their identity entirely at the door and embody a leading republican presidential candidate who is against medical care for trans persons? Both answers are no. The issue you seek to lambast for viewership clickbate is much deeper and more complicated than a 3 minute video clip can cover. Thank for reading.

REAL PHILOSOPHY
Background: Indiana University Director of Debate as of 2010. Background is primarily as a policy debater and policy debate coach.

Email Chain: Bdelo77@gmail.com

The road to high speaker points and the ballot

I reward debaters who have a strong knowledge of the topic. Those debaters who can articulate intricacies and relationships amongst topic specific literature will meet what I believe are the educational benefits of having a topic in the first place.

Using evidence to assist you with the argument you are trying to make is more important than stringing evidence together in hopes that they accumulate into an argument. “I have a card judge, it is real good” “pull my 15 uniqueness cards judge” are not arguments. Ex: Obama will win the election – a) swing voters, Rasmussen poll indicates momentum after the DNC b) Washington post “Romney has lost the election” the base is gone… etc. are good extensions of evidence.

Less jargon more eloquence. I get bored with repeated catch phrases. I understand the need for efficiency, but debaters who recognize the need for innovation by individuals in the activity will receive more points.

Speed: I expect I can digest at least 70% of your speech. The other 30% should be general human attention span issues on my part. I firmly believe debate is a communication event, I am saddened that this has been undervalued as debaters prepare for tournaments. If I agree with X debater that Y debater’s speech on an argument was incoherent, I am more and more willing to just ignore the argument. Computer screens and Bayesian calculus aside, there is a human in this body that makes human decisions.

Should affs be topical?

Affs should have a relationship to the topic that is cogent. If there is no relationship to the topic, I have a high standard for affirmatives to prove that the topic provides no “ground” for a debater to adapt and exist under its umbrella. Negatives, this does not mean you don’t have a similar burden to prove that the topic is worth debating. However personally I think you will have a much smaller hill to climb… I find it disturbing that debaters do not go further than a quick “topical version of your aff solves” then insert X switch side good card… Explain why the topical version is good for debate and provides argument diversity and flexibility.

Policy debate is good: When I prep our files for tournaments I tend to stay in the policy-oriented literature. This does not mean that I am unwilling to cut our K file or K answers, I just have limited time and job related motivation to dive into this literature.

K Debate: Can be done well, can be done poorly. I do not exclude the arguments from the round but nebulous arguments can be overplayed and abused.

(Updated 3-2-2022) Conditionality:

1) Judge Kick? No. You made your choice on what to go for now stick with it. 2NRs RARELY have the time to complete one avenue for the ballot let alone two conditional worlds...

I tend to believe that one conditional substantive test of the plan advocacy is good (agent CP, process CP, or ?) and I am open to the idea of the need for a second advantage CP (need to deal with add-ons and bad advantages) or K within limits. I'm not a fan of contradicting conditional advocacies in how they implicate 2AC offense and potential.

Beyond 1-2 conditional arguments, I am torn by the examples of proliferating counterplans and critiques that show up in the 1NC and then disappear in the negative block. There is a substantive tradeoff in the depth and quality of arguments and thus a demotivation incentive for the iterative testing and research in the status quo world of 3+ conditional advocacies. The neg's, "write better advantages" argument has value, however with 2AC time pressure it means that 1ACs are becoming Frankenstein's monster to deal with the time tradeoff.

Plans: I think the community should toy with the idea of a grand bargain where affirmatives will specify more in their plan text and negs give up some of their PIC ground. The aff interp of "we only have to specify the resolution" has pushed us in the direction where plans are largely meaningless and aff conditionality is built into core 2AC frontlines. The thing is, our community has lost many of its fora for discussing theory and establishing new norms around issues like this. Debaters need to help be the change we need and we need more in-depth theory discussions outside of the rounds. Who is the Rorger Solt going to be of the 2020's?

Reading evidence:
I find myself more willing to judge the evidence as it was debated in the round (speeches and cx), and less willing to scan through piles of cards to create a coherent understanding of the round. If a debate is being had about the quality of X card, how I SHOULD read the evidence, etc. I will read it.

Sometimes I just have an interest in the evidence and I read it for self-educational and post-round discussion reasons.

Judging:

I will work extremely hard to evaluate the debate as the debaters have asked me to judge it.

Updated: GSU 2018. Some parts are taken from my old philosophy, and some are new.

Put me on your email chains - kyle.deming7@gmail.com.

In descending order of importance, some notes about my judging:

1 - I do my best to evaluate arguments as they are debated rather than how I feel about them. All told, you are probably better off doing what you do well than radically adjusting your style to fit my judging. I have voted for many positions I find typically unpersuasive, either because they were not answered or they were answered poorly. I will likely continue this practice.

2 - Remember: I need to hear, understand, and flow your arguments. Most debaters would benefit from being slightly slower and clearer. (GSU 2018 note: I have not judged a debate since March 2017, so as a bonus, my flowing will also be rusty.) On a similar note, rebuttals should frame the decision: tell me the preferred metric for evaluating the debate, and tell me why you win. Teams that fail to communicate their position - either stylistically or substantively - will struggle to get my ballot.

3 - Evidence quality matters. Qualifications, recency, and other attributes of evidence can and do make a difference, and teams that highlight their relevance and relative value in particular situations tend to come out ahead.

4 - Severely under-developed arguments are frequently incomplete even when dropped and may merit new responses after being actually explained.

5 - Affs without "plans" have sometimes won my ballot, but all other things being equal, I tend to find topicality-style negative arguments persuasive, particularly when they emphasize the benefits of switch-side debate and research on a stable resolution. I am still susceptible to voting on dropped or mishandled arguments: when I have voted for deliberately nontopical affs, it is usually because the neg inadequately debated an impact turn or did not articulate an impact of their own.

6 - Negative teams going for K-type arguments against policy affs should explain their vision of the debate; if I am not deciding the round on the basis of whether the plan averts more harm than it causes, negative teams should tell me what to do instead. If it is not obvious, affirmative teams are in a good position to make straightforward framing/case-outweighs arguments.

7 - Speaker points mostly reflect the degree to which you contributed to your team’s chances of victory. Other ways to get good speaker points include reading coherent and well-researched strategies, calling on historical examples, making CX matter later in the debate. Some ways to hurt your speaker points include being unclear despite prompting, wasting dead time, stealing egregious amounts of prep, and being unpleasant in CX (rude, mean, or extraordinarily unhelpful). Debate should be competitive, but it should also be fun.

Debate Background

High School: CX & L/D (Indiana)

Bachelors: NPDA & BP (DePauw)

Masters (Coached): NPDA, BP, & NEDA (Ball State)

Doctorate (Coach): NPDA & BP (Morehouse)

Disclaimer: My paradigm is best suited to the Worlds/BP community as I am most familiar with that debate community’s rules and norms. I am unfamiliar with the norms created by other college debate communities. I STRONGLY suggest you ask me any questions you think are important before the debate begins. If you feel that I have left something out of this paradigm then please contact me so I can provide more information.

Short Points (of my personal opinion)

· If something is said in the round it now exists. The performance of debate is unconditional while arguments made can have applied conditionality.

· This is the round that matters. I do not care about past performances from previous rounds and future performances from subsequent rounds.

· Trichotomy is important in parliamentary debate.

· I highly dislike “speed” and view the tactic as abuse.

· Affirmative teams should affirm the resolution and debate the resolution.

· Critical positions are okay but tricky.

· I will not call for evidence after the round. If something is unclear during the debate then it is unclear on my ballot.

· Tell me what the role of my ballot should be for this round.

· My average speaking range is 25-28 (30 is the greatest speech I have ever seen). This can, and often does, change depending on what they tournament director recommends.

Long Points (of my personal opinion)

Tricotomy. Collegiate debate is about education and education can be best achieved when all types of debate can be represented. I believe that rounds of fact, value, and policy are mutually beneficial when run correctly. A common argument against this stance is that policy interpretations encompass both fact and value. This position blatantly ignores what makes for good fact and value rounds. If you feel that every round should be policy regardless of the wording of the resolution then please spend your time participating in a debate format that exclusively offers policy resolutions. Also, if you truly believe that policy debate is better than everything else please spend your time petitioning the NSDA to end the formats of Public Forum and Lincoln/Douglas at the high school level.

Communication is not Conditional. Debate is a performance wherein everyone in the room performs. Once something is said in the round it then becomes unconditional to the performance of the debaters. The affirmative is bound to defend their performed advocacy and the negative is bound to defend their performed advocacy. This is a formal way of saying "don't be an asshole" in the debate.

Rules of Debate. All debaters should conform to the rules of their respective debate organization. If a debater/team feels that those rules deserve to be broken they must outline in the round why it is important to break the rules.

The NPDA rules can be found at the following link: http://www.parlidebate.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/npdarules-0608.pdf

Tag-Team Questions. The rules outline designated times when each speaker delivers material for the debate. This is there time to shine, not their partners. I do not like a tag-team style of cross examination/Points of Interest because I do not find it persuasive. This is reflected in the speaker points.

Speed of Delivery. “Speed” is speaking at a rate of delivery that far exceeds everyday, casual conversation. Speed in debate is a tactic designed to exclude those who cannot keep up. This division of have/have-nots reinforces privilege, discriminates against non-native English speakers, and can be interpreted as ablest. If your opponent and/or your judge asks for you to slow down then please slow down.

Topicality. When prompted through the resolution, affirmative teams should present policies that are topical. Topicality exists when in-round abuse can be illuminated by the opposition debaters. I usually look to topicality first when evaluating the round.

Counterplans. I can only keep track of so much in my head, so please stick to one counterplan if you decide to include this type of argument in the round. The best counterplans are non-topical and mutually exclusive. All counterplans are unconditional advocacies which may or may not make it to the end of the debate.

Kritiks. Kritiks work very well in debate formats that privilege evidence in the debate space (CEDA/NDT) and not as well when that evidence is restricted (NPDA). Running a kritik effectively requires a thorough knowledge over the critical material and a clear alternative. Like counterplans, kritiks are unconditional advocacies which may or may not make it to the end of the debate.

Preparation Time. Prep time starts at the conclusion of one speech and ends at the start of the next speech. Some debate communities find this statement overly harsh; if you subscribe to one of these communities then please ask for clarification.

Non-Traditional Debate Styles. From my personal encounters with teams utilizing non-traditional debate styles, majority of the debater’s advocacy centers on the role of the ballot. The following is the section from the NPDA Rules outlining the “Objective of Debate”.

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. If, at the end of the debate, the judge believes that the proposition team has supported and successfully defended the resolution, they will be declared the winner, otherwise the opposition will be declared the winner. (NPDA, 2008)

If your advocacy disagrees with any part of this statement you must argue why this is the case in the round. The best advocates heavily discuss the resolution presented.

(1) I don't flow linearly, instead I evaluate the debate wholistically.

(2) I like big picture argumentation. Think about the implications that has for speed and argument extensions. You should be very clear in your extension of argument analysis. It is your responsibility to clearly communicate the arguments you need to win the debate. Don't assume that the tech advantages you get from the flow apply the same for me. This does not mean that I am not smart enough to follow debates but it does mean that I will not have a linearly constructed document at the end of the debate that will inform how I evaluate the debate.

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Emory University '18

Pace Academy '14

I debated for 4 years in highschool and 1 year in college. I have not done any research on this topic and so the burden is on you to fully explain your arguments. However, I will say I am a scientist and tend to not give "warming isn't real" or similarly themes arguments any weight. I tend to best understand debates when they are about the implementation of a topical plan. If your style of argumentation does not include this, I might be less familiar with it and therefore you should explain everything as much as possible. I will do my best to understand and evaluate your argument fairly. 

Do not: Clip cards, lie, use something out of context, or do anything else unethical. These will result in loss of speaker points or loss of rounds.

Questions: mangofrog7@gmail.com

**Update January 2024- I do not get to judge a lot of rounds these days, so please make sure that you are contextualizing your arguments. You'll have to explain topic-specific details in cross or clearly in your tags. It is safe to assume that I am not familiar with the current literature. I will still stick to the flow, but I'm not as quick as I used to be when this was my full time job. You would also benefit from a gradual increase in speed as you begin your speech because, once again, I'm not nearly as submersed as I used to be. My facial expressions and body language will make it clear to you if I'm not keeping up :)

Paradigm from Sept 2016-

Offense wins debates. Defense is cool, but offense is why it matters. Warrants are key to offense. Smart analytics are better than bad cards. Examples are great contextualizations that allow you to reframe your opponent's arguments.

Impact framing has to be clear. Internal links are both underrated and underquestioned. Tell me why you get to your impacts and then give me a warrant for how you stop it. Asserting "economic declines leads to war" is not a warranted internal link analysis.

I'm naturally very expressive. Watch me during the debate and you'llhave a pretty good idea of what I think about the argument you are making.

I'm very flow-centric. Overviews are great for impact comparison, but line-by-line is where the fun techy stuff happens. Make sure you have a warrant and impact extended if you expect me to vote on something. Saying "they conceded this claim" is not an argument. That being said, one of my biggest pet peeves is when debaters say "they conceded this argument!" when they clearly answered it. Don't be that person.

Frame my ballot. My default stance is that I'm an educator, but not in the sense that I am present to educate you. I think I should be learning from you in the round, and my role as an educator just means that I am there to make sure everyone is learning. Winning frameworkgoes back to impact comparison- tell me why the impacts on framework outweigh (or have to come before) the aff. That means you also have to engage the aff. If you're trying to beat framework, you need a reason why the case impacts outweigh (or come before) the impacts on framework. That means you have to engage the framework impacts.

In round abuse is a whole lot more convincing than potential abuse. If you're speeding or mumbling through a theory block, don't expect me to get down everything you're saying. The only theory arg I think I lean one way or the other on is performative contradictions. If you're going to contradict yourself, you better have a good defense of it.

I'm not going to vote for your alt if I don't know what it is or why it solves. Impacting your links is a great idea. You need to make sure you're contextualizing why the aff is bad and not why the status quo is bad.

Debate is an awesome opportunity for education in a very unique setting. Don't neglect that by not engaging your opponents' arguments

A little about me and my history: I debated at Pitt from 1997 to 2001. Ran mostly, but not entirely, critical stuff, including the occasional performance aff. Coached for Pitt from 2002-2004. Other than a brief spell running a NEDA program in 2007, prior to the 2015-16 season, I have not watched a round since 2005 CEDA. I have, however, been busy studying, teaching, and writing about public argument, advocacy, and political rhetoric. 

Some things you should know about me if you're filling out a pref sheet or debating in front of me:

I enjoy framework debates. And I've become a bit more of a pragmatist since my last go-round in debate. In other words, I've become somewhat partial to the notion that advocating a concrete policy that does good in the world, despite flaws in the manner in which it is presented, is a worthwhile enterprise. This doesn't mean that you shouldn't run critical arguments in front of me. It does mean that you should make smart arguments about the interplay between and among representations, epistemology, and plan solvency rather than relying on the silly artificial construct of "pre-fiat" vs. "post-fiat" implications. There's a million ways to be an advocate, and the team that does a more thorough job of demonstrating that my vote for their advocacy is net beneficial will generally win my ballot.

Warrants are where debates really happen. Trying to fill up my flow with a hundred warrantless claims, waiting for your opponents to drop one, and then filling in the warrants in the next speech is not a good strategy in front of me. It will hurt your speaker points, and I will give a lot of latitude to your opponents in making new arguments once the warrants finally emerge. 

I was never spectacular at flowing debates, and I'm presumably worse now. If you get into really super-dense theory stuff (e.g., 17 reasons why severance permutations are illegitimate, each with 3 blippy warrants, in under 45 seconds), don't expect me to be able to keep up with you.

2NR/2AR overviews are incredibly important. Any argument that you think should play in role in my decision should be mentioned in these overviews. If you don't highlight it for me, don't get mad at me for not putting together its earth-shattering implications for you.

I don't tend to read a lot of cards after rounds. If you say, "Read the Smith card, it's great," I'm not going to read the Smith card. If you say "The Jones card makes a delineation between A and B, demonstrating that the plan uniquely links to the disad, for reason x," and your opponents say "The Jones card actually proves that there's no internal link, for reason y," then I'll definitely read the Jones card.

I know that this makes me sound hopelessly old-fashioned, but debate is still a verbal activity, and I do my best to treat it as such. I embrace the recognition that ethos and pathos influence my decision. (Of course they do.) There is no such thing as persuasion based on logos alone. I don't have a problem with policy debate being a specialized form of discourse with its own vocabulary. However, talking as fast as humanly possible is one tactic among many, and not necessarily the best one at all times. 

Be playful. Be creative. Use your tropes. That's what they're there for.

Bio/Who is this?: Debated four years at Georgetown (2012-2016), where I also now coach. This is my first year judging.

Overview: I try to evaluate arguments as they are developed in the debate and to minimize pre-conceived notions. That said, I feel that total objectivity by any judge is a very tall order, and I have a lot of respect for those people that get close to it.

Research was, and is still is, my favorite part of debate. I think it’s where a large portion of the activity’s value, and fun, comes from. Good research makes for interesting debates and better clash, which makes incentives for good research a meaningful impact for theory/topicality. I plan to read a sizable amount of evidence after rounds both to inform my decision and out of personal interest.

I do most of my research on topic-specific issues or politics/elections. As a result, this is where a lot more of my knowledge base lies.

Clarity is important. Important arguments deserve more clarity.

Debaters should recognize when they are losing certain arguments/parts of the debate and incorporate that understanding into their rebuttals.

Topicality: Arguments should be based around effects on how the topic literature is shaped for better or worse by the interpretations. Negatives would be best served by proving the affirmative’s interpretation is unreasonable. Affirmatives read all year/by a lot of teams are not default topical, but there could be relevant considerations for why so many teams choose to read the same aff. In-round abuse is unnecessary to vote neg, but can be useful to demonstrate issues of ground. Specification arguments should be grounded in the resolution.

Relevant excerpt from Seth Gannon – “Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to 'specific, substantive clash' and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have canceled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits.”

Counterplans: I lean affirmative on most questions of competition. I’m hard-pressed to vote for a counterplan that doesn’t compete off of an explicit component of the plan. I also lean affirmative on most theoretical issues, including international fiat and conditions, but do think that conditionality is probably a good idea. The states counterplan is probably a relevant discussion on the domestic climate policy topic, but the negative doesn’t have an inalienable right to it.

Disadvantages: “Disad turns case” claims made in the block often fall short of being full arguments. “Link/uniqueness controls the direction of uniqueness/link” often doesn't make much sense.

Critiques: Best when made specific to both the topic and the affirmative in question. Preferably, they dispute the desirability of the plan. Otherwise, the negative should develop an alternative framework with a good answer to “what do I do with the case?” and a clear explanation of what the win conditions are for each team. Also, see above that these arguments can often fall outside my usual base of knowledge. You’d be advised to adjust your explanation accordingly. Theories that deny life value or say that death is desirable are, understandably, uphill battles.

Plan-less affirmatives: I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan. But this preference, like the others given above, isn’t fixed and depends on the arguments in the debate. I tend to be persuaded by arguments about the ground for clash/competitive incentives provided by each team’s interpretation.

Ways to earn speaker points:

Demonstrating your understanding of the research relevant to the round.

Teaching me something new.

Debating the case (well).

Executing complex, deceptive, or creative strategies.

Effectively using c-x.

Generally making the debate a fun, worthwhile experience for everyone involved.

Cross-X: I've moved toward flowing cross-x, almost to the point of a transcript. I go back to it during the round and during decision time.

Final Note: Given the amount of time, money, and emotional energy that we collectively sink into the activity, persuading me that debate is devoid of value will be a *very* uphill battle.

Preferred E-mail:

janet.esco@gmail.com

Debate Experience:

Georgia State University (Atlanta, GA)3-ish years (Policy)

Bradley Tech High School (in Milwaukee, WI)- 4 yrs (Policy), Assistant Debate Coach - 1Yr (LD & PF)

Current Position: Head Coach at Oak Grove HS, Kipp San Jose Collegiate, and Downtown College Prep-El Primero

I'm only writing this so I don't get fined. J.K.

If I said I'm trying to be as clean of a slate as possible when judging, I'd be lying. I vote on mostly everything as long as there are good arguments made and carried through the final speeches.

Things that will aggravate me and make me want to hurt a puppy (May apply to National circuit LD and PF debates when applicable):

• The spray and pray (You just make random args with no content just for the sake of making them) -_-
• Race arguments executed badly, ESPECIALLY from someone that has never experienced racial discrimination a day in their lives. You will get stale-faced, and I will make sure my ancestors haunt you in your dreams. -__________________-
• When you run topicality when you're constrained to a packet and use abuse as a voter -__-
• When you run arguments incompletely, and decide to go for it (i.e. Counterplans with no CP text, DAs with no link or uniqueness or impact, T with no standards or voters)
• When you argue with me and you know you're wrong. Don't do it. I'm not the one, I promise you.

I love clash, clash is fun. I can't be mad at a passive-aggresive CX or debate because I was notorious for that, but when you show your whole behind then it gets awkward and I will probably dock your speaks if it's unwarranted.

The one thing I love more than clash is when the debater does the work for me. This is often achieved through good line by lines and impact calcs.

I am okay with speed as long as you're clear. If you know you are an uncler spreader, then don't do it to me or to yourself. I will yell clear twice and stop flowing if it continues and give you the death glare.

K debates, performance debates, T, and weird alts are fine.

Theory and framework debates- I need you to definately slow down on these arguments if you want me to flow everything and get a good understanding of the arguments. These also need an impact calculus.

I will not vote on oncase arguments alone on the neg, I need some sort of off case to go with it.

Lincoln-Douglass:

Same applies. Don't make me want to kick a puppy in your name. I love impact arguments and extending those impact arguments. Whether its extinction, dehum, etc. I need Impacts and I'll love you for using them.

Framework: Will vote on it if you tell me why I should vote on it with clear impacts.

T and theory: same

DA's and CPs: they neeeedd to have impacts and your counterplans need to be mutually exclusive either on their own or through a net benefit.

I value more the quality of the argument than the amount. I like efficiency.

line by lines make me happy.

Dont be condescending in round or when giving my RFD. If you do, I can't promise that I won't embarrass you.

I am a fairly progressive judge, I am open to most arguments and stay as objective as possible.

Brandon Evans

Assistant Coach at Vanderbilt University 2014-present

Debated at Binghamton University 2011-2014

Throughout my career, I have had experience debating "traditionally" (topical policy affirmatives, multiple off) and not (kritikal affirmatives, 1-off kritik in every round, occasionally performance). I love this community and everyone in it so long as you do not preach hate and intolerance. I will try my best to judge whatever arguments you choose to run in front of me with an open mind.

Flashing Evidence: Please be competent at paperless debate if you are paperless. Prep ends when you say so before flashing, but do not take advantage of this and do not give me any reason to believe you are stealing prep.

Speaking: If I cannot understand you, I might say "Clear" or "Louder" once or move my seat. Speed is fine. Good debaters are fast and clear; great debaters know when to slow down and use emphasis for rhetorical flourishes.

Flowing: Be clear as to how you want me to flow your arguments. The form of your arguments can affect the way I evaluate their content. This does not mean you have to abide by the traditional line-by-line. If you ask me to evaluate the round holistically and invoke performative elements, I will take this into account while avoiding judge intervention.

Calling for Evidence: I will do it if I have to. You should be able to utilize your evidence such that this is unnecessary unless the opponent contests your reading of it.

Kritiks: My favorite. I was not a philosophy major, so you will need to synthesize your high theory into something that is understandable to someone who does not necessarily have your background knowledge (what you should be doing anyway). I should have at least a shallow understanding of any major critical author you cite, but I should not have to utilize this understanding at all vote for you. You should care about the issues you are talking about, even if you would like to experiment and advocate for a solution you do not necessarily agree with. All links should have an implication. Unless you intend to prove that the plan is bad, you should present an alternative Role of the Ballot; if you do so effectively, I view your links as procedural violations. I would prefer you to phrase kritiks this way instead of running plan-inclusive kritiks because you should win that the stasis of the debate is not the plan.

Theory (General): Proving in-round abuse is helpful, but potential abuse can be a voter. I think fairness is an internal-link to education and not a voter. I prefer substantative standards (Ex. Condo is bad for activism over strategy skew). I am open to reasonability as an argument; I am not sure why competing interpretations necessitates judge intervention any more than reasonability as there is no absolute definition to anything.

Framework: I will vote for it if you win it, though I would encourage at least some substantive engagement as well. If the team running a K aff does its job and explains why what it is doing in this space matters, it should not be hard to find other points of clash. If they do not do this and defend nothing other than some oppressive system being bad, then framework might be a more viable option for me. Remember, if you win an alternative Role of the Ballot, you do not need to disagree with the entirety of their project to highlight a significant flaw with it and win for it; the aff is in serious trouble if it tries to use theory to avoid substantial criticism. Read my section on topicality for other details. Aside from that, I would like to see K affs make connections to the topic and not just allude to it briefly as a prerequisite to talk about other things.

Topicality: If both sides agree that the debate should be about the theoretical enactment of a policy option, topicality becomes a much easier sell for me. Spend the necessary time on T in the 2NR or it will be hard for me to vote on it. Field-contextual interpretations are best, as otherwise, the interpretation can be construed as a self-serving. It always helps to provide a topical version of the aff.

Disads: Turning the case makes it easier for me to vote on the D/A alone than just outweighing it. That being said, merely saying "the D/A turns the case" is not an argument because that statement can mean any number of things. Impact calculus is absolutely essential. I disagree that the importance of an impact is equal to the probability of it times its magnitude. I would advise you to argue that probability is a more important factor than magnitude or the other way around. I am more prone by default to weigh high-probability, lesser magnitude impacts over high-magnitude, microscopic probability impacts. Packaging your impacts as at least relatively realistic helps. A clear "no link" might make me vote on zero-risk, but understand that offense / defense makes this a rough place for a judge to be in.

Counter-plans: The block should give in-depth comparisons between the plan and the counter-plan instead of keeping it as generic as it was in the 1NC. Without this, small PiCs often become hard to adjudicate. Advantage counter-plans are highly underrated. Clearly explain the competition between the two policy options. Permutations need net-benefits in order to win.

Recording: I will be continuing to record rounds with Vanderbilt, and I plan to continue featuring them on Binghamton Speech & Debate's Live Policy Debate Collection. I am also in the process of learning how to effectively stream rounds. If you would like to have your round recorded, talk to me about it. I will not publish anything without the permission of all parties involved.

I have not interacted with the college topic at all this year including judging, research, or anything else

I'm the Executive Director of the Bay Area Urban Debate League. I used to be the Director of Debate at the University of California, Berkeley. I debated at Oak Park River Forest high school and then the University of Michigan. I've been an assistant coach at Harvard, Texas, Dartmouth, and Northwestern.

Here are some tips I would give if I was coaching a team that was about to be judged by myself:

-Focus on quality over quantity. Debates almost always come down to 2 or 3 central arguments and the teams which can recognize those arguments and spend their time making sure they win those stasis points will generally fare better. I'm more likely to vote for a team making a smaller number of arguments that are well explained, with implications fully drawn out and comparisons made to the other teams arguments, than I am to vote for a team that makes a huge number of arguments with the hopes of getting the other team to drop some things. Dropped arguments matter, but only if you take the time to exploit the gap in coverage and make those arguments central to a coherent ballot.

-Author qualification seems to be more important to me than many other judges.

-Generic theory arguments like conditionality bad/pics bad do not have a very high success rate in front of me, but that doesn't mean that theory arguments are a lost cause. If the other team is doing something out of the norm sketchy, like fiating lots of different actors at multiple levels of government or getting fast and loose with international object fiat, then I may be strongly on your side. As with all things, the more contextual it is the better.

-Framework for Kritik Affirmatives: I am a good judge for you if you are defending a course of action that has some clear connection to the resolution, but does so in a new or creative manner that is distinct from traditional policy debate. I am not a good judge for you if you have no, or only a tangential, connection to the resolution and are largely relying on impact turns to framework while eschewing questions of debate logistics.

-Framework for Policy Negatives: I am a pretty good judge for you if you can articulate a well defined conception of the developmental goals that debate training should be providing for debaters with an explanation of how the mechanics of debate you are supporting connect to those goals. I am not a good judge for you if you believe that the best way to impact framework is to say "debate is a game." Yes, of course debate is a game, but it is a game with an educational purpose. If you think debate is no different than checkers or league of legends than you have a very myopic view of debate that I find profoundly insulting to what I have spent most of my life working on. Questions of fairness, limits, and predictability are all very important, but should be thought of as internal links and not impacts in and of themselves.

My judging should be fairly straight forward on most other issues. Like everyone else I have varying opinions on the quality of all sorts of arguments (example: link determines uniqueness makes no sense to me at all) but none of that should have a decisive impact on your strategic choices. Feel free to email me at jonahfeldman@gmail.com if you have more specific questions or would like additional feedback on a decision.

He/him

These are most of the predispositions I have about arguments that I can think of, these are not ironclad as my views on debate are constantly in flux. However, without being instructed otherwise, the below points will likely influence how I evaluate the debate.

Top Level:

-Please add me to the email chain, fifelski@umich.edu and please make the subject something that is easy to search like "NDT 4 - Michigan DM v UCO HS."

-I prefer to flow on paper, but if you would like me to flow on my computer so I can share the flow after the debate, just ask.

-I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates. I am still trying to hone flowing in online debate.

-I cannot emphasize enough how important card quality and recency should be in debates, but it requires debaters to frame arguments about that importance.

-If you break a new aff and you don't want to share the docs, I will chalk it up to academic cowardice and presume that the aff is largely a pile of crap.

-Evidence can be inserted if the lines were read in CX, but otherwise this act is insufficient. I will only look at graphs and charts if they are analyzed in the debate.

-I generally think war good arguments are akin to genocide good. I also think dedev is absolute nonsense.

-The past year of my life has been filled with the death of loved ones, please don't remind me of it while I'm judging a debate. I categorically refuse to evaluate any argument that could have the thesis statement of death good or that life is not worth living.

-Affs should be willing to answer cross-x questions about what they'll defend.

Topic thoughts:

-I'm not a fan of this topic, but I don't think "aff ground" arguments make much sense in terms of the topicality debates from fringe affs. The topic is not "adjust nuke policy" so even if "disarming" was a poorly choice word, it doesn't mean you can just get rid of a handful of bombs. Anything else makes the triad portion of the topic irrelevant. It sucks, but the negative should not be punished because the community came to consensus on a topic. Want to fix it? Engage in the thankless work that is crafting the topic.

-Russia is 100% a revisionist power, at war in Europe, and is evil. My thoughts on China are more complex, but I do believe they would take Taiwan if given the chance.

How to sway me:

-More narrativization is better than less

-Ev quality - I think higher quality and recent ev is a necessity. Make arguments about the qualifications of authors, how to evaluate evidence, and describe what events have happened to complicate the reading of their evidence from 2012.

-The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction. If you laid a trap, now is the time to tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.

-I can flow with the best of them, but I enjoy slower debates so much more.

-More case debate. The 2ac is often too dismissive of case args and the neg often under-utilizes them.

-If reading cards after the debate is required for me to have comprehension of your argument, I’m probably not your judge. I tend to vote on warranted arguments that I have flowed and read cards to evaluate particular warrants that have been called into question. That said, I intend on reading along with speech docs this year.

-I think internal links are the most important parts of an argument; I am more likely to vote for “Asian instability means international coop on warming is impossible” than “nuclear war kills billions” OR “our patriarchy better explains x,y,z” instead of “capitalism causes war.”

-I like when particular arguments are labeled eg) “the youth-voter link” or “the epistemology DA.”

-If you're breaking a new aff/cp, it's probably in your best interest to slow down when making highly nuanced args.

Things I don’t like:

-Generally I think word PICs are bad. Some language obviously needs to be challenged, but if your 1nc strategy involves cntl-f [insert ableist term], I am not the judge for you.

-Overusing offensive language, yelling, being loud during the other team’s speech/prep, and getting into my personal space or the personal space of others will result in fewer speaker points.

-If you think a permutation requires the affirmative to do something they haven’t, you and I have different interpretations of competition theory.

-Old evidence/ blocks that have been circulating in camp files for a decade.

Critical Affs:

-I am probably a better judge for the K than most would suspect. While the sample size is small, I think I vote for critical args around 50% of the time they're the center of the debate.

-A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments, particularly on a topic as dull as this one.

-Too often I think critical affs describe a problem, but don’t explain what voting aff means in the context of that impact.

-Is there a role of the ballot?

-Often I find the “topical version” of the aff argument to be semi-persuasive by the negative, so explain to me the unique benefit of your aff in the form that it is and why switching-sides does not solve that.

-Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…

Kritiks:

-Links should be contextualized to the aff; saying the aff is capitalist because they use the state is not enough. I'm beginning to think that K's, when read against policy affs, should link to the plan and not just the advantages, I'm not as sold on this as I am my belief on floating pic/ks (95 percent of the time I think floating PIC/Ks aren't arguments worthy of being made, let alone voted on)

-Alternative- what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?

-I’m not a fan of high theory Ks, but statistically vote for them a decent percentage of the time.

-When reading the K against K affs, the link should problematize the aff's methodology.

Answering the K:

-Make smart permutation arguments that have explained the net benefits and deal with the negatives disads to the perm.

-You should have a framework for the debate and find ways to dismiss the negative’s alternative.

Disads:

-Overviews that explain the story of the disad are helpful.

-Focus on internal links.

Counterplans:

-I am not a member of the cult of process. Just because you have a random definition of a word from a court in Iowa doesn't mean I think that the counterplan has value. I can be swayed if there are actual cards about the topic and the aff, but otherwise these cps are, as the kids say, mid.

-Your CP should have a solvency advocate that is as descriptive of your mechanism as the affirmative’s solvency advocate is.

Theory/Rules:

-Conditionality is cheating a lot like the Roth test: at some point it’s cheating, otherwise neg flex is good.

-Affs should explain why the negative should lose because of theory, otherwise I’ll just reject the arg.

-I'll likely be unsympathetic to args related to ADA rules, sans things that should actually be rules like clipping.

-I’m generally okay with kicking the CP/Alt for the neg if I’m told to.

Hello - 

I haven't updated my judging philosophy in a while and thought this was a good time to do so.

I'll try to be fair; I think I am a good listener; I have a good attention span, but a prosaic memory.  My flow looks good from far away.  Up close it is another thing altogether.  It really depends on how unclear the speaker is.  I feel like I can't hear as well as I used to and have asked people to repeat themselves more than I did ten years ago. 

If you asked me to be candid, I'd say I think the Aff should present a topical plan.  For both strategic and doctrinal reasons.  

I find that in a close debate I often spend most of my decision time assessing evidence quality on the most important issues.  My favorite debaters over the years have tended to be excellent when it comes to introducing arguments about how one ought to interpret the key evidence in the debate.  That said, I tend to come to my own conclusions about evidence quality when left to my own devices.  I'm happy to do so because I value research & information competency.  

I don't disagree with any of the things I've said in previous judge philosophies, except perhaps that I find it easier to vote Aff on conditionality than I used to.  I don't think I've ever said this in a judge philosophy, so I might as well now - I strongly think resolutional meaning should precede, but not occlude, limits - insofar as it is a criterion for thinking about topicality.  Last couple of points, I can be stingy about what I consider to be a complete argument.  I don't like to vote for things that I don't understand, and I am probably a better judge for debaters that have studied and worked on arguments that I have a deep working knowledge of. 

I have not judged any debates on the 2015-16 topic. 

All things considered, assuming any of the above sounds objectionable, I'd prefer the dignified anonymity of your strike to the alternative.

Best of luck at the 2016 NDT!

Background

4 years of policy debate in high school at Little Rock Central

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

Currently, I am a first-year graduate teaching assistant in Wake Forest's communication department.

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

I have very few preferences for how you go about making the argument that you would like to make in the debate. I truly do love the process of argumentation itself more than the ins and outs of any particular argument. Although there are some obvious ones I may be more familiar with I think the general principle that Link + Impact = Argument is true and that your argument will work better if it is tied to a broader strategy you plan to deploy against the argument you are facing.  That being said, there can be a level

In my time as a debater, I could pretty squarely be considered in the ‘traditional policy’ camp. I read (and often went for) topicality and framework arguments against teams that did not defend governmental action on the aff.  I still find many of the arguments surrounding these positions to be very persuasive, but my voting record does illustrate my openness to alternative styles of argumentation as well.

In my short time as a judge in college policy debate, I have continued to find myself in new ‘judging dilemmas’ that I had never previously considered.  A lot of the fault lines that come up in rfds have rested on a few issues that I will mention before getting into some of the other aspects of my judging philosophy

Basically, I have a small set of data to work with but I do think that there are two notable patterns in many of the decisions I have given so far.  These areas of argument encompass a lot of the difficulty I have when resolving debates during rfd time and will help you understand where I am coming from when evaluating some arguments.  Not all encompassing, for sure, but absolutely things to keep in mind.

1.     1.  Clarity of interpretation

This is a pretty blanket category, but I think it helps articulate a major frustration I have when.  Whether it is a topicality/framework interpretation or an analytical argument about how a judge should evaluate or weigh certain impact claims, I often find myself wishing one team would provide a more vivid description their interpretations of how certain arguments should function within debate rounds.

In framework debates, the clarity of your ‘interpretation’ of what debate and/or the ballot is/does is just as important as making sure I understand your counterplan text.  If the other team controls this interpretation via a lack of clarification of adequate elaboration then the other team essentially controls what your counterplan does.  If they control my understanding of what your counterplan does, they will make it link to their DAs and win.  Control what your evidence means to me and how I should read it in light of broader link/impact claims.

This is as true for topicality as it is for any attempt at a theoretical discussion of a how people/groups/nations/states act in a particular context in relation to a topic disad or sociological criticism.  Debates often hinge on these questions and when they are poorly fleshed out, many other issues that have time invested in them become far less relevant and much more of the debate’s deciding factors will be up to my interpretation of the interaction of arguments and not yours which is a dangerous place to be in a verbal argument about very complex complex and interwoven concepts 

2.      2. Articulation of comparative significance –

This is related to the first, but I find myself in a lot of debates where I give the following rfd:  “ultimately, I had a lot of reasons to vote against the other team, but not a lot of reasons I should be voting for you”

Whether it’s a 2ar without enough impact calculus or a 2nr who doesn’t do justice to the alternative/cp solvency evidence they are extending, many of my decisions seem like they fall in this category.  Debaters from both teams do a moderate to excellent job of executing their core argument but fail to rhetorically distinguish and compare their core arguments from the other team’s position.

I try reward debaters not only engaging with the argument they are debating on their own terms (our ‘x’ evidence answers this by saying ‘y’) but also engaging with the language used by their opponents and the evidence they read to make comparative claims.  Controlling my interpretation of a piece of evidence from the other team will usually get you further than perfectly explaining your own.

As a judge, I view my role to be an educator, not a competitor.  I have argument preferences and professional academic interests that certainly expose me to different literature bases in both debate and non-debate research, but I try to maintain as open of a mind as possible to arguments outside my comfort zone.  It is unavoidable that certain vernaculars (critical and policy alike) that I am too unfamiliar with to make the judgment calls that are required when one of the above two things are done poorly.

Odds and Ends

I will likely be flowing on my laptop – I do this for a few reasons.  First, I type faster than I write so I genuinely believe that my flow is more accurate and more importantly, readable.  Secondly, I do it because I do not like to have my head down looking at my flow during your speech for extended period of times.  I like to watch speeches because I think that aesthetics of giving a speech are important.  Timely gestures to emphasize main points are just as relevant as the white foam you've developed on your mouth 4 minutes into your speech and I like to be able to get a more full picture of your speaking style.  At times, this tendency can cause you to think I am awkardly staring at you too much - please do not read too much into this because I am honestly trying to soak up the full force of the way you make your argument in additions to technical, content related questions.

There is a decent chance that I request speech documents prior to speeches using electronic evidence. I am still experimenting a bit with this, so its application will not be entirely consistent but I think it is useful for two main reasons.  First, it helps deter and catch card clipping – which I will discuss in more detail below.  Secondly, it drastically reduces the amount of decision time dedicated to transferring evidence at the end of a debate. I do not ever intend, however, to have a debater feel like the choice to call for speech docs was in any way motivated by the debaters as individuals or the perceived reputation of a squad in general.  I am honestly a young judge trying to find my norm, so please bear with me on this issue.

I very much value my decision time after debates are over.  If there are flashing issues between teams or extended bathroom breaks before speeches, I will become frustrated if the time delay starts approaching the 10-15 minute range.  More judging time = better decisions = better debaters.

Conditionality – fwiw, I have not had many decisions that come down to this argument but I will say that the gulf between the 1ar and the 2ar explanation of their position is usually the pivot point in the debates I have had come down to this issue.

Card clipping – I take this matter pretty seriously and will not hesitate to assign a loss and zero speaker points for verified violations.  I am very hesitant about unilaterally halting a debate where neither team has brought the issue up, although I have never faced an egregious case that I have had such a visceral reaction (or any reaction so far, really) that would make me do that.  But, if someone does make a challenge, an audio/video recording is essential.

Do not speak into your laptop – lower whatever you are speaking from in order to make eye contact and let me see your mouth move.  For some reason, this has become a massive pet peeve of mine.  In the past, I have prompted speakers to change where their podiums are situated, but I don’t think that should be my prerogative during a debate so please be mindful of what you look like to me when you are speaking. 

Speaker Points – I have consistently given between a range of 27.5 and 29.  I have given very few 29+ but quite a lot of 28.2-28.6’s.  Here is a rough rubric based on my perception of what I have given out so far.

Below 27.5 – major mishaps likely occurred, these can be things like offensive language or disrespectful behavior but certainly glaring strategic miscues and/or speech delivery issues that substantially affected the content of my decision will put you in this camp as well. 

27.5-27.9 – Excessively mediocre.  Speech delivery issues were likely a component, but these scores I find myself giving more to people that seem are far too underprepared with the evidence and arguments they are deploying.  Debaters who normally receive these speaks from me have received a lot of advice about reaching beyond buzzwords and taglines as well as evolving their arguments more generally as the debate progresses.

28-28.4 – This category, for me, has encompassed many of the teams that are on the ‘bubble’ and some of the lower-middle teams that exhibit a fairly coherent grasp of their argument strategically, there is normally some delivery issue associated with the lower end of this spectrum.

28.5-28.7 – This is about what you should expect if I find you to have a solid speaking style and a strong grasp of the arguments you are forwarding.  There is usually a point in these debates where this debater does something notably awesome rhetorically or strategically but that lacks a sustained follow-through the rest of the debate.  There are flashes of brilliance, but consistency is a key distinction between this category and the next one.

28.8-29.2 – If you get these speaks, you are likely a debater who excelled in not only their grasp of their own arguments but demonstrated a consistent ability throughout the debate of making smart strategic and rhetorical decisions.  You were likely incredibly clear as a speaker and are debating at a very high level in terms of balancing word choice, time management, and quality evidence choice in addition to sustained comparative evaluation of key arguments in the debate. 

29.3+ - Not going to lie, the likelihood you receive this or higher is exceedingly low.  It takes not only what was mentioned in the above category but also requires a level of sophisticated argumentation that makes me feel like you were a top 5 speaker in that debate and/or that I could reasonably see you in quarters or better based on that performance. 

For all of these categories of speaker points:  landing solid jokes, being colloquial and respectful of your opponents, and the perception that you are truly enjoying yourself all have the potential to place a light, but impactful finger on the scale when I am assigning these points along this rubric.

If you every have any questions about any of this philosophy or a specific question about a debate I judged/watched (even if you did not participate), feel free to shoot me an email:  folejm13 AT wfu DOT edu

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.

Ryan Galloway

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances.”I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

1. I prefer if you number your arguments.
2. Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
3. I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
4. I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leaving me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
5. I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
6. I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
7. I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
8. I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
9. I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
10. I still believe in a place called Hope.

Richard A. Garner | Director of Speech & Debate | University of Houston | ragarner@uh.edu

Framework: Neg: topical version is very helpful; aff: probably okay if you defend the government doing a topical thing. One should be able to defend their model of debate. I put this issue first because it’s probably what you really care about. Everything else is alphabetical.

Case debate: Turning the case is my favorite thing to judge. Uniqueness is good here, but not always necessary with comparative evidence.

CPs/Competition/Theory: Comparisons win theory debates, along with impacts. I’m not sure that states or international CPs compete, but no one has ever put this to the test in front of me so it’s hard to say. No strong feelings about consultation or conditioning either way. K affs probably shift competition questions that rely on FIAT. Won't kick the CP unless you tell me to. Non-arbitrary interpretations are ideal.

Critiques: I understand these and am fine with them (understatement). From both the aff and neg, I enjoy narrative coherence, specific application, and alternative debates. New things under the sun are wonderful to see, but so too the old, artisanal ways upon occasion.

Disadvantages: I tend to think risk probability is never 100% absent drops, and that each internal link reduces certainty. Can have zero risk (though if the CP solves 100% of the case … probably need offense). Don’t tend to think that impacts automatically/100% turn case, or vice versa; instead, comparisons are evaluating risk probability bubbles/multiple competing worlds.

Judge Space: Judges are human beings, not argument processing machines; enjoyable debates matter. Evidence comparison is the highest art. Debaters’ flowing/line-by-line is generally terrible; embedded clash is nice, but at its root it depends on an organized approach to the flow. Drops: before the burden of rejoinder attains, there must be a full argument (claim/warrant/implication). I am displeased by a) subpoints with no b) subpoints, and by "Is anyone not ready?" because it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay). I read a lot of cards, but, paradoxically, only in proportion to the quality of evidence comparison. Highlighting: needs to make grammatical sense; don’t use debate-abbreviation highlighting (ok: United States; not: neoliberalism). If I cannot understand the highlighting, I will not read the rest of the card for context.

Logistics: Add me to the email chain. I don’t read speech docs during the debate.

*Principles: Without getting too philosophical, I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein.

Speaker Points: I approximate community norms, and adjust each year appropriately.

Topicality: I evaluate it first. I enjoy T debates, and lean more towards ‘better interpretation for debate’ than ‘we have the most evidence’.

Brief Debate CV:

South Garland (competitor): 1995-1999

NYU (competitor): 1999-2003

Emory: 2003-2004

NYU/Columbia: 2004-2005

Harvard: 2006-2015

Houston: 2013-present

*

Random Poem (updated 3/30/23):

Strange now to think of you, gone without corsets & eyes, while I walk on the sunny pavement of Greenwich Village.

downtown Manhattan, clear winter noon, and I’ve been up all night, talking, talking, reading the Kaddish aloud, listening to Ray Charles blues shout blind on the phonograph

the rhythm the rhythm—and your memory in my head three years after—And read Adonais’ last triumphant stanzas aloud—wept, realizing how we suffer—

And how Death is that remedy all singers dream of, sing, remember, prophesy as in the Hebrew Anthem, or the Buddhist Book of Answers—and my own imagination of a withered leaf—at dawn—

Dreaming back thru life, Your time—and mine accelerating toward Apocalypse,

the final moment—the flower burning in the Day—and what comes after,

looking back on the mind itself that saw an American city

a flash away, and the great dream of Me or China, or you and a phantom Russia, or a crumpled bed that never existed—

like a poem in the dark—escaped back to Oblivion—

No more to say, and nothing to weep for but the Beings in the Dream, trapped in its disappearance,

sighing, screaming with it, buying and selling pieces of phantom, worshipping each other,

worshipping the God included in it all—longing or inevitability?—while it lasts, a Vision—anything more?

*

Previously

Dunya Mikhail, "The End of the World," The Iraqi Nights (3/30/23)

Sakutaro Hagiwara, "A Useless Book" (8/1/19)

Catullus, 101 (1/4/18)

e.e. cummings, "O sweet spontaneous" (1/4/18)

&c

Yes email chain: lincolngarrett49@gmail.com

https://www.debatemusings.org/home/site-purpose-judging-debates

AFF on T

NEG on conditionality, but even I have my limit (more than 3, no evidence for a bunch of them, combining them later in the debate, amending and adding 2NC cps). NEGs are less good at defending their egregiousness in my recent experience.

I will kick the CP if I think it is worse than the status quo. A neg team doesn't have to say "judge kick" and the AFF isn't going to convince me I shouldn't do this.

I reject the argument and not the team for most every other theoretical objection to a CP.

Will vote on K's. Will care about if the plan is a good idea even if the AFF can't physially make it happen.

Don't have to read a plan, but merely saying the res is bad and dropping stuff will lead to L's.

I am not in the market to award AFF vagueness or poor explanations of cases until the 2AR

Evidence quality outweighs evidence quantity.

Debated for the University of Kentucky. I was a very policy-focused debater in college and haven't been super involved in debate since then.

Short version: Open to anything. My favorite parts of debate were always fast, technical policy strategies but I think I'm more k-sympathetic now than I was as a debater.

Topicality –
I enjoy good T debate. I don’t necessarily think that the smallest version of the topic is the best, I think the aff can win a T debate with just defense.

Counterplans –
I'm better for the neg on theory issues. I just don't know where the line is between 'this counterplan made it hard to be aff' and 'this counterplan is a reason to vote aff'. On some level, it's their job to make debate hard for you. Arguments about legitimacy are almost always better couched in terms of competition. It would be very, very difficult to persuade me to vote aff on conditionality. I think aff evidence can establish competition.

Non-traditional debate –
I think the affirmative should affirm the resolution. More susceptible to reasonability-style arguments than impact turns to limits.

k -

Your biggest obstacles for me and the k: I don't have a strong theoretical background, I hate resolving fiat/framework questions and will likely give the aff a lot of leeway.

Disjointed thoughts which do not deserve their own section -

• Link controls direction of uniqueness
• Smart analytics > bad cards
• I won't kick a counterplan 'for you' unless directed to by the 2NR. You should make that decision not me.
• Politics theory is pretty silly
• I like brashness. Blow off bad arguments
• should go without saying: hateful language is totally unacceptable.

Kirk Gibson

Updated 09/12/2020

First things first - this year is incredibly challenging for all of us. I absolutely hate that you can’t experience the thrill of the season opener like I was fortunate to experience. No one ever feels ready for the season opener and no matter how you do at this tournament or at future tournaments, be kind to yourselves! It took dozens of universities like two years to begin the transition to paperless debate when I was a junior in college. You have had to adapt to remote debate in a fraction of the time with *gestures broadly* all of this happening. Take some time to decompress and do something nice for yourself. Eat and sleep well. The number of people at my current job that care about my record at the season opener in 2010 is zero. My mom doesn’t even care and she loves me a lot. Just find happiness and be a good person.

==Boring Biographical Stuff==

If your coaches don’t know me and you want boring biographical stuff: I debated at Emory from 2007 to 2011. I made the octas of the NDT. After that, I briefly coached at Emory before taking a job at Pace Academy, where I coached two NDCA champions. I have been out of debate since 2016 when I changed careers. I am now a social worker and I have worked with individuals facing the death penalty and I now work with restaurant workers who are facing homelessness due to unexpected medical or personal crises.

==Season Opener/Online Debate Relevant Stuff==

You should know that I haven’t even judged a practice debate on Zoom yet. I tend to be pretty expressive when I judge but because, presumably, I’ll be on mute during your speech, I will gesture if you need to be more clear or slow down. I will chime in during CX if I didn’t understand something that both teams seem to get (e.g. acronyms). It is my plan to flow on paper.

==How I Evaluate Framework And Other Impacts==

I wrote several versions of this and cannot seem to be as concise as I wish I could be, so I apologize in advance but I hope it at least helps you understand the experiences that shaped how I relate to debate.

In some ways, I have become quite a bit softer since I debated. My experiences working with people who are facing or experiencing homelessness and who have experienced life changing trauma has undoubtedly shaped how I evaluate impact and role of the ballot claims. In other ways, I was always skeptical of arguments that suggested debate was a site for social change and that belief has, unfortunately, hardened in the last decade. It has made me really quite sad to see the number of my contemporaries and former students who went into corporate litigation, big tech, finance, etc. while being aware of the incredible amount of injustice in the world.

I am also skeptical of arguments that center themselves on individual trauma or are based around intra-debate arguments. I believe that the competitive incentive corrupts our ability to actually process trauma in a productive way. I want to be the kind of human being and social worker who is a resource you can speak with so if you are actually struggling in debate, please know that you are not alone and you should feel that you can reach out to me.

I view debate strictly as a game. It has incredible educational benefits (I wish it had more psychosocial benefits), but no individual round changes anything. It's funny thinking about that argument now. Would my client who is facing homelessness care that I voted in a particular way to affirm a certain principal? Absolutely not. This doesn’t necessarily mean I’m a policymaker! Many policies are “good” because they are based on a calculation that doesn’t include the marginalized. Other times, I could decide that something may be “bad policy” but ethically the right thing to do. I guess all of this is to say that I think "policymaking" and "utilitarianism" is often grouped together and too many judges, when I debated, were fairly unwilling to vote on an ethical basis (and also accepted a certain kind of evidence).

I have yet to see a topic that doesn’t offer many ways to critique how that policy has been formulated to exclude groups of people. As such, I am still skeptical of any claims of the topic as a metaphor. I am dismissive of the argument that “we’ve been running this for a while so you should be prepared”.

==DA/Case==

I think the “direction of the link” people took things to an extreme when I debated and were nearly unwilling to evaluate uniqueness claims. I never understood this and I hope that the caricature I have in my head is just that.

I loved impact turns when I debated. That absolutely hasn’t changed.

==Counterplan Stuff==

I do not like to vote on counterplans that are not grounded in the literature. I nearly refuse to vote on the states CP (I know that’s not relevant this year), and I am a heavy lift on process CPs. If you have something that mentions the plan and was predictable when researching it (not just predictable because debate has tolerated it for years) then that’s different.

Under no circumstances will I kick the counterplan for the negative team. One of the great things about debate is being forced to make strategic decisions in a limited time. Who am I to rob you of that opportunity?

==Other Things of Varying Importance==

1. Debate is not a card submission activity. Extending a card is not a substitute for talking about it.

2. You are more likely to win on a well reasoned analytic than saying “DA not intrinsic,” even if the latter is dropped. It does not constitute a full argument.

3. Not everything needs evidence, we’re all human and watch the news/are aware of things going on. Most things benefit from evidence, however.

4. Please don’t quote parts of this at me. I don’t like that.

5. I watched a lot of debaters be rude to hotel staff and servers. It’s weird what stands out in our memories. If things return to how they used to be, and I really hope they do, please know that the person who serves your food or drinks at a tournament could be one sinus infection away from not being able to pay their rent. Be kind to them and tip them well.

6. Similarly, you should be nice to each other. That was always true before, it’s even more true via Zoom. Let your opponent ask the question and let your opponent answer the question. You know, basic stuff.

7. If you have dogs or cats at the location that you are debating from, I absolutely want to see them during down time. If you don't have pets, I will be equally happy if you share something else with us!

If you have any questions whatsoever, you should feel free to reach out to me at kirkgibson1 at gmail.

Yes, I'd like to be on the email chain: thomas.gliniecki at gmail.com . Yes, I'll still make you compile a doc at the end of the round anyway.

Update: December 2021

I admire everyone's tenacity in sticking around through online debate.

I currently coach at Glenbrook South. Getting back into high school debate after years in college has been quite an experience. Here are some reflections based on this topic and things I've noticed through the first semester:

1. When my camera is off, you should assume that I am not there or am having technical difficulties. If I need to turn it off while I am still there, I will make a note of it verbally or in the chat.
2. More teams seem to be reading and going for Ks in front of me. I've noticed a trend that some of these teams "fiat" their alts, e.g. they say their alt is to have a communist revolution overthrowing the US government, and somehow that's strategically equivalent to imagining a policy passing through the USFG. I don't think it is- so "utopian fiat" concerns apply- but I also think that this makes you lose to just perm: do both 99.9% of the time since your links would have to somehow demonstrate that the plan/aff subverted a theoretical revolutionary vanguard powerful enough to off the entire US governing structure.
3. A lot of teams refer to T arguments by the author name on the definition. Maybe this is a function of having not worked at a camp this summer, but this convention never made sense to me and was at odds with how I was taught, which is to label each T argument by the word/phrase being defined (e.g. "T- protection" or "T- water resources"). I don't instinctively remember what author makes what T argument, so using the author name convention is more likely to confuse me than help me conceptualize what your thing is.
4. This topic is very broad, and there don't seem to be cards that meet what I consider to be the "gold standard" of T definitions for operative phrases (such as "protection of water resources"). In the best T debates, both teams would have definitions that are close to such a precise standard, but are vulnerable to criticism to some degree. I anticipate in close T debates, I would lean neg more than a lot of other judges since my response to such situations would be to break ties through an assessment of the quality of each definition for debate, rather than just assuming "if all definitions are on the same plane, I can never exclude the aff."

Update: NDT 2021

I hate arguments that are entirely reliant on some combination of a vocabulary barrier and/or exploiting judge non-interventionism. There are some things that are so ridiculously obvious your opponents shouldn't have to waste their time saying them. If your strategy is premised on your opponents either not knowing at all what you even said or not having the time to make a simple factual observation, I think you will discover that non-interventionism has assumptions that underlie its value as a judging practice, and that working against those assumptions is not a good idea for you strategically.
If you're here to say weird troll-y stuff, cool. I'm glad you found an activity you enjoy. I will ask two things: 1. Ask yourself whether subjecting your competitors to that is ethical, 2. please don't involve me in it. Either change around what you do just this once or strike me before the tournament begins.


Older, "core" philosophy

I'm still not voting on "politics isn't intrinsic." I get it if you throw it out there out of force of habit, especially if I'm on a panel- but I will be happier if you don't. Negs, remember you don't need to waste your time answering it, though again, I'll get it if you do.

Specifics-

K/T in "non-traditional" debates- I think debate is at its best when there is a negotiated point of stasis that each side could predict, and when there is a legitimate opportunity for the negative to have a meaningful role in a contested debate. I generally think that if the aff did not defend a topical plan, that they've denied the negative a meaningful role, and have denied the necessary precondition for in-depth engagement.
Neg Ks against "policy" affs tend to propose that I consider one idea external to or somewhere within the 1AC to the exclusion of all else; I tend to think I shouldn't do that. A "K" with very well-articulated ties to the topic, the plan action, and the advantages might be persuasive to me, however, you will need to identify how your alt competes with the _plan_, how your links apply to the _plan_, and consider tying your alt to an alternative policy option. If that sounds too much like a “counterplan” and thus offends your sensibilities, we’re probably not on the same page.
The K has a very bad record in front of me, despite some valiant efforts. If you must do this, try to couch your argument as "mutually exclusive counterplan that solves inevitable extinction- try or die." The more it seems like a disad-counterplan strategy, the more likely I am to be receptive to your argument.

T in "policy" debates- While it's somewhat hard to forecast at the very beginning of a topic, I have historically been very good for the neg when they have high-quality evidence in support of a more restrictive interpretation of the topic. In these debates, I tend to have a lot of skepticism toward aff defense against limits explosion- for example, "functional limits" just seem like an invitation to a deluge of one-and-done affs with bad (but unpredictable and thus "good" for two hours) tricks vs. whatever generic is supposed to stop the aff from existing, and the lack of solvency advocate has never stopped anyone. This topic in particular strikes me as quite tough for the neg, so I may lack sympathy for some aff offensive args as well (e.g. overlimiting).

CP competition- CPs that are just rewritings of the plan or compete on something that doesn't appear in the plan will have problems. This also applies if your CP competes on a word that could be interpreted multiple ways; you will need to decisively win that it should be interpreted a certain way to win a competition arg.

Joshua Gonzalez

8th place in US Extemp my first time at NSDA Nationals.

iykyk...

I debated for Samford University and am currently a graduate assistant coach at the University of Georgia.  

Be clear.

The quick checklist:

1) I consider myself a “policy judge” who privileges the importance of the link over the impact

2) I love good theory debates and am willing and ready to vote against what most call “negative flexibility”

3) Debate is a game (truth is important, but tech first) and my ballot will only determine who wins the debate, not which political stance or movement I am aligned with.

My “biases” are not harsh rules for debate. You are certainly best off doing what you usually do in front of me – I will work hard to understand your arguments, flow, and evaluate the round with as little intervention as possible. 

T: Reasonability. In order to prove the aff/neg is being unreasonable – talk about what the world of debate would look like if I endorse their interpretation. Caselists and in depth impact calculus will go a long way here. 

Theory: I am more than ready to curtail the community norm of unlimited negative flexibility. I do not think a team has to win the debate has become “impossible” in order to win an abuse claim. Topic education is paramount.

CPs: I love counterplans that test the intrinsicness of the plan to the advantages of the aff. PICs are great. Word PICs are not. I am more than ready to reject the following CPs : consult, agent Cps, international fiat, process CPs, CPs that compete off the certainty or immediacy of the plan. 

Ks: What can I say? Grad school changes a person. After years of judging, coaching, and familiarizing myself with critical arguments, I feel like I am in place to better adjudicate these debates. Still, specific links to the aff are crucial. Generic criticisms, like generic policy strategies, are boring to watch and will get you bad speaker points (and a loss).

Performance: While my experience is in policy debates, I am more than willing to listen and evaluate arguments here just as I do in those policy debates. I generally think the role of the ballot is decide who won or lost a debate (did the best debating, made the best arguments), so asking me to use my ballot to send a signal or align with a particular movement will need a strong defense. 

DAs: I will vote on zero risk of the link – you don’t need offense to beat the DA to zero. Talk about how your impact interacts with the opponent’s.  

Speaker Points: I will reward debaters for specific strategies, (good) jokes, and not stealing prep. 

Speaker point scale:

27-27.5: Did some good things, but needs a lot of improvement. Typically includes a lot of technical drops. Will not clear at a national tournament, will probably go 2-6 or worse if you debate like this every round.

27:5-28: Answered all the important arguments, but didn't do evidence comparison, sufficient impact calculus, or give me a clear way to vote for you. Will likely go 3-5. 

28-28.5: Did a lot of things right, but didn't wow me.  4-4 debating. 

28.5-29:Excelled in the cross-ex, has a positive ethos throughout the round, did evidence comparison, impact calculus, and made smart arguments and connections. You should be 5-3 or better.

29-29.5: Outstanding debating all around. You belong in the elims. No missing on points for you!

29.5-30: Rare. Reserved for the best speeches i've seen all year. 

Misc: Be aggressive. Have fun. Learn something. 

Paperless: I’m lenient. Don’t take advantage of it. 

i deleted lots of old stuff because it was too long, email is below if you want clarification about anything. make your best arguments, compare them with your opponent's arguments, have fun. i debated at homewood - floosmoor and kentucky, so i'm mostly familiar with disad and case versus a big aff or tricky counterplans.

1. email chain please: donaldgrasse93@gmail.com

2. data matters - arguments are not just claims, there needs to be evidence (not necessarily cards) that supports the idea. examples are generally a good start, and they are best when they are applied in context of the debate.

3. i flow cross-x and make most of my decisions based on what was said in the debate. i don't follow along with the speech docs because i think it distracts me from what you are saying in place of what the cards are about. if you want me to look at particular cards, or if you think there is a disconnect between what your opponent is arguing and what their highlighted evidence says, make me aware of that in the speeches/cross-x. i reward good evidence, but first and foremost i want to reward good communication of facts in evidence into a comparative argument.

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

I plan to clap when the round is done; your effort is appreciated!

Argument Defaults

Preference - The good ones about the topic. Most of my research is on the policy side, but lucky to interact with great debaters and coaches across a wide spectrum of approaches for many years.

Topicality - Yes offense first; defense is essential. Impact turning or going just with reasonability without a quality counter-interp rarely wins.

Policy Aff v the K - Specificity is crucial for both sides. It's rare that I don't consider both the effects of the plan and the scholastic/rhetorical choices including the interactions between the two. Aff's should be prepared to defend the claims made in the 1ac. Winning the world is ordered by an oppressive structure is not enough.

CP Theory - Legitimacy of process CP's increases with more specific advocates. Some conditionality most likely OK - go beyond 2 or 3 or 2nc CP out of impact turns to do the opposite of the 1nc impact; less likely to be ok.

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

- Articulate when reading! There has been an increasing trend in debates I watch where syllables are consistently muddled or skipped. I'll yell clearer. If I yell it twice know that you are in the danger zone.

- Cross Ex Matters! and it has a time limit – I listen, flow, and those who reference answers from the CX are likely to get higher points. When the timer goes off, it's judge prep even if the two teams decide to continue the CX during prep time. If the two side agree on something when a judge is not there "ex. neg agreed they could kick planks or part of the alt"...please fill me in.

- Smart Analytics exposing flaws can go a long way. Internal link chains and neg K alt solvency are two of many places where this can potentially be effective.

- Quality of Evidence+Quality of Explanation+Quality of comparison=weight of argument

- 2 Tips for last rebuttals beyond impact calculation - Give your partners credit explicitly. Acknowledge where the other side might be correct, but why that is not enough.

Just in case it happens, some strong defaults....

- No shenanigans policy - I expect a 2v2 debate. No three person teams, no one person taking all the speech time, please don't ask for something besides a debate to determine a winner, etc. Two people speaking in the same speech, ok if part of a pre-scripted performance early in the debate. In subsequent speeches, only one person's words count.

- If you ask for a 30. Your speaker points will likely have a 3 in it; 3 will most likely not be the first number. If both you and your partner are asking for a 30, you are playing a dangerous game given the previous sentence.

- Hard to imagine myself voting on elements not related directly to an argument made in the debate (coin flips, previous debates, what their coach did, how someone interacted outside the debate, initials at the end of the card, month of the year). Verified blatant false disclosure of more than a card or two and could be a voting issue.

- Evidence ethics. Yes, follow AFA, ADA and CEDA guidelines. And also, not really trying to vote on: whether the citation includes date accessed, initials of the card cutter (or who cut the card), if there were accidental exclusions of the text that had no material effect.

ENJOY!

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

1. Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
2. Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
3. Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
4. Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
5. Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

1. Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
2. Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
3. Be rude (-.5 point)
4. Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
5. Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

I'm originally from Texas and debated the Dallas circuit in policy for Grapevine High School.  I debated some for Trinity University in undergrad, and am now working on a dual masters in envirometnal science and public affairs at IU Bloomington.  I mostly went for policy arguments, but did some K work as welll.  I'll listen to just about anything as long as everything is clear, well explained, and not obviously morally repugnant.

I do have some biases.  As a scientist interested in policy, I really like for K alternatives to be clear and contectualized.  I want to see how the alternative will make thigns better, although that can be at different scales.  You will also have an uphill battle convincing me that science isn't good and that climate change isn't real.  I really like clear impact framing, and frequently look to this to decide rounds.

Heather Holter Hall

Hallheather8@gmail.com

Salem and Tallwood High School Debater 1990-93

Liberty University Debater 1993-96

Liberty University Assistant Debate Coach 20+ years

I love this activity and I look forward to meeting you.

For novices:

Congratulations on being at a debate tournament! I like debates with a few pieces of quality research that you can explain well plus some smart logical arguments. You should focus on good explanation of arguments and on getting better at flowing.  Putting lots of extra pieces of research that you have never read before into your speech is a waste of your time. I would much rather hear you explain research that you understand, compare that research to your opponent’s research and arguments, and tell me why the plan is either a good or bad idea.  The most important comparison in the debate you can make is to tell me whose impacts are bigger, come first, or are more likely. 

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, not the speech document. You should highlight and read complete sentences. I do not count sentence fragments as arguments.

If it is an online debate, please make sure you SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech. Please say out loud when you are done with prep time and post how much you have left in the chat. When you say prep time is done, you should be ready to email the speech document immediately. 

For everyone else:

I have spent the majority of the last 20 years coaching novice debate.  I also judge a lot of novice and jv debates. This means that I am not deep into the lit base for most arguments. My days are full of explaining and re-explaining basic debate theory. You should view me as someone who loves learning something new and the debate as your opportunity to teach me. If you want me to assess arguments based upon previous in-depth knowledge of a particular lit base, you will probably be very disappointed. I love the strategic use of each student’s scholarship but get me on the same page first.

Likewise, the theory debates I am used to judging are pretty basic. I would love to hear a well-developed theory debate at a high level, but you will need to slow down, give full warrants, and not assume that “lit checks” means the same to me as it does to you.

About preferred types of arguments—smart strategy with good support that is clearly communicated usually wins. I prefer consistent, thoughtful strategies with a few well developed arguments, but, sadly, I have voted for negatives who won simply by overwhelming the 2AC with skimpy highlighting of 7 off case positions.

I have voted for everything, but I do not judge alternate formats of debates often so you will probably want to slow down, make well developed arguments, and assume I do not know. As long as I am judging and there is a win to assign, my main assumption is that every team is playing the game, maybe in different ways, but still just playing the game. I can only make decisions based on words or actions in a particular debate. I will not begin to speculate about another person’s motive or intentions--that is a job for someone else.

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, including cx.  I will reference the speech doc, BUT if I can’t understand your words or if the words you say do not make grammatically complete sentences, they won’t make it on my flow and only my flow counts. Likewise, if you are hedging the debate on a warrant buried three sentences deep in the fourth card by Smith, you will need to say more than “extend Smith here.”  The more concrete and specific your warrants are, the more likely you are to persuade me.

If it is an online debate, you need to SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech.  Yes, this has happened more than once lol.  Don’t steal prep—it is obvious and annoying.

Feel free to strike me. I am not offended at all if you think I am not a good judge for you. Hopefully, I still get a chance to meet you at a tournament and chat.

Finally, I hope you all have a great tournament, learn new things, think deeply, speak well, meet fascinating people, and win lots of debates (unless you are debating my teams)! Have fun and please say hi in between debates!

Michael Hall - Updated 9/15/22

Liberty University

28 Years coaching

Upfront, you should know that I've only judged a handful of debates over the last two years and those were intrasquad practice debates Second, I've developed slight hearing loss that makes it harder for me to pick out voices when there's background noise.

For the email chain: mprestonhall@gmail.com

The comments below reflect how I'm likely to things left to my own devices, but I do my best to evaluate the debate on the arguments made in the round.

Theory: I am not tabula-rosa. Minimally, each argument should contain a claim, some support (evidentiary or otherwise), and an impact. That said, I do my best to minimize my substantive preferences and therefore find myself voting for positions I don’t particularly like. I attempt to use the decision calculus most persuasively advocated by the debaters.

Topicality: I tend to see topicality as a contest of competing interpretations. I probably vote on T more often than most judges and have no problem voting against "core affirmatives" when the negative has a superior interpretation of the topic. I'm most easily persuaded to vote on T when the negative team develop arguments based on a comparison of ground offered under each interpretation of the resolution. I tend to find in-round abuse arguments less persuasive as its hard to determine whether the negative should have a right to those arguments without first establishing a coherent division of aff/neg ground. I am usually more persuaded by arguments about the quantity and quality of affs allowed by each interpretation and the negative's ability to access a core set of negative arguments. Topicality is by nature exclusionary.

Counterplans: I enjoy debates with creative counterplans tailored to specific affirmatives. The affirmative should be prepared to defend the entirety of the plan, and plan inclusive counterplans are one way of making them do so.

I’ve found myself voting against conditional counterplans a little more often in recent years, which I attribute to the quality of the negative’s defense of conditionality rather than a change in my CP leanings. If the negative justifies the conditional nature of the counterplan, other theory arguments are reasons to reject the counterplan not the team.

The text of the counterplan and all permutations should be written out. Trying to win a perm that doesn’t include all of the plan or that contains action not contained in the plan or counterplan is nearly impossible.

Kritikal Debate: I've found myself becoming much less dogmatic about the need for affirmatives to have topical plan texts. I don't know if I can pinpoint why, but I think it's partially due to conversations with various Liberty coaches and debaters and partially due to my own reading interests gravitating more toward critiques of the enlightenment and religious critiques of capitalism. I can certainly be persuaded to vote negative on framework but debaters should no longer assume it’s a hard default.

I don't think much has changed about the way I evaluate negative K strategies. Like any other part of the negative strategy, the more you tailor your link arguments to the affirmative in question, the more likely I am to find your arguments persuasive. Likewise, an overview that details how the kritik turns the affirmative’s solvency, outweighs the case, etc. would be more helpful than several more impact cards.

Style: Given what I wrote in the first two sentences, this is section of my philosophy almost certainly the most important for you remember during the debate. Things you should know in descending order of importance: (1) I am a better critic for those who collapse the debate in the block and 2NR than for those who go for most of their 1NC arguments into the 2NR. (2) I am a better critic for debaters who emphasize clarity over speed. I’ve found this to be especially true in paperless rounds where everyone in the debate except for the judge is reading along with the speech doc. Again, my hearing isn't what it used to be making the need for clarity even more important. I’ll give you verbal and nonverbal signals if I can’t understand you. (3) I have come to the conclusion that the more evidence I read, the less my decisions have reflected the arguments made by the debaters. As a result, I try to read fewer cards after a debate and am more easily persuaded to see a debate through the lens that allows me to do so. (4) If you think an argument is important, find a way to set it apart from the rest of the debate.

Prep time: Prep time stops when the speech doc is emailed.

Sherry Hall, Harvard, Judging Philosophy, East Region
Judged multiple College rounds this year.

Please add me to the doc chain: hallsherry2@gmail.com

I view my role as a debate judge as a "critic of argument." This means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is to act as an educator grading a class presentation. But Collegiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting as a "referee" or official who keeps time, and resolves disputes over the "rules". In resolving debates that focus on the "rules" - is topicality a voting issue, are PICs legitimate, must the negative provide an alternative - I tend to evaluate those questions based on the impact that they have on education and competitive equity.

I consider clash against the opponent’s ideas as one of the most important standards by which to evaluate whether or not a particular argument or practice is “good” or “bad” for debate. I do think that for the activity to continue to progress, creativity in arguments and debating styles is a good thing that should be encouraged. I also think that teams which are employing innovations, such as a “performance is all that matters” strategy, will do better with me if the debaters can isolate what standards I should use to evaluate rounds in this new way, and/or what ground is left to the other team. A strategy or performance that leaves nothing for the other team to respond to undermines the goal of competitive equity.

I have a few theoretical preferences, though none is so strong that I cannot be convinced to set it aside despite the arguments in the round. I will list some of these preferences, but the debaters should keep in mind, that these issues still need to be argued, and the side that plays into my preferences, still needs to articulate the reasons why a particular argument should be accepted or rejected.
1. I strongly believe that if asked, the affirmative must specify who does the plan. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor, means that the affirmative gets to choose. The whole purpose of having a debate where the negative can clash meaningfully with the affirmative case is lost, if the affirmative can say what their plan does after they have heard the negative strategy.
2. Almost all negative teams these days reflexively declare that the counterplan is conditional. I have seen many rounds this year where that unthinking choice has cost the neg the round. If you have a legitimate reason for your arguments to be conditional and you are prepared to defend it, go for it, but I think it is a bad idea to say that your arguments are conditional when they don’t need to be – you just open yourself up to more ways to lose. My preference is against conditionality. For the same reason that I think the affirmative has to say what their plan does for the negative to meaningfully clash with that plan, the affirmative needs to know what their plan and case is being compared to, in order to effectively clash with the negative’s arguments. It is not enough that the negative will pick one strategy by the end of the round, because too much time has been wasted on arguments that are irrelevant. More importantly, the presence of a counterplan in the round changes how the affirmative answers disadvantages and case arguments. If the negative can drop the counterplan later in the round, the affirmative cannot go back and re-give the 2AC. I think that the debate is better if both sides clearly stake out their ground and their positions from the beginning and the rest of the debate focuses on which is better.

3. I have a mixed voting record in "race" and "identity" debates. I am open to the arguments that they deserve a place in debate. However, I am not familiar with a lot of the literature, and I can therefore feel a little lost understanding some of the vernacular. It is better to explain arguments rather than to rely on terms that I am unfamiliar with. I prefer arguments that have some nexus to the topic or the other team's arguments for the reasons I outlined above when discussing my feelings on clash.

In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round.
1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a “learning environment”. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence – loss and zero speaker points.
2. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents.

2022 Update- I am not longer actively coaching debate. Please do not assume that I know a lot about the topic, have any idea what some other school's aff is, or have strong feelings about what obscure topic wordings mean. 

Allison.c.harper@gmail.com. - Put me on the chain please. I will not follow along with the doc or read cards I don't think are necessary to make a decision but spelling my first name is annoying and this was buried near the bottom of my philosophy.

Here are a few ways that I think my judging either differs from others or has changed with online debate:

1) I flow and do not open your speech documents during your speeches. That means you need to try to present arguments in a way that is flowable.  Make sure tags are clear. Answer arguments in an order I can follow (such as the order in which they are presented). Add structure and signpost.  Avoid reading giant analytical paragraphs without breaking things up. Avoid jumping around the flow arbitrarily or reading blocks in places where they dont belong.  Doing these things make sure that I not only have a record of what you said, but helps me understand how you think what you are saying applies/responds to your opponents arguments.  When you don't do these things, you increase the odds that I misunderstand what you think you have answered.

2) Make comparisons.  I read less evidence during and after debates than other judges. I start my decisions by looking at my flows, deciding what the key questions are, resolving things that I can, and only then look at evidence.  Make comparisons between your warrants, quality of evidence. Draw out the interactions for me rather than forcing me to do these things for you. I see that as intervention, but the way that many debaters give rebuttals these days sometimes makes it impossible to decide without that intervention. I would much rather let you do the comparing.

3) I am not in the cult of big impacts/try or die. You need to solve for something. Your counterplan needs a net benefit. I can be convinced to vote for low risk, but presumption and zero risk exist. Not everything needs a card. Smart analytics can knock down the risk of some pretty silly arguments.  If the other team does have evidence of sufficient quality, however, a card to the contrary would go a long way.

4) I don’t think I am a bad judge for the k if you debate the k technically, especially on the neg. I am not great for any argument if you are overly relying on an overview to get things done, are speaking in paragraphs without considering flowability, or are addressing components of the debate in ways that ignore the line by line. I am better for specific links and alts that I would be able to explain back to the other team what they do based on the explanation you offered in the round.  I think 90% of the time spent on “framework” when the neg reads a k is a waste of time by both sides. The neg gets links to what the aff said and did. The aff gets to weigh the implementation of the plan. Unless another way of thinking about this is presented and dropped, this is how I end up evaluating the debate anyway. I am less of a fan of critical affirmatives that are not topical, do not relate to the topic in a significant way, etc. In K aff vs framework debates, the aff is helped if I can understand what reasonable ways the negative could anticipate an aff like yours and reasonably respond to it.

5) I would rather you make link arguments to kritiks about assumptions that the other team has made during this debate rather than ask me to evaluate something that happened other debates or outside of debates. Other debates had judges who rendered their own decisions. If there are serious concerns about a debater's out of round behavior, please take that to their coaches or tournament administrators. 

6) Process debates are boring. They might be necessary on some recent topics, but they are so boring on topics where there are great disads. They would be better with some evidence that suggest this process ought to exist/be used, even better if there are cards about the topic or aff. For example, I am far more into con-con about a constitutional/legal question than con-con to withdraw from NATO. But really, wouldn’t it be cool if we picked debate topics that were actual controversies? Wouldn’t it be cool if topics that had some controversy were limited in a way that makes some sense?

7) When you steal prep time, you are stealing my decision time. Please don’t. If you are making changes to your speech doc (deleting analytics, rearranging blocks, combining multiple docs into one, etc) you should have a prep timer running. Sending a doc is fine outside of prep but should be done efficiently, especially if you are debating at the varsity/open level. Refusing to start CX until you have a marked copy is also a big waste of my time unless you are planning to ask questions that are affected by these markings. I have yet to see that happen, so let's get on with it.

8) In online debate, you MUST make an effort to be clearer. NSDA campus makes you sound like a robot eating rocks. What was passable on classrooms.cloud doesn’t cut it on campus. I should be able to understand the body of your evidence, distinguish tags from cards, etc. I do not open speech documents when you are speaking. I need to be able to hear and understand you.

9) It is much harder to pay attention to online debates. This isn’t your fault. It is a feature of the format. I have found cross-ex in particular difficult to follow and keep in focus. People talking at once is really rough online, and I appreciate attempts to limit this by keeping answers reasonable in length and not cutting off reasonable answers. I will do my best in every debate to give you every bit of attention I have, but it would help me if you would forefront cross-ex questions that might matter to your strategy. Asking the other team what they read is cross-ex time.

Old Philosophy- I don't disagree with this:

I think I am a relatively middle of the road judge on most issues. I would rather hear you debate whatever sort of strategy you do well than have you conform to my argumentative preferences. I might have more fun listening to a case/da debate, but if you best strat or skillset is something else, go for it. I might not like an argument, but I will and have voted for arguments I hate if it wins the debate. I do have a pretty strong preference for technical, line by line style debate.

I am open to listening to kritiks by either side, but I am more familiar with policy arguments, so some additional explanation would be helpful, especially on the impact and alternative level. High theory K stuff is the area where I am least well read. I generally think it is better for debate if the aff has a topical plan that is implemented, but I am open to hearing both sides. To be successful at framework debates in front of me, it is helpful to do more than articulate that your movement/project/affirmation is good, but also provide reasons why it is good to be included in debate in the format you choose. I tend to find T version of the aff a pretty persuasive argument when it is able to solve a significant portion of aff offense.

I don’t have solid preferences on most counterplan theory issues, other than that I am not crazy about consultation or conditions cps generally. Most other cp issues are questions of degree not kind (1 conditional cp and a k doesn’t seem so bad, more than that is questionable, 42 is too many, etc) and all up for debate. The above comment about doing what you do well applies here. If theory is your thing and you do it well, ok. If cp cheating with both hands is your style and you can get away with it, swell.

I have no objection to voting on “untrue” arguments, like some of the more out there impact turns. To win on dropped arguments, you still need to do enough work that I could make a coherent decision based on your explanation of the argument. Dropped = true, but you need a claim, warrant, and impact. Such arguments also need to be identifiable in order for dropped = true to apply.

It’s rarely the case that a team wins every argument in the debate, so including relevant and responsive impact assessment is super important. I’d much rather debaters resolve questions like who has presumption in the case of counterplans or what happens to counterplans that might be rendered irrelevant by 2ar choices than leaving those questions to me.

I try my best to avoid reading evidence after a debate and think debaters should take this into account. I tend to only call for evidence if a) there is a debate about what a card says and/or b) it is impossible to resolve an issue without reading the evidence myself. I prefer to let the debaters debate the quality of evidence rather than calling for a bunch of evidence and applying my own interpretations after the fact. I think that is a form of intervening. I also think it is important that you draw out the warrants in your evidence rather than relying on me to piece things together at the end of the debate. As a result, you would be better served explaining, applying, and comparing fewer really important arguments than blipping through a bunch of tag line/author name extensions. I can certainly flow you and I will be paying attention to your speeches, but if the debate comes down to a comparison between arguments articulated in these manners, I tend to reward explanation and analysis. Also, the phrase "insert re-highlighting" is meaningless to someone who isn't reading the docs in real time. Telling me what you think the evidence says is a better use of your time

I like smart, organized debates. I pay a ton of attention and think I flow very well. I tend to be frustrated by debaters who jump around or lack structure. If your debate is headed this direction (through your own doing or that of the other team), often the team that cleans things up usually benefits. This also applies to non-traditional debating styles. If you don’t want to flow, that’s ok, but it is not an excuse to lack any discernible organization. Even if you are doing the embedded clash thing, your arguments shouldn't seem like a pre-scripted set of responses with little to no attempt to engage the specific arguments made by the other team or put them in some sort of order that makes it easier for me to flow and determine if indeed arguments were made, extended dropped, etc.

Please be nice to each other. While debate is a competitive activity, it is not an excuse to be a jerkface. If you are "stealing prep" I am likely to be very cross with you and dock your speaker points. If you are taking unreasonably long amounts of time to jump/email your docs or acquire someone else's docs, I am also not going to be super happy with you. I realize this can sound cranky, but I have been subjected to too many rounds where this has been happening recently.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Thoughts on Pf and LD:

Since I occasionally judge these, I thought I should add a section. I have either coached or competed in both events. I still have a strong preference for flow-centric debate in both activities.

-You may speak as quickly or slowly as you would like. Don't make yourself debate faster than you are able to do well just because I can keep up

-You can run whatever arguments you are able to justify (see policy debate section if you have more specific questions)

-Too many debates in these events spend far too much time debating framing questions that are essentially irrelevant to judge decisions. Those frames mean little if you cant win a link. If you and your opponent are trying to access the same impact, this is a sign that you should be debating link strength not impact strength. Your speech time is short. Don't waste it.

-Make useful argument comparisons. It is not helpful if you have a study and your opponent has a study that says the opposite and that is the end of the argument. It is not helpful if everyone's authors are "hacks." With complicated topics, try to understand how your authors arrived at their conclusions and use that to your advantage.

-Stop stealing prep. Seriously. Stop. It is not cute. Asking to see a source is not an opportunity for your partners to keep prepping. If a speech timer or a prep timer isn't going, you should not be writing on your flows or doing anything else that looks like prepping. I see this in a disturbing number of PF rounds. Stop

-Give a useful road map or none at all. Do not add a bunch of commentary. A road map should tell a judge what order to put pieces of flow paper into and nothing more. Save your arguments for your speech time.

-Paraphrasing is bad. Read quotations. Send out ev in carded form ahead of time. If you are a varsity, national circuit level competitor, you should have figure out efficient ways to manage allowing the other team to review your evidence.

Casey Harrigan

University of Kentucky; 14th year judging; Updated March 2021

Please add me to the doc chain: charrigan@gmail.com

2021 Alliance Topic Updates

1. Assurance is singular, not plural. Like Deterrence.

2. ‘Can I get a copy of the doc [with cards marked / with only the cards you read]?’ – Sure, if you use your prep time for it.

3. ‘Did you read X card?’ – this is CX, not untimed twilight zone

4. I am very lenient when it comes to making adjustments to accommodate online debating. If you need to stop your speech, pause your prep, stop your opponent’s speech because you can’t hear, etc., that is fine. We’re all just out here doing our best.

5. Solvency ‘advocates’ – it is not enough to have a harm and say that is existence implies the opposite, thus solvency. It is also not enough to have a card that says the MDT as currently designed is bad. You need a card that says the United States should do something different toward the alliance. Affs that don't have this have a hard time beating CPs….and solving.

6. My typical decision process:

a) If there are any theory / procedural / T arguments, resolve this first. That seems logical, and if I am voting on them, it saves a lot of decision time.

b) Move to whatever issue appears to be most decisive. Usually something like an advantage that one team appears to be far ahead on, a DA the neg seems to be winning, a CP that looks to solve a lot of the case, etc. This is also for decision efficiency – deciding one issue can clarify the overall debate.

c) Move page-by-page, deciding each. I actively try to check for and counteract confirmation bias – as humans, we want to find ways to resolve conflict and want to generate ‘easy’ decisions. It is natural to want to decide that the DA is small if the case is large or vice versa. I actively try to set aside arguments that I have previously decided when moving to the next.

d) Argument weighting is something like 50% debating, 50% evidence quality. I have spent a lot of time researching the alliances topic and sometimes find it hard to give much credence to arguments that appear to me to be factual incorrect or egregiously false. I do admit to being ‘truthier’ at times that I would like to ideally be; it’s a work in progress. 50/50 is the goal.

e) In very close debates, I do think it is helpful to ‘write a ballot for each team’. Not literally, of course. No one has time for that. But, instead, thinking through the series of decisions that are required to vote for each time and considering which has stronger justifications. The act of considering how an alternative ballot could be cast, why, and then for what reasons should that ballot not be chosen is helpful. For me, at least.

7. K vs Policy? I do not believe there is a difference between these, nor do I have any preference.

Older

-- I enjoy all types of debate and have spent a significant amount of time recently working on K stuff on both sides. I also have been deep in the space topic lit and feel ready to judge a technical debate on most of the core mechanics of the topic. It is said often by many, but I really think it is true for me: do your thing, don’t over adapt to me, don’t think that I have strong immutable beliefs about debate/argument based on what you know about me. I, like everyone, do have preferences and prior assumptions about lots of things. They are easily overridden by good debating. I have often voted for arguments that I personally believe are terrible because one team debated better than the other. If you lose to a bad argument, that means you should debate better, not that I should correct for you by suggesting to the other team that their argument is actually bad.

-- I like my paragraphs breaks uncondensed, font to be Times New Roman, highlighting to be blue, and dashes to be tripled. I prefer A2: over AT: out of habit, though it is probably a little too cool-kid-Y2K to be actually correct.

-- I am probably not who you think I am. I was the only person at MSU who enjoyed reading the T.A. McKinney DRG article on Intrinsicness, the only person who wanted to write 2NR blocks on the Fromm 64 Death K, and the only person who wrote ‘growth is bad because diversionary war against North Korea is good’. I am sure that I have opinions about debate that no one else at UK shares. People are more than the name of the school that follows their name and more than what debate’s 4-year-long institutional memories pigeonhole them to be.

-- I prefer to be on the doc chain during the debate and do read docs occasionally during speeches and especially during CX. Yes, I still flow (and I think I flow pretty well since transitioning to using a laptop – would be willing to have a flow-off with anyone. Flowing gauntlet thrown down). No, I don’t let the cards do debating for you even though I have read them. I can both know things are facts and simultaneously know what arguments were and were not made well in debate. I read all the cards in the debate because I want to provide feedback that is as helpful as possible and I want to see if you have good cards that I should go cut later, not because I need to see all the cards to decide who won or lost.

-- I prefer that plans contain a degree of specificity. To me, a plan that simply says ‘the USFG should cooperate with China on X’ does not convey enough information about the mechanism of action to produce a debate of the highest quality on this topic and I would prefer that the plan state how that cooperation should occur or by what means it would be induced. If teams do not choose to specify in the plan or CX, it seems reasonable to allow that matter to be determined by evidence that describes normal means, which either team can introduce. I believe this introduces a strategic cost that is real and should be exploited by more negative teams and could counteract trends toward non-specificity better than relying on Vagueness as a theory argument.

Andrew.j.hart@gmail.com

I have debated or coached for UGA since 2004 and debated for Stratford for 5 years before that. My knowledge and literature base exists largely on the policy side, but I am fairly ideologically neutral and well acquainted with K and K-ish args as well. After all, I have been in debate for nearly as long as many of the current high school debaters have been alive. That last sentence just hurt my soul, but it is true. My basic belief when judging is that as long as you clearly explain the argument and why it is more important than whatever the other side says, you will probably win the debate. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments fairly and without bias.

When it comes to assigning risk to an argument, I do not ascribe to an offense-defense paradigm. I can and will assign zero risk to an argument if defensive arguments are clearly won. If there is no link, there is no link. And no uniqueness if there is no uniqueness. For example, if your uniqueness evidence on a politics DA is 3-4 weeks old and the Aff has definitive evidence from a few days ago saying the opposite and cites a specific change, then there is zero risk to me. This also equally applies to advantages and solvency and pretty much all arguments. I’m perfectly willing to vote on only defensive arguments such as a perm, no link, and impact/uniqueness D, but it is still much easier to get my ballot by reading and going for offense.

I believe that debate is a communicative activity and not a judge reading comprehension test, which means I will not just call for all of the evidence at the end of the debate because it was read. I will pay attention to and flow the warrants of the evidence read if possible, so you should be clear when reading the text of the evidence if you want me to know what it says. I find that judges that just call for all of the evidence tend to reconstruct the debate in terms of evidence read instead of the arguments made. I will certainly call for evidence if necessary, typically if I did not get the substance of the evidence or if there is a debate over what the evidence actually says. Also, extend the warrants of the evidence in addition to extending the piece of evidence.

I keep a pretty decent record of the debate, but my pen does not move as fast as you speak. This means that you need to slow down when reading theory or other multiple analytical arguments in a row etc. If I do not have an argument on my flow, I cannot and will not vote for it. This also means that jumping around the flow can very quickly lead to flow chaos and potential missed arguments because I cannot just add in new cells or flow straight down and rearrange the flow during prep like on the computer.

As far as prep time goes for flashing speeches, I am reasonable if you are. You should be saving the speech when you say end prep and not continuing to copy and paste or compile the speech.

If you are caught clipping cards or cross reading or any other major ethics violations/cheating in a debate in front of me, you will immediately lose the debate. This is a very serious accusation with serious consequences, so there must be rather substantial/conclusive evidence of this occurring for me to be willing to end the debate. I have no qualms whatsoever dropping the hammer if it’s proven. If you believe that the other team has done this, speak up during C-X/prep, and we will resolve the issue before continuing the debate.

*Treat everyone in the round (and also outside the round) with respect and dignity. I understand that debate is a competitive activity that can lead to some heated arguments, but that is no excuse for being a complete jackass and a terrible human being.*

A couple of minor argument disclaimers/leanings/answer to pre round questions to note. These are clearly not strict rules and should not deter you from doing what you do best. I have voted for Condition/Consult CPs, ASPEC, non-topical Affs, and Affs that refuse to even engage the topic, and I believe that almost anything in the round is debatable with the exception of speech order and time.
1. The aff should at the very least discuss and be in the direction of the topic, so the neg at least has some reasonably predictable ground and the ability to have clash. Plans are often the best/easiest way to establish this, but they are not required – just preferred. I can and have voted for Affs that are neither in the direction of nor talk about the topic.

2. I, like most judges, do not want to have to wade through a big theory debate to decide a round. I much prefer the substance, but I will do it if needed. If you think it is your only option or that you are winning the argument and want to go for it, by all means go for it. I tend to default to reject the arg and not the team (except for condo/status) unless you can explain why the violation warrants that level of punishment. Even dropped theory arguments must be developed and explained as to why I should reject the team.

3. I tend to find the argument that counter-plans that result in the entirety of the plan, especially those with competition based off of certainty (condition, consult) are unfair/not competitive persuasive. You can certainly win the debate with these counterplans because they are strategic, and I do vote for them regularly. However the difference between strategic and unfair is a rather thin line in this area and that argument that can be won in front of me. As I said, I will evaluate the arguments based upon what happens in the debate and not my beliefs. Pointing out that this or other specific notes on arguments are in my philosophy as a justification for your argument is not an argument or reason for you to win. I wrote it. I do know what is in my philosophy. You must still effectively explain why these arguments are unfair and answer the neg arguments. There are still good reasons why these CPs should be allowed and good answers to the perm.

4. I’m not a big fan of most any spec argument. If you need to read A-SPEC to force/generate competition for an Agent CP, then by all means do it. At that point, there is a strategic value to this move. However, A-SPEC should probably not be the A-strat going into the round since it is difficult for me to envision a world in which the Aff must specify more than what the resolution demands. Occasionally, there is a good reason for a spec argument, but that is rather rare.

5. Topicality – I will vote on it if you win it and is well developed. Voting on T becomes easier if the argument is well developed beginning in the 1NC and extended with example case lists that each interp allows.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

James H. Herndon - FORMER Director of Debate - Barkley Forum @ Emory University

[prefer to be called Herndon - pronouns are he/him/his. Email is jamesherndon3]

2020 update:

I left the game because I wanted to spend more time with my family. Wow, did I get that #ThanksCovid My relationship with debate was not conducive to being the father, husband, and member of my community I wanted to be. But, virtual judging is easy enough. So, why not.

What else is different - I don’t do debate research anymore, I do a lot of economic/financial research now, I do a lot of tech/zoom/Webex presentations.

In my experience I find it easier to listen/follow along when I can see people’s faces (that’s not possible for everyone, so it’s not a judgement thing) but if it can be when speaking it may aid my comprehension.

————————

everything from Jan 2019
If I am judging you and you are freaking out about it, believe there is no way I would ever vote for you, or are just generally making assumptions about my world view, then I ask you to keep in mind that the following list are things I think I think. I have been wrong more often than I have been right. I will do my best to evaluate the debate neutrally. I view myself as an adjudicator first, and do my best to neutrally evaluate the arguments as defended in front of me. I will vote for anything

Though, like all educators I have biases, those follow.

These statements are things I believe to be true about my judging. They aren't rules. But, it is better to disclose:

1. Debate is a game. I view all theory arguments through this lens.
2. If I don’t understand it at the end of the round then I am not going to vote on it.
3. The Aff should have to defend a plan or advocacy statement that they can defend is topical.
4. Topic related critical literature should be debated.
5. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
6. I will reward good cross-x with speaker points.
7.. I tend to evaluate the strength of the link in tandem with uniqueness – neither exists in a vacuum.
8. Counterplans always switch presumption to the aff.
9. I will NOT kick counterplans for the negative. The 2nr is allowed to present me with a reason to vote for them, that is where the debating ended. If the neg says to kick the cp and the aff doesn’t answer it I will kick it. Absent that, I am not kicking arguments for one team. This applies to all speeches.
10. Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applys to everything.
11. literature shapes the topic. and what you get to do with it.
14. Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of.
15. There is value to life.

16. I am not qualified to evaluate people in the round for or about things that happen outside of the round. Intentions are important & I give people the benefit of the doubt too often for my own good.

17. I feel like fiating the states + federal government might be a step too far. I haven't heard a great debate on this, but since this is for my biases, thought I'd include it. That being said, state fiat is probably okay if there are solvency cards for what you are doing.

18. limited condo is good. the neg's job is to disprove the aff or win a competitive policy option. That being said, if the aff can prove that conditionality was used in a way that undermined the value or competitive fairness of the debate, it is a voting issue.

19. topicality is under-utilized against policy teams and over-utilized vs K teams.

20. future fiat illegit.

Good luck.

2023-24 will constitute my 31st year judging intercollegiate debate.

General comments about my judging:

1) When forced to choose, evidence-based argumentation informed by an understanding of current events is preferred to eloquent prose devoid of substance.

2) Argumentation that directly engages opponents' positions, especially strategic choices that clearly acknowledge and account for the strengths of an opponents' claims while exploiting their weaknesses is considered the highest form of debate.

3) In terms of delivery style, confidence is not measured by volume, aptitude is not proven by aggressiveness, and eye contact is always appreciated.

4) Competitors who know how to employ "Even If" statements ("Even if my opponent is correct about ______, they still lose the debate because ________") are more successful than those who assume, and speak as if, they have won all the arguments.

5) I flow, or at least try to. I don't give up on that exercise because debaters share a speech document.

Specific thoughts about judging the 2023-24 CEDA-NDT resolution:

1. Debating nuclear weapons is a relative waste of our collective intellect, and an unfortunate reminder at the shallow and superficial manner by which our community chooses what topic we will spend an entire year researching, learning about, and engaging in a contestation of contrasting perspectives. US nuclear weapons policy is neither the most salient policy issue, nor even the most pressing foreign policy issue. Sadly, our community is too narrow-minded and scared to use our powers of debate to focus our energy on other areas of public policy that would be much better for college-aged scholars to delve into.
2. My thoughts expressed above do not mean I automatically support Affirmative teams who strategically choose to talk about some other topic, regardless of how passionately they feel about it. Debate is still debate, and if you can't explain how your decision to affirm something beyond the reasonably-expected "topical ground" is both educational AND fairly debatable, then in my opinion you're not any better than the folks who are stuck in the time loop of debating NFU.
3. Especially at the start of the year, don't assume we know the acronyms and specialized vocabulary you're using. My responsibility as a judge is to give the teams my full attention and effort as an adjudicator during the round - I am not required to show up to the debate already having expert-level familiarity with whatever literature base the debaters have been immersed for the last few months - whether that be nuclear weapons policy or any other body of literature.

Final Comment:

Over the last six years, I have become heavily involved in debate outside of the US, having taught both teachers and students, high school and university level, in Africa, east Asia, and the Caribbean. One consequence of my international experience is that a lot of the ontological claims debaters in the US make about the activity (e.g., "Debate is ______" or "Debate must ________" or "________ (people) can only debate like _________" ) ring very hollow to me and reflect a naive ethnocentrism about which too many folks in the US are oblivious.

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

Matthew Jallits

Debated 3 years @ Puyallup High School (08-11),

Debated 4 years @ University of Nevada Las Vegas (11-15)

Coached 2 years @ University of Nevada Las Vegas (15-17).

CEDA 2019 Update:

CEDA will be the first full college tournament I will have judged at this year, meaning I will have minimal knowledge about the topic.

I'm down for any form of argumentation as long as there's a reason to vote for it. Direct refutation of arguments is best over implied argumentation. This means I prefer technical, flow-centric line by line debate. I don't think every argument needs a card, but it certainly helps.

Other things:

-I flow on paper

-I don't have my laptop open and will not read any cards until after the debate (if the warrants of a card are in question). I want to be focused on what is being said in the speeches.

-I don't want to preside over accusations about what has or hasn't happened outside of the round I'm currently judging.

-If there's an email chain, I'll be on it: mmjallits[at]gmail[dot]com

Name: Brina Joiner

Status: Graduate Assistant for Malcolm X Debate Team

Education: First year graduate student in communication

I’m open to any and all arguments, assumptions, and theories as long as they are clearly and concisely explained and backed my relevant evidence. I try to view the argument from the perspective of the debaters and thus will judge the argument holistically versus line by line. It is important for teams to speak CLEARLY and for arguments to be accessible to the untrained ear, thus no speed-reading (unless you somehow believe it to still be accessible).

I understand the difficulty of both producing cards and having to analyze them in round, however, this is the burden of the debaters. I do concede to the time restraints of incorporating and explaining complex positions and thus will commit to analyzing a few cards outside of the debate, however it should be clear what cards apply to what arguments and it is rare that I would record (flow) an authors’ name. Evidence should not be shoved into the debate as a strategic ploy, but naturally flow with the holistic picture debaters are trying to present.

Impacts are key and debaters should weigh them heavily in round. I’m also a stickler on permutations. Perms should be explained on how they solve and the net benefits of the decision – dropped arguments require warrant.

Lastly, debaters should be more than civil with one another. Debate is an experience to flex intellectual muscle, while also educating self and others in the process. Have fun and keep your composure!

Affiliation: Liberty University

Email: KTJordan07@gmail.com

I began debate as a novice at Liberty University in the fall of 2007 and continued to debate on both the JV and Varsity levels until I graduated in the spring of 2011. I graduated from Liberty University School of Law in May 2014. In my day job I work full time as an Assistant City Attorney for the city of Lynchburg, VA practicing local government law with a focus on social services/child dependency matters. I am currently judging for Liberty University.

While I have been judging debates for nine years, I have not judged many debates on this topic so please be clear with topic specific information/acronyms.

My first two years of debate I ran strictly policy arguments with only an occasional kritik. My third and fourth years I ran a mix of arguments on both the aff and neg, primarily reading critical affirmatives. I have been both the 2A and the 2N so I know the challenges of each.

In general debate well and you will be fine. You would be better to debate what you know well, than trying to change what you do to adapt to any presuppositions you may think I may have. I am open to most arguments. I say most because if you are arguing racism good or gravity doesn’t exist, then you will be fighting an uphill battle that is impossible to win absent an equally absurd argument from the other team. If you are clear and thoroughly explained, then the debate will be better for everyone. Make sure to tell me what it is I am voting for at the end of the round, otherwise I revert to a logical policymaker.

Specifics:

Stylistically:

Clarity over speed. If you are clear then there is no problem with speed.

I will generally flow line by line unless I am asked to do otherwise. Dropped arguments are important unless you tell me why they aren't.

Don't "cut the card" at the end of a significant number of cards. It makes it look like you don't know how to highlight the key parts of evidence.

T/Framework:
Can be good for both strategy and clarity. I do not mind teams that chose to approach T in a creative manner, just have an explanation of why you do what you do. Limits can be good, but make sure to tell me why YOUR limits are good. Debate should be both fun and educational, show me why your way is best! Framework against non-traditional affirmatives may be a strategic option but is not always the best strategy as these teams often garner offense against you reading a traditional framework. Think strategically, and don't just whine to me that what the other team is doing is unfair. You must show me how it is so unfair/anti-educational that they need to lose the debate round if you want to get my ballot on this argument.

Theory:
Conditionality is not always bad, but have a reason to why you need to be conditional. Conditionality can easily become abusive, especially when it is in the form of Multiple Contradictory Conditional Advocacies. If you object manner in which a team is running an argument (Condo, Dispo, Contradictory, Agent, Pics, etc.) then tell me. I will not reject a team if you do not tell me why to reject them. For theory it is most often reject the argument not the team, but if that argument is all you have winning you the debate you may lose anyways.

DA:
Can be the best part of debate if they have a good internal link story but often they do not get the explanation they deserve. My novice year, my partner and I did not read a single CP but always ran DA’s that solved case. This strategy is often under utilized for its strategic advantages. Most often the DA’s don’t even have coherent link stories. If it is a stretch, then it is most likely not going to be your winning argument. I see this most often with politics DA’s. I often say the more internal links that you need to get to your impact, the less likely the impact will happen.
Impact = Time-frame X Probability X Magnitude.

CP:
See my note on theory above. A good CP can be devastating to teams that aren't ready for the specificity that might exist within that strategy. As well mastering a general CP can be good as long as you can apply it to the specific Aff.

Non-traditional Affirmatives:
Be prepared to tell me why you do what you do. You need more than just a defense of your position but also an offense. You should also read what I have written to the policy teams because it also applies to you. Just because you don’t label an argument as a DA or CP doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to have an internal link or a clear picture of the impact and why it matters.

The "K":
Some of the literature is a bit out there but if you can explain it I will follow. Make sure to explain why I should vote for you and why the other team should lose.

Overall:
If you feel like you have extra time… then explain more. You can always answer the question “WHY”? You say you should win, why? Condo Good, Why? Utopian Alt bad, why? Your impact it is the biggest, why? The more “whys” you answer, the less that are left in my head, and the more likely I will buy your argument.

Have fun!!

I am the Director of Forensics and an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication in the Department of Writing & Rhetoric at the University of Mississippi. I have a PhD and MA in Communication Studies from the University of Kansas.

I currently coach British Parliamentary debate but my background is in policy debate.

From 2014 to 2021 I was an assistant coach at the University of Kansas.

I competed at Wayne State University from 2009 to 2014.

I debated in high school for Dexter High School in Michigan.

Put me on the email chain, please. jacob.justice.debate at gmail.

Regardless of format (policy, PF, LD, BP, etc.) or style (policy, critique, etc.) I want to see complete and supported arguments, engagement with the arguments of your opponent, and judge instruction about how to prioritize and weigh various arguments.

The following stuff still applies.

*October 2020 Update*

This past Spring I finished up my PhD at the University of Kansas. I am now a public speaking instructor at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. I will be judging sporadically for Kansas during the 2020-2021 season.

What does this mean?

Don't assume I have high familiarity with the nitty-gritty of the current topic. I coached/judged on the high school military presence topic (2010-2011) and coached/judged extensively on the college military presence topic (2015-2016), so I am familiar with the broad strokes of the current college topic, but the latest and spiciest arguments and acronyms might be unfamiliar to me.

The Wayne State tournament will also be my first time judging an online tournament; although I did judge many online debates at the 2020 Jayhawk Debate Institute and have taught online many times as well. I just wanted to provide a fair warning that you can't rule out a "boomer technology moment" with me in the back of the room as I learn the ropes of this strange new world of online debating.

With these updates out of the way, I think everything below applies.

I always do my best to judge the debate in front of me without letting my own biases creep in. But I (or any other judge) would be lying if I told you I don't have certain preferences: these preferences are spelled out pretty well below.

One additional comment: I find that the most difficult rounds to resolve often involve debates that are occurring on two different registers. A 1AC with massive extinction impacts versus K links about knowledge production or ontology. Or a 1AC about anti-blackness or psychic violence versus a T argument about fairness/education. When debaters' impacts operate on such different levels, it can be difficult to resolve the debate without debaters explicitly telling me what types of impacts to prioritize.

*Previous Philosophy*

First things first:

1) Do what you're best at. As a judge, I should adapt to you and not the other way around.

2) Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication. Any argument that contains a claim, data (this doesn't mean carded), warrant and implication is fair game for my ballot.

3) A dropped argument is almost always a true argument. The most common exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #2, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication. Tech creates "truth". What is "truth" is contingent on arguments made (and won). I often find myself voting for arguments that I disagree with or find silly when one side executes better.

4) This is a communication activity, so clarity is important to me. I like being able to hear the text of evidence as it is being read. Enunciate! Don't talk into your laptop or read like a robot.

General Notes:

Context always matters. Controlling the contextual framing almost always requires hard pre-round work, and usually wins the round. I value teams that demonstrate robust knowledge of their arguments and the topic.

Clash matters a lot to me. I'm not a good judge for teams whose strategy is built around avoiding a debate. This is true regardless of which side of the K/policy spectrum any given argument falls on.

Impact comparisons are critical, no matter what flavor of debate you engage in. Does negative flexibility outweigh 2AC strategy skew? Are the 1AC’s methodological assumptions a prior question to its pragmatic implications? Does a long term warming impact outweigh a quick nuclear war scenario? In a close round, the team that provides the clearest and most well-explained answer to questions like those usually wins my ballot.

In general, it is better to a develop a small number of arguments in an in-depth manner than to develop a large number of arguments in a shallow manner, although there are certainly exceptions to this rule. Selective rebuttals are typically the most effective. That being said, I recognize the strategic benefit of the 1AR pursuing a handful of lines of argument to give the 2AR flexibility to pick-and-choose.

After judging a year of college debates, I think my biggest pet peeve is vagueness -- be that a vague plan, vague CP, or vague alt. Being clear and detailed is helpful to me as a judge.

Framework:

See: my previous thoughts about clash.

Teams should defend an example of the resolution. I don't think being topical is an unreasonable expectation when the resolution does not force you to take a conservative or repugnant action (i.e., when legalizing pot or closing military bases is topical). I think fairness is an impact and will vote on it if articulated and debated well.

When answering T with a "K Aff," I think it is important for the AFF team to advance a limiting counter-interpretation of some kind. I am more likely to be persuaded by "we don't make the topic unworkably large" than "destroying debate good."

It is important for affirmatives to demonstrate that their advocacy is germane to the controversy of the resolution and contestable. Affirmatives should explain what type of ground they make available to the negative, and not just by referring to random author names. In other words, it's much more helpful when the affirmative frames the ground debate in terms of: "our affirmative relies on *X* assumption, which *Y* literature base writes evidence refuting" rather than just saying "you can read Baudrillard, Bataille, etc."

Teams should articulate a clear vision of what debate would look like under their interpretation. Ideally, teams should present a clear answer to questions like: "what is the purpose of debate?" Is it a game? A site for activism? Somewhere in between?

I don't think reading topicality is a means to evade clash with the substance of an affirmative -- in many instances it calls core assumptions of the affirmative into question.

Interacting with your opponents' argument is critical. It's important to isolate a clear impact to your argument and explain how it accesses/turns your opponents. Often times I find these debates to be irreconcilable because the arguments advanced by either side have disparate premises. It can be helpful to not conflate procedural justifications for topicality with normative ones, though the internal links to these things often become messy.

I am disinclined to view debate as a role-playing exercise.

Topicality:

I will definitely vote on it, and I have done so often. I am not a good judge for "should = past tense of shall", "reduce =/= eliminate" and other contrived interpretations negatives read against obviously topical affs. For instance, it will be difficult to convince me that an affirmative which removes the Cuban embargo is untopical, absent a massive technical error. That being said I am willing to vote on T, given that an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are well articulated. Affirmatives should always make and extend a counter-interpretation.

Theory –

It will be tough to persuade me that two conditional advocacies is egregious and unmanageable for the 2AC. Beyond two conditional advocacies is pushing your luck if you are the negative team, especially with multiple "kickable" planks involved.

Basically every other theoretical objection is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I haven't formed a solid opinion on "judge kicking" CPs, but since the aff has the burden of proof in most theory debates, I think I am comfortable putting the burden on the aff to prove why the 2NR can't simultaneously go for a CP and the SQ.

-Consult/Condition/Delay CPs – I tend to consider these types of CPs uncompetitive, and am thus receptive to perm arguments. That being said, there is a big difference in my mind between “Consult Japan on the plan” and well-evidenced CP’s that are comparative between doing the plan unconditionally, and using the plan as leverage. The latter brand of condition CP’s are few and far between.

Critiques:

Given my disposition to view things within a cost-benefit paradigm, I am likely to frame the critique as a disad / counterplan. This basic calculus will be different based upon the framework arguments advanced by the negative regarding ontology, epistemology, method, etc.

When indicting an affirmative's knowledge production or epistemology is imperative that you reference quotes or phrases from the 1AC which you think are flawed. It is also imperative that affirmatives defend the truth value of their 1AC's claims from these types of epistemological attacks.

I feel most comfortable in K rounds that involve a lot of interaction with the plan, the advantages, or explicit 1AC claims. There should be a coherent link, impact, and alternative. Don't assume I know what you are talking about.

Affs are best answering the K at the alt and impact level as the neg will almost certainly win a link. Articulating why the alt doesn't solve the case and why the case outweighs the K impacts is usually the best strategy. I am also a fan of the impact turn.

K links should ideally establish that the 1AC/plan is undesirable, not merely that it doesn't account for every foreseeable harm. I.E. links that say: "the plan makes racism worse" are more persuasive than "the plan does not address other instances of racism."

Director of Debate at The University of Michigan

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.

Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.

Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.

Seasonal voting record:

Judd D. Kimball, Assistant Coach, University of Mary Washington

Article I. Communication Approach to Debate 
Section 1.01 The following are brief explanation of what I envision when I think of the highest quality debate. These are items that can factor in both positively and negatively for you in my determination of who did the better debating. 
(a) A primary goal should be to present your ideas and arguments in a communicative fashion. What factors influence the effectiveness of your communication? 
(i) Rate of Delivery. You should not present ideas at a rate that interferes with the effectiveness of sharing those ideas with another human being. You must analyze your audience to determine the rate at which they can absorb ideas, and you must evaluate (fairly) your own abilities to speak rapidly which not losing clarity/enunciation or normal tone inflection that signals the beginning and ending of sentences, and is critical to judges understanding concepts and ideas, not just individual words. 
(ii) Clarity/Enunciation. Each word should have a beginning and an ending. Each sound should be pronounced, and not mumbled through. 
(iii) Interpretation/Tonal inflection. It is a personal belief that the way we normally communicate with other people involves a lot of vocal interpretation and tonal inflection. It’s a way to communicate phrases and ideas, rather than just leaving each word hanging out by itself, merely surrounded by other words. With interpretation the audience has an easier time comprehending, understanding the processing the idea, as they don’t have to put the sentence together from the individual words, and then discover the meaning of the phrase or sentence themselves. Interpretation, by my definition, is the attribute of communication that helps provide understanding to the audience of the ideas being presented through the way the ideas are presented. It has been my experience that most debaters are very interpretative speakers when they are not debating from prepared scripts. It is during this time that the communication skills you have honed since you began talking are on display. Yet when it is time to read evidence, or a prepped theory block, they shift communicative gears and start just reading each individual word, rather than presenting ideas for the consideration of the judge. I am very unlikely to read evidence after the debate if it was not read in a comprehensible manner, or the warrants and reasons of the evidence were not discussed as being important ideas. 
(b) A primary focus of your speeches and cross-examination period should be information sharing. This goes beyond your personal motivation to communicate with the judges, and includes a responsibility to present your arguments in a fashion that facilitates your opponent’s comprehension of your position. 
(c) Clash. You should seek to create class in your debates by interacting with not only your opponent’s tag lines, but with the warrants for those claims. In essence, clash is explaining to me why I should prefer/believe your arguments over your opponents. In order to effectively do that, you must be making comparisons that take your opponents argument into account. You must clash. 

Section 1.02 Effective implementation of these points will most likely result in higher speaker points, and a greater understanding of your arguments by me as a judge. That will help you in winning the debate, as I will hold the other team responsible for answering your arguments, and if they fail toy,your superior communication will be a determining factor (as a process) of your victory. 

Article II. Debate Evaluation 
Section 2.01 I recognize objective standards and processes are probably impossible, as the subjective creeps into everything, I just desire and strive for objectivity. 
(a) I have a default judging perspective, which evaluates the net benefits of a policy proposal, and answers the question of whether the government should take a particular course of action. I prefer a framework which strives to include as many voices and perspectives as possible, and provides a framework in which different perspectives can be compared, contrasted and weighed. I like my decision to be grounded in the arguments made in the debate. I strive not to bring in “baggage” with me, though I recognize the final futility of that effort, and I will make every effort to explain my decision by reference what was actually communicated in the debate 
(b) If you wish the debate to be evaluated from an alternate perspective, you will need to provide a well-defined set of criteria for me to apply when evaluating and weighing arguments. The question of controversy needs to be defined, and discussed in order to provide me the necessary framework to avoid subjectively deciding the debate. Now mind you, I don’t mind subjectively deciding a debate, just be prepared to be frustrated by my statement that I can’t explain why I voted for a particular position, just that that was what I wanted to do at that moment of time, or frustrated by the fact that what I voted on wasn’t an argument or part of the debate that you had a chance to answer. That will happen when I find myself stalled out in the decision making, finding no way to decide other than adding in factors that were not included or discussed in the debate. 

Section 2.02 I find questions of autonomous action and personal belief difficult to decide in the context of debate competition. I have found myself perplexed by arguments advanced on the basis of exercising personal autonomy, and then be expected to evaluate them without the inclusion of my opinions, my autonomy, in the process. This is difficult when I find that my personal approach to life contrasts with the approach to individual decision making advocated by one team. If the ballot is my endorsement of your idea, then I would be denying my own autonomous position by being constrained by debate conventions of judging (i.e., you did a better job against the opponents objections, but I wasn’t persuaded to change my personal beliefs). Defining your framework for debate evaluation with this in mind will ease my difficulty. I have been close to taking the action of including my position on the question, in the last few debates I’ve had when this situation arose. Questions of Autonomy and personal belief are difficult questions for me to resolve 

Section 2.03 I will be very resistant to deciding debates where the character of the participants is the foundation for the decision. I do not like to cast judgments on people and their behavior without having gathered as much information as is possible. I do not feel that in the high pressure competition of debate is the best forum for investigating those issues, or in seeking to engage the other individual in a dialogue about their behavior. Am I totally unwilling to decide a debate on such a question? I’m not willing to say that either. But I would have to be convinced that not only was this an egregious act, but that malevolent intent was involved. 

Article III. Other Issues: 
Section 3.01 Topicality I think topicality debates hinge on the question of whose interpretation provides for a better debate topic/experience. If your violation and argumentation does not provide an answer to that question, then figure the answer out. You must also be sure to be complete in your argumentation about why the affirmative violates your interpretation. Do not leave issues of plan interpretation vague, or hinge your argument on a vague cross ex question or answer. Make clear and concise arguments about why the affirmative plan doesn’t meet your interpretation. 

Section 3.02 Counterplans. I’ll evaluate any counterplan presented. I begin from a bias that "net benefits" is the most meaningful competition standard, and perhaps only standard. But you can argue other standards, and you only have to defeat your opponent’s arguments, not mine. As to other theory questions with counterplans, it will depend on who does the best job defending/indicting a particular theoretical practice used in the debate. 

Section 3.03 Kritiks I need to understand what you are saying from the beginning on all arguments, but especially these. Please communicate your ideas to me when you present this type of argument. I won’t go back later and try to figure out what you were arguing about. I need to know what the affirmative does that is bad, and why it is bad enough that I should either vote negative, or not affirmative, or however I should vote. 

Section 3.04 Debating and Evaluating Theory Issues. Theory issues are difficult to evaluate, because they are a yes/no question. If you wish to win a theory objection, you must deal with all of your opponent’s defenses, and provide reasoning explaining why a particular theory position is destructive to quality debate. This is not meant to scare you off of theory debates, just to encourage you to be thorough and complete when discussing this issue. 

Judge Philosophy

Conflicts: UGA, Emory University, and North Broward

Email: Brianklarmandebate@gmail.com - Yes, put me on the thread. No, I won't open all of the docs during the round and will likely ask for a doc of cards I find relevant at the end.

2024 Updates:

I am not a fully time debate coach. I am working with the UGA & North Broward debate teams part time.

I am someone who believes tech > truth. However, I do not look at cards during debates, so if your arguments are not clear by explanation/flowable tags/very clearly read card text, they are not "tech" that is on my flow. My favorite debates involve strategy (think: creative "cross applications," argument that are "good because the other teams can't read their best answers," etc). I enjoy a good theory debate (conditionality, solvency advocate, perms, politics theory arguments, etc.) and I would prefer that debates have some depth by the end of the negative block.

College - Assume I know things about the topic, but have not cut cards on it in the past year. I have had conversations with debaters/coaches and am very familiar with nuclear strategy. My knowledge of the college topic extends to knowing: assurance, deterrence, IR Ks, military process CPs*, and anything that would have been read on the past college exec power/military presence/alliance topics. I have written many iterations of both ICBMs and NFU affs & negs.

*If you are going for a T argument or process CP, keep in mind that I could not tell you the wording of the resolution off of the top of my head, so any arguments related to grammatical construction of the resolution might require you explaining with another sentence or going a bit slower. I am under the impression that the topic is pretty small and the negative ground is pretty good, so make sure to impact your limits (or "functional limits")/ground arguments

High School - I have had very little interaction with the current topic. I cut a number of cards on UBI in the past, but I know very little about the other parts of the topic. I did not teach at a debate camp. I have judged a handful of rounds and they were almost all on capitalism or race Ks. I am under the impression that the "core" negative arguments are some combination of States, Politics, "Redistribution" PICs, and Ks about the economy; I assume that the "core" affirmative arguments are all related to the economy and inequality.

2021 Post-NDT Updates:

(1) "X Outweighs Y" - If the 2NR/2AR does not start with some version of this (or include this elsewhere), I will almost certainly vote the other way. I don't super care how you say it, but if you are unwilling to say that the impact you will win is more important than the impact the other team will win, things aren't going well.

(2) T & Theory - I seem to like them more than everyone else I judge with. Go for conditionality bad! I don't necessarily think it is true but never seem to hear 2NC or 2NR blocks that have great offense or impact calc. After judging on a slew of panels, I realize that I am more likely to be into technical theory & T arguments then others. I also tend to expect complete arguments in the 1NC/2AC/2NC (theory needs warrants, T needs the necessary defense and offense).

(3) Tech > Truth - I feel like I have said this a number of times, but I realized that I think this more than others (or at least more than people that I judge with). A "bad" disad has high risk until/unless answers are made. This also has made me amenable to voting on some not great disads vs. planless affs just on the basis of 2ACs lacking necessary defense.

(4) T vs. Planless affs - I have found that I tend to vote affirmative when something is conceded or answered completely incorrectly. I tend to vote negative when the negative goes for a limits/fairness impact and responds to every argument on the line by line. I tend to find myself confused about the relevance of all arguments that the content of the resolution is either good or bad. I feel like I find my voting record to be like 50/50, but I haven't done the math.

(5) Decision making process - I tend to read less cards then others who I judge with. Not because I am against reading cards, but because I only read evidence to resolve questions in a debate. If you want me to read cards (which you likely do), make them relevant.

(6) Points - At the NDT, my points were about .1-.2 below everyone else on every panel. I plan on upping my points by .1-.2. That said, I don't give great points.

2020-2021 Updates - Online Judging: Judging online is difficult - a few implications:

(1) Ask if I am in the room / paying attention before you start speaking. Non-negotiable. "Brian, are you ready?" or "Klarman, are you here?" or anything that requires me to respond. I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

(2) Clarity matters more - I don't usually follow along in the doc and I am unlikely to read cards from both teams if one team is significantly clearer. On a related note, organization and numbering can help a lot with clarity because it tells me what arguments to expect.

(3) Technology skills matter - Emails should be sent out on time. If you are taking "no prep" for the 2AC, 1NR, etc. I assume that means the doc is sent and we are ready to go. I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time and makes concentration harder.

(4) Interesting arguments help keep attention and boosts points - I am really trying to flow and get everything down. I flow CX. I line up arguments. I am more aggressive than most about the flow. That being said, staring at the computer for the 3rd or 4th round of the day is very difficult. I will do my best. I find flowing very important because it lets the debaters do the debating instead of me deciding what I like. That said, online it is taking me a little more energy to focus. I've found when I hear arguments that I either haven't judged before, things I haven't blocked out, or even a new explanation, I tend to think the debate is more interesting which helps points & engagement. I really do love debate, so if you are excited, I will be too. On the other side, if this is the 9th time i am hearing the same school read the same block (and this could be Politics, T, Fairness bad, Deterrence or a K) with no emphasis at the same tournament, its hard to focus.

(5) Internet issues - they happen, I get it. They might happen to you, they might happen to me. I've heard best practice is to have some backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules, follow those. Otherwise I will likely just ask tab what to do if this happens. I'm open to other ideas of how to deal with it. Please please please have one (or all) debaters look to make sure the judge hasn't gotten booted from the room.

2020-2021 Updates - Other:

(1) Points - I think my points average around 28.5. I usually don't go under 28 unless something has gone wrong. If you get a 29.3 or 29.4 that is very good. I'm willing to go above that, but mostly when I hear something and am like "wow, that was memorable. I am going to try to tell people who I coach/teach in lab/judge to do things like this in the future."

(2) I often decide debates by (1) determining what I need to decide (2) looking through my flow for if it is resolved and then (3) reading cards if necessary. I'm unlikely to read a card (for the decision) to figure out something that the debaters never made clear. That said, I am happy to talk about some card or look through your evidence to give advice after the debate if you want - I tend to think debate is collaborative and we should all make each other better.

(3) I miss theory debates - this is the thing I have thought the most about, this is how I debated, and I just think its fun. I don't like "pointless" theory, but if you can convince me that something is the debate in the literature and predictable - from process CPs to T arguments to even spec arguments - I'm happy to hear it. That said, if you make your theory argument intentionally blippy ("ASPEC, they didnt, its a voter") I won't care.

I also left my old paradigm up here, but I think it mostly says: I did more "DA/CP/T" stuff than "K" stuff, I am familiar with "K" literature about race/gender/biopower/cultural studies, I like specific strategies, good case debating always impresses me, and I am very particular about the flow.

Old Stuff:

Preferences: I don't really care about what argument you make. I tend to think bad arguments will lose. The debate things I think about the most are counterplans and topicality arguments. That being said, I cut everything and coach everything. I feel like I mostly judge K debates where no one agrees about anything at this point. In those, I generally am familiar with that set of arguments (I am completing my MA in cultural studies, focusing on questions of race & gender) but not how to fit them into a debate. I tend to be very comfortable with how DAs, CPs, T arguments, and case fit into debate, but I tend to do weird research so I might not know what all the technical stuff of the CP is. That also means that the purpose of a K argument (or answer to the purpose) might require more explanation than the purpose of another argument. The things I think you actually need to know about me are below. I tried to lay out what I do in most debates while they are happening and afterwords and be as honest as possible.

Flowing: I will try to flow every argument in the debate. I expect that debaters will be doing the same thing. I could not possibly care less what the speech doc says or if you are "skipping a card" in the doc (that being said, I would like to be on the chain because I like glancing at cards after debates & trying to learn more about the topic/have informed discussions after the debates; also if you are doing some super annoying thing in the doc just to mess with the other team, I will likely be upset at you when I realize that in the post round/give points). When I flow speeches that set up argument structure (1nc on case, 2ac on off case), I will attempt to number the speech and will give higher speaker points to 1ns and 2as who set up that structure themselves (as well as be able to better understand their arguments; the 1nc that makes 4 analytics in a row without numbering is basically unflowable which means when the 2ac drops something I won't care). In subsequent speeches, I will go by the order of those numbers and will attempt to find what you are answering before I flow what you say. This means that if the 2nc starts on 2ac 4, I will mostly likely miss the first few arguments trying to figure out where to flow it (unless they say "2ac 4 - X - here's our answer" which would just be easily flowable but I might be confused about why the 2nc started on 2ac 4). If the 2nc starts on 2ac 1, I will not have an issue flowing. If the negative block (or 1ar) decides that the order is irrelevant, I am likely to be very grumpy; it is hard to vote on technical concessions or other things if the flow gets ruined and it makes it hard to tell a 1ar "you dropped X" when the block does not answer 2ac arguments. In addition to initial numbering, I will be able to better understand later speeches if you give me some idea (probably by number or argument) where the thing you are extending is on my flow. If you would like to only extend an impact turn or thumper or some no internal link argument in the 1ar that is 2ac 9 on my flow but don't tell me that you are starting at 2ac 9, it is going to take me a minute to find it on my flow. If, however, the 1ar goes to a flow and says "2ac 9 - they dropped X - here's what it is and why it matters" I will be able to immediately find it on my flow (it is easier to find numbers than exact arguments on a flow).

CX: I love CX. It is maybe my favorite "speech." I often try to flow it or take some notes at the least. That means you should pick words carefully in CX. I will especially try to write down anything about the advocacy and frameworks for evaluating debates (meaning metrics for thinking about things, which is not always how debate uses the word). CX can be fun even when teams get heated, but when CX is just people yelling at people and it is clear that people are more upset than enjoying things, I tend to lose interest. I like when people answering questions are honest, explain things, etc. I sometimes have the docs open and if we are having a fight about some card, I will look at it. I am not yet entirely comfortable with this, but if I miss the answer to a question, I may re-ask for the answer after the timer (I will do this with things like status or clarification, I don't think I will with other things yet but I might). I am also not comfortable interrupting CX to say things, but if someone is intentionally saying something that isn't true to answer clarification questions or refusing to answer clarification questions I may do so. If I make any definitive judgement about these things, I will try to update my philosophy again.

Look at me: I do not have a good poker face. I'd recommend looking for expression or other gestures. When I cannot flow people, I tend to look very confused. Same when an argument is bad. When I think an argument has already been explained and/or you are saying things that aren't arguments, I tend to sit there with my pen on my paper waiting for you to say something that needs to be flowed.

How I make a decision: At the end of the debate, I try to figure out what arguments are going to decide the debate (there tend to be 1-3), parse those out, and figure out what happens from there. It is generally better if debaters tell me what those things will be either on the line by line or in an overview (this is the only reason I could really imagine having an overview unless it is to explain some super complicated thing). I tend to think the best speeches are the ones that both identify these key points, explain why they win and then what happens if they win those key things. If there is no discussion of key points (either implicit or explicit), it is highly possible that I will try to find a few points that are key and then explain my decision from there (I determined this argument was probably the most important, here's how I evaluated it, here's why it deals with lots of other stuff). Any decision like that just makes me grumpy, especially because it always ends with the judge CX forever about why I decided this way and my answer tends to be "I didn't know how else to decide"

Speaker points: I'm going to be honest, I don't know if I understand this entire speaker point thing. I think my points might be a bit low. I don't plan on just raising them; if you need higher points I get that I might not be the judge for you. At the moment, I don't think that raising points just to raise them is a great idea because it eliminates a lot of range and variation in points that I think signal improvement for debaters and help communicate about the debate. I might revisit this later on if people want. I don't really know what an "average" speech looks like. If I had to try and articulate some made-up scale, it would probably look something like this: if the speech you gave was the best it could have been and/or basically won you the debate, its in the 29.3+ space. If the speech kept things going and helped a bit but not as much as it could, its in the 28.7+ range. If the speech was fine but didn't have much value value, I tend to think its in the 28.2+ range. If the speech wasn't good and didn't help much, it in the 27.5+ area. If the speech is bad, we are in the like 27 or even 26.8+ range. I don't think I've given many points lower than 27 and if I did, something must have gone very wrong. I tend to find most speeches between that 28-29 range. I think I average in the low 28s but I don't really know or care. Only a few speeches have just crushed the debate for me. I tend to have a lot of issue judging debates when I feel that all the speeches were about 28.2s or something and I have to give people different points. I think my default is to make the thing I think the top end or top middle (so if it was 28.2, maybe i'd give 28.3-28 to everyone). That being said, I think I am more willing to use high range in points based on speeches. I am also happy to add points for well used CX, good numbering, clarity of cards and highlighting (like if I can understand all the warrants in the evidence while you are reading), partners who work well together and make each other look good (I think basically every bold move in debate could be characterized by the 2nr/2ar as a big mistake or a big efficiency gain; if you can convince me that the 1ar under-covering the DA was to trick them to go for it, I will likely think the 1ar choice was smart and hence deserves better points, same with other speeches), etc. If people have a better way of doing speaker points, I am happy to talk about it.

Do not: Clip cards, lie, use something out of context, or do anything else unethical. These will result in loss of speaker points or loss of rounds.

Name: John P. Koch

Institutional Affiliation: Vanderbilt University

Experience: 15 years (Currently, Director of Debate at Vanderbilt University. Formerly, 1 year as Interim Director of Forensics at the University of Puget Sound, 6 years as a Graduate Teaching Assistant at Wayne State University, and 1 year as Assistant Debate Coach at Capital University)

Please put me on e-mail chains: johnpkoch@gmail.com

Preface; or TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. If you want to know about me, I was a four-year CEDA/NDT debater for Capital University. I was primarily a policy debater. I read topical plans and went for politics. However, debate has changed since then, and I do my best to try to keep up with it, because the activity is now yours. I enjoy policy debates. I enjoy critical debates. I enjoy the testing and clashing of ideas. In general, my reading list runs the range from political science to critical theory. I cut politics cards and I cut critical arguments. This is not to say I will be familiar with your authors, but to say that if you have something to add to the discussion, an advocacy that will point us towards something better, whether it is a policy change or a wholesale change in civil society, then I look forward to sharing the debate space with you.

Debate Specifics:

1.) For the record, a good argument consists of a warrant, data, claim, and impact/implication. If an argument you go for at the end of the debate is missing one of those components, you are unlikely to win the round on said argument.

2.) I am by my nature a pragmatist. I say this in the philosophical sense (John Dewey, Richard Rorty, Cornel West), not in the every day political usage of the term. For debate, this means that I am open to and see positives in the productive tension created by different forms of advocacy. The point of debate is to contest policies, aims, methodologies, and practices, so as to point us towards new and better experiences. This is all a long-winded way of saying defend something. In short, I do not require that you have a traditional policy proposal, but I do require that you have an advocacy. However, while I do not require a policy plan, I will vote on framework if the argument is won, so be prepared to defend your choices.

3.) I often think of debates on the macro-level before I dig into the micro of the flow. This means that debaters who advance a coherent thesis throughout the debate and control the framing of the nexus question(s) are most likely to win my ballot. If you want to give yourself the best possibility of me evaluating an argument that you think is central to the debate in your favor, then you need to make it the focal point of the debate, connect it to your larger thesis, and impact how I should evaluate it in terms of resolving the nexus questions.

4.) I will work hard to put as much work into judging as you do preparing your arguments. However, the easier you make it for me to understand why you should win, the happier you will be with my decision. In other words, make the connections for me. Do not expect me to make the important connections for you.

5.) The arguments advanced in the debate are what establish “truth.” Each side having ground and creating clash are essential to test ideas and arrive at a decision about the best course of action. It is your job as a debater to advance a thesis and resolve the nexus questions of the debate in your favor. It is also your job to explain how I should evaluate the relative strength of evidence and arguments. Even/if statements are the hallmark of a successful debater. These are the essential tasks of rebuttal speeches and if you do this all correctly, then you will put yourself in the best position to win the debate.

6.) I am not the best flow when it comes to fast theory debates. In truth though, I think I am just more honest in admitting that contemporary theory debates happen at too fast of a pace for me to keep up. If there are judges who can really keep up with them, then my hat off to them. For me, you will need to slow down and make it clear what issues matter in order for me to resolve the theory violation. This is also true of framework debates.

7.) In relation to the above, I am not against speed. However, speed for the sake of speed is resulting in lack of clarity. You need to be narrowing your arguments, flagging the important ones, and explaining how they resolve the nexus questions of the debate. The earlier you start identifying the nexus questions and answering them in the debate, the better chance you have of persuading me. In short, your final speeches need to be writing the ballot for me. Otherwise, you leave it up to me to write the ballot. Trust me, you would rather write it.

8.) There are some rules of debate. I will enforce those relating to prep time, speech order, and speech time. Other rules, such as card clipping, are up to the debaters to point out and tell me how to enforce. You are all adults. I am not going to police civility, respectability, or cheating. If you think something that your opponents do in the debate space warrants them losing, then make an argument.

9.) I view framework debates as a question of whose method best allows us to access the educational benefits of debate. Whoever wins the better internal links into resolving this question (access, fairness, clash, testing, etc.) will win my ballot. If your strategy is to pretend that there are normative rules that I have to enforce, then you will most likely lose the round.

Postscript:

The rest is for you to write within the round. Questions, e-mail me at johnpkoch@gmail.com or ask at a tournament.

Background: Debated at Smithville High School, George Mason University, coached at Mason, and now Associate Director at Emory. I want to be on the chains, my email is Kylelastovica@gmail.com

General:

Clarity is key- This is a communication activity. I would prefer slowing down for the purpose of persuasion and ethos than slurring just to throw in that last card you probably do not need.

Tech vs. Truth- This is circumstantial. I generally reward technical concessions and try to hold a firm line on new args in rebuttals. Though, I also think a silly advantage or DA can be demolished with analytics.

CX- Won't allow inserted args that weren't in the speeches. CX ends after 3 minutes. 

Depth over breadth- I prefer a vertical spread, but you do you.

Humor- If you can please do or if you can’t I guess that will be entertaining as well. Peter Susko jokes are a plus (Gotta have something better than just he is short) but any D7, Mason jokes will do. 

Post-Round Doc's- I have increasingly learned that debaters add extra stuff in these that were not clearly extended in the 2AR/2NR. I would prefer this didn't occur since it really turns me off on reading the good cards that were actually extended and debated.  

Topicality:

Thoroughly enjoy these debates. 

Default to competing interps so whatever is the best version of the topic wins. Don't really think reasonability is an arg. 

Lists and examples are key- list of crazy aff's they justify, lists of sufficient aff ground they still have in their respective area, list of neg arg's that are omitted, list of important aff's that are mooted if their interp is chosen, etc. Then the lists need to be impacted, so I can answer the "so what?" question of x argument being excluded or x aff being included.

Do impact comparison i.e. limits vs. aff flex. 

Theory/CP:

Lean neg on most CP theory questions- Condo its good (more than 2 starts getting sketchy but whatev) and anything other than status is a reason to reject the arg. 

Slow down on these blocks. 

Impact comparison is key.

Won't judge kick unless argumentation suggests I should.

Slow down on planks, I shouldn't have to find out what the CP actually does later in the debate.  

DA:

Awesome- Enjoy a good politics or topic DA.

2NC/1NR Impact/Turns case overviews are preferable- 1AR's needs to address these. 

There can be zero percent of a link.

Case:

Details of warrant extrapolation and depth are key. 2AC's tend to be blippy so take advantage.

Presumption is a thing.

Aff’s should choose and break down more in the 1AR. 2AR shouldn't be the first time any impact comparison is done. 

K stuff:

Would rather have you do you’re thing than trying to conform to me.

Insert classic I haven’t read you're stuff so explain at caveman level. Historical/current events examples are very helpful to show application of theory.

Aff's need to watch out for and answer classic K tricks.

Framework- Aff's should be related to the rez in some way. This makes framework a good option for the neg.

I debated at the University of Vermont for my undergrad, and was mostly a K debater. 

Debate has been polarized into either K or T/Framework. Within each of those two categories are various sub-sections.

In terms of K, I don't favor it over T/Framework, I just hold it to a higher threshold because of my radical approach to K.

In terms of Framework, I definitely recognize the validity of it. I won CEDA on Framework in fact, so don't be afraid to run that.

Funadamentally both sides can say whatever they want aslong as I recognize some practical use for the theory or plan.

If you must run T, I only ask that it not be on the basis of wording because that just makes petty debate.

If you run K, I also ask that it not be based on the lack of a specific word, unless it proves truly perilous for the debate.

If you run Framework, I dont vote on fairness because i think its an absurd concept in debate. Judges are so capricious and unpredictable (regardless of paradigms)

I will vote for anything, just so long as I feel as though the debate has been conducive and persuassive. 

I don't have a public judge philosophy because this website is not secure. Nothing has otherwise changed, I will try to be as fair as possible and I am open to persuasion on most things. Email me if you have questions.

Open to all styles of policy debate. 20+ Years coaching college policy, 20+ years teaching policy at high school camps. Detailed philosophy removed due to lack of site security. email to lundeensb at gmail with any questions

College nuclear weapons topic - I have not been actively coaching/researching this season so keep that in mind in assuming my depth of topic knowledge or "where the community is" on any issue.

Jim Lyle 
Director - Clarion University 

Constraints: UMW

Shirley 2013: I intend to follow the suggested speaker point guide posted by WFU as best I can. 

General Statement 

1. I see debate as first a competitive activity, and second as an educational activity. Allow me to clarify. I love the educational aspects of debate, but the thing I love the most is that we get to use education in the context of a game. I find myself most interested in the preservation of debate as a fair, competitive activity for both the affirmative and negative teams. If protecting the competitive dimension of the game isn’t our priority in considerations about how debate should operate, then we should all stay back at our respective schools on weekends and discuss these issues on Saturdays in college libraries with other interested people and save the expenses associated with traveling to debate tournaments. 
2. I also love that the game allows us to play with a lot of arguments that might remain out of reach of institutional policymakers. Debate is an activity that allows us to play with more controversial positions, and advocate ideas that can not be articulated elsewhere. This teaches people how to argue on a host of fronts, and develops/enhances critical thinking skills. 
3. I think I am in the same place as a number of judges regarding evidence quality. This is never an issue in the round and the consequence is that teams get away with a slew of claims being advanced by unqualified authors. Additionally, there are a number of instances where a smart argument can beat a card but teams don't bother. 

Topicality 
1. It’s a voting issue. 
2. The key to debating topicality for me is the ability of both teams to concretize their arguments with examples of affs/arguments that allowed and/or disallowed by a particular interpretation. The team that does a better job demonstrating the effect of an interpretation on the game generally probably is gonna win the argument. 
3. Competing Interpretations vs Reasonability. I’d guess I’d say I’m a fan of reasonability. I say that because I generally see all T debates as a question of what is the most reasonable interpretation, and between the aff and the neg we have two…which compete. “Do vs. justify” just doesn’t make much sense if both sides are willing to allow the specific aff in question to be topical. 

Theory/CPs 
1. Most of these debates tend to go for the team seeking to not lose on theory simply because the debates are too fast and too jargon-laden. 
2. The number of debates where fairness is the end-all-be-all on Theory Issue A and education is the end-all-be-all on B is bewildering. What may be worse is that this is never called out. 
3. I think affirmative teams are cowardly lions on theory. 
4. I think conditionality is good and presume the counterplan is conditional. Logic says stick with the status quo if both the cp and plan are bad ideas. Does this mean all conditionality is off the argument table? No. Multiple conditional advocacies may have issues. Certain types of counterplans run conditionally may be problematic (i.e., a conditional consultation counterplan)… Advocating the perm also seems logical. 
5. Think some PICs legitimate, some ask key questions about the desirability of the affirmative plan. Think agent CPs are legitimate, however, I think affirmatives tend to let the negative get away with a lot more in fiating things for counterplans. If we are gonna use fiat, it needs to be reciprocal and predictable/real world for both sides. For instance, if it can be proven that acting on “x” is out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then perhaps the negative (or affirmative) doesn’t have right to that action (unless the opposition is given an equal use of fiat). Think we are asked to evaluate things from the perspective of the federal government. Not a fan of multiple-agent counterplans (i.e., CP has states and federal government act). Don’t like object fiat. Don’t care for international fiat. Specific solvency evidence does wonders in helping justify a particular counterplan, and if it’s from an affirmative solvency author then you get what you deserve. 
6. “This justifies severance perms”….then do it. Reciprocity is good. 

Cross-Examination 
1. Still flowing it. 
2. I “check-out” during the prep time and although I hear things, and may remember them, I will not go back and add to the “flow.” So, use CX strategically. 
3. I generally hate flowing the CX because debaters undervalue it. 

Critiques and so forth 
1. I view myself as a policymaker. I view the question for the debate to be whether or not the plan is a desirable policy option given the status quo and competitive alternatives. 
2. Does this mean I exclude the K? Maybe. Maybe not. I would argue that it doesn’t exclude the K, but rather shapes how I understand the K and how you need to frame the argument. 
3. You can argue that I shouldn’t evaluate as a policymaker, but I will evaluate the consequences of the non-policymaker mode versus the policymaker mode of evaluation. 
4. I “understand” the argument that the K is a “gateway argument” that has some if/then-thing going on when it is run with a bunch of DAs and CPs but am not sure why the AFF doesn’t get to access impact turns to the K when the K is kicked. I guess I am saying that I find it a bit confusing that the K operates somewhere in between DA world and CP world and that this creates potentially interesting, but generally unexplored, lines of argumentation. 
5. Performance. See above. Odds are that if you are a performer, I’m not the judge you want. 

Paperless 
1. I think prep time ends when the debater pulls the flash-drive out of the computer and says they are ready to jump it to the other team. I understand there are some tech issues to still be worked out but this is one issue that shouldn’t be a problem (especially since Whitman 3.0, I and I believe Synergy, have functions that allow for speeches to be saved automatically to the jump drive). 
2. I think paperless teams need to have a viewing computer available for the other team. I have no problem if the other team doesn’t wish to use the viewing computer but think it needs to be available. That said, I personally don’t get the “can we jump it on our own computer” phenomena. Why create a risk of being exposed to a virus? 
3. What if a paperless team reads additional cards in a speech that are not in the initial document? At the end of the speech, the paperless additions should be immediately jumped over. The paperless team should have to use prep for this. 
4. What if a paperless team jumps a file with 100 cards and basically forces the other team to find the evidence read? Not acceptable. 

Presumption 
I’m sure this is a little odd to see in here for most of you but I must admit that I am historically a bit of a neg hack and a large part of this is based on my willingness to vote on presumption. If there’s no clear advantage to doing the plan a tiny risk of a DA seems to be enough to say “don’t chance it.” I guess my point is that I prefer a well-developed advantage over 3 under-developed advantage. 

Delivery 
1. Be clear. 
2. I tend to let people know if they are being unclear, unless I can’t see your face. If you can’t look at me, I can’t let you know when you’ve lost me. 

Got questions? Ask. 

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013 

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either.  In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate. 

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree)  I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of  basic communication. 

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently. 

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive.  I think  that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact. 

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo. 

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame). 

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial. 

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny) 

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Include me on the evidence email: ShauntriceMartin@gmail.com

Be on time to your round

Impact calculus key

Validate claims with both qualitative and quantitative research

FAQ

Q: How do you feel about K debate?

A: I do not care for it, but K teams seem to pref me. I like old school debate with claims, warrants, impacts, etc. I will not weigh a narrative or poem or other creative performance unless there is evidence to support its relevance (unless the opposing team concedes).

Q: How much debate experience do you have?

A: I debated open college policy for 2 years. That was over a decade ago. I have coached winning college teams. I ran two different debate leagues and taught at Cal in 2019 on the arms topic. I occasionally coach/judge on the college circuit.

Q: Do you vote for T?

A: Yes

Q: Are you a theory expert?

A: Depends on what theory, but 75% of the time the answer is no.

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

Evan McCarty

I. Introduction

I debated for Northwestern and graduated in 2016. I now work in strategy and biz ops at a legal technology company. I have not researched the [insert name of current topic] topic at all.

II. Top Level

The best debaters are hard-working, strategic, passionate about the activity, and gracious to others in the community.

Tech > truth, but it's often easier to win the tech if your argument is true.

III. Predispositions

I’ll vote on nearly any warranted argument. That being said, here are some predispositions that guide my thinking. All of these can be overcome with a warranted argument to the contrary:

1. Pragmatism > Idealism.

2. Debate should be about evaluating courses of action against their opportunity costs. If the AFF proves that the NEG's counterplan, kritik, or disadvantage is not a germane opportunity cost to the plan, I'm inclined to disregard the NEG's position.

3. Clash is good. Positions that promote clash are good for debate. Positions that avoid clash are bad for debate.

4. The AFF should defend topical action. The judge should vote AFF if a given topical action is preferable to the status quo or a competitive (opportunity-cost) action.

5. Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

IV. Constraints

Some of my views are not subject to change. These include:

1. A dropped argument (claim + warrant) is presumptively true for the rest of the debate. However, I have a relatively high threshold for what constitutes an argument in the first place. For example, the phrase “conditionality is a voter – time and strat skew, argumentative irresponsibility – dispo solves” is not an argument, because it does not contain an actual warrant (and is not, for that matter, a complete sentence).

2. No take-backs – if you make an argument and the other team does not contest it, then you don't get to retract it.

3. Intentionally intimidating the opposing team, judge, or audience through threats of physical or emotional violence --> loss.

4. Respect for your opponents, the activity, and the community is important.

V. Kritiks

My voting record for critical arguments is better than one may have expected given the arguments I ran while debating. That being said, I would still generally consider myself "good" for framework against non-traditional affirmatives and "good" for the aff against most criticisms.

The efficacy of the affirmative's advocacy/negative's alternative is incredibly important. The more sweeping your impact claim, the more important it is that you have a clear proposal to solve it. Critical arguments that invest time explaining the efficacy of their proposal have a very good record in front of me.

I am a much better judge for affirmatives that are in the "direction" of the topic than those that simply mention the topic in passing (or worse, don't mention it at all).

I am a better judge for identity-based arguments than for anything postmodern/high theory.

Kritiks do best in front of me if they cause me to think implementation of the plan would be a bad idea.

VI. Other

1. Zero-risk is totally a thing.

2. High quality evidence > smart analytics > low quality evidence.

patrick.g.mccleary@gmail.com

I think this is my one old man pet peeve: please don't call it "cross."

I debated from 2006-2010 at Loyola Blakefield HS, then from 2010-2013 at the University of Mary Washington. Coached at George Mason University from 2014-2017. I've been mostly out of debate since then aside from a handful of debates each year. The place where this probably impacts you most is in T debates (if you're shotgunning a case list at me, especially one full of topic acronyms, I may not know what you're talking about).

Short version - do what you do. I’m not here to tell you what debate is supposed to be about or what arguments are best, so I won’t judge in a fashion that assumes I know the answers to those questions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that break ties. In other words, if two sides debate an argument as perfectly (or as poorly?) as humanly possible, this is how I would probably err in a given situation.

Top level stuff:
I enjoy fast, clash-heavy, policy debate. I think there are benefits to all three of those descriptors (though I am open to well-argued critiques of “policy” – see below). That necessitates certain things about the way I judge:
- I like to flow. I will evaluate arguments that tell me not to flow in order to determine if not flowing is a better model for debate, but I need to flow the arguments to make that determination in the first place
- Line by line is important in my decision-making. I have a tendency to reward direct clash over embedded/holistic argumentation. That doesn't mean I adhere strictly to the line by line, but keep in mind that it can be a tiebreaker, and that good line by line debating can only help your points.
- Clarity is crucial. A lot of “bad judging decisions” are the result of miscommunications between judges and debaters
- An argument is a claim and a warrant. A good argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Phrases such as “fiat solves the link” or “infinite regression” are not arguments. Teams are only responsible for responding to arguments.

Paperless prep - I took a decent amount, so I'm pretty lenient about it. I also think that the whole "when the email is sent/when the jump drive is out" standard reduces the quality of debates by forcing debaters to take prep when they aren't actually prepping. I think prep time stops when you are no longer prepping your speech. But you should know that the more prep you take means the less time I have to decide the debate. There's also a limit to the dead time I can allow because I do like having time to decide.

Speaker Points:
I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29.3-29.5 is a speaker award, 29-29.2 is good/should be clearing, 28.5-28.9 is on the cusp of clearing, 28-28.4 is average, 27.5-27.9 is below average, 27 and up needs work or might be in the wrong division. Any lower and you probably did something unethical or offensive. I try to roughly keep up with community norms here.

One more note on speaks - borrowed from Hester's philosophy:

"Debaters who have used the opportunity afforded by annual resolutions to learn about the topic and are able to apply that knowledge in the round will be in position to receive higher points than debaters whose speeches are lacking in this category. Debaters whose speeches reflect little to no effort at having learned about this season's topic may win the debate, but will not receive good points.

This does not mean the AFF must read a plan text...nor that the NEG can only debate the case (rarely a wise strategy). It simply means i am listening for proof that debaters are taking advantage of the opportunity to learn about a different topic area each season."

Topicality
I think it’s one of the most underutilized tools in the neg arsenal. I also think 1ARs don’t give it enough credibility. It’s a voter and never a reverse voter. Limits determines everything. I view topicality as a battle between functional limits for the aff and predictable limits for the neg. That’s also what determines whether or not an aff is “reasonable” or not. I frequently find myself caring very little about what government definitions or topic framers think, especially compared to arguments about debatability (for either side).

ASpec is a nonstarter unless you ask in c/x, and even then it’s probably an uphill battle. As a 2A, I respect the aff’s choice to refuse to give PIC ground in 1AC c/x, but affs need to understand that a mishandled vagueness argument can lead to an outcome, however unlikely, that they don’t want. Effects and extra T could just be reasons to reject the nontopical parts of the aff (I could be persuaded otherwise), but negative teams would be wise to point out the ways that the aff fails to solve/function logically without those parts.

DA
I’m most familiar with these kinds of debates. Here’s a laundry list of random advice and thoughts.

- I think DAs can have a tendency to be a series of strung together cards – it’s important to articulate a story to the DA that makes sense. Note - this is also an opportunity for you politics 1NRs out there to prove to me that you have some topic/current events knowledge and to get a nice boost in speaker points.

- I think there can be zero risk of a link, especially if your DA is one of the ones described above. That being said, going for a link turn can still be more strategic than terminal defense because controlling the direction arrow of the link/internal link chain necessarily zeroes the link.

- Link precedes uniqueness.

- Start impact calculus as early as possible.

- Cards should never be tagged “more ev.”

- Just respond to arguments instead of saying “uniqueness (or link) debate – group it.”

- In many instances (especially picking apart opponents’ cards), smart analytics are just as effective, if not more so, than cards.

CP
The absolute best thing the last rebuttals can do in a CP debate (and pretty much all debates) is to assume that the other side is going to win some part of their argument - whether that be case defense or a solvency deficit. That means you need to quantify the risk of the solvency deficit versus the risk of the DA/case. Affs should be smart and creative with permutations and explanations of the perm. Negs should lock down what the perm is early to avoid aff shiftiness.

If nobody says anything about it, I’m willing to kick the CP for the neg because of implicit assumptions of it being conditional. But I could definitely be persuaded that presumption flips aff/the neg should get one world in the 2NR. Caveat - if the block says "2NR choice checks" when answering conditionality in the block, I will almost definitely hold the neg to one world in the 2NR. Another caveat - if the 1NC response to the status question is "status quo is always a logical option" (or some functional equivalent) AND the block rearticulates that the judge can kick the CP for the neg, it would be too late for the 2AR to make an argument about sticking the neg with the CP.

***ADA/NDT 2015 Edit***

I think I'm more in the 1%/any risk camp than I initially thought I was. This is especially true with a 2NR that includes a CP that solves the case. A tiny net benefit lowers the bar for a perm/solvency deficit, but it seems logical to me that there needs to be a perm/solvency deficit to beat a CP.

Theory
Again – these are inclinations. Nothing is set in stone and I can be persuaded either way.

Conditionality – fine within reason. I personally believe more strongly in the justifications for 1 CP, 1 K as opposed to 2 CPs or 2 Ks. Neg debaters would be well-served making arguments that reflect that distinction.
Dispositionality – I would be surprised if I voted against a team on it
CPs that do the whole aff (consult, condition, etc) – probably not reasons to reject the team. Perm do the CP is probably a winner though.
PICs – probably good, especially the more aff specific and germane they are.

As a rule of thumb, smarter arguments like “conditional PICs bad” are generally better than reading your “conditionality bad” and “PICs bad" blocks.

K
Not the most familiar with all of the lit here, but probably not the least familiar either. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around justifying that you get the aff, then using the aff as a way to defend your scholarship, method, and way of understanding the world. The best neg arguments make the case irrelevant, either through framework arguments, root cause/terminal solvency takeout-type args, or establishing a different paradigm through which I assess impacts.

I’m more familiar with the standard –ism Ks: capitalism, feminism, imperialism, etc., but I’m willing to hear whatever K you’ve got if you do it well. But if you think there’s a chance that your K might be over my head, please label and describe it by the argument as opposed to just the random author.

Planless Affs/Framework Debates
I’m open to hearing types of affirmatives that criticize the topic or norms/structures/discrimination within the community. I have voted for these in the past, though more often than not this is due to poor execution by the neg. Some things about me that I think can influence my decisions in a “clash of civilizations” style debate:

- Debate is a game. It is highly unlikely that you will change my mind on this point.

- The more related the aff is to the topic, the less uphill the framework battle is for the aff - see above. For certain affs, I definitely understand that it's more strategic to run from the topic and/or be about debate. I'm not bad for these affs. It just raises the bar for both teams to make sure you're clashing in a framework debate rooted in impact turns
- Nebulous terms like fairness, education, and x-ology are not impacts in and of themselves
- I am more likely to reward teams who do line by line analysis than those who operate more holistically. This is both because I believe in the value of direct clash (see above) and because it seems to disincentivize that sort of clash if I reward embedding clash when the other team is doing the work to create clash directly.

[Post Coast 2015]

- I'm starting to realize that I think I'm better for the neg on theoretical framework than substantive framework, but I think this is a divergence from most judges who see clash debates as often as I do. I think aff teams in clash debates have way better answers to a 2NR that focuses on substantive framework args, whereas it is less likely I will be compelled by their answers to theoretical framework args. Neg teams would probably be best served using substantive args to limit aff offense, but get most of their offense from theoretical args.

This is obviously the most controversial area when it comes to preffing judges. So if you read a planless aff or are facing one with me in the back and you have questions, please ask them.

Case
Almost every single 2NR should address the case. Case debates are awesome. Please do them and do them well.

Experience:

• University of Wyoming policy debater & coach
• UC Berkeley policy coach
• Judging CARD for 3+ years (critic of the year in 2022)

CARD is not policy debate by design. I want to be moved and persuaded by your arguments, which you can't do if you are reading or speaking fast and using a bunch of technical jargon. Keep this activity accessible.

Read any style of arguments you want (kritical, policy, lived experience), but relate them to the topic. If you want to read an untopical affirmative then get ready to impact-turn and tell me why your arguments are important for this specific activity.

The 2NR and 2AR are for telling me exactly why you won the debate. A dropped argument is a true argument, but you need to tell me why that argument being true is important for your overall case (i.e. compare the quality of your arguments). Debate isn't just about winning individual arguments on the flow, but telling the judge a compelling story. An important part of telling the story is through impact calculus/comparison.

Flowing: I still prefer to flow CARD like a traditional policy round. I flow each argument on a separate page and I want to be able to line up the arguments to quickly compare them when rendering my decision. So, try to stay organized and answer the arguments in the order they were made.

Bottom line: Arguments need evidence and warrants. Keep it cute, don't post-round me.

Happy to answer any questions before the round begins.

My philosophy and perspective on debate has changed over the years. I began policy debate in middle school in the St. Louis Urban Debate League and continued sporadically in college until my sophomore year at Emory. My roots have gone from "stock issue" debates to "plan focus" to now also embracing critical/performance style debates. I am an academic/educator at heart and I am very politically and emotionally invested in issues related to race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and equity in general. This means I am familiar with feminist theory (various varieties), critical race theory, and queer theory. As such, if a debate encompasses any or part of these issues, my ears do perk up more. Nevertheless, I try to be a very fair judge by being objective as possible. Yet, here are some more of my thoughts on specifics and caveats of debate:

Framework: At a fundamental level, I see debate as a communication activity designed to teach participants how to understand problems of the world and how to discuss their potential solutions.  As a competitive activity, the winner of a debate either proves or disproves the desirability of a proposed advocacy or policy option. Such substantiation occurs through evidentiary support which for me includes formal scholarly research, personal experience, music, and art.  If you have a different framework of debate, that’s okay. Win it. Be persuasive as to why it should be preferred. If you debate traditional policy where it is all about advantages, counterplan/disads, solvency deficits, magnitude/timeframe/probability, etc, that’s okay, too. But note: “any risk” of your “100% extinction” scenario from your politics disad may very well not outweigh the more probable systemic aff advantages (i.e. racism, violence, sexism, inequality, etc).

Flowing: I do it. A LOT. Sometimes I even flow cross-x.  This means I am technical. Meaning, if the 2AR was awesome and may have won the debate, but the 2AC did not look anything like it, (although painful) I will probably default to “no new in the 2” and “protect the 2NR.”  

Speed: (For JV debaters) I am all about quality over quantity. I need all individuals to be clear, even at the expense of not reading all the cards you want. If I cannot understand you, then my flow will reflect the lack that I heard.

Kritiks: I like to listen to them (please see above about political investments). I, however, do not like ambiguity or any argument that is unclear. If you want me to vote on them, you must win your framework. You must also EXPLAIN the whole argument. This means I want you to articulate the link(s), implications, and alternatives. I want you to be persuasive. Specificity is critical. For example, I enjoy when Negs utilize the 1AC and cross-x to get the aff to link harder. I do not enjoy floating PICs or when it is finally clear what the kritik is by rebuttals. By that point, I am more interested in other issues in the round (DAs, case turns, etc).

Theory: I admit that I am not the biggest fan, but I know theory has its place. You can win on it, but you need to spend time on the issue. I hate rounds where both teams just read their blocks and leave it at that. If you are going to go for I, then put in the time and energy to hash it out as to what ground or education was lost. How would’ve the debate been different if a particular argument was or was not ran.

Topicality: Definitely has its place. I think I am more privy to reasonability arguments because it’s all about ground. If the Neg has plenty of viable options to say against the affirmative, then topicality is not very persuasive to me. If the Neg proves that the aff kills some kind of topic specific education and particular kinds of clash, then the Neg is getting somewhere on T. For aff teams who arrives to the round not wanting to talk about the resolution, I do find it hard to reconcile that desire with an opposing team who needs ground to clash and talk about the resolution. At the very least, I want to listen to your criticism as it relates to the resolution.

Counterplans: If you are running PICs, I hope the Net Benefit is clear and significant because I am not very privy to these. I will listen to them and if Affs mishandle or concede, then you are more likely to succeed. If Affs call you out on them, impact, and explain the issue, then you better get to RANT-ing.

Although, some bias exists, this does not mean you should not run what you want. Debate is full of contention and possibility. Just remember to impact, explain, and be persuasive. If you do this well, you will get the win from me.

Things I think:

1. Debate is a public speaking and communication activity. Good debaters engage the judge, speak clearly, and are able to explain their arguments and be funny despite time pressure. Debaters who look up from their flow while speaking will benefit from being able to see my reactions to arguments. Debaters who are clear will benefit from my ability to understand or flow the warrants of their cards.  If I don't understand it/get it/know why it matters, I won't vote on it.  I should know an argument is important from the way you extend it, both in terms of content and style. 

2. Qualified evidence is very important, but only reaches its maximum value if it is unpacked and explained. Evidence or arguments that are comprehensible or well explained during the course of the debate are almost always preferable to evidence that I have to read after the round to understand, even if the latter evidence is "better". Well explained analytic arguments can slay bad advantages, disads, alternatives, and counterplans. To wit: I will privilege explanation in debates over reading I have to do after them.

3. I fucking love Cross-X. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your Cross-x well (eg, if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are used in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase.

4. I like smart debates about the case. Case offense, case defense, the case and a disad, a counterplan the interacts with the substance of the 1AC, a K that is deployed in a case specific matter--those debates are awesome to watch. Process counterplans designed to avoid clash with the majority of the 1AC, generic Ks, and debaters who think impact defense constitutes case debate make me sad.

5. Topicality: T is a voter, but if the aff has a good interpretation, the fact that the negative’s interpretation is slightly better isn’t really a persuasive reason to vote neg.

6. I think the idea that I can kick the CP or Alt for a team is kinda silly. Defending something is your job.  Make choices yourself.

7. Don't be a dick to your opponents or your partner.

--

Please ask me about Emory KT - Klimchack and Tankersley - of late 1970's fame. They were the two greatest and most revolutionary debaters of all time. 

GSU 2019 UPDATE:

I'm walking into this tournament pretty cold on topic knowledge (read: I had Eric Lanning tell me what the topic was over the phone one time - so who knows if he even got it right) so please govern yourself accordingly. Everything below about how I judge or how I've judged in the past, I would suspect, still applies.

xoxo Leah

*************************************

Background:

Debated at Gonzaga University 2007-2012, Assistant Coach at Wake Forest 2012-2014, Assistant Coach at Harvard 2014-2015, Assistant Coach for Gonzaga 2015-2017, Assistant Coach Kentucky 2018-Present. I'm a commercial disputes attorney in Atlanta.

Meta-Level:

1. I’m not as involved in deep topic research as I have been on past topics. Be careful with jargon. Please define an acronym before you use it for the rest of the debate. I may not be up on the hip abbreviations for all things emissions. Please don’t assume that I am. It makes the debate even harder for me to judge and I could end up making a silly error because of a gap in understanding. You have to do some of the work here.

2. I flow on paper. This is to make sure that I’m giving you my full attention. I understand the debate better this way. However, it comes with some drawbacks. I need more pen time, especially on case and theory arguments. I am not writing down everything you say verbatim. If you have an important point, emphasize it.

3. I also flow cross-x. You should make sure that cross-x translates into arguments used in your speech. I tend to reward debaters with good speaker points for using cross-x wisely.

4. I do not have a poker face. You should use that to your advantage. I am very expressive. I do yell things like clear if I can’t understand you. Try to be clear before we get to that point.

5. I only read the evidence that I think is absolutely essential to my decision. Do with this what you will.

6. I reward hard work and smart thinking.

Case Debate:

1. I think overall, affs have gotten very cavalier about how they debate the case. I think affs should be wary of too much embedded clash in the 2AC and 1AR at the expense of answering the nuances in the neg arguments. If the neg invests a lot of block time with good developed case arguments the aff should be equally technical in the 1AR defending the case.

2. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

Topicality:

1. I’m very techy when it comes to judging T debates. If your argument is more “truth” then “tech” you better have very good evidence to back up that your interpretation is correct. Otherwise, make sure you are hedging your bets by taking the negative up on the standards.

2. Again, I am not incredibly familiar with the emissions literature so I’m not sure (as of Georgia State) if I have any predisposed idea of what “reasonable” or “heart of the topic” affs are. This is really up for debate, at least early in the season.

Disads:

1. I always think the neg can use more impact calculus when they are going for DAs.

2. I will vote on low risk of DA high risk of aff. I think having offense is a better path to victory for the aff but if the negs DA has a number of logical leaps if the aff explains those well I will vote on it.

Critical Arguments:

1. I’ll be the first to admit that critical arguments are not my area of expertise just because I have less experience judging these debates. I will do my best and try my hardest to judge whatever debate is in front of me. I stole this from Adrienne Brovero but I think this is really helpful “if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments.” With that being said, you do you. If you’re neg and your argument has a link and an impact – I’m game. If you’re aff and your argument has an impact and you can articulate why winning the debate is enough to “solve” your impact – I’m game.

2. My academic background is in the following: political science, history, feminism and gender scholarship, and rhetorical theory. I’m also a law student. I do find myself presuming that the law is good at achieving positive outcomes. That is a presumption that can be rebutted.

3. My default assumption is that the role of ballot is to vote for who does the better debating. If you say the role of the ballot is something else, be clear about it and prove that you meet that role of the ballot.

Counterplans:

1. I generally think the neg gets to be conditional. You can try to persuade me otherwise. It is an uphill battle.

2. I will vote on other counterplan theory though based around the mechanism or the type of fiat that the CP uses.

3. I think advantage counterplans are under-utilized. Affs put a premium on being able to solve big impacts but often the internal links are very weak. You can either make this a case argument or counterplan out of it.

Have fun!

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State – 29th Year Judging

++++ NDT Version ++++ (Updated 10-22-2019)

(NFALD version: https://forensicstournament.net/MissouriMule/18/judgephil)

Add me to the email - my Gmail is ermocito

I flow CX because it is binding. I stopped recording rounds but would appreciate a recording if clipping was accused.

Be nice to others, whether or not they deserve it.

I prefer line by line debate. People who extend a DA by by grouping the links, impacts, UQ sometimes miss arguments and get lower points. Use opponent's words to signpost.

Assuming aff defends a plan:

Strong presumption T is a voting issue. Aff should win you meet neg's interp or a better one. Neg should say your arguments make the aff interp unreasonable. Topic wording or lit base might or might not justify extra or effects T, particularly with a detailed plan advocate.

High threshold for anything except T/condo as voting issues*. More willing than some to reject the CP, K alts, or even DA links on theory. Theory is better when narrowly tailored to what happened in a specific debate. I have voted every possible way on condo/dispo, but 3x Condo feels reasonable. Under dispo, would conceding "no link" make more sense than conceding "perm do both" to prove a CP did not compete?

Zero link, zero internal link, and zero solvency are possible. Zero impact is rare.

Large-scale terminal impacts are presumed comparable in magnitude unless you prove otherwise. Lower scale impacts also matter, particularly as net benefits.

Evidence is important, but not always essential to initiate an argument. Respect high-quality opponent evidence when making strategic decisions.

If the plan/CP is vague, the opponent gets more input into interpreting it. CX answers, topic definitions, and the literature base helps interpret vague plans, advocacy statements, etc. If you advocate something different from your cards, clarity up front is recommended.

I am open to explicit interps of normal means (who votes for and against plan and how it goes down), even if they differ from community norms, provided they give both teams a chance to win.

Kritiks are similar to DA/CP strategies but if the aff drops some of the "greatest hits" they are in bad shape. Affs should consider what offense they have inside the neg's framework interp in case neg wins their interp. K impacts, aff or neg, can outweigh or tiebreak.

Assuming aff doesn't defend a plan:

Many planless debates incentivize exploring important literature bases, but afer decades, we should be farther along creating a paradigm that can account for most debates. Eager to hear your contributions to that! Here is a good example of detailed counter-interps (models of debate). http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,2345.0.html

Impact turns are presumed relevant to kritikal args. "Not my pomo" is weak until I hear a warranted distinction. I prefer the negative to attempt direct engagement (even if they end up going for T). It can be easier to win the ballot this way if the aff overcovers T. Affs which dodge case specific offense are particularly vulnerable on T (or other theory arguments).

Topicality is always a decent option for the neg. I would be open to having the negative go for either resolution good (topicality) or resolution bad (we negate it). Topicality arguments not framed in USFG/framework may avoid some aff offense.

In framework rounds, the aff usually wins offense but impact comparison should account for mitigators like TVA's and creative counter-interps. An explicit counter-interp (or model of debate) which greatly mitigates the limits DA is recommended - see example below. Accounting for topic words is helpful. TVA's are like CP's because they mitigate whether topics are really precluded by the T interp.

If I were asked to design a format to facilitate K/performance debate, I would be surprised. After that wore off, I would propose a season-long list of concepts with deep literature bases and expect the aff to tie most into an explicit 1AC thesis. Such an approach could be done outside of CEDA if publicized.

This was too short?

* Some ethical issues, like fabrication, are voting issues, regardless of line by line.

Judge Philosophy – Will Mosley-Jensen

Edited 9-19-12

***Short***

1.            Win an impact. (If you can’t do that, join the band)

2.            Compare that to the impact you think they win.

3.            Compare evidence in steps 1 & 2.

4.            If you are fast repeat steps 1-3. If not focus your efforts on steps 1-2 with a sprinkling of step 3.

5.            Have Fun! Clarity, Humor, and Civility all help your speaker points.

6.            Specificity > Generality

***Long***

General Comments

When making a decision there are three factors that precede other considerations first, the status of direct counter-arguments, has an argument been dropped; second, the quality of evidence supporting an argument, is the evidence superior, average or inconclusive; and third, the correspondence of an argument to reality (or the relative “truth” of an argument).

It is important to note that none of these factors is fixed prior to any given debate, but rather that the debate itself determines them. I should also hope that it is clear that my ordering of these factors represents merely my fallback position if there is no re-ordering argued for in a debate. Some of the factors, such as evidence quality could, and should, be a part of the ways that debaters compare their arguments and establish the relative priority of their argument. If this is not done in a debate, then I will evaluate the debate utilizing the order that I have established.

Specificity is important in all debates. If you say that your disadvantage “turns the case” because Romney will destroy hegemony, then it is probably important to compare this warrant to the affirmative warrant for why they solve for US credibility abroad. The best debates are a comparison of warrants; the worst debates a battle of claims, with most debates falling somewhere in the middle.

Specifics

Topicality debates-

Against Non-traditional (not topical and proud of it) teams

I find that I have a very strong bias that affirmatives should be topical. Most of the reasons that teams advance for why they do not need to fulfill this most central of affirmative burdens pre-suppose several problematic propositions. First, that there is some value that is external to the debate community that can be gained from not affirming the topic. Second, that participation in debate trades-off with other types of activism, rather than occupying a supplementary role. Third, that the value of debate is not intrinsically tied to the identification of a common topic of discussion. Finally and most heinously, that debate is sustainable without the minimum of fairness that is provided by having a shared topic. These assumptions seem to me to be easily answered by a team that is properly prepared.

Against traditional (ostensibly topical) teams

A well-executed topicality argument is one of the most enjoyable debates to judge or watch in my opinion. If it is thoroughly researched and considered by the negative, topicality can represent a strategic tool in a wide variety of debates.

That said, I think that the negative needs to clearly articulate the method of evaluating topicality, and avoid statements in other parts of the debate that question the assumption of the competing interpretations framework. It is not unusual to hear a negative argue that “hard debate is good debate” on conditionality and then extend a topicality argument that is based on some trivial loss of ground.  Affirmative teams should capitalize on such inconsistencies when arguing that their interpretation does not make debate impossible but improves it by creating strategic bottlenecks for the negative.

 Framework debates-

I find that these debates usually come down to what the role of the critic should be. Namely, should the role of the critic be that of an impartial observer that evaluates the relative advantages and disadvantages of government action versus the status quo or a competitive policy option or should the role of the critic be something else? I can be persuaded that this role includes things not traditionally associated with the assumption that I am an impartial observer, but it helps if you provide some specific articulation of the benefits of deviating from the accepted norm. I enjoy policy debates and am sympathetic to a well-argued defense of the educational and fairness benefits of this approach. I will say that most of the time if the affirmative defends a topical plan that is usually enough to facilitate a productive debate, and in that case it is generally wise to question the solvency of the affirmative. In other words, if the affirmative team has read a topical plan text and the crux of your negative framework argument is “they are not policy enough,” I am likely to vote affirmative.

Criticisms

I am pretty firmly rooted in a Western metaphysics of presence and the value of enlightenment rationality. I am also of the mind that adjudicating debates requires assumptions of rationality and so if you want me to adopt a different framework of evaluation it will require some pretty solid reasons on your part. That is not to say I do not enjoy critical debates, there are some fine criticisms that are firmly grounded in modernity. If you are going for a criticism in front of me, it is likely that I have at least a passing familiarity with the foundational literature of your argument (I got my B.A. in philosophy and my M.A in rhetoric) but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go out of your way to explain the specific application to the affirmative. Similarly if you are reading a critical affirmative you should be careful to explain the reasons that your affirmative renders parts, or all, of the negative’s strategy irrelevant. For example if you are arguing that epistemological considerations precede policy considerations you should explain the nature of that relationship.

 Counterplans

In most circumstances when negatives read counterplans that are questionably competitive/legitimate (process, consult, conditioning) I find that aff teams are unwilling to engage in a protracted procedural debate and so become competitive/legitimate by default. Usually going for a permutation is a time intensive process, but can be rewarding if you spend the time to work through the competition theory that purportedly supports the negative’s counterplan. Advancing theory on a counterplan should always include controlling not only the specifics of the theory debate, but also the meta-questions. For example, a robust defense of competing interpretations is generally necessary for the affirmative to win that multiple conditional counterplans are a voting issue. Most affirmative teams tend to simply spot the negative that it is not a question of competing interpretations but rather a question of whether the counterplan makes debate impossible for the affirmative (which almost no counterplans, save fiating the object of the resolution, do).

Speaker Points

Although debate is a competitive activity that doesn’t mean that people can’t be civil with each other. Your comportment during a round can easily affect your speaker points as much as the quality of your arguments. Debate is a fun, rewarding activity and the people that I regard with the most respect are not only great debaters but great people as well.

15 years coaching and judging debate in many forms.

Policy Debate:

Overview: I vote for framework as often as I vote against it. I think the best debates occur when the 1NC answers the 1AC and the worst debates happen when theoretical abstraction substitutes link arguments. Here theoretical abstraction can equally be read as "should means immediate" and/or "competing methods." I think the best theoretical abstraction occurs when it assists the examination of objects instead of denying an object's uniqueness.

I take scholarship seriously, I often make comments in the middle of a round, and I have been told I give high speaker points but I don't believe that.

The best rebuttals occur when both teams identify the nexus points of the debate and engage in the other teams arguments while advancing their own. I tend to reward framing arguments and meta claims. When extending arguments, I think debaters should start with a claim, then a warrant, then comparison to their opponent's counter-arguments. I strongly dislike the trend (greatly assisted by paperless debate) to jump right into the comparison. Numbering 1NC and 2AC arguments is an underappreciated artform.

Minor proclivities: "Reject the arg" is sufficient in most cases (T and conditionality excluded), the word "permutation" is not a complete argument (nor is "permutation do both"), "do the counterplan" is not a permutation it's a concession unless otherwise explained, and "squo or a competitive policy option" is the dumbest meme left in debate. "Plan focus", however, can often be compelling if adequately developed.

Obligatory: PICs good, neg fiat good, DAs good, case debate good, sometimes topicality IS the strategy.

British Parliamentary:

Arguments matter more than form. I first decide which side of the motion has won the debate and then privilege teams based on total contribution to the winning strategy. As a critic of argument I try my best to be a blank slate and not bring my own knowledge into the round. A few suggestions to get first in the round:

• Speakers should spend more time on probability and causality than examples
• Make more impact calculus
• Countermodels win debates when they have clear competition and a net benefit that serves as a disadvantage to the gov model. Countermodels lose when they rely on definitional/cosmetic differences.
• Spending arguments are non-starters.
• Rights claims are rarely impacted out well, but can be devastating when they are. How do I compare "restricts bodily autonomy" to "100,000 people get removed from poverty"?

Andrew Myers a.k.a. "Big" or "Big Mead"

Current Assistant Director of Debate for Gonzaga University and Former Assistant Head Coach at Mead HS.

BA- Phil/Poli-Sci GU '12, MA- Phil SUNY Buffalo '14

4 Years Debating for Mead HS, 3 Years for Gonzaga. 5 Years Assistant Coach Mead HS, 5 Years ADOD at GU.

Email: andrewrossmyers@gmail.com

Final NDT Update – Minnesota NDT 19 (3-19-19)

To paraphrase Ryan Wash, this 'stuff' here is like a novel – it’s long and a lot to read. Fair, so I stole the “philosophy for the Twitter generation” idea from Adam Symonds for those that don't want to read it all:

TLDR: I have voted for and against Framework, Antiblackness, ESR + Flex, Nuclear Deterrence, Storytelling, and the State. Boo untopical policy Affs and abusive ESR CPs. Hater's Guide: Strict about highlighting, thinks Logic is real, votes for caring about people, Education > Fairness, thinks Debate isn’t just a game, hates agenda politics disads, votes for identity arguments.

My Decision Making Process:

My Vote means I think Team A wins and Team B loses. The final rebuttals most likely to win my ballot are clear on why my vote should declare their Team the winner, but the final rebuttal isn’t the only thing I will consider.

The Process of deciding which Team wins

1. General Impression – What is my first intuition about which team won the debate and why?

2. Check the Record – Did I miss something? Did I undervalue an Argument? Is there a critical concession?

3. Casting a Vote –

A. What are the “voting” issues?

B. Which, if any, arguments were decisively won or lost?

C. How do those arguments relate to the voting issues raised?

4. Determination and Decision – How will I explain the decision? Why Do I accept one of Team A’s or Team B’s voting issues over the other, i.e. Why not vote the opposite way?

This, quite simply, is how I make a decision. For why I make my decision, the rest of my judging philosophy is committed to continued debates where the voting issues are familiar. Debate is more exciting when the ground is unfamiliar, but that doesn’t mean classic debates are not interesting. Note that what constitutes a “classic” debate has more to do with intensity than ideology.

I cannot express anymore so clearly than this: Debate should not be a violent exercise, but it should be competitive, performative, and reasoned activity.

Arguments I will not likely ever vote for

Either,

A. Make debate a violent activity

Or,

B. Refuse Competition, Performance, or Reasoning.

(See below: Ethos, Pathos, Logos)

Examples of Arguments I will likely not like voting for:

1. No K’s ever judge, philosophy is too hard! If making sure when we act we do the right thing is hard for you, I have no sympathy.

2. Debate is Bad because it’s competitive! If your argument is right that winning is bad, why should you win? Clearly debate can take the competitive spirit too far and into the realm of toxicity (see: Either, A.). That violence forgets that part of playing a game is that you play with others.

3. The Circular Logic of Intrinsicness – There is a difference between what I think is intrinsic to the activity, a.k.a. what is to be done while judging, and the assertion of something being intrinsically good. The remnants of theory debates recirculating invoke too fondly paramount truths that are evidently not so self-evident.

4. The Argument as You experienced it/know it – My role here is to consider how we experience you making that argument in relation to others.

Finally, Debating about a Topic is language gaming. There are various language games we play, but we do so competitively at the intersection of thought and performance.

The 2018-2019 CEDA-NDT Topic headache:

I’ll evaluate the debate in front of me. I don’t think this resolution makes sense, and worse, is the bad kind of language game. I miss resolutions that were a statement, not a matrix.

If y’all are intent on having an ESR/Flex debate, that’s fine. Aff’s should be able to answer those core generics, some CPs are more abusive than others. I just don’t find that debate interesting.

I don’t get why Framework teams read not-topical Affs and not-topical TVAs, but especially on this topic (where the floodgates are clearly open). Aim Higher! K teams should not be afraid to read T in front of me against policy Affs. Policy Negs should be ready to defend the topic if your Framework argument is that the topic is good.

No Exec Authority to First Use Nuclear Strike =/= No First Use

Affs should specify the restriction(s)

I don’t think the Act of students debating simultaneously does anything about Trump in the moment. I do think I have seen debating by students on this topic that could effectuate change out of the round. I don’t know if this means anything in regards to presidential power.

I’m really not cool with War Criminals or Fascists.

NDT 16 Judge Philosophy Update 3-25-16

This will by my second year judging and coaching at the NDT for Gonzaga, and I feel compelled to comment on my continually developing disposition(s) as a judge.

I’ve had 52 rounds on this topic, varying in all styles.

I implore you to read what I’ve written here. I take this part of my job seriously and want to demonstrate how my thinking (philosophy) changes and stays the same.

If you don’t read it, ask Michigan KM how that went.

I prefer my role as a judge to be a primarily nonverbal communicative partner – including me in the round, making eye contact (when appropriate), reacting to how I am understanding you, is not merely a narcissistic request: it’s a recognition of a preference for active learning and teaching, for all of us.

I have previously written here that I prefer to be an educator, but frankly that won’t be the case for certain content or experiences. I can, however, offer some academic advice on the structure of your arguments, rhetoric and speaking style. Thus, being an educator is a preference based on comfort, but my comfort isn’t my preference with exception to the following uncomfortable (enough to vote you down) scenarios:

• Making jokes about rape, or responding to issues of sexual violence with jokes. It’s not funny to me. You know who you are.
• Sex, Gender, Orientation, Race or Ability discrimination
• Being willfully ignorant about Race. Racial naiveté isn’t always a reason to lose a round, but being unwilling to admit fault, mistake or responsibility for certain behaviors is not, at the very least, a persuasive way to get my ballot.

As a quick aside on education, the question of what a university should be for often causes me consternation. After all, for someone who valued education as an excuse not to go home, my growing pessimism in the academy (whether from the expected bitterness of graduate school or from the contemporary conversations of the occupy and black lives matter generation) makes me receptive to some cynical positions. I’ve seen some pretty indefensible things condoned in the University. That said…I still believe this activity can be good for students and as such my responsibility is primarily to them. The second I don’t believe that, I won’t be here. Without students we coaches don’t have a job. See Below: Commitment to Educational Debate.

And so I return to my reason for posting: I felt compelled because of my position to comment on some topics pervading the debate community right now:

- If I’m on a panel and someone wants to replace me, I won’t be offended as long as I can cover the rounds I am obliged to so my students can debate.

- If there is a recording, I don’t really want to be on it… So I understand the concern with being recorded against your will. I know states differ on their local laws and the NDT Committee has put forth polices on it. If both teams have to be on video, then I will also have to be on video for the space to be fair(er). I think there are interesting privacy arguments in support of extending protections against being recorded in debates, but I also think accountability is important. In the end I just want to judge the debate.

- I think speech times have to be rigid. I am fine with flex prep, and am honestly lax about prep in general, but at some point fairness and timeliness is a concern.

- I once judged a debate where a Bifo team hit a Buddhist team and they deconstructed the round, reconstructed it, and gave final speeches after dialogue. It was different but not uncomfortable, on time, mutually agreed upon, and productive.

- The only things I will say about civility concerns: a) Before the debate starts I don’t expect much other than if I’m asked I’ll answer questions. b) When the timer starts for the 1AC it’s all performance – that’s a necessary space to express some seriously challenging thoughts c)When the timer stops I prefer some quiet to make a decision, but I often will go smoke or put my headphones in anyway d) At no point should you physically harass anyone. Consent for me applies equally well to unwanted intentional physical touching e) Other issues are probably not my fight and I don’t poke around in them unless beckoned to – either by the ballot or as a community member and academic employee.

As a child Hip Hop made me read books,

And Hip Hop made me wanna be a crook

And Hip Hop gave me the way and something to say

And all I took in return is a second look

- Slug, Party for the Fight to Write

An Admission of Hubris –

“I probably have read the primary sources your authors are talking about.”

Turns out I don’t know much about many contemporary primary source debate authors, even if many of them I do (Given my previous disclosures of my education, expected authors would include stuff like Foucault and Fanon, but exclude stuff like Berlant and Bifo). Either way, you could plausibly predict what I’ve read merely given the MA and BAs in Political Science and Philosophy from a Jesuit Liberal Arts School. Ah how the tables have turned!

To Finish, another nod to Z-Lowe..

Ten Things I Like and Dislike

1. Terrible highlighting -

Honestly a lot of the “evidence” students are reading into the round has become unrecognizable by academic standards of clarity and integrity. Examples of things that irk me: sentence fragments, highlighting parts of a word as a word (i.e., deforestation becomes “defo,” proliferation becomes “prolif,” nuclear weapons becomes "nucs" ). A good way to understand my expectation: highlight your evidence as if you were quoting your sources in an academic paper. Anything else is the privileging debate norms over educational standards of scholarship.

2. Reading a Pile ‘O’ Cards -

In almost every entry here I bring this up. I still will read a bunch of evidence after the round given certain circumstances, but it’s my least favorite thing to do. Given the complexity of debate and the relative short times to make decisions, I don’t want to spend my time adjucating reading evidence I should have heard as part of your “speech.” Making a decision after re-reading read evidence in a debate distances judges from the performance of the speech and increases the likelihood of interpretive hubris. I don’t think either of those things are desirable characteristics of a decision. My novel idea for debate would be for judges to hear evidence read, the first time its read. I also think this is possibly a reason why I often find affective modes of communication persuasive – what they lack in depth they make up in clarity. I don’t think debate is a research competition.

A minor quip on the subject of speech documents: sending a speech doc for your opponents and judges that is 100 pages is both annoying and unrealistic. It makes it hard for everyone and borders on obfuscation. For my philosophy on obfuscation, See: Baudrillard.

3. Affs That Do Things –

I was more often a 2A than a 2N throughout my career. I loved the challenge of changing the status quo. Debate is one of the few spaces you can advocate things we would otherwise be shutdown for: ideas being politically unlikely, socially difficult or subject to academic inertia. If you aff decides to do nothing, I am very likely to buy presumption/pessimism arguments in response. If your aff does something, I am more likely to filter the debate through that proposed change. On a somewhat related note, my proclivity for opacity arguments is almost always as a neg strategy. I do think there are instances in which an opacity Aff makes sense, but given my biases here, it may be best to explain opacity as somehow a strategy to change the SQ, instead of merely retreat from it.

4. Violence, Nebulas… not Stirred

Too many debates I’ve seen have debaters using violence as an ultimate impact, without explaining intricacies or giving frameworks for understanding what violence means. How am I supposed to adjudicate different claims of violence against each other? Or what about violence against some tangible traditional impact (War, Environment, Disease)? Ethics can’t function if everything is axiologically leveled to “violence,” and thus questions of what I should vote for is very likely to be arbitrary in the minds of participants, even if inevitable given the level of analysis in the debate.

5. Demarcating Points of Contestation

Similar to my respect for taking on the challenge of the SQ, I reward debaters who clearly demarcate points of contestation in the round and focus on those matters of debate. Too often debaters run away from arguments rather than engage them. In the college policy debate community this can be discouraging, because we are supposedly a model for deliberation and dialogue. Those latter realities only exist if you’re willing to admit where the debate is, admit that you may not necessarily be right, but debate out the issues.

6. Lost Art of the Case Debate

I am by no means a stock issues judge, but I do think that every argument, every aff should be responsible for these questions. A lot of the time case debate devolves into alt causes and impact defense. While those are good arguments to have, especially in the 2nr, not debating the case is almost always an important forgone opportunity. This is particularly true for K affs – put up a fit and you will be in a much better position than simply ignoring the case. Because of my expectations of an affirmative, I can be persuaded to not vote for an aff based on solvency alone.

7. Joshua Greene on Deontology and Util –

I feel it’s important to disclose this bias, and I have to a few teams. Here’s the thing, when you spend a year on a masters thesis and one of the opponents of your thesis becomes a large focus of effort, time and intellectual investment…it’s nearly impossible to remove that bias. Joshua Greene’s arguments in favor of a moral realist/essentialist account of utilitarianism and deontology invariably raises my blood pressure and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Read a different defense of utilitarianism in front of me – I’m not persuaded FMRI’s prove how people think morally.

8. Flex Time –

I think there is enough to be gained in cross-examination, the most lively and engaging part of debate, that using prep time to ask and answer questions has almost no downside for me. That said, I think the other team has the right to not consent to questions of content (instead of clarification questions: theory, technical or flow) after the normal 3-minute cx period has expired.

9. Conflating Topicality and Framework –

The more persuasive arguments for me center on the content/object of the resolution (military presence) rather than on implementation/actor questions. For one, I think a resolution without “federal government” makes traditional Topicality arguments that turn into framework arguments very duplicitous. Framework should be the debate about what that Aff and Neg should have to do to meet a good interpretation of debate. If an aff makes an ethical statement that US Military Presence is bad, you have the grounds to say its good. You don’t need USFG action to do that. An Aff that doesn’t engage in the question of military presence, or some interpretation of that, isn’t being topical and I can find it a reason to vote Neg. I have voted on different conflations of Framework and T, but I increasingly find it important to delineate the two.

10. Being Big

I am still working on my pronoun usage and am myself unclear about my thoughts on many issues of identity, but I do think my persona in debate, while always authentic, is somewhat reserved. I am not particularly motivated to be extroverted in an activity that often reminds me how stuck up academics can be, and how they think that just because of my appearance they can crack jokes I find distasteful. As a result, I want to be known by who I am when I’m in the debate community. Calling me Andrew is a sign you haven’t given me the courtesy of reading this. Big is always the best way to refer to me.

2015-16 (Military Presence) Preseason Update:

I still endorse my philosophy as written below. Just a few quick updates as we begin this year:

- I am probably not the best judge for Baudrillard debates. Sue me. (Or Forget Baudrillard)

- I still like watching CPs and DAs, much to the dismay and/or shock of my fellow judges and coaches.

- I have a fairly low threshold for what is reasonably topical, but I prefer a reasonability argument on T to make an interpretation of the topic and give me a claim as to why the Aff (and other Affs) could engage the topic under that interpretation.

- Teams that escape jargonism, fashionable witticisms, and oversimplified argument explanation will do well in front of me. I like creative and unique debaters (which can be accomplished in any style - it's usually a matter of dedication, effort and presentation).

- Please explain Acronyms early in the year. Not everyone is going to get what your particular subdivision affirmative is on first hearing it.

- If you didn't read my judging philosophy before round, expect no pity for ignoring my preferences and/or committing offenses I find particularly blameworthy.

- If you can't debate technically, debate thuroughly. I am just flowing in excel columns anyway.

- Random but non-negligble pet peeve: students who start lists and never finish them (e.g., Debater says "There are Three Impacts to the K" then explains only two impacts).

- I value Cross-Examination like a speech. You can win and lose a round in one of those 3 min segments.

- Finally, I proscribe to this ridiculous notion that Debate is a Communicative Activity where Debaters try and Persuade me to Vote for them. See below for what persuades me and what doesn't.

2015 NDT Update:

I decided to post an update to my judging philosophy for the upcoming NDT (2015). Hopefully this is with enough time (a couple of weeks) for everyone to review it.

By far the most important thing: While I've judged 40-45 rounds on this topic, I have done so primary here out west. I don't think that disqualifies any of the debates I've watched - there were some terrific debates I had the privilege to judge this year. Still, full disclosure: I am more familiar with some teams than others, in the sense I've judged them debate before. Then again, with mutual pref judging, this seems like an inevitable outcome - you will always have seen certain parts of the debate community, hardly ever the whole field.

I decided to update what I've written so far for my judging philosophy primarily because I know the preceding to be compelling case for further disclosure of how I adjudicate debates. I stand by much of what I've already written. To expand, I decided to give a "Top Ten Things I Like and Don't like" (primarily an influence of reading Zach Lowe/Simmons Inc... also playing liberally with "Like" and "Don't Like," substitute "find persuasive" and "don't find persuasive" if you wish) in debate rounds.

Top Ten Things I Don't Like (In no particular Order):

1. Clipping

My First round back in debate came down to a clipping call out. Where I come from this is a "no-brainer" ethics question, but I do feel strongly that some rules in debate are necessary. One of those is you must read what you submit as evidence in speeches, particularly when in the form of cards. You will lose if you clip in front of me, but I need video/audio evidence and speech docs to determine this. Please, for everyone involved, do a better job of digitally "marking" your cards - don't leave things to chance.

Because I view clipping this way, it's important to note that while I'm not willing to vote for a team that clipped evidence, not all infractions are alike. I will not always simultaneously reduce speaker points to zero, or some other tanking number, and vote a team down. I believe mistakes can be made, but I also believe people can be malevolent.

Just don't do it, slow down and you'll probably sound better anyway.

2. Automization

I mean this somewhat sarcastically, but nothing about you reading into a computer screen is persuasive to me. I will always believe in the value of files, evidence and research, but those are neither absolute ideals nor the only means to win a debate round. Arguments, for instance, are not something I'm willing to vote on because it was written somewhere - explanation of evidence is key. I feel the prevalence of paperless debating is a evil necessity, primarily because debaters lose something of their ability to speak otherwise. Look up at me occasionally?

3. Avoidance

Call this my inverse justification for Clash being a thing I like. Debaters who avoid issues in debate/debate rounds are usually being: (1)selfish, (2)cowardly, (3)strategic or (4) unknowing/naive/unwilling. Only two of those states become problematic for a debate round, for two produce clash and argumentation, and the other two make the debate messy and needlessly complicated. Don't avoid a point of contestation with me, but also don't feel like I have a preferred set of points from which all arguments should begin.

4. Reading Evidence After the Round

I still dislike this practice, and I wrote about it previously below. However, I should make something clear: I really, really dislike debates where reading a pile of cards is the way to come to a decision. This, I understand, can be the natural outcomes of both good and bad debates. However, I want to stand by my statement:

"I will check evidence for accuracy/truth in representation if another team claims it doesn't support its intended use (i.e. your card that says the sky is purple actually claims the sky is blue). If an argument wasn't clear to me, and you were supposed to win a round on it, you probably should have made it clearer than a mumbled 15 seconds."

I have read multiple pieces of evidence in the post-round this year. I will admit that evil necessity paperless debate has this charm, and having the evidence in an email chain seems like not only good academics, but also a modicum of professionalism. I can't say I haven't been more compelled to read because I can get entire speech docs. This is a particularly helpful part of adjudicating that I won't ignore. However, if I can't get what you want me to get out of evidence in the post round (particularly if it's under-highlighted, which happens too frequently and is frankly discouraging) you will likely have dissuaded me more than had I not, and that matters for close NDT Debates.

The easy way to avoid all of this is to read evidence clearly, and draw the necessary warrants out of it. I think it's lazy to collapse an evidenced argument into a Authors last name (excluding titling a flow). Yes, technically there could be a "line" there, but is a bad practice of rhetoric and I find it unpersuasive. I also am always willing to check on factuality rather than persuasion. If you provide reasons why the other team's evidence is misread/doesn't support their argument, I value that style of argumentation equally as much as I dislike having to interpret evidence for/against speeches. I do not have a problem reading evidence, especially at the NDT, on the basis of these arguments. Ultimately, I am not going to read every piece of evidence submitted for review like that was all you did in the debate round - submitting evidence for review. I have other portions of the debate to think about.

5. Victim Blaming

I have no desire to vote for any argument that implies this ethos. This is both an ethos and a logos question. For example, Psychoanalysis K's can run dangerously close to blaming rape victims. I am not cool with that frame of mind and will flush your expensive euro-trash with a L.

6. Rude Partners

This is the sneaky dark-horse for my ideal in debate: the best debate occurs when partners work together, not individually.

Crazy right? Those who chose 2 person CX debate at some point chose to work with others. I reward debaters who embrace that aspect more than the sound of their own voice. A smart team is almost always two individuals working hard for each other, rather than two smart debaters working for themselves.

Don't be destructive to each other. Agonistic partnerships can be very successful, but they can also hurt your chances at winning. By far the best indictment of your argument, in any round, comes from your partner. Don't belittle, unnecessarily interrupt, or look upset/uninterested during your partner's speech. I ultimately give my ballot to a team, not an individual.

There is also a way to be kind/authentic in criticizing the arguments of your opponents (if you need a primer, see Dennett's "How to compose a successful critical commentary" in Intuition Pumps. I am by no means a fan of Dennett, but that process is one every debater should think about). Make sure, as much as one can, to do this as a team.

7. Tagless Taglines

A bit of 4 and 2 in this one, but I am also old school in how evidence is tagged. I am fine with short tags for evidence that requires no explanation. "Extinction," however, is neither a claim nor statement of fact. In fact, many cards read and tagged in such a manner frequently have little to make me believe the argument is even that strong. On the opposite end of the spectrum are K teams who read 3-4 paragraphs and don't introduce the evidence, or make it clear what part of their argument is supported by some fragment of analysis. Taglines in K debates I have a higher threshold on, but those issues irk me as much as badly tagged evidence that is then read unclearly anyway. Make claims, support them with evidence (or as I told many of my students in the past: evidence is a tool, not an argument).

8. Speaker Point Inflation

Mostly because I couldn't avoid it and my judging philosophy no longer represents my scale well. For the NDT:

26 and Below - You were punishably rude.

26.5. Incomplete, your speech ended with large gaps, whole flows dropped, no persuasiveness

27. Poor, you made a crucial error, were completely disorganized or had gaps in your speeches

27.5 Below Average, you provided no momentum for the ballot

28 - Average, you proved you should be here

28.5 - Above Average, you have the power to win some more ballots here

29.0 - Excellent, you should break at the NDT.

29.5 - Elite, you will be debating on Monday.

30 - Asymptotic, per my experience, these are so infrequent you can't predict them happening.

9. Debaters who don't Check Themselves

It's important to know when you're crossing a line from competitive to exclusionary, confident to obtuse. It's also important to act in a manner that produces a meaningful debate experience (whatever that may be). If that becomes impossible because you're not willing to discuss things like privilege, it seems you've failed at a basic test of self-skepticism that makes arguing possible. When debaters know they can lose on things like "Your evidence doesn't say Econ declines" and don't agree with decisions made through that framing, that to me is on par with refusing to answer the claim that "Your experience should be recognized as privileged in this analysis" and losing because they weren't open to how experience can be interepreted. We can't have debates if we don't purport to have some level of skepticism, arguing would cease to function educationally. That said, these are questions that implicate arguments, and almost completely arguments, rather than individual debaters.

10. Coaches that Degrade, not Support, their Students

I can deal with coaches making fun of each other, but how you treat the students in debate tells me more about you than how you treat the your fellow coaches. I am very intolerant of this in all forms - the students are paying to do this, not us. Treating any student in a defamatory or rude manner, that's a major turn off and I would prefer we don't speak.

Top Ten Things I Like (In no particular Order):

1. Analytic Arguments

I don't know if this a function of my experience with speech and debate growing up, but debaters who can't make arguments without evidence almost certainly are at a disadvantage in front of me. I will not simply dismiss a logical argument because you have a piece of evidence that argues, rather than proves/demonstrates, the opposite. Analytic arguments quality check the cohesiveness of the debate, bring issues to light in the block often foregone, and demonstrate a level of understanding and willingness to argue. Analytic arguments in debate almost always function on an a-posteriori basis and rarely a-prior unless that "K-Word" comes back into play. You should be able to argue, for instance, about connections between evidence, without needing another piece of evidence. This demonstrates a higher level of skill in debate that I reward. I do this not only selfishly as a lover of argumentative analysis, but also as someone who knows this skill can be, and often is, rewarded by graduate school, job opportunities and other sectors of life.

2. Proof by Example(s)

Though I like analytic arguments, and find a-priori claims persuasive, most often the fruitful discussions in debate occur when teams give concrete examples to explain, (sometimes seemingly) abstract concepts, connections or arguments. This process of concretion demonstrates to me a level of sophistication and understanding, and also a tangible hook to hang my hat on during post-round decisions. Obviously metaphors, poems, scripted-performances, etc. could all be examples of proof by example, not just history. Consider my preference here to be a testing question:

Basic Argument Necessities:

1. Do you have a Claim?

2. How is that Claim supported?

3. Proof by example: how does your argument operrationalize in different parts of the debate? How might it explain other questions in the debate?

4. Impact in/for the Round

3. Confidence/Willingness to Make Mistakes

I believe the qualities we associate with great debaters usually include fearlessness, confidence, complete attention, etc. These can manifest in different ways, and those ways in different people. The confidence that impresses me is the willingness to try, and be willing to fail to win a debate round. I think sometimes debaters are too worried about losing to focus on winning. As long as that focus doesn't result in other harmful mannerisms, attitudes and actions, I reward debaters for trying to win the round with with a cool confidence.

4. Round Awareness

Somewhat piggybacking of of 3, Debaters who are aware of details during a debate round can always make more strategic persuasive connections. There is a difference, for instance, in debating in the out rounds of the NDT and the Prelims. The way you construct your speech should be wary of that. The composition(s) of the people in the round is not ignorable, the audience included. There is also an awareness of how arguments function, when to stop belaboring, and when to reword and reclarify those arguments. These skills develop with time, but they should be easier to excersise with me because I am a fairly expressive judge. I am no Dallas, alas, but I do nod my head, smile, frown, laugh...you know, those things that make most of us feel human. I find this to be the most honest practice. Mostly, however, I am just very bad at Poker...so I will not try to be a stone-faced judge.

Debaters should also be aware of time. I don't reward teams with more than completing a sentence when the timer ends. I don't reward desperate shadow extensions in the last few seconds. I do reward speeches that end on or before time, or speeches that properly allocate time. I do reward good use of prep and CX time. Speaking time is the most valuable aspect of debate you can somewhat control, and everyone has the same access to the same time. Utilizing time well is a very good indicator of in round awareness.

5. Commitment to Educational Debate

This is an academic community (it includes mostly people employed and/or enrolled in the academy) that should primarily be focused on the Students. As such, students who understand where the pedagogical value of their arguments lie have a greater chance of winning in front of me. This is partly a question of logos (what have you learned, how did you learn it, what are we to learn?) and commitment your fellow students. Granted: not all students are alike, nor do they have the same experience. These two facts should be treated as advantageous: because you all are not alike and share different experiences, a commitment to learning together is probably the best possible praxis for debate. How does the debate round, per your framework or role of the ballot, promote learning? If learning is not all that important to you, that's fine. But understand I value this part of debate more than fairness or love of the game. I refuse to believe that debate doesn't help students - if that's your explicit goal I will likely be dissuaded. If you don't think debate is important, don't be in debate.

6. Humor

Judging very stressful debates can build up a lot of pressure. Humor is a great release valve. That being said, it's not in everyone's repertoire. Do what makes you comfortable, self-depreciation is almost always humbling but also potentially lighthearted.

7. Clash

Debate can be frustrating when neither team argues about the other teams arguments. The worst debates to judge, for me, have been ones where the Aff only talks about aff evidence, the Neg about the neg evidence. I think this is primarily a function of three practices:

A. Horizontal proliferation of arguments. I am persuaded by claims about 4-5 conditional options as weighing heavily against in depth clash from the 2AC. Part of me believes that this is inevitable in a competitive activity, part of me believes that it is also a defensible tactic. That said, if a team is "pushing pieces" but not arguing well, I do value theoretical objections on the basis of what positons move away from clash and what positions move toward it.

B. Fear of Impact Turning arguments. Too many times arguments become needlessly unwound without a point of disagreement. Your solvency/framework/kritik cards may poke many a whole, but the best evidence takes a stance in the opposite direction. Do I believe all impact turns are the same, ethically speaking? No: see Victim Blaming, above. That being said, in front of me, you can "Impact Turn" a methodology as much as you can a value claim. Why teams don't do this more often is strategically puzzling. They said Science was Bad? Maybe there are arguments that Science can be Good, or Useful? "Impact Turn" strategies make an obvious point of contestation that makes creative clash possible. However, Impact turning is merely a sufficient but not necessary means achieve that clash.

C. Debaters hate being wrong. Probably for good reason - most have been trained not to argue wrong things. Still, without trying out different arguments that produce a response from your opponent, debate kind of becomes oratory research reports, rather than engaging discussion.

8. ROTB's that Both Teams can Access

I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think its dishonest and transparently one sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation. Strictly speaking I think the role of my ballot is always to vote for the team that did the best debating, but if you have an argument otherwise, I would be more persuaded by a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. Otherwise its a meaningless piece of debate jargon substituting comfortable rhetoric for good impact framing.

9. Balance of Pathos, Ethos, Logos

Old-School Comm in this sense. Good public speaking requires a balancing all three. Excelling in one or more is ideal, but an above average accounting for each aspect is more valuable than any one on its own.

Examples:

You could be completely correct on a knowledge question, but did not impact that access to truth, nor argue for it with any passion. That is less persuasive than someone who may have lost a few questions of truth, but can still access impacts and passionately argue for them.

You could be full of passion, emotion and making an ethical case without an explanation of how your argument functions or why it should be believed (reasoning, logos).

Put another way:

If you are right on a question, that means you can win that part of the debate (Logos). You do not win for being right in places.

If you are passionate on a question, that means you can string together good arguments persuasively. Without arguments, you won't be persuasive, just passionate.

If you win an ethics question, that means you can frame the debate and win it. You could be right that violence is bad, but not provide a means to resolve it, analyze it or persuade me that its a reason to vote for you.

10. Round Framing in Final Rebuttals

Almost universally, this is what separates elite from above average debaters. Many of the Coachs and People Who Teach Labs I've talked to aree this is one of, if not the most important skill thats difficult to polish. The difficulty of the 1AR/2NR/2AR notwithstanding, the best speeches, and thus the easiest to vote for, frame how to make a decision regarding particular arguments and strategies as a whole. Not doing this puts it in my hands, which is not a bad thing per say, but it's always more strategic to tie together your arguments and show how they win the round. Old-school Voting Issues are important to me. What is most important, what could you do without? Even/if statements in the last rebuttals are supremely helpful.

Fall 2014 Judging Philosophy**

First, I should mention: I left College Debate before my senior year at Gonzaga. This did not play well with many in the community, after all I was abandoning an activity I had previously spent so much time on.

After graduating from Gonzaga, I enrolled SUNY at Buffalo's PhD in Philosophy program. I recently received my Masters and left UB to pursue other things in life.

I mention these things only to say, if I appear bitter, I really am not. But I do believe there are more important things than debate, and all of what I have been reading - on various media and social media platforms - about debate rings true about academia as a whole.

All of that said, I still think debate is an important activity, especially for students. As a judge, I have always preferred to act as an educator. This can include simply listening and giving the reflections of an average citizen - any debate is still ultimately a two-way street of communication for me. Thus, the primary importance of debate, for me, is that it is a speech activity emphasizing persuasion skills. I have no stylistic preferences, but I have been out of the game for about 3 years so I might be a bit rusty with speed, and might need some expanding of abbreviations, jargon and/or acronyms. Clarity and rhythm are crucial either way, and I'll announce "clear" several times before giving up flowing. Frankly, speed reading ultimately trades off with clarity, and I'd rather hear your argument than guess. Because I know I'm rusty I figured I should be clear with that warning - I'm not going to flow theory real well at 400wpm, let alone cards.

The other ultimate difference between myself and my peers: I detest reading a pile of evidence after a round. With few exceptions, most debates come down to a decision about a few issues. If this were quarters at the NDT, I would definitely join this practice insofar as my due diligence for the activity is concerned. If you think a piece of evidence is important, remember that I heard you read it once, and you have multiple opportunities to explain why the evidence is crucial. The obvious caveat to all of this is that I will check evidence for accuracy/truth in representation if another team claims it doesn't support its intended use (i.e. your card that says the sky is purple actually claims the sky is blue). If an argument wasn't clear to me, and you were supposed to win a round on it, you probably should have made it clearer than a mumbled 15 seconds.

I suppose in many ways my academic traits mirror that of my debate tastes. I tend to be a generalist - arguments of many shapes and varieties can peak my interest. In terms of my degree, my AOS is in metaphysics, and my AOCs are in Ethics, Ancient Philosophy and Continental/Social Philosophy. That being said, I spent the last few years being too weird for both the analytic and continental schools of philosophy - I find Baudrillard and Dennett equally intolerable. I probably have read the primary sources your authors are talking about. Just because you think repeating "Dasein" or some other term over and over is going to get a win, the reality of things often disagrees. Be clear and concise and don't rely on jargon to win your criticisms, make them apparent with evidence comparisons and concise link work. I love a good kritik debate, but despise a bad one. I debated all kinds of arguments in my career, and found many of those debates enjoyable for different reasons. I am comfortable with most anything, but don't tolerate any physical or mental abuse, discrimination or hate. Those are the easiest paths to make my ballot simple.

I'll accept any framework if it's argued for well. Performance, Identity etc. are all important elements in thinking about arguments. As I said, I like debate rounds that are aware of the activity as a communicative one. When I make expressions during your speeches, they usually are done intentionally. It's nice to be talked to as more than a transcriber.

If you have questions about typical jargon stuff, ask before the round. Frankly you should be able to convince me of something regardless of my biases - though I admit that my worst bias is openness to arguments. So I'm probably not going to reject a team for reading a K. Sorry.

Other housecleaning: I'm always a fan of being included in the debate if I'm judging, thus if you are paperless and are emailing, include me (andrewrossmyers [at] gmail [dot] com). I'll time prep as finished when the email is sent or flash drive is ejected. My main mentors, though I have had many, were Steve Pointer and Izak Dunn.

Speaker Points - My speaker points for an "average" debater is a 27.5. If I ever give someone a 30, it's probably going to be the last time I do.

Rewarded:

Crafty-ness and Tactics

Persuasion and Interpersonal Speaking

Clarity, Calmness, Confidence

Effective and Engaging CX's

Humor

Awareness

Punished:

Unintelligibility/Marble Mouths

Disorganization

Unbearable/boring CX's

Tunnel Vision

Defeatism

Why you gott be so rude? Don't you know they're humans too? Actually, being a little bit rude is what makes the activity fun, but there's a difference between joking/confidence/pressure and being distracting/harmful/obtuse. Please respect the thin line.

** Weber Update: I will vote teams down for clipping. This includes skipping words. I will only do so with video evidence in combination with the speech doc. I don't think this is always malicious, so my reduced speaker points will vary with the severity of the offense. (For instance, if you skip entire lines, I will give you a zero).

Please include me in your speech doc thread. My email is johnfnagy@gmail.com

If I am judging you online, you MUST slow down. I will not get all of your arguments, particularly analytics, on the flow. You have been warned.

I enjoy coaching and judging novice debates. I think the novice division is the most important and representative of what is good in our community. That being said, I opposed and still oppose the ADA Novice Curriculum Packet. It's an attempt by some in the community, who don't even have novice programs, to use the novice division to further their vision of what debate "should" look like. I don't like that.

I really like judging debates where the debaters speak clearly, make topic specific arguments, make smart analytic arguments, attack their opponent’s evidence, and debate passionately. I cut a lot of cards so I know a lot about the topic. I don’t know much about critical literature.

Framework debates: I don’t enjoy judging them. Everyone claims their educational. Everyone claims their being excluded. It’s extremely difficult to make any sense of it. I would rather you find a reason why the 1AC is a bad idea. There’s got to be something. I can vote for a no plan-text 1AC, if you’re winning your arguments. With that being said, am not your ideal judge for such 1AC’s because I don’t think there’s any out of round spill-over or “solvency.”

Topicality: Am ok with topicality. Competing interpretations is my standard for evaluation. Proving in-round abuse is helpful but not a pre-requisite. If am judging in novice at an ADA packet tournament, it will be very difficult to convince me to vote on topicality. Because there are only 2-3 1AC's to begin with, there's no predictability or limits arguments that make any sense.

Disadvantages: Like them. The more topic specific the better.

Counterplans: Like them. The more specific to the 1AC the better. Please slow down a little for the CP text.

Kritiks: ok with them. I don’t know a lot about any critical literature, so know that.

Rate of Delivery: If I can’t flow the argument, then it’s not going on my flow. And please slow down a little bit for tags.

Likes: Ohio State, Soft Power DA’s, case debates

Dislikes: Michigan, debaters that are not comprehensible, District 7 schools that cut and paste evidence from other schools and present it as their own without alteration. Do that in front of me and I might vote against you automatically.

Last substantial edit: Jan 2018

Hello!

My name is Jen! I currently work in nonprofit communications in Boston, MA. Before that, I spent two years as a graduate assistant debate coach for Vanderbilt Univerisity's policy team. I have experience judging for both BP and Policy at the college level, as well as middle and high school policy formats.

For BDL high school tournaments:

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates! More below...

- I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter (but still need to hear the fully explained T argument, please).

- Affs, don't drop this.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

______

For college tournaments:

My pronouns are she/her/hers. I expect all debaters to either use gender-neutral terms for the other debaters in the round or use each debater's preferred pronouns (which can be made known at each debaters' discretion through Tabroom). Speaker points are at stake.

* Please send documents to jennifer.elizabeth.newman@gmail.com *

My judging philosophy...

- I am open to hearing arguments of all types, but I feel strongly that the debate space needs to be inclusive. That's my bias. Other than that, I am pretty chill. Just be considerate.

- Although I have these listed by division, it may be a good idea for debaters to read all the sections.

I. Novice - with the packet

- Be sure to answer every argument. There are cards in there to answer all of the arguments for every affirmative case.

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

II. JV

Some things to note:

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates. In fact, I think this topic lends itself to some incredibly interesting potential policy affs. I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

III. OPEN

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

Framework

- Hard Framework (aka we should be debating government policy action): I don't typically vote on this. I attribute this to seeing K debates where the K team is well-prepared for this. It could also be that I am just not persuaded by it because I think K debates are really important to the debate space.

- Soft Framework (aka you have to DO something, and/or you have to engage the state in some way. You don't have to use the state but you have to engage it): I am actually likely to vote on this. The ground argument, or a version of that, is really compelling to me for Affs that have shifty ground and no-link out of other Ks or DAs. I'd say it's a good thing to go for when you don't have anything else. For the Aff, be ready to explain to me exactly what ground the neg had that they failed to see and go for.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter.

- Affs, don't drop this.

- I am less likely to vote on T for Carbon Tax than I am for cellulosic ethanol. I think it's difficult for most affirmatives to actually BE topical (insert disgruntled comments about the resolution here). I think you should be able to justify your aff is topical.

- Effects T is a thing I will vote on if you go all in and the other team doesn't provide satisfactory answers. In a K debate, I'm less likely to vote on effects T if there are Aff answers like effects T bad or something like that.

Techy Stuff

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. DO. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I know that sounds super rudimentary but really teams miss doing this in the rebuttals. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic (this year, whether a specific climate policy is good) then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about (the problematic) and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

If you got this far (for all divisions)

1. Go prep with your team.

2. JK here's some fun ways to win speaks (I'll only give you credit for two times).

- Beyoncé quotes (or that Beyoncé should have won album of the year) +0.1 speaks

- Disney animated movie quotes (Particularly from the 90s-early 2000s, like Aladin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast...) +0.1 speaks

- I will change this up a bit each tournament.

GOOD LUCK!!!

Feel free to ask me questions, or seek further explanation of my reasonings after the round! :)

Best of luck!

J

P.S. If something isn't in here that you think should be, please let me know!

I've been the Director of Debate at the US Naval Academy since 2005. I debated at Catholic University in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Put me on the doc thread: danielle.verney@gmail.com. Please use the wiki as much as possible!

Four things I hate--this number has gone up:

1. WASTING TIME IN DEBATES--what is prep time? This isn't an existential question. Prep time is anything you do to prepare for a debate. That means when it's start time for the debate, everyone should be READY TO START--restrooms visited, water gathered, stand assembled, doc thread started, timer in hand, snacks ready for your judge (jk). Any of these things that need to happen during a debate are technically prep time and thus should probably happen either during your prep or the other team's prep. The 2:15 decision deadline is an unequivocal good because it makes me 100% more likely to get a reasonable amount of sleep at night which makes me a better judge/coach/administrator/human, but y'all need to get better at managing your time to make it work.

2. Elusiveness (especially in Cross-Ex but during speeches too): “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. Taking your questioner on a goose-chase for the answer to a simple question is not. Pretending you don't know how the plan works or what it does or that there are a whole bunch of ways it MIGHT happen is not persuasive to me, it just makes it look like you don't know what's going on. Answer the counterplan; tell me it's cheating--I'm one of the like 5 judges in the community who believe you.

3. Debaters who get mad that I didn’t read their one piece of really sweet evidence. If you want me to understand the warrants of the evidence and how they compare to the warrants of the other team’s evidence, maybe you should talk about them in one of your speeches. Read less bad cards and talk about the good ones more--tell me how your one good card is better than their 12 bad ones.

4. Rudeness. Don’t be rude to your partner, don’t be rude to the other team, and DEFINITELY don’t be rude to me. Excessive cursing is frowned upon (louder for the people in the back). Conversely, if you are nice, you will probably be rewarded with points. Entertain me. I enjoy pop culture references, random yelling of "D7", humorous cross-x exchanges, and just about any kind of joke. I spend a LOT of time judging debates, please make it enjoyable, or at least not uncomfortable.

Performance/Ks of Debate:

I’m going to be painfully honest here and say that I don’t like performance debate or critiques of current debate practices. I’m also going to state the obvious and say that I really like policy debate. Why? Well, I guess it’s the same reason that some people root for the Yankees over the Red Sox—I’m evil. Actually, it’s because I think there are a lot of specific educational benefits to traditional policy debate that you can’t get anywhere else. There might be a lot of educational benefits to performances, but I think that you can get those benefits from doing other activities too, which isn’t necessarily true of policy-style debate. If this makes you want to strike me, I heartily encourage you to do so.

HOWEVER--the opposing team would need to advance those arguments to win the debate. Do I think status quo debate is good? Yes. Will I vote on "debate is good" without that argument having been made? No. If the opposing team concedes the framework debate or doesn't advance "status quo debate good" as their framework arg, I'm not going to vote on it, obviously; the debate would proceed as agreed to by both teams. I have judged these debates before and have voted on the arguments in the round.

Kritiks:

Whatevs, if it’s your thing, you can do it in front of me. I’m pretty smart, which means I attempt to avoid reading post-modern philosophy as much as possible, and the only languages I currently speak with any level of fluency are English and Pig Latin. This means you should probably SLOW DOWN and find a convenient time to define any words that are Greek/German/made up by an aging beatnik. The problem I have with most Ks is that they have totally sweet, awesome impacts but there’s little link to the aff (or no harder link to the aff than to the status quo), so maybe that’s something that both the aff and neg should work on in the round. I really prefer Kritiks with alternatives, and I prefer the alternative not be “reject the plan”.

Counterplans:

I think lots of counterplans (consult, international actor, conditions, etc) are probably cheating. As a director of a small school, I don't have a huge problem with cheating if you can defend it and do it well. I wouldn't make this the "A strat" for me if you've got other options, but I appreciate that there sometimes aren't any and I promise not to throw things or set the ballot on fire if you've gotta roll with it.

Not to sound like a grumpy old person (though I am) but I think conditionality run amok is hurting debate. I'm probably okay with 1 CP, 1 K, and the status quo as an option until the 2nr (test the rez from a variety of standpoints, etc). Any more than that and you're pushing my buttons. I'm about as likely to "judge kick" a CP for you as I am to kick a winning field goal for the Steelers (not gonna happen).

Disads:
There’s nothing better than a good disad. What do I mean by a good disad? Well, it should have a pretty clear, and ideally pretty specific, link to the affirmative. It should also (and here’s the part lots of debaters forget about) have some form of internal link that goes from the link to the impact. Aff—if the neg doesn’t have one of those things, you might want to point it out to me.

If your disad makes my internal BS-ometer go off I'm gonna tank your points.


Topicality/Other Procedurals:
I don’t evaluate T like it’s a disad, which I think is the current fashionable thing to say, because unlike lots of people, I don’t think your aff advantages can outweigh T in the way that the aff could outweigh a disad. So I don’t focus as much on the “best” interpretation—if the aff interp is good but not as good as the neg’s, the aff will probably win in front of me. This means I think the neg really needs to focus on the ground and limits debate—here is where you can persuade me that something is really bad.

I think topics are becoming more broad and vague, and understand negative frustration at attempting to engage in a debate about the plan's mechanism or what the plan actually does (often the very best parts of a debate in my opinion). I feel like I can be fairly easily persuaded to vote against a team that just uses resolutional language without a description of what that means in a piece of solvency evidence or a cross-examination clarification. I think neg teams will need to win significant ground loss claims to be successful in front of me (can't just roll with agent cps key) but I think I am more easily persuaded on these arguments than I have been in the past.

     By far the most important thing you need to understand in order to successfully debate for me is that I am not going to follow along with your speech document in order to try to understand what you are saying.  If you cannot deliver your arguments and read your evidence in a fashion that is comprehensible, I am not a good judge for you.  I read a very limited amount of evidence after debates, always and only to decide arguments where the two sides have advanced detailed disagreements about what the evidence in question actually says.  I only hold teams responsible for answering arguments after I have understood them:  calling 1AR answers to a kritik new will not avail if I only understood the basics of your argument after the block.  I am not saying this is an oratory contest, but it is oral advocacy.

     When I do read evidence, I am increasingly suspicious of cards that consist of a few words highlighted here and there over several pages of text.  If you can't find a single sentence from you author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me. 

     My "paradigm:"  I try to judge as if I were at a town meeting or other public forum where the audience would listen to a discussion and then each person would vote their opinion.  I deviate from the real world as little as possible, mostly to exclude my own predispositions and decide based on what is said by the contestants.  If weighty matters are at stake, I would hope that I would not be persuaded to vote for bad ideas because the advocates of better ideas had committed some argumentative indiscretion.  (This is a fancy way of saying that I am a tough sell for "discourse kritiks"--you'll do much better to attack your opponents' thinking than their language.)  I generally do not accept arguments that urge me to "punish" a team for advancing an ill-considered position in the debate.

    I do believe that both sides should stick to one policy system to defend.  This requires that they eschew "conditional" advocacy, whether that is vague plans or multiple counterplans.  I see both of these strategies as needlessly diluting the advocacy in what is already a short time to discuss even one policy comparison.  I see the attempt to discuss multiple comparisons in a single debate as far more motivated by nefarious strategy than any sort of truth seeking.

     My voting record on kritikal arguments is far better than my reputation suggests.  Solid, topic-specific attacks on the logic and worldview of the opposition, with specific links and impacts I can understand, frequently succeed om winning my ballot.

(1) How you win: My overall philosophy is pretty simple: You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. While, virtually all arguments are on the table, I prefer them to be smart and well-reasoned. An assertion without a justification and explanation is not a winner, just because the other team has dropped it.

(2) Argument preferences: My answer is pretty simple: good ones. Although, I primarily debated policy arguments and the neolib DA, I will vote on almost any argument in any particular debate, as long as it is explained and compelling. I would much rather see you debate your best going for an argument you like and feel comfortable with than try to adapt to my argumentative proclivities.

(3) Framing is important: Tell me how you would like me to evaluate arguments. Make comparisons and distinctions. Framing the debate controls how I go about making my decision. The more you do it and the better you are at it, the better place you will be in. Engaging the other team’s arguments and guiding how I should evaluate them in comparison to yours makes my decision really easy. I would like to make my decision based solely on what was said in speeches, so the more you can incorporate the warrants and explanations into your speeches the easier it will be more me to vote for you.

(3) Debate is a speaking activity

(a) Speed and clarity – Speed is fine, mumbling is not. Clarity is your friend. I like to think that I am able to keep up with even the fastest debaters. But distinguishing between arguments and fully explaining them is a must if you expect me to keep a fair record of what happened in the debate. In addition, the body of you evidence matters. I expect to be able to hear what it says, otherwise the activity would just read a tag and turn in the body of the evidence later.

(b) Evidence – I will read your evidence, but you need to do more than simply reference that you HAVE evidence in the rebuttals. Don’t expect me to extract warrants from your cards that are not highlighted in rebuttals. If you think it’s important enough for me to base my decision off of it, then it should probably be in the speech. In addition, having evidence is not the end all be all. Having a clear line of reason that answers the other teams arguments can be sufficient, and often times it is more persuasive that just reading five cards back at the other team.

(4) Kritiks/arguments that don’t involve plans:  most relevant things I have to say are covered in the sections above. Nevertheless, I will say that if you are making an argument that doesn’t involve or rely on a pure, reductive USFG-centric approach to fiat then it would be in your best interest to very clearly articulate what the role of the ballot is and why that should be the role of the ballot. What is my decision supposed to accomplish and what should I evaluate in making that decision.

(5) Speaker points: I will follow any guidelines that tournaments provide me. Beyond that, I will assign speaker points based on a holistic evaluation on how I think the debaters in the debate did. I don’t think that I can really mechanistically list all of the factors that I will use beyond this: if you sound good and do smart things in debates you will be rewarded.

(6) Presumption: I am willing to vote negative on presumption. I think the aff has to construct a strong case for a departure from the status quo. I don't think the aff can say that a counterplan's mechanism is normal means and then say it doesn't solve and still win the debate. Affirmatives that don't have an explanation for how we should depart from the status quo should be losing every debate on presumption.

Kirsten A. Porter-Stransky, Ph.D.

I debated on Liberty University's team from 2004-2006 (back before paperless debate).  Now I am a full-time behavioral neuroscientist and occasinally judge for UGA.  I haven't researched this year's topic, but I have debated an energy topic. Please speak clearly, explain your arguments, and don't use jargon.

I believe that the topic exists for a reason and that debates should revolve around the topic.  I enjoy substantive debates with good clash of arguments between teams.  While I prefer arguments about the content of the plan, I will vote on theory arguments if they are reasonable and well articulated. Because debate is a speaking activity, I value verbal analysis of cards and arguments (I do not like to read cards after the round and will not make the comparisons for you).

SPEAK CLEARLY and not insanely fast.  If I cannot understand what you are saying, I cannot flow it or consider it.

For good speaker points, make smart arguments and speak clearly and persuasively.  Do not hide behind your computer so that I cannot see or hear you.  Be kind and respectful; rudeness can tank your speaks. Don't try to steal prep time.

In the last two rebuttal speeches, I highly recommend slowing down and tying all the loose ends together. Make it obvious as to why and how your arguments supersede those of your opponent. 

I strongly believe in the educational value of research and policy debate.  Prepare, work hard, and have fun!

Last updated: 9/5/2016 before GSU

I debated at Cornell from 2010-2014 and have been out of debate for the last two years working at a government auditing agency in DC. Broadly, I’ll judge whatever arguments you put before me, my preferences are a bit uncertain at this point because I haven’t judged in two years, and you can email me any questions at dlp225@cornell.edu. Specifically, here are some general preferences and things that annoy me:

Argument type/function of debate: As stated above, I’ll judge whatever you put in front of me (DAs, CPs, Ks, performance, non-plans). I don’t think the purpose/value of debate is necessarily fixed or the same for different debaters; the question of where debate’s boundaries should be drawn is one I don’t know the answer to and a debate I’m willing to hear.

I do care about clash, and was frustrated by attempts to minimize it while in debate: by policy teams in the construction of plans that do the least possible while remaining loosely topical, by k-aff teams in link/alternative vagueness (I don’t need a city-plan of a functioning alternative society, but I’d appreciate clear differentiation between the squo and the alternative that isn’t just one has good things and the other bad), and performance teams in muddling the relationship between the individual performance and its collective advocacy value. I’d encourage teams I’m judging to focus less on link mitigation and more on link or impact turns.

Familiarity: I am unfamiliar with both the topic and developments in the debate community since 2014. I haven’t judged at a tournament for the last two years or been on the Facebook group, and am unlikely to recognize commonly understood acronyms or references to past events in the community. Regarding the latter, I’m hesitant to trust in-debate reconstructions of past debates or re-adjudicate them. I recognize that T - resolution/clash of civ debates involve questions of debate’s history and future so I’ll listen to references if they’re necessary to the argument, but I’d still caution against relying on them to the extent you can.

I also am less-likely to be well-versed in critical literature or terms - I enjoy hearing those debates so please continue reading them in front of me, I’d just ask that you explain or rely less on academic language to make your arguments.

Debater interactions: Avoid offensive arguments or statements. I think that debate’s competitive incentives sometimes harmfully trade-off with showing empathy or compassion towards other debaters. Since leaving the activity, I’ve come to appreciate how much nicer many people I disliked while in the activity are outside of it. I don’t expect or want debaters to adapt who they are in debate-rounds based on this paradigm, but I think there are recognizable differences between assertiveness and cruelty and mocking arguments and people. I don’t think policy debate needs more barriers to entry and I’m willing to penalize teams based on their conduct.

In cross-X, I am unlikely to reward interrupting the other team before they’ve had a chance to answer your question, going on without answering the other team’s question, or interrupting the other team when they try to ask a new question. I’d ask teams trust that I can recognize when this occurs.

Flow/clarity: I was never great at flowing and I’m out of practice. I appreciate clarity of speech and arguments throughout the round, especially on debate-tournament sleep.

Evidence quality: I care about evidence quality and I think a lot of arguments are constructed with terrible evidence. I think it’s possible to construct seemingly logical link and impact chains for a much larger number of arguments than can be supported by good evidence. My presumption in daily-life is generally against the existence of predictable, monumental events that are predictably, causally contingent on policies proposed in debate rounds; I don’t see a compelling reason to ignore this presumption for the sake of impact-inflation. I’m also not sure why I should assign a low risk to claims supported by a lot of terrible evidence rather than disregard them entirely, or arguments with some well-supported components but missing necessary pieces. I will read evidence after the round and it will help inform my decision, although I’d encourage opposing teams to draw attention to the other team’s poor quality evidence and explain why it matters to help direct my attention.

I enjoy debates about the mechanics of plan implementation and well-evidenced case debates. My default is not towards some base-level of solvency - many policies do not achieve their intended goals and cause more harm - and I (conceptually) enjoy hearing teams argue about the minutia of solvency. I also like creative arguments, arguments that make me think in new ways, and clear link chains.

Tripp Rebrovick

Director of Debate, Harvard University.

BA, Harvard; PhD, Johns Hopkins

Please put harvard.debate(at)gmail.com on the email chain, but see note 1 below.

Updated January 2021:

The first thing to know about me as a judge is that I take overviews in the final rebuttals very seriously. The team that correctly identifies the critical arguments for each side will generally win, even if they have problems elsewhere on the flow or if I have other reservations about the argument. In other words, most of the time, the team that gets my ballot has done a better job of (a) identifying the most important arguments in the debate and (b) persuading me that in evaluating those particular arguments I should believe them. Similarly, I've found that in most of my decisions I end up telling the losing team that they have failed to persuade me of the truth of their most important argument. Occasionally this failure of understanding is due to a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker(s), but more often it is due to a lack of detailed explanation proving a particularly significant argument to be correct.

As a judge, I am usually skeptical of anything you say until you convince me it is correct, but if you do persuade me, I will do the work of thinking through and applying your argument as you direct me. It is usually easy to tell if I am persuaded by what you are saying. If I’m writing and/or nodding, you’ve probably succeeded. If I’m not writing, if I’m giving you a skeptical look, or if I interrupt you to ask a question or pose an argument I think you should answer, it means I’m not yet convinced.

In close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I tend to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic understanding of the arguments and the round than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others. I am usually hesitant to vote against a team for something they said unless it is willful or malicious.

A few other tidbits:

1. I will not read the speech doc during your speech. The burden is on you to be comprehensible. Part of me is still horrified by this norm of judges following along.

2. If what you have highlighted in a card doesn’t amount to a complete sentence, I will most likely disregard it. Put differently, a word has to be part of a sentence in order to count.

3. CX, just like a speech, ends when the timer goes off. You can’t use prep time to keep asking questions or to keep talking. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to alt use time.

4. Please number your arguments. Seriously. Do it. Especially in the 1NC on case and in the 2AC off case.

5. Pet Peeve Alert. You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact. For example, saying a war with china causes poverty does not mean the DA turns a poverty advantage. It simply means the DA also has a poverty impact. In order to the turn the case, the DA must implicate the solvency mechanism of the affirmative, not simply get to the same terminal impact.

6. [Since this situation is becoming more common...] If the affirmative wins that conditionality is bad, my default will be to reject conditionality and make any/all counterplans unconditional. Pretending that the counterplan(s) were never introduced is illogical (they stay conditional) and solves nothing (the affirmative can't extend turns to the net benefit).

Kentucky 2017 update:  This is the first year since the Europe topic where I didn't attend the season opener.  So whatever T/competition things the community "collectively figured out" during the first tourney, do not assume that I am in the know re: that info.  I have been reading about healthcare and doing some topic research, so don't over-apply this advice.  I know what single payer means, I know what happened to Graham-Cassidy, I know Price resigned, etc.  My point is more about the *competitive* direction the topic is heading.

Updated Fall 2013: I added a new section on evidence, clarity, and clipping at the end, given its length, but I wanted to mention it up here (in case of TL;DR)

Crotchety old person complaints:  You should flow.  You should go line-by-line unless having a purposeful reason not to.  You should talk about the other team’s evidence.  You should talk about your own evidence.  You should have warrants to back up claims, and examples to contextualize your arguments.  Historical references are great.  Smart analysis > more cards.  I will not read cards after the debate to reconstruct arguments that you failed to communicate yourself during your speech.  I will read cards that are intelligently contested by both teams. Wiki golden rule- put as much intel up as you expect from other people.

Cross-x: is my favorite part of the debate.  I flow it. Being smart in CX can win or lose you the debate.

T debates… things that will help you out: explaining which affs we should be debating and why, which arguments we should be debating and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion, ect.  If the neg’s interpretation is more limiting, but the aff can clearly explain why that definition is not predictable, or the affs that the neg allows are not good affs or exclude critical parts of the literature, ect, the aff will be in a good place.  Limits are not the end all, be all.  Discussion of sources of definitions also important for the aff to win if their counter-interpretation is not going to be more limiting.

Theory debates- happen at a speed where its impossible to get all of the 2ac/2nc/1ar args... if this describes you (and it almost certainly does) and the aff wants theory to be a real potential option for the 2ar, know that you should slow down to around 75% speed.  I lean neg on most counterplan theory questions by default, but its all up for debate.... assuming I can understand what you are saying.

Ks- I am not a judge that you cannot go for the K in front of.  Judges get siloed in some weird ways based on presuppositions about how they think, and philosophies are meant to clear that up.  SO!  I evaluate kritik debates like any other strategy- superior analysis and refutation in the final rebuttals over the key questions will win you the debate.  Negs should focus on why the alternative remedies their link arguments (and solves the aff's 1AC impacts, if you are trying to do so).  If there is no alternative or you posit that your framework is your "alt," you do need to explain why this instance of rejecting the aff/their representiations is alone/taking an ethical standpoint in this debate is sufficient action to avoid the impact that is identified by the K.  The one thing I will say for the neg is that there is some tension in my mind between the common neg claim that "the aff doesn't leave the room, there is no "spill up," the state never hears them, so they can't access their impact turns" with the neg's alternative solvency claim that "rejecting this aff solves our terminal impact which is global extinction from neolib/militarism/antiblackness," etc.  Is there "spill up" to one debate judge's choice or not, and if not for the aff, why is it assumed for the neg?  I think this is best remedied by the neg narrowing your impact framing to the types of things that ARE clearly within the judge's purview-- epistemological choices behind scholarship presentations matter, single ethical choices made by individuals matter, representations even within academia matter, and so on.

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s argument as possible... not impressed with the aff that recycles the same 4 cards against every kritik.  Same for the neg- if you mix it up every year with kritiks that are tailored to the topic, I will be a good judge for you.  If you've been doin more or less the same thing for the better part of a decade.. meh, there are better judges for you.  The aff should say what their permutation actually means in the 2ar. I've found most framework debates in policy aff v. neg K debate to be vacuous.  Everyone wants to meet in the middle.  The neg rarely seems to go as far as to say "no aff," and the aff is too afraid to say "no alt," and we all can never get those 120 minutes of our lives back. 

In terms of K affs, though my default is that the aff should discuss the benefits of hypothetical topical action by the USFG, affs should at a minimum demonstrate topic-relevance.  If you are reading an aff that very explicitly ignores the topic, I'm not the best judge for you, though if you do find me in the back of the room, you should be sure to explain fully why departing from the topic is essential to whatever your thang is. Bottom line, my default is the topic, but you should always do what you think will maximize your chance of winning, rather than comporting to what you think my own leanings are.   Debate is hard and you should do what you are best at.  All arguments have a chance of winning if they are well reasoned, and if its clear why I should prefer them compared to your opponents arguments.

Paperless stuff- your prep time ends when you are ready to send the email or give the jump drive to the other team.  The more time you waste, the less decision time I have, so be mindful of that.  

My only request to you when you debate in front of me is to please be civil to your opponents.  In CX's, post rounds... coaches getting in post rounds.  Yuck.  Having your judge cringe at you is never a good thing.  I dislike debaters who visibly or audibly react negatively to the other team's final rebuttal.  You get your last speech and thats it.  I dont need the 2N to be a one-person peanut gallery during the 2AR. Its distracting to me and rude to the other team.  You have now been warned re: your speaker points.  You should be able to tell how I’m feeling if you look up once and a while.

 **New section on evidence and card clipping:

Evidence- this is getting out of control.  First, the ethically problematic and academically lazy practices:

--highlighting to the point of creating new content- if you are making new arrangements that the original author did not intend, that is a problem.  Let’s call “creative highlighting” what it actually is: fabricating evidence.  If your highlighting of evidence is making stuff up and then wrongly attributing it to the author to give it false credibility, that is fabricating evidence.

--ending cards before the end of the author’s original paragraph- I thought this was a universal norm but apparently not. 

Second, these practices are not unethical per se, they just make you worse at debate:

--removing warrants from the tag- its hard to flow evidence where the tag is 2-3 words long.  I do my best to flow the warrants in each card, but its impossible to get everything said at 300 wpm for 9 mins straight.  Debaters should be highlighting the critical parts of evidence in your tags and then deliver them clearly.

--cutting strawperson evidence- lazy research, period.  This wouldn’t fly for academic work, so it shouldn’t for debate research either.

--having things that hurt you in the 2-point font of your card.  Lets be honest, blowing that stuff up is the first thing I do when I see that in a card.  You can expect to find good stuff here usually.  This makes it pretty easy on your opponents.

--"abbrev"s make you sound dumb.  Why are you highlighting "targeted killing" as just T....K...? "Nuclear weapons" as "nuc.........s"?  You are being the characture of policy debate that everyone ridicules.

Clarity- If I cannot understand you, I won’t read your cards after the debate to reconstruct your arguments for you.  Debate is a communication activity, love it or leave it.  Delivery is a big issue here obviously, but so is form.  If your speech is a string of debate “abbrevs”, its pretty hard to flow.  Clarity in content is important.  If you aren’t contextualizing your arguments and giving examples in your final rebuttal, you leave the judge no choice but to have to input their own analysis to resolve the debate.

Cross reading, “clipping cards”, stopping short on evidence or not marking cards and then misrepresenting what you have read in a debate are unethical practices.  If a team suspects another team of doing this, they should stop the debate and present their evidence.  I would be willing to listen to any video or audio recording in the room that is available to me.  For me, the important thing is the actual result (did the audio of the speech as presented include all of the text submitted into the “record” of the debate?), since intentionality is impossible to prove either way.  And I will say this: if a debater’s performance is SO unclear as to look exactly like what cheating looks like, that is still a huge problem.

Gonzaga University
Judging Experience: 19 years
Email: jregnier@gmail.com (yes, include me on the email thread)

Big Picture: There is no one right way to debate. We all have our biases and preconceptions, but I try to approach each round as a critic of argumentation and persuasion. Some people will define themselves as being more influenced by either “truth” or “tech.” For me, this is a false binary. Tech matters, but it doesn’t mean that I will focus on the ink on the flow to the detriment of argument interconnections or ignore the big picture of the debate. Truth matters, but pretty much every debate I will decide that both teams win arguments that I don’t necessarily believe to be true. In my view, “argument” falls into a third category that overlaps with tech and truth but is distinct from them. Make your argument more effectively than your opponent and you’ll be in good shape. For me, that means making clear claims, developing warrants for those claims, and explicitly identifying what’s important in the debate, how it’s important, and why. Use logos, ethos, and pathos. Look like you’re winning. Your adaptation to the stylistic/technical comments below is far more important than your adaptation to any particular type of argument.

Comment about debate ethics: By debate ethics, I mean both what has been conventionally called “ethics violations” – like clipping cards, evidence fabrication, etc – as well as the interpersonal dynamics of how we treat one another in debate. I group them together here because they are both areas where somebody has crossed a line and upset the conditions necessary for debate to occur. For me, neither of these things is “debatable” in the sense I used above (“making clear claims, developing warrants…,” looking like you’re winning, etc). If a team is suspected of clipping cards, the debate stops and we do our best to resolve the issue before either ending the debate or moving forward. Similarly, if there is a concern that a team made racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted – or even just excessively mean-spirited or rude remarks – the debate should not continue as normal. I have zero interest in watching a competitive debate in this context about what was said, whether an apology was sincere, the terminal impact of discourse, whether the ballot is an appropriate punishment, etc. In this, I aggressively fall into the “truth over tech” crowd.

What this means for me is that I will try to be attentive to these things happening. I do not believe that a debater has to say something for me to vote on an ethics violation. At the same time, there is a lot of gray area in interpersonal relationships and we all draw our own boundaries.

What this means for you is if you believe one of your ethical lines has been crossed, I need you to point it out *outside of speech time* and not treat it like you would other debate arguments. As we all know, there are different ways of arguing that the other team has said offensive things. An argument that the Aff’s Economy advantage is based in colonial & white supremacist logic seems to fall squarely “within the game” as a debatable position. On the other hand, if a debater refers to another debater with an offensive racial epithet, this seems to pretty clearly transcend the game. There’s a million miles of microaggressions and not-so-micro aggressions in between. My working presumption is generally that if you are debating about it, then you consider it debatable and that I should evaluate it within the context of argumentation, persuasion, and competition. But if you feel that the other team has crossed a line and that I should not continue evaluating the round as I would a regular competitive debate, say something – again, *outside of speech time* – and we will work together to reach an understanding and figure out the best resolution to the situation.

Stylistic/Technical Issues: I am a medium flow. My ear for extremely fast speech is not particularly great, and my handwriting is not particularly fast. Extremely fast debates oriented around the techne of the flow are not my forte. There is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the speed at which you speak and the amount that I get written down on my flow. This greatly rewards debaters who give fewer – but more fully developed and explained – arguments. I will probably not read very many cards at the end of the debate, so don’t rely on your evidence to make your arguments for you. At the same time, I do generally try to attend to the quality of cards and bad cards can definitely undermine your arguments. I categorically do not want to be forced to reconstruct the debate by rereading all of the cards. This means that explanation and prioritization in the final rebuttals weighs more heavily for me than it might for other judges. Attend to the big picture, make direct comparisons showing why your arguments are better than your opponents’, and most important, find the hook that allows you to frame the debate in your favor.

Theory Debates: This is the area where my thinking has evolved the most as I’ve aged. There are many theory issues that I can be persuaded by. However, I will say that many theory debates that I have seen are vacuous. The key question for me is what kind of world is created by each side’s interpretation – is it good for debate or bad for debate. The impacts that I find most persuasive are the ones that are less about whether the other team made debate hard for you and more about what their interpretation does to argumentation and whether that’s an educational and constructive vision of what debate should be. Generally, impacts like “time skew” or “moots the 1AC” are pretty empty to me. But an argument that uniform 50 state fiat is an artificial debate construct that’s not rooted anywhere in the solvency literature and distorts the “fed key” debate so wildly as to make it meaningless is maybe something that I can get behind. A short list of a few of my current theory pet peeves: the States CP, object fiat, vaguely written – and downright misleading – plan texts, and nonsense permutations. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it a pet peeve, I may be growing increasingly persuaded that excessive conditionality is not good for debate.

Critical Stuff / Framework: I regularly vote both ways in framework debates. I evaluate these debates much like I would a debate over the "substance" of the case. Both sides need to play offense to amplify their own impacts while also playing defense against their opponent's impacts. In most cases where I have voted against critical affirmatives, it is because they have done a poor job answering the negative's debatability/fairness impact claims. In most cases where I have voted against traditional policy frameworks, it has been because they have done a poor job defending against the substantive critiques of their approach. My general set of biases on these issues would be as follows: critical (and even no-plan) affirmatives are legitimate, the aff needs to either have a defensible interpretation of how they affirm the topic or they need to full bore impact turn everything, a team must defend the assumptions of their arguments, critiques don't need (and are often better served without) alternatives (but they still need to be clear about what I am actually voting for), debate rounds do not make sense as a forum for social movements and “spill up” claims are vacuous, and most of the evidence used to defend a policy framework does not really apply to policy debate. However, to state the obvious, each of these biases can be overcome by making smart arguments.

Speaker Points: Since Tabroom stopped making speaker points accessible, I honestly don’t really even know what they mean anymore. I try to give them careful consideration, but I admit that often it becomes a gestalt thing. I intend somewhere around 28.7 or 28.8 to be my median. I will occasionally dip into the high 27s for debaters that need significant improvement. Good performances will be in the low 29s. Excellent performances will get into the mid 29s. This was generally close to how things broke down the last time I was actually able to run the numbers on speaker point data.

Here are the things I value in a good speaker. I love debaters that use ethos, logos AND pathos. Technique should be a means of enhancing your arguments, not obfuscating or protecting them. Look like you're winning. Show that you are in control of yourself and your environment. Develop a persona that you can be comfortable with and that shows confidence. Know what you're talking about. Answer your own cross-ex questions. Use an organizational system that works for you, but communicate it and live up to it (if you do the line-by-line, then *do* the line-by-line). Avoid long overviews with content that belongs on the line-by-line. Overviews should have a clear and concise purpose that adds something important to the debate. Be clear, which includes not just articulation & enunciation. It also includes the ability to understand the content of your evidence. If I can't follow what your evidence is saying, it will have as much weight in my decision as the tagline for that evidence would have had as an analytic. Debaters who make well thought out arguments with strong support will out-point debaters who just read a lot of cards every time.

Sammi Rippetoe

Director of Debate @ DePauw University

University of Georgia, PhD

Communication Graduate Student, Assistant Debate Coach, Wake Forest University '15-'17

I competed for Humboldt State University in Worlds style (or Brittish Parlimentary) for 4 years.

Please add me to your email chains (as proof that you read these things)- sjrippetoe@gmail.com

Top level things

I will reward debaters with better speaker points for a good cross-x that helps their overall strategy in the debate.

If you describe graphic violence (sexual or otherwise) a trigger warning would be greatly appreciated by me, and the other debaters.

Rebuttals are for story-telling, if I'm not interested in buying what you're selling I'm probably not voting for you.

I don't feel personally responsible to read all of your evidence after the debate.  Your job is to explain to me why certain pieces of evidence should be considered/read, if you don't do that, I won't take the time to read them.  This is debate, not Sammi's research hour.

Topicality

Love em, read some cards, make some args.  I am pretty persuaded by reasonability, especially when the aff has a community norm argument behind them, but I'm not wedded to the concept enough that you can't persuade me otherwise.  If we can avoid spec-type violations, that would be nice (but hey you do you).

Counterplans and Disads

Love em.  The more specific they are to the aff, the more I am willing to buy negative spin/negative sufficiency framing arguments.  Impact calc is super important, but don't confuse the timeframe or probability of your impact with that of your internal links.  Most teams do, and that's not fun.  Make sure you don't lose sight of your disad (and conversely, your aff) by the end of the debate, it's not only about comparing terminal impacts so don't lose the story for what you're selling me.

Theory

I don't have a strong preference on any particular theory arguments, but I will vote on them if well impacted and debated beyond the annoying re-reading of blocks in the 1ar and 2nr.  The caveat to this, however, is that I will not kick a CP for the negative if it is extended in the 2nr.  You forfeited your right to the status quo, deal with it.  I'm not against multiple counterplans being read in the same debate, but I do believe the enjoyment of a debate correlates to how well crafted (wink-wink) the negatives strategy is.  Do not see what sticks.

The K

Most of my thoughts from the next two categories apply here.  I will say, have links specific to the plan, with impacts to those link arguments.  Root cause arguments aren't super persuasive to me, unless you can prove that the root cause prevents the aff's specific internal link from solving whatever impact is in question.  

Non-Traditional Affs

My general feelings about them is that they should be in the direction of the topic, and they should change something in the status quo. While this doesn't necessitate a plan text, the aff should have a method that defends some action/change.  I am not a fan of affs that don't do anything, or believe that just pontificating is enough to win the round. You have to prove that your aff is important and creates positive change, not just that it analyzes something (what does that analysis do? And why should I vote for it as a positive change to status quo?). I am very persuaded by presumption when the aff hasnt proven that they do anything.  

Framework

These debates can often can be good, but generally are not.  You all read blocks like it's your job, and they are way too generic.  I'm really persuaded by specific link arguments for things like limits or ground da's that point to in round examples to validate them, and TVA's that are well developed and actually specific to either the aff's method or the impact the aff is attempting to resolve.  I do not believe fairness is an impact on it's own, it's an internal link to variety of other impacts.  

Language Args

These are persuasive, you should not be violent with your language. If you go against a team that you feel has been violent with their word choice, you should make it an argument in the round. Performative consistency is important. You do have to be clear about what the impact of their bad language is, and why I should care about it. You can't just say "this is offensive" with no impact and expect me to fill in the blanks. 

Updated Pre-Emory 1/9/2020

Email chain please: croark@trinity.edu

Professor and Assistant Director of Debate at Trinity University, Coach at St. Mark's School of Texas

I view my role as judge to be an argument critic and educator above everything else. As part of that, you should be mindful that a healthy attitude towards competition and the pursuit of kindness and respect are important.

Biases are inevitable but I have been in the activity for +10 years and heard, voted, and coached on virtually every argument. I genuinely do as much as possible to suspend my preconceived beliefs and default to explanation/comparison.

Quality > quantity – 1NC’s with a high volume of bad arguments will have a hard ceiling on speaker points & I will generously allow new 1AR arguments.

Speed is the number of winnable arguments you can communicate to your judge. I will usually say “clear” twice before I stop flowing your speech. If you can't flow or comprehend your partner that's a problem. If you don't sign-post I am likely to give-up on flowing your speech.

I try to flow CX so please make reference. CX is about LISTENING and responding – let your opponent finish their answer/question, acknowledge it, and then move to the next point. Be polite if you have to interrupt.

Everyone should give two speeches. I’ll only flow the assigned person during speeches.

Framework --- I’ve voted on all kinds of different impact arguments. Debate has wide-ranging value to folks and I think you should be willing to defend why it’s important to you in any given situation. Defense can be very compelling: Neg teams should win an overarching theory of how their model absorbs/turns the 1ac’s offense with explanations of switch-side or TVA examples that interface well with the aff. The TVA should be a proof of concept, not a CP. Aff teams should win a counter-interp/alternative model of what debate looks like OR terminal offense to the neg’s model of debate. Above everything, you should think strategically and react instead of just reading some dusty, generic blocks.

I am an Assistant Professor and Assistant Director of Debate at Missouri State University. I have 8 years of experience as a competitor: 4 years of experience in high school policy debate (@ Oak Park River Forest High School, in Oak Park, Illinois), and 4 years of experience in college policy debate (@ Trinity University, in San Antonio, Texas). After graduating, I’ve coached college teams for the past 7 years including 4 years @ the University of Georgia, and 3 years @ Trinity University.

The Judging Process:

I see myself as a technical* judge with an important caveat that I prefer debates, and my decisions, to be simple and explainable. What do I mean by this? The short version is that I put a lot of value on explicit refutation and clash. If one side advances an argument and the other team does not answer it, the other team will be forced to deal with the consequences of not answering it. The argument that is won (either through clash or the absence of it) will be given its full weight as introduced and explained by the team that has won it. But if I cannot explain the argument either to myself, or the losing team, or if I think you have done a poor job of explaining it then its relative weight or consequence may vary. I have said in the past that I am “tech over truth,” but also think that good tech needs to look true from afar. I stand by this.

Because I see myself as a technical judge, I will do my best to rid myself of my preconceived biases and presumptions about what is true, just, and moral and attempt to evaluate the debate based on the substance of what it is said. This is, of course, impossible. I often like to “put on hats” and pretend to be a coach of the teams I am judging, asking questions of myself like, “Ooooh, that was a good argument, I wonder what would be a persuasive/intelligent/challenging response to it?”, and if debaters make those arguments (or surprise me with arguments I had not yet considered) I find myself siding with them in the exchange over their opponents. The end result is that while I begin judging by aiming to rid myself of my biases I often judge the round in a kind of back-and-forth involving a certain amount of baton tossing that—if the debate would go on forever—would inevitably end up with me voting on and making decisions reflective of those biases I aimed to disabuse myself of previously. Thankfully, for you, debate rounds are limited—and that provides you the opportunity to win my favor provided your opponents don’t “one up you” with regard to whatever my biases are.

I will look at evidence if instructed, or if I need to use it to clarify something in the debate (usually this isn’t a good thing as it signifies you didn’t do the debating that your evidence was there to support). If possible, however, I try to make my decisions based on what was said in the debate rather than what was referenced.

I often write RFDs for both teams in the process of judging, and I spend most of my decision time pondering which RFD seems more defensible. I have yet to judge a round where I couldn’t see myself voting the other way. This means that even if you won my ballot you should know I spent quite a bit of time rationalizing to myself why you should lose it. I sometimes write an RFD, deliver it, and have some remorse about it (shout out to Wake Semis, Harvard vs Kentucky). In the end, I’d like us both to be happy about my decision so do your best to crush your opponent and remove any shadow of a doubt I might have about it.

What I Expect of You, The Debater: At the level of substance, I want you to read and advance whatever arguments you like. I will do my best to judge them in the manner so described above.

At the level of form, I want you to:

1) Speak when it is your turn to speak. Prompting is fine, but I will not flow your partner speaking during your speech. It is a team activity and we must live and die as a team.

2) Be kind and respectful to your opponents. I love trash talking, and I love a competitive debate. If you do too, however, make sure your opponents and you agree about the tone/intensity of the debate! You should approach your opponents as friends engaged in a spirited discussion, rather than bad apples/bad actors who need to be vanquished. Some of your friends are probably ok with reciprocal name-calling, others might not be. If you choose to engage in behavior that is “on the line,” make sure that your opponents are ok with that. The more personal the debate comes, the more replete with character attacks, name calling, or otherwise vicious and callous behavior, the more frustrated I will be.

Thoughts on Counterplans:

I often approach counterplans centered around the question of opportunity cost because, outside of debate, that is where I see the “real world relevance” for counterplans. As a consequence, I often feel that counterplans must present themselves as an opportunity cost for the actor to whom the initial plan was offered.

Let’s consider a real-life example. You and your friend Jolean have purchased tickets for a concert a few months in advance. You are both excited to go. Unfortunately, Jolean has failed their math test and now their parental figures have decided to punish them by not letting them go to the concert. Jolean proposes to you: “I’m going to go anyway, I’m going to sneak out of the house!” there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to this proposal, but there are, also, a number of counterplans available should you both wish to pursue something other than sneaking out.

Some of them might be PICs in terms of how Jolean has specified their policy proposal (e.g. Don’t sneak out of the house, tell your parents that it’s a study night instead and we can leave from my house), others might be more optimistic trying to solve the root cause of the problem (e.g. Don’t sneak out, try and convince your parents to let you go; OR don’t sneak out, work with your teacher and try to make up the grade for the test), and others still might cut losses and try to solve the advantage area in another way (e.g. Well, let’s go to another concert for a different band the following month instead). All of these counterplans are attempting to solve the aff’s harms, and whether or not they are competitive depends on them avoiding certain disadvantages to Jolean’s initial proposal. There is a debate to be had on this question (as well as the solvency of the counterplans), but I have no theoretical objections about the nature of the counterplan.

There are, however, another set of proposals you can pitch to Jolean. Perhaps, instead of sneaking out, the band should simply reschedule their concert date to be a month later. Or, instead of sneaking out, Jolean’s parents should rescind their punishment and drive the both of you to the concert. Or, maybe, Jolean’s teacher should drop the test and send an email to all the students clarifying that the test was written incorrectly, and all grades were wrong. All these proposals do seem to solve the problem! One way of decrying these proposals is to say they are “utopian”, but the real root of the problem is that they are outside the purview of the actors engaged in the initial policy discussion. If you told your friend Jolean that instead of sneaking out, that any of the above proposals should take place they would look at you confused and say, “Ok but I’m not them?” In policy debate we often see a number of counterplans that are theoretically illegitimate for these reasons.

Aside from this rant about actors, I have few problems with negative counterplans. The only final caveat I will make is that there is often a very ironic disconnect when the negative explains how important their CP is for education, all the while to establish competition they then force the aff to be (using self-serving definitions of words in the resolution) the most blunt-forced, un-nuanced kind of policy proposal. Education for me, and not for thee, I suppose.

Thoughts on Advantages and Disadvantages:

The link to most politics DAs rests upon a number of contradictory assumptions about fiat. Supposedly, the plan happens immediately (the negative says this so they can claim that it interrupts the agenda), and yet apparently the debate on the plan is a multi-week fight involving a significant expenditure of political capital and good will? Ok. Another one: plan is passed through normal means of sorts—but they completely reshuffle the agenda in the process? Ok. The only time I’ve ever seen these make sense is at the cusp of a new administration who are bright-and-bushy-eyed with a number of policies as their priority (then, I believe, the case can be made persuasively that the plan sucks all the air out of the room). Aside from these time-sensitive politics DA, most versions of this DA are absurd. Last quibble: the quality of evidence in this debate is generally D+.

Claims about UQ determines the direction of…. Or Link determines the direction of….. rarely ever makes sense to me. In fact, they seem to show the hand teams who make them revealing they have strong arguments/evidence in column A and weak arguments/evidence in column B.

Terminal defense is possible, but most defense is far from terminal. Even the most sympathetic read of most arguments only offer a small amount of mitigation rather than outright mitigation. I think the best case defense is the type that says, ‘X is fine now’ or ‘X is being taken care of now’. These arguments are UQ and I/L defense all wrapped up into one.

If evidence is introduced in a debate that is contradictory to what the tag claims it to be, I think it is sufficient to talk to your judge about what the evidence says rather than re-highlighting the Frankenstein monster to make it accurately depict what it actually says. I am probably going to look at the card after the debate either way, so you’ll save some time if you just debate what was said/the un-underlined portions of the card rather than introducing it into the debate.

Thoughts on Kritiks:

I have more than a passing familiarity with most critical literatures. In addition to my own academic interests (I hold a PhD in Rhetorical Studies and have a MA in the same content area), I greatly enjoy reading philosophy in both the continental and analytic tradition in my own free time.

That being said, I often have a bone to pick with theory and its uses/abuses in policy debate. I believe you can and should lean on theory and concepts that are a step-beyond mainstream political discourse, but you also must translate and explain that theory and those concepts so that they can become a short-hand aid for you. With this means is that jargon filled speeches assuming I speak a common-critical language with you is likely going to be a road-to-nowhere. Not because I don’t understand what you are saying (although I might not), but because I need to be sure you understand what you are saying and can explain it to me in its most persuasive form.

As long as the debate is about the hypothetical enactment of the plan vs. a competitive policy option, I think that most kritiks are very hard to win absent some brutal drops by the affirmative (root cause, serial policy failure, floating PICs, etc.). On the flip side, if the negative wins their frameworks most affs become reduced to basically nothing. This is quite a conundrum that a number of judges and teams solve through some nonsensical statement like, “They get their K we get our aff.” What exactly is either side getting? These ‘permutations’ between mutually exclusive frameworks end up being a shitty deal for one of the parties involved (e.g. Ok you get to weigh your aff but we get mindset shift and you can’t perm or make alt solvency arguments). My only advice to both teams is to recognize the olive branch as the trojan horse that it is—otherwise, someone is going to get their feelings hurt.

Final thought: the perm is a defacto loser 9/10 for precisely this disconnect between frameworks. Since debate prioritizes offense over defense, for the perm to ever be a viable offense you will already need a significant amount of compelling offense against the kritik and I usually find that if you are at that point the offense is enough to win you the round anyway.

Thoughts on Topicality/Framework

Fairness is, of course, an impact. Anyone that enters into a game agrees to be bound by rules. If a player departs from those rules, they will obtain some competitive advantage at the expense of another. Preserving that competitive balance is often essential to extracting any of the other myriad benefits one may gain from playing a game.

That being said, it is important to be honest and acknowledge that very rarely (VERY RARELY, I cannot stress enough) do claims about fairness actually come into play in a debate round. This is because appeals to fairness truly only emerge when a player violates rules, not norms. When players introduced dunking into basketball a number of players cried afoul but such complaints rang hollow. Unless rules are modified to ban a practice, appeals to norms alone are not persuasive because your own "meta" strategy in a game can change as your opponent did.

One of the best parts about debate (I believe) is that the activity is so light on rules and so heavy on norms. Its what makes the game so dynamic. In few other games do you get to imagine and defend what sorts of norms players ought to be bound by. In my own debate career, while I would find myself often reading Framework against kritikal affs, I never did so with malice. In fact, when I look back on my debate career these were some of the most meaningful, challenging, and thought provoking rounds I had. While I certainly find arguments like topicality or framework persuasive, in truth I have no sympathy for folks that wish to codify something like topicality or framework into a governing rule for the activity. I always found these approaches to be a noxious combination of hubris and cowardice. If your model of debate is so good, surely it can/should win in the marketplace of ideas? And if those ideas are so indefensible before judges, why run to an enclave and protect bad arguments with institutional support?

While fairness is overused by the negative often in these debates, I think the constitutive features of the debate game are substantially underutilized. Most critical affs do not have a defense of the debate game as such, or a theory of how the gamified elements of debate (win/loss, speaker points, etc.) match up/interface with their kritiks. Another way to put this is to ask: what does your aff gain/lose being placed in a competitive arena, where opponents must disprove it to win the favor of judges? Most K affs are a defense of a good idea, not a defense of a model of debate that puts that good idea in front of opponents and asks them to prove why its a bad idea. This is a huge problem that negative teams do not focus on.

I think if K affs counter-defined words in the resolution on T and defended the educational/ethical benefits of that model of debate most neg teams (given the way they currently debate framework) would be in a really, really, really, rough spot.

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

Being revised.

*Include me in the e-mail chain: dhruvsehgal@utexas.edu*

Hey, I'm Dhruv. I have been out of the activity for two years, and live very much outside the bubble of traditional academia. I run a global merchandising company and teach English in Asia (currently living and working out of China).

experience: 4 years debating at Binghamton (2012-2016), 2 years coaching at UT Austin (2016-2018), competed in the NDT 3x in college (2014, 2015, 2016). I graduated with a BA in English. I coached and debated mostly K arguments during my time in the activity, but I am open to policy-oriented arguments as well.

On Flowing:

- I will be flowing on paper since it helps me feel more actively involved in the debate and ensures I retain more information throughout the round.

- I promise you that you will have my full attention and engagement throughout the round. I will flow on paper during the speeches, write notes during CX and offer a detailed RFD after the round with my thoughts on how each team can improve.

Rules (updated for online debates):

- "I stopped prep at" versus "stop prep." I want to hear the latter, not the former. The former requires me to take your word about how much prep you used and I don't want to do that. This is especially true since I will be keeping track of prep time during the debate so I need to know when you stop prep (rule adopted from Matt Liu).

- Zero-tolerance policy when it comes to ad-hominem attacks or personal insults either at the opposing debaters or your partner. I will severely lower your speaker points and contact your coaches after the round if I hear this happening.

- Given this *new* online format, please slow down and pause between different arguments. I will tell you to slow down in the first few speeches if I can't understand you, but if speed continues to be an issue I will no longer remind you after the first few constructive speeches.

- I tend to be very verbally expressive during rounds, so be sure to look out for that throughout the round.

Preferences (updated for online debates):

- EFFICIENCY/EFFECTIVENESS: Being efficient and effective in your argumentation throughout the debate highlights to me a degree of professionalism and confidence in what you are saying and your understanding of the round. Focusing on clarity and the development of your arguments in the context of what the opposing team is saying (i.e clash) is something I care a lot about and increases the likelihood of both high speaker points and my vote. Be clear about your arguments from the outset, focus on being as efficient and effective with your flow (as possible) and we will all have a much better time in the debate.

- IMPACTS THAT MATTER: 'Why does what you are saying really matter?' is a question I will pose to myself throughout the debate (i.e what is the impact?). When you raise the stakes of the debate not only does it make you a better advocate for what you are discussing, it also helps me as a judge figure out what to prioritize when deciding my ballot. Doing this type of Impact Framing / Calculus really matters, especially in close debates.

- CASE DEBATE: This applies more if you are negative in front of me. Having a specific and well-thought-out debate about the contents of the Affirmative's case is always better and more persuasive than having a generic link story you could have read against any Affirmative on the topic.

If you have any questions either before or after the round, please e-mail me and I will get back to you in a timely manner. We are still learning the set of best practices during this time of transition to online debating, and as such I will update my paradigm as the year progresses based on new information. If you have any suggestions or would like to see anything else included in my paradigm, please do not hesitate to reach out.

Experience:
- 11 Years Policy Debate
- Weber State and University of West Georgia
- Coach at Juan Diego Catholic High

1. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence of interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.

2. I often vote for the team that can make complex arguments sound like common sense. Clarity of thought is paramount

3. If there is an “easy” way to vote, that's warranted, I’m likely to take it.

4. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.

5. The earlier in debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more likely I am to latch on to what is going on and make a decent decision.

6. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. 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 be ahead in my mind.

EMAIL lindseyshook@gmail.com

Currently - Director at the University of Oklahoma

Previously – Director at James Madison and Univ. of Central Florida

Way previously – graduate student coach at Univ. of Kansas

Long long ago – debated for the Univ. of Central Oklahoma

BIG PICTURE

My default way of viewing a debate is as follows – I am deciding between hypothetical worlds. In general debates are either about the world at outside of our activity (fiated plans, CPs, and critical advocacies that are about what society at large should do or think or change). Or debates are about debate as an activity (topicality, theory, critical advocacies that are about endorsing or rejecting particular kinds scholarship or argument or forms of presentation).

In either case I assume I am being asked what is the preferrable world? The world where the aff plan is enacted into law? The status quo? The world of debate where everyone meets your version of the topic? The world of debate where no one reads conditional advocacies? Etc.

Arguments that directly challenge this are things like reject the team for reasons of fairness or because they did something problematic. I have and am certainly willing to vote on those reasons but they need to be clear and specific to what has gone wrong in the debate you are in. Ideally not a generic set of reasons (at least by the last rebuttals).

I can certainly be persuaded to understand debate in a different way or to evaluate your arguments from a different perspective but just so you know that is where I start.

OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES

- - A drop matters if you make it matter and if it actually implicates the round

- - I am not offense defense oriented. You can win on defense alone particularly against poorly written advantages and disadvantages.

- - It is hard but not impossible to win you link you lose style debates. You are better off with some version of an alt or a more specific framing argument in front of me.

- - I flow on paper. I can generally keep up with speed but the less you sound like a person reading fast and the more you sound like a robot spitting out random words with no rhythm or cadence the harder it is for my brain to process what you are saying. So if you know you are in the wordwordwordwordwordword spreading habit either slow down a bit or work on getting some normal speech patterns into the reading.

- - I’m old so I try to line arguments up on my flow. This makes me annoyed with overviews and people who don’t do the line by line. I will still flow it but I will try to line things up until I can’t keep up with you and line things up. Then I will flow straight down but it makes my decision take longer at the end so be warned.

SPECIFICS

Case – more case debate is good. Always. In every kind of debate. The more specific and in depth the better. I think that is coldest take in debate at this point.

T – I mostly judge clash debates and I don’t hate judging them or T. If the aff can be used as offense against your topicality argument you would do well to have specific arguments to neutralize that (not all TVAs or do it on the neg etc. are good and having a bad one is a waste of time). You can win fairness comes first. Again it helps to have some specificity about why this round or affs like this one are so bad. I am not convinced affs have to have a counter interpretation to win. Impact turning the neg. interpretation can be enough.

Kritiks – framework against the K from the side of a traditional policy aff is generally meh. You get to weigh your impacts if you win that those mechanisms are good. Util? policy making? Extinction? If those are good things to value when I make a decision win that. Fairness is useless as a standard. They get a K. Stop it. See above for alts are preferable. Floating PICs are generally useless. Most K tricks are tricks for a reason they don’t work in the face of answers. I still have no idea what no perms in a method debate is supposed to mean.

CPs – I love theory and think it is absolutely crucial for most 2As (including critical affs) to help fend off counter advocacies and counter plans. CPs are probably the easiest way to neutralize the aff – I probably care more about how they solve than most judges so more time on solvency deficits in both directions is a good idea.

Disads – great arguments with often terrible evidence and spin. If your ev is bad debate well enough that I don’t have to read it. You are better being honest about your evidence and making up for it with spin and common sense than pretending your cards are amazing only for me to figure out that’s not true.

Hello - I debated for Emory for four years and just graduated.  I have some biases but will try to not let them affect me during the debate.  I also don't read speech docs during the round unless a certain card becomes a huge deal in c/x.  Below is my speaker point scale - I will try to reference this to avoid inconsistent point distribution throughout the year/at any given tournament.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of  basic communication. 

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently. 

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas. 

I think vagueness is going to be an interesting argument on this topic - I would encourage teams to specify as much as their solvency advocate does to encourage good debates and interesting neg strategies

Counterplans: I think CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive. I think process, consult, and agent counterplans are bad for debate/not competitive

Disadvantages: The link controls the direction of the disadvantage. If the disad turns and outweighs the case, but has no link, I won’t vote for it. Absolute defense is possible.  All of this equally applies for aff advantages

Critiques: Alts are important and not just a K prior question.  Negatives should explain what the alternative does and what it means to vote for the critique.  I can be persuaded to vote for any critique, as long as I understand it

I think that debate is a game that should revolve around a topical plan/action.  I am persuaded more by topicality arguments rather than framework arguments. Topicality is more along the lines of you have to defend the resolution/debating about the resolution is a good thing.  Fairness is an impact in and of itself-but the negative still has to explain why

Seven—Misc:

Presumption goes to less change, not necessarily the negative.

I am very willing to grant absolute defense, especially if I feel an argument is silly.

Smart analytics = good. You don’t need evidence to make an argument.

Evidence v. Debating—if an argument is conceded and explained (or if one team is out-debating another), I won’t look to evidence. If arguments are well contested (at the margins), evidence is very important to me. Better evidence > more evidence. Evidence > spin.

Talya Slaw
I debated for Wayne State for 5 years.
Now I coach for the University of Kansas.

***I have not been very involved in debate this year. Wayne State will be my first online tournament. So, err on the side of explaining more and speaking slower. Seriously, speak slower if you want me to know what you’ve said.***

TL;DR:
1. Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication.
2. A dropped argument is frequently a true argument. The only exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #3, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication.
3. Don't be rude.
4. Yes, I want to be on the email chain : talya.slaw@gmail.com

Specifics:
- I feel most comfortable in rounds where the aff defends a topical plantext instrumentally and the negative presents some sort of CP & DA/DA & case strategy.
- The best “K rounds,” however, are still those that play out like CP/DA rounds, with link and impact analysis specific to the affirmative.

Topicality (separate "F/W/Method" section below):
- The aff should be topical
- I am not a good judge for "should = past tense of shall," "reduce =/= eliminate" and other self-serving interpretations negatives read as a timesuck against obviously topical affs. That being said, I am willing to vote on T, given that an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are well articulated. Affirmatives should always make and extend a counter-interpretation.

Theory:
- The place I often eschew the Offense/Defense paradigm is in theory debates.
- I haven't formed a solid opinion on "judge kicking" CPs, but since the aff has the burden of proof in most theory debates, I think I am comfortable putting the burden on the aff to prove why the 2NR can't simultaneously go for a CP and the SQ.
- Affirmative permutations of the status quo are, by definition, an "intrinsicness-test" of a negative argument. Whether or not these are a good practice for cost-benefit calculation is up for debate, but asserting that the DA is intrinsic, when it clearly isn't, hardly counts as an argument.
- Conditionality is cool, but it gets less cool as the number of worlds presented and the wackiness of the general negative strategy increase. Dispo bad is a really tough sell.
- Perm theory = almost never a reason to reject the team. This is not definite, however. I can be persuaded that a certain perm or things like multiple perms are voting issues, I just don't find those arguments very persuasive. "Reject the argument not the team" seems quite persuasive here, but affs are probably better off not dropping these types of ags.
- Consult/Condition/Delay CPs – I think these CPs are absolutely devastating to aff ground unless the solvency evidence is case-specific. I won’t necessarily vote these CPs down on theory, but I am very receptive to the perm. Simply put, I think that the perm to do the counterplan is 100% legitimate and that severance based on time is silly.

Critiques:
- I feel most comfortable in K rounds that involve a lot of interaction with the aff's specific plan and advantages. In other words, you're better off with a topic specific K, or something like Capitalism or Security with topic specific links rather than recycled Heidegger, Baudrillard, Nietzsche, Deleuze, etc. There should be a coherent link, impact, and alternative.
- Don't assume I know what you're talking about.
- Affs are best answering the K at the alt and impact level as the neg will almost certainly win a link. Articulating why the alt doesn't solve the case and why the case outweighs the K impacts is usually the best strategy.

Framework / Method:
- Generally speaking, I think the aff should have to be, at the very least, explicitly about the topic. If you don't think the resolution is relevant to what aff you read, then don't pref me.
- Frequently, I resort to weighing framework and the aff as opportunity costs to each other. The team that controls the UQ level for "topic engagement now solves // doesn't solve" often times is ahead.

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

My General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is what you make it. I have an extensive history in circuit policy/ld and college policy debate. I care about education more than fairness, good cards over the quantity of positions, and quality arguments over the number of arguments in a debate.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact in a single speech.

The role of the affirmative is to affirm and the role of the negative is to negate the affirmative in an intellectually rigorous manner. However, I would personally like to hear the affirmative say we should do something. I would prefer to hear about an actor outside of the folks reading the 1AC (Nonprofits, governments, the debate community as a whole, etc) do something but that is not a requirement. Most of it sounds good to me.

Please don’t say racist, sexist, ableist things or things that otherwise participate in -isms . Sometimes these are learning moments. Sometimes these are losing moments.

If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate. I would like to evaluate the debate with this information ahead of time. More personal issues/things that someone did last year are difficult for me to understand as relevant to my ballot.

I decide debates by figuring out 1. framing issue 2. offense 3. good defense 4. if the evidence is as good as you say it is 5. deciding which world /side would result in a better outcome (whatever that means for the debate in front of me)

These thoughts are fairly general yet firmly how I think about debate.

My RFDs have been less "little c, little d mattered to my ballot" and "let's talk about the conceptual, big-picture things that both sides missed that will help you win the next debate". If you want the small line-by-line issues to matter as much you have to give them weight in your final speech. That requires time, investment in explanation, and comparative claims.

LD***

Tricks, silly arguments, etc. Please skip. I haven't read your ethics phil but I've voted on it when it makes sense. 4+ off is grounds for a condo debate. K links require longer than 15 seconds to explain.

Public Forum****

If you already know what evidence you are going to read in the debate/speech you have to send a document via email chain or provide the evidence on a google document that is shared with your opponents before the debate. Those cards have to be provided before the speech begins.

You don’t get unlimited prep time to ask for cards before prep time is used. A PF debate can’t take as long as a policy debate. You have 30 seconds to request and there are then 30 seconds to provide the evidence. If you can’t provide it within 30 seconds your prep will run until you do.

The Final Focus should actually be focused. You have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate. You can’t do that if you go for 3 or 4 different arguments.

1. You have to have truth

Updated November 2022

Dan Stanfield

2 Years at Los Rios Community College

1 Year at CSU Fullerton

1 Year at UNLV

2 Years Coaching at UWG

2 years @ Baylor

Iowa 2019 - 2020

IC 2022

Coached for CKM on TI topic

Coached for Juan Diego on Surveillance

Coach for SLC West Education

Coached for CKM Immigration - CJR

Coached for Nevada Union Immigration - CJR

Add me to your email chain stanfield.dan@gmail.com

Michigan 2023 Update:

Pronouns: they/them

Please don't over adjust your content to me, I am a lover of debate in all its forms. Make the arguments you want to make and I'll evaluate the debate.

I have had very few rounds on this topic so if there is any topic specific jargon err toward a higher degree of explanation.

October 2022 Update:

Taylor Swift lyrics cleverly incorporated will result in a speaker point boost. Jokes in poor taste will result in a speaker point drop. Buyer beware.

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

I will attempt to limit the amount my predispositions will influence how I evaluate a debate round. Don't feel as if you need to change your strategy to debate in front of me, do what you do best, because the alternative is usually subpar debate. The final two rebuttals should write my ballot for me, teams that accurately break the round down and are reasonable about what they are and are not winning will usually be rewarded with increased speaker points.I enjoy a high level of specificity and nuance broad sweeping claims will get you nowhere. I place importance on how pieces of evidence get debated, as opposed to simply constructing debates based on the pieces of evidence that have been introduced. While I also place a premium on quality evidence (which, I would like to be able to hear during your speech), I believe that a smart analytic argument has the potential to gain equal traction to a solid piece of evidence. Quality always trumps quantity.

I find cross ex to be the most important part of debate its one of the few times I feel I get to connect with the individual debaters, while I don't flow it I pay very close attention to it, and what happens here will inform how I see large portions of the round.

Theory:
Theory needs to be well executed. Debates in which theory blocks do the arguing almost always favor the neg.

I don’t like cheap shots.(This does not mean I won't vote on them, I'll just be cranky about it) I like arguments to be well developed. Most cheap shots are not reasons to reject the team and significant time would need to be spent in order to convince me otherwise. However, it is your burden to point out how irrelevant many theory arguments that are advanced in debates are, as a concession may force my hand.

Nearly all theory questions I end up siding in favor of the negative, I think conditionality is fine, any potentially abusive CP is checked by quality of evidence. 50 States Fiat is one arg where an affirmative could convince me this is a reason to reject the team it is likely to still be an uphill battle.

Judge Kick: I think this deserves its own section, when the 2nr goes for a CP I believe the debate is solely a question of plan versus the CP. While a 2nr can instruct me to to kick the cp for them if the 2r wins offense against the counterplan an affirmative can respond that I shouldn't kick the counterplan for the negative and I am likely to side with the affirmative. If the 2nr contains a counterplan I have a very strong predisposition that if the affirmative wins substantive solvency deficits to the counterplan or other offense against it that outweighs the net benefit than I should be voting aff. And that I then shouldn't decide to then evaluate the status quo (i..e the net-benefit) vs. the plan.


T:
Separate from the framework section, I really enjoy evidentiary T debates that aren't clash of civ debates. I find these are some of the most nuanced debates about what the resolution means which is always compelling to me. I evaluate topicality like a DA offense v defense. For affirmatives here do not place all your eggs in the basket of reasonability, I think only reasonability is only a question of the interpretation and not the aff or plan itself. Any other interpretation of reasonability I don't think constitutes an actual argument.

FW

First contrary to popular belief I do not hack for framework, however this year I have noticed myself voting for framework more often than I don't vote for framework. For me there are a few ways the framework debates break down in terms of impact, primarily between procedural and education based impacts. By procedural I mean those impact arguments that result from things such as limits, or grounds internal links to impacts like clash, fairness, debatability. The second form of framework are those arguments about decision making skills, topic education, deliberative democracy.

If you are negative reading framework I cannot stress how much I would rather see the version of framework that couches its arguments in terms of the procedural side, ie. limits , ground, etc. I believe this is the most strategic form of the argument. I believe debate is a game and impacts that make the game unable to be played by one side or the other constitute a reason to vote negative. Explanations of the impact that have been compelling to me is that I strongly believe there should be a negative path to victory, a negative that couches their impacts like this will have greatly increased my likelihood to vote for framework. For affirmatives debating this style of framework if you win a counter interpretation that provides a limit on the topic and can explain why that limit on the topic mitigates some portion of the negative offense regards to limits or debateability, then that is the best route for getting me to vote affirmative. I will also say YOU NEED OFFENSE, playing the middle ground will not get my ballot I need impact turns big disads to their interpretation of the topic with well explained impacts. If affirmative I do not need 5-10 barely explained disads to FWI need 1-4 well explained and warranted DA's to the negative interpretation.

Conversely it is much harder to win my ballot exclusively going for arguments about topic education, decision making skills, or deliberative democracy. I believe any affirmative that is even close to knowing what they are doing will be able to easily impact turn these arguments. This isn't to say you shouldn't read these arguments at all they can be excellent external impacts to your interpretation, but instead you should use these arguments as a supplement to the more game-playing/ procedural versions of the argument.

For negatives who have framework as their go to strat THE CASE STILL MATTERS , the reason for this is the case determines the weight I give to affirmative impact turns / disadvantages to framework. If the affirmative solves 100% of their aff then I gave 100% of the weight of their impact turns to framework, conversely if the aff solves maybe 1% of their aff then the strength of the disadvantages or impact turns will be drastically reduced.

Topical version of the aff: You don't have to have one to win but it can help. They also don't have to solve the entire aff instead they are a test to show that the content of the aff is not precluded by the resolutional prompt. For affirmatives the topical version of the aff doesn't solve our aff not very persuasive to me. However, an argument that the topical version of the aff is not in fact topical under the negative's interpretation of the topic is persuasive. Similarly an argument that the topical version of the aff in fact does not allow for the content of the aff to exist. Form based arguments from affirmatives are also compelling to me in response to topical versions of the aff, how the content may exist but the form of it would not be, can be an extremely persuasive argument against both the topical version, as well as also acting as offense against the negatives interpretation.

Beyond counter interpretations it can be incredibly helpful for an affirmative to have a counter model of what debate looks like, which can act as a filter for a variety of the negatives arguments as well as acting as a type of uniqueness for your own impact turns to a negatives interpretation of the topic.

Something I've told to a few debaters this year may help further contextualize what I've said here -- "If both affirmative and neg execute absolutely perfectly I probably lean slightly negative" -- however it should be noted that I have never seen this perfect execution take place.

The K:
I will do my best to limit my predispositions from giving explanation or advancing arguments for the other team. Specificity and spin are important for both sides of the debate. I don’t like generic explanations of meta theory with no tie to the affirmative. Similarly, I don’t like generic responses to critical theory outside of the context of the aff. Generic evidence does not force generic explanation.

Disability k's -- Due to how I spent my last two years in debate , this is obviously a body of literature that I am extremely familiar with however if you are not familiar with it trying to pick it up just because I am in the back of the room is a terrible decision, and one you will almost certainly regret. Secondarily I thought I should include my thoughts on the various ableist language arguments. Essentially most of the time I believe these arguments in and of themselves don't constitute a great argument unless its an especially violent piece of language this doesn't mean what you say doesn't matter what it does mean is that the negative needs to explain to me why the language warrants a negative ballot and not just punitive measures like maybe lower speaker points or not evaluating certain pieces of evidence. I'm happy to explain this further if there are questions.

Recent years I have found I have a tendency to enjoy arguments described as "high-theory" IF THEY ARE EXECUTED WELL. I have coached teams to read all variety or arguments from the cap k to baudrillard, so if the death K is your jam then you should go for it. A lot of my current academic work revolves around disability and psychoanalysis so take that as you will.

If you ask anyone at Baylor they will tell you (and are correct) in that I really enjoy hearing arguments about psychoanalysis I find this to be an incredibly interesting area of argumentation and always enjoy when the affirmative or negative has to do with these questions of psychoanalysis.

CPs/Das:
I love a good, well-researched, specific strategy. The more generic your strategy becomes, the greater the chance of me assigning an extremely low risk to these arguments. Sometimes there is simply no link. Absolute defense does exist.

The last thing I will say is that debates that I have fun in will be rewarded by higher speaker points. I have fun when I see well thought out and deployed strategy.. Make me laugh and you will be rewarded. Be nice.

Also, I adore good puns (well maybe bad ones even more) make some clever puns in your speeches and you will be rewarded with speaker points.

Change in 2014

excessive / intentional use of racial slurs, jokes in bad tase, misgendering, ableist slurs will result in much lower speaker points. Note: an ableist slur is the R word , or derogatorily referring to someone as a cripple. It is not saying the word stand in your plan text/advocacy statement.

Hello, and welcome to LaTonya Starks’ judging philosophy for the 2022-23 debate season! Please note that I have NOT JUDGED A DEBATE IN TWO YEARS, so if you're thinking of yelling at me about a decision, don't. You've been warned.

I hope that this document will provide you with sufficient answers to your questions on how I view the activity and the game that is debate, as well as how I tend to judge certain arguments. If this document does not answer your questions, or perhaps leaves you with more questions than you began with, please ask me in-person or contact me via email.

My email address is: latonyastarks@gmail.com

----

For those of you who are in a hurry, here's a quick rundown of what I have written below:

• I approach debate with n open mind. I believe that I can fairly adjudicate any kind of debate, be it policy/plan-focused or critically-oriented.
• My approach to judging debates, on every level, greatly revolves around the art of communication and the idea that in order to win a debate, you must be the team who most effectively and efficiently communicates why your your arguments should be given credence before and/or valued above your opponent’s arguments.
• I love Topicality and/or Framework debates! It is one of my favorite arguments to parse through. I will say that my love of T does not mean that I will vote for it automatically, without a clear delineation of how the Aff is not topical, using evidence and detailed arguments about negative ground, the ability or inability to have meaningful clash, limits, predictability, fairness and, especially, the argument’s impact on debate, both as an activity and in that particular round.
• I am pretty liberal about counterplans. I believe that counterplan competition is incredibly important. Also, I do believe that counterplan competition can be gleaned from cross-examination.
• I prefer critical arguments to be well-defined from the beginning. The more grounded, specific, discerning, conscious and, most importantly, responsive to either the 1AC, the 1NC or the debate community and/or topic at issue this year.
• Please tell me what it means for me to vote for you, and whether that has implications in the debate round, or has larger implications on debate as a whole.

----

Now, let me begin by saying that I had one of those, “Wow, I am old,” moments when I was asked to produce a judging philosophy for the first tournament of the year, and I began by conducting a bit of research. I found my judging philosophy from many years ago. For a little context, that document was written when I had just graduated from college and was coaching college debate for the first time. I read it and I thought, “What the hell are you talking about?!” It just boggles the mind how little experience I had back then. I wrote all of that prologue to say that opinions change, people learn, and hopefully grow, and all of those experiences not only shape a person, but they influence how that person thinks and approaches debate.

I now approach debate with a far-more-open mind. I believe that I can fairly adjudicate any kind of debate, be it policy/plan-focused and or critically-oriented. In the end, I believe that I can judge pretty much any type of argument because I firmly believe that there is a reason why ballots changed their rhetoric to include the words, “The better debating was done by…” My approach to judging debates, on every level, greatly revolves around the art of communication and the idea that in order to win a debate, you must be the team who most effectively and efficiently communicates why your your arguments should be given credence before and/or valued above your opponent’s arguments. Honestly, whether your style of debate is centered around making policy arguments or you want to critique the topic and/or the ideas and institutions behind and within debate, the most important thing is that you be clear and consider, and that you communicate effectively.

My more open approach does not mean that I have changed my mind on how I evaluate all arguments. I am very much still all about the evidence. Debates about evidence are great, and when done properly, can be met with a reward in the form of speaker points. Please take the time to compare your evidence to that of your competitor. In doing so, be sure to compare warrants, qualifications, the source of the research and whether or not a sentence or whole article has been taken out of context. I also care greatly about the quality of your evidence. I am more likely to give a team a bit more leeway if their arguments are supported by superior evidence.

Here is a bit of information about how I view particular strategies and arguments in debate rounds…

Topicality/Framework

I love Topicality and/or Framework debates! It is one of my favorite arguments to parse through. I will say that my love of T does not mean that I will vote for it automatically, without a clear delineation of how the Aff is not topical, using evidence and detailed arguments about negative ground, the ability or inability to have meaningful clash, limits, predictability, fairness and, especially, the argument’s impact on debate, both as an activity and in that particular round. So I will rephrase -- I love good Topicality debates. To me, Topicality is like a disadvantage. You need to control the link debate and make it clear that your interpretation has an impact in the round and on debate as a whole, and/or debate as a game and an activity.

Counterplans

I am pretty liberal about counterplans. I believe that counterplan competition is incredibly important. Also, I do believe that counterplan competition can be gleaned from cross-examination. I am fine with plan-inclusive counterplans, process counterplans, agent counterplans, etc. I will assess affirmative arguments which articulate the need for limits to what the negative can do in terms of fiat or agents. Please make your counterplan theory, or any theory really, more that just quick bullet points. While most theory debates often end in a wash for both sides, it seems that would not be the case if theory arguments were well-developed from the original block, and given impacts that would influence the debate round and/or debate community.

Critical Arguments

Please do not assume that I am so familiar with your critical arguments that you can gloss over the importance of the link, or simply refer to your arguments by the last name of the Author. Like anything else in debate, I prefer critical arguments to be well-defined from the beginning. The more grounded, specific, discerning, conscious and, most importantly, responsive to either the 1AC, the 1NC or the debate community and/or topic at issue this year. Please tell me what it means for me to vote for you, and whether that has implications in the debate round, or has larger implications on debate as a whole.

Now here is where my outlook has not completely changed from so long ago. I still believe that the framework of critical arguments is very important. Teams, at a minimum, should be able to defend why I should or should not view the debate through a particular lens. Simply put: prove why the debate you’d like to have is more beneficial than the debate the other team wants to have. For the neg, framework shouldn’t just be a discussion of why a certain kind of debate is bad but should have a specific application to the assumptions or implications of the harms of the 1AC. I also think that affirmative teams should get to weigh their impacts against the K, unless the negative can prove why this should not be true. Once again, a discussion of the links to your argument is vital. This should include more than a generic claim that, for example, capitalism is bad. I think it is persuasive when a team can point to specific instances from the the other team’s rhetoric, evidence, or plan action to prove a link. Also, I think all kritiks should have a clearly defined alternative with a text that will not change throughout the debate. Most affirmative teams seem to have a difficult time proving that they don’t link to a K at all. As such, a solid framework defense, the use of a permutation, and discussion of the impacts of the affirmative plan, or a just a straight up impact turn of the K, seem to be most convincing strategies.

Disadvantage/Case Debates

I love them. I’d like to see a lot more of them. On the negative, make sure to properly explain each component of your disad and how it interacts with the case.

To Do and Not To Do

Do...

• Be on time and be prepared. That means that you should have things like pens, paper, timers, etc. at the ready.
• Be aggressive without being obnoxious.
• Be respectful of your opponents.
• Be respectful of the space in which you get to debate. This means that you should try your best to be neat and organized, and that you should clean up after yourself.
• Make comparative evidence arguments.
• Use cross-ex wisely and as a means to setup your strategy or to poke holes in your opponent's evidence or arguments.
• Have fun! If you love what you do, it shows!

Don't...

• Clip cards and/or read evidence which was cut out of context. At best, it will hurt your speaker points; at worst, it could cause you to lose the debate.
• Be rude to your opponents.
• Steal prep time and/or take forever to get your paperless house in order.

Update (2/12/2019): I am in the novice/JV judging pool for the upcoming D6/SECEDA tournament. Except for the Miami Dade Urban Debate League, I have not judged a policy debate this year, and only a handful last year, so please take it easy on me! Be slow, clear and organized. The rest of this judging statement reflects my thoughts when I was judging policy tournaments regularly and is fairly accurate.

I will vote for the team that in my opinion wins the debate, even if inconsistent with my predispositions. But if you adapt your arguments and presentation to me, you have a much better chance of winning. Keep in mind that I do not hear many policy debates and I am not researching the topic as you are. I still enjoy debate, and I believe in it. There are as many ways to do debate as their are debaters, and I appreciate creativity.

I believe that the focus of the debate is the proposition. And if (as with the current CEDA Resolution) that is a policy proposition, it is impingent upon the affirmative to offer and defend a topical plan. Affirmative advantages and negative arguments should have unique links to the affirmative plan, and policy comparison is my default decision framework. I also believe in the burden of rejoinder, the expectation that you offer on-point answers to your opponent’s arguments, and so, the flow matters. But, my flow is not great, especially in a very fast debate, so you should work to keep a clear and clean flow with references to the specific arguments to which you are responding and which you are extending. Computer debating has diminished the direct clash in debate. Debate is defined by clash. You should reference and respond to each other's arguments and track the linear progression of arguments as they evolve horizontally across my flow. Debate requires reading (of evidence), but reading is not debating. I believe that debate is an oral communication activity requiring some reading, but at its best, also offering spontaneity, wit, and creativity.

I believe that debaters should adapt to their audience (i.e., the judge, ME), NOT the other way around. So I am pleased to offer my thoughts about debate in hopes that you will respect them. And feel free to ask me for more detail. Also, I will at times offer some nonverbal feedback during the debate. Pay attention.

Moral, ethical and critical considerations are not only relevant in debate; they are essential components of policy analysis. But the link to the proposition and the plan advocacy do matter to me. I focus on the topic or the topical plan. So negatives, run counterplans, disads, case turns, solvency arguments, and relevant Kritics that link. Run topicality not as a technical violation based on the game, but as a genuine difference in interpretation or definition based in the world. Don’t assume that I know what you know. Please start with clear explanations and definitions. It is your job to identify points of clash or decision criteria for me.

I have no problem admitting that I didn't get it or understand it if I didn’t. It is your responsibility to help me understand the evidence and position during the debate, not after.

I enjoy style and creativity in debate and I support the effort to expand what is considered acceptable proof. But your time is better spent making arguments than playing music during the round, and profanity does not belong in debate. I appreciate style, humor and wit in debate. On the other hand, I am somewhat uncomfortable with excessive self-disclosure and emotion in debate (and, probably, in most contexts outside debate as well).

For years, I have identified myself in the role of debate judge as an educator and evaluator of argument. I am not a referee. Debate is a subjective activity and there is generally not an absolute winner. Rather, it is my job to express my inherently biased perception of which side did the better job of defending or opposing the proposition based on the content of their arguments. I try to minimize my intervention, but to suggest that I can operate outside of my own perceptual screens and personal history is unrealistic.

I look forward to hearing debates, and I enjoy and believe in the process. I hope I will be able to promote a learning environment and a comfortable experience.

Please enjoy the experience and don’t take it too seriously! It is a game in which we are priviledged to participate. It should be enjoyable. And treat your opponents and me with respect and courtesy.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins 
their arguments in the debate. 
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me 
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better 
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something 
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that 
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win. 
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is 
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see 
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the 
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate 
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance. 
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these 
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the 
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your 
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of 
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round 
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is 
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a 
must. 
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only 
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend 
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This 
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the 
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically 
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above). 
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly 
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need 
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one. 
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly 
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate 
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence 
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate. 

E-Mail: cstewart[at]gallowayschool[dot]org

Disclaimer #1:I am a mandatory reporter under Georgia law. If you disclose a real-world risk to your safety, or if I believe there is an imminent threat to your well-being, I will stop the debate and contact the Tabroom. Arguments that talk generally about how to engage systems of power in the debate space are more than okay and do not violate this.

Disclaimer #2: I am partially deaf in my left ear. While this has zero impact on my ability to flow in 99.9% of debates, exceptionally bad acoustics may force me to be closer than usual during speeches.

Speaker Points Update (November 2023):Moving forward, I will be following Regnier's speaker points distribution (see below). This should align my points with national trends and ensure I am not unfairly penalizing (or rewarding) debaters I am judging.

--- Fabulous (29.7 - 29.9) / Excellent (29.4-29.6)

--- Good (29.1 - 29.3) / Average (28.7 - 29)

--- Below Average (28.4 - 28.6) / Poor (28 - 28.3) / Very Poor (27.6 - 27.9)

Experience

Debate Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 3 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate: 4 Years of College Policy Debate (Georgia State University)

-- 2015 NDT Qualifier

-- Coached By: Joe Bellon, Nick Sciullo, Erik Mathis

-- Argument Style: Kritik (Freshman / Sophomore Year) & Policy (Junior / Senior Year)

-- Caselist Link (I Was A 2N My Senior Year): https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda14/GeorgiaState/StNa/Neg

Coaching Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 4 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate

-- University of Georgia - Graduate Assistant (3 Years)

-- Atlanta Urban Debate League (3 Years)

-- The Galloway School - Head Coach (3 Years)

Preferences - General

Overview:

Debate is a game; my strongest belief is that debaters should be able to play the game however they want to play it. I remain committed to Tabula Rasa judging, and have yet to see an argument (claim/ warrant) I would not pull the trigger on. The only exception to this is if I could not coherently explain to the other team the warrant for the argument I'm voting on. Unless told otherwise, I will flow the debate, and vote, based on the line-by-line, for whomever I thought won the debate.

What follows are my general thoughts about arguments, because for some reason that's what counts as a "judging paradigm" these days. Everything that follows WILL be overridden by arguments made in the debate.

Evidence:

Evidence is important, but not more than the in-round debating. Substantial deference will be given to in-debate spin. Bad evidence with spin will generally be given more weight than good evidence without.

Theory:

No strong predispositions. Run theory if that's your thing, there's actual abuse, or it's the most strategic way out of the round. I have no default conception of how theory functions; it could be an issue of competing interpretations, an issue of reasonability, an RVI, or a tool of the patriarchy. Given my LD background, I likely have a much lower threshold for pulling the trigger than other judges. Defaults such as X is never a reason to reject the team, RVIs bad, and a general disregard of Spec arguments aren't hardwired into me like the majority of the judging pool.

If you're going for theory, easiest thing you can do to win my ballot is to slow down and give an overview that sets up a clear way for me to evaluate the line-by-line.

Counterplans:

Read 'em. While I'm personally a big fan of process CPs/ PICs, I generally default to letting the literature determine CP competition/ legitimacy. If you have a kickass solvency advocate, then I will probably lean your way on most theoretical issues. On the other hand, as a former 2A, I sympathize with 2AC theory against CPs against which it is almost impossible to generate solvency deficits. 2ACs should not be afraid to bow up on CP theory in the 1AR.

DAs:

Specific DAs/ links trump generic DAs/ links absent substantial Negative spin. Love DAs with odd impact scenarios/ nuanced link stories.

Politics:

I functionally never read this as a debater, but my time coaching at UGA has brought me up to speed. Slow down/ clearly flag key points/ evidence distinctions in the 2NR/ 2AR.

Topicality:

Read it. Strategic tool that most 2Ns underutilize. Rarely hear a nuanced argument for reasonability; the T violation seems to prove the 1AC is unreasonable...

Kritiks:

I do not personally agree with the majority of Kritiks. However, after years of graduate school and debate, I've read large amount of Kritikal literature, and, if you run the K well, I'm a good judge for you. Increasingly irritated with 2ACs that fail to engage the nuance of the K they're answering (Cede the Political/ Perm: Double-Bind isn't enough to get you through a competently extended K debate). Similarly irritated with 2NCs that debate the K like a politics DA. Finally, 2ACs are too afraid to bow up on the K, especially with Impact Turns. I often end up voting Negative on the Kritik because the 2AC got sucked down the rabbit hole and didn't remind there was real-world outside of the philosophical interpretation offered by the K.

Framework (2AC):

I am generally unpersuaded by theoretical offense in a Policy AFF v. Kritik debate. You're better off reading this as policymaking good/ pragmatism offense to defend the method of the AFF versus the alternative. Generally skeptical of 2ACs that claim the K isn't within my jurisdiction/ is super unfair.

Framework (2NC):

Often end up voting Negative because the Affirmative strategically mishandles the FW of the K. Generally skeptical of K FW's that make the plan/ the real-world disappear entirely.

Preferences - "Clash" Debates

Clash of Civilization Debates:

Enjoy these debates; I judge alot of them. The worst thing you can do is overadapt. DEBATE HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEBATE. My favorite debate that I ever watched was UMW versus Oklahoma, where UMW read a giant Hegemony advantage versus Oklahoma's 1-off Wilderson. I've been on both sides of the clash debate, and I respect both sides. I will just as easily vote on Framework as use my ballot to resist anti-blackness in debate.

Traditional ("Policy" Teams):

DO YOU. Traditional teams should not be afraid to double-down against K 1ACs,/ Big K 1NCs either via Framework or Impact Turns.

Framework (As "T"):

Never read this as a debater, but I've become more sympathetic to arguments about how the the resolution as a starting point is an important procedural constraint that can capture some of the pedagogical value of a Kritikal discussion. As a former 2N, I am sympathetic to limits arguments given the seemingly endless proliferation of K 1ACs with a dubious relationship to the topic. Explain how your interpretation is an opportunity cost of the 1ACs approach, and how you solve the 2ACs substantive offense (i.e. critical pedagogy/ our performance is important, etc.).

Non-Traditional ("Performance"/ "K" Teams):

As someone who spent a semester reading a narrative project about welcoming veterans into debate, I'm familiar with the way these arguments function, and I feel that they're an integral part of the game we call debate. However, that does not mean I will vote for you because you critiqued X-ism; what is your method, and how does it resolve the harms you have isolated? I am greatly frustrated by Kritik Teams that rely on obfuscation as a strategic tool---- even the Situationist International cared deeply about the political implications of their project.

AT: Framework

The closer you are to the topic/ the clearer your Affirmative is in what it defends, the more I'm down with the Affirmative. While I generally think that alternative approaches to debate are important discussions to be had, if I can listen to the 1AC and have no idea what the Affirmative does, what it defends, or why it's a response to the Topic beyond nebulous claims of resisting X-ism, then you're in a bad spot. Explain how your Counter-Interp solves their theoretical offense, or why your permutation doesn't link to their limits/ ground standards.

Fairness/ Education:

Are important. I am generally confused by teams that claim to impact turn fairness/ education. Your arguments are better articulated as INL-turns (i.e. X-ism/ debate practice is structurally unfair). Debate at some level is a game, and you should explain how your version of the game allows for good discussion/ an equal playing field for all.

Misc. - Ethics Violations

Ethics Violations:

After being forced to decide an elimination debate on a card-clipping accusation during the 2015 Barkley Forum (Emory), I felt it necessary to establish clarity/ forewarning for how I will proceed if this unfortunate circumstance happens again. While I would obviously prefer to decide the debate on actual substantive questions, this is the one issue where I will intervene. In the event of an ethics accusation, I will do the following:

1) Stop the debate. I will give the accusing team a chance to withdraw the accusation or proceed. If the accusation stands, I will decide the debate on the validity of the accusation.

2) Consult the Tabroom to determine any specific tournament policies/ procedures that apply to the situation and need to be followed.

3) Review available evidence to decide whether or not an ethics violation has taken place. In the event of a clipping accusation, a recording or video of the debate would be exceptionally helpful. I am a personal believer in a person being innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's definitive evidence proving otherwise, I will presume in favor of the accused debater.

4) Drop the Debater. If an ethics violation has taken place, I will drop the offending team, and award zero speaker points. If an ethics violation has not occurred, I will drop the team that originally made the accusation. The purpose of this is to prevent frivolous/ strategic accusations, given the very real-world, long-lasting impact such an accusation has on the team being accused.

5) Ethics Violations (Update): Credible, actual threats of violence against the actual people in the actual debate are unacceptable, as are acts of violence against others. I will drop you with zero speaker points if either of those occur. Litmus Test: There's a difference between wipeout/ global suicide alternatives (i.e. post-fiat arguments) and actually punching a debater in the face (i.e. real-world violence).

I'm a crazy, old man.  You are strongly advised to strike me.  If that didn't convince you, I hope the following will.

While I'm pretty much willing to listen to anything, the following are my biases.  As much as I try to set aside my preferences, I'm sure they influence my understanding what teams say, what the warrants are, and ultimately my assessment of issues.

I firmly believe that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan.  I think this is the only viable way for the negative to have a chance to prepare well. If defended well, there is some chance of my voting for an aff without a plan, and the odds are a little better if the affirmative at least talks about issues related to the topic.

On topicality, I prefer a standard slightly different from reasonability and competing interpretations.  I think it should be negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better.  The best way to prove an interpretation bad for debate is limits – that the interpretation is so broad than the negative could never be thoroughly prepared to debate every possible case.

I do not think debate is role playing of federal actors.  You're you and I'm me, and there is a debate about what we think the federal government should do.  Fiat obviously doesn't assume anything really happens.  Fiat is just ignoring the question of "will" and debating "should" in order to focus the debate on the merits of the idea/ policy.

I tend to be fairly liberal on counterplans, with competition being about the only requirement.  PICs, agents, etc are fine.  There does needs to be some limit on negative fiat for agents, but that can be debated out.  Presumptively governmental actions are OK, and private actors are not.

K's and K affs with plans are fine with me.  I am not that familiar with much of the literature.  So, you should explain things thoroughly.  Ultimately, these debates become matters of what makes sense to me.

Spin, explanation, and telling a good story are crucial to winning my ballot.  Even more important is resolving arguments, and I am increasingly frustrated by debaters in rebuttals emphasizing their own arguments and never referencing opposing responses.  2NRs and 2ARs with lots of "they say…, but" references are more likely to win my ballot.

Please be clear.  Start speeches at less than full speed.  Pause a little before and slow down some on the argument tags.  I hate it when I cannot tell that a card has ended and a new argument is being made.  Please do not get quiet when reading cards.  I know this is hard for you to believe, but if you stop to breathe at punctuation marks, you will be faster and clearer than the awful double gasping that so many of you do.

Plans and aff "clarification"

I have seen an increase trend towards aff teams reading normative "solvency advocacy" evidence that they would *like* to be descriptive of the plan, that includes a variety of clarifications and specifications *not* in the plan text. Plans are determined by *the plan*, not by aspirational solvency evidence that includes things not in the plan. The aff does get to clarify. There is a mechanism for that. It's the plan. If the aff chooses not to clarify something in the plan, then it is determined by 1) binding cx clarification in situations where the neg does not contest that clarification and 2) normal means as determined by logical argument and descriptive evidence if the neg does choose to contest. normative solvency evidence is not a description of normal means. the decision not to clarify something in the plan is a CHOICE - as with all choices, it comes with strategic upside AND strategic baggage. if something is important for aff solvency, but not in the plan, you are running a grave risk of not being able to access it.

Risk

I think too many judges address issues as absolute “yes/no” questions. I am much more likely to think of things in terms of relative risks. That said, relative risks can be EXTREMELY small.

Counterplans

If debated equally, I am prone to thinking that counterplans which are desirable because they result in the affirmative, are, generally speaking, not competitive and make for worse debates. At a fundamental level, I don’t believe they express disagreement with the affirmative plan, which I sort of think is the whole point of debate. That said, I’ve written many of these counterplans, and voted on many of these counterplans.

I lean heavily neg on all other counterplan theory questions.

If both teams are silent on the question, my presumption will be that counterplans identified as “conditional” mean that status quo is always an option for the judge to consider, even if the counterplan is extended by the 2nr. This presumption can easily be changed if debated by either side.

Kritiks

If you are going for a kritik in front of me, the place its most likely to fall apart for me is the alt. You would be well advised to explain what your alternative does and how it is able to meaningfully accomplish its own objectives. If someone is going for a kritik against you, the easiest way to lose me is to drop a “checklist” impact calc claim: “turns case, solves case, X first, extinction inevitable, etc”

Topicality

I generally view this as question of competing interpretations. I’ve become worse over the years for “silly” topicality arguments. I’m generally easily persuaded that precision is the most important standard. For instance, if the military has a precise and official definition of “presence” it would be difficult to persuade me to disregard that for the sake of limits.

As it may come up, you deserve to know I’m probably a better judge than most for “T-significantly”. Obviously I’m not saying it’s an auto-win, but against some tiny new aff, its definitely a credible option for the neg.....my brain will judge fairly, but my heart can't get over its first love (the negative).

Planless affs

I will do my best to fairly adjudicate any argument made in front of me. No argument is ever procedurally disqualified in advance. I will judge only based on arguments made in the round, rather than arguments I may believe to be “true” that are not well defended within the debate. That said, debate is a persuasion activity, and when arguments are advanced well by both sides, you should know that my proclivities are that debate is better when the affirmative defends topical action. Again, its not impossible, and I will, as always, attempt to judge fairly based on arguments made in the round, but you deserve to know my preferences…..I don’t think they are a secret.

If you are advancing this strategy in front of me, I will say that I think teams sometimes try to “adopt” by attempting to win the “race to the middle”. In my experience this tends to help negs win that “topical version solves aff offense” more than it helps the aff win "link defense" to things like limits and fairness. My advice to you is that you are actually probably better off sticking with a more hardline position that simply impact turns topicality rather than spending time trying to minimize the “link” to the aff standards.

Updated 1/28/2024

Quick Q&A:

1. Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

2. No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email. Even if it’s just one card

3. Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I went for framework and read a plan, so I'm definitely more versed in that side of the debate, but I'm frequently in support of identity-based challenges to framework. I went for framework because it was the best thing I knew how to go for, not because it was objectively the best

4. No, you should not try to read Baudrillard or other post-modern theories against me. (Yes. Against me.) This is not a challenge. It's not a threat, it's a warning, be careful with me. I am admitting insurmountable bias.

5. Yes, you should (please) slow down while debating if you are online. There are glitches in streaming and it’s hard enough to understand you. For a while, I tried following along with the docs when I missed something, but we all know that just leads to more errors. This is your warning: if you are not clear enough to flow I will not try to flow it. I will give two warnings to be clear (and one after your speech in case you didn’t hear me). If you choose to keep doing you, don’t expect to win or for me to know what you said. On the flip side, if you are actively slowing down to make the debate comprehensible, you will be rewarded with a speaker point bump.

6. JESUS CHRIST PLEASE stop trying to debate how you think I want you to. It's never a good look to over-adapt. The only exception is if you want to go for Baudrillard and somehow ended up with me as a judge. Then please over-adapt. I cannot stress enough the importance of adaptation if you are trying to tell me post-modern theory or that death is cool.

7. I don't like to read cards as a default because decision time is 20 minutes assuming there were no delays in the round. If a card is called into question or my BS meter is going off, I will read the card. Absent that, I'm mostly about the flow and ethos. Tell me what warrants in your card you want me to know about. Point out the parts in the other team's evidence that are bad for them. That makes my judging job easier, causes me to read the card, AND gives you a sick speaker point boost.

WARNINGS:

1. I am chronically ill. If you pref me, there is a chance I have a flare up while judging you. This means I will finish the debate with my camera off but am still there. I just want some privacy while sick/you really don't want to see my face if I turn my camera off. If we are in person this may mean a slight delay in the debate. One time and one time only I have gotten so sick in a debate that a bye was given to both teams. So pref me if you want the chance of a free win!
2. I am a blunt judge. When I say that I mean I am autistic and frequently do not know how to convey or perceive tone in the way that other do. If you post-round me, I wont call you out of your name, but I will be very clear about your skills (or lack thereof) in the debate.
3. I also might cry...I'm clinically hypersensitive from CPTSD. Sometimes people assume I have a tone and "match" or "reraise" what they think I'm doing. If I cry and you weren't being a total jerk, don't over-apologize and make the RFD about me, lets just plan on a written RFD in that case.
4. I appreciate trigger warnings about sexual abuse. I will not vote on trigger warning voters because it's impossible to know everyone's trigger and ultimately we are responsible for our own triggers. All debaters who wish to avoid triggers should inform opponents before the round, not center the debate on it. I'd rather use "tech time" for the triggered debater to try to get back to their usual emotional state and try to finish the round if desired.
5. If the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to sexual harassment/abuse, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

• This does not include self-expression. I would prefer not to see an erotic performance from high schoolers as an adult, but I am able to do so without sexualizing said debaters. There are limits to this, as you are minors and this is a school activity. Please do not make me have to stop the round because you exposed yourself to the other team, or something similar. If you are in college I still feel like you are a student, but I will honor that you have the right to express yourself without sexualizing you. Please no "flashing" without consent - that is sexual harassment/assault.
• This also does not include a Black debater using the N-word, unless used intentionally to put down another Black debater to the point of distress in the other Black debater.
• When in doubt, don’t make it your goal to traumatize the other team and we will all be fine.
• If you ask a team to say a slur in CX I will interrupt the debate to change course, though I will not auto-vote against you. I don’t think we should encourage people to say slurs to try to prove a point. Find another way, or don’t pref me.

The longer version:

Speaker points:

I've been told you need to average a 29.2 to clear nowadays. Because of that:

-a learning speech will be 28.4-28.7,

-an average speech will be 28.8-29.1,

-a clearing level speech will be 29.2-29.5,

-a top ten speaker will be 29.6-29.9.

I'm not giving 30s. Ya gotta be perfect to get a 30, and Hannah Montana taught me that nobody's perfect.

If you get below a 28.4 you probably severely annoyed me.

If you get below a 28, you were probably a problem in the debate, ethically.

I have yet to give a low point win, to my memory. I generally think winning is a part of speaking well. If you cause your team to lose the debate, you’re likely to get lower points.

Speaker-point factors:

- Did you debate well?

- Were you clear?

- Did you maintain my attention?

- Did you make me laugh, critically think, or gasp?

- Did your arguments or behavior in the debate make me cringe?

- Were you going way to hard in a debate against less experienced debaters and made them feel bad for no reason?

K STUFF:

Planless Clash debates:

-I’ve rarely judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework. In instances where I have, the neg was policy style impact turning a concept of the aff, not going for a K based on a different theory of the world.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things. That being said, I also have a standard for what the neg needs to do to make a complete argument.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities. That doesn't mean arguments about misogynoir, pornotroping, or other arguments of that nature don't work with me. I understand the logic of something being problematic. It's just the oversimplification of theory into false comparisons I take issue with.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crises, or other tedious internal link chains. That being said, I love an external impact to framework that defends the politics of government action.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg. In the same way that I'm not persuaded the neg will quit or extinction will happen if you don't read a plan, I also don't think extinction will happen if you lose to topicality. Focus instead on the real debate impacts at hand. Though, as said above, I love a good defense of your politics, and if that has a silly extinction impact that's fine.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind. T is a gateway issue. If the neg goes for T, that's what the debate is about. This is why I think many planless 1ACs are best when they have a built-in angle against framework.

-indicts to procedural fairness impacts are persuasive to me.

-modern concrete examples of incrementalism failing or working help a lot

-aff teams need to explain how their counter interpretation solves the neg impacts as well as their impact turns.

-neg teams need to turn the aff impacts and have external offense of their own. Teams frequently do one or the other

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve when the aff does a serious push, but the aff will let the neg get away with murder on alt solvency.

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team absent a framework debate, which is fine.

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Always, the neg is allowed to read Ks

-I'm getting more and more persuaded the neg needs a big push on framework to beat the perm. If the alt is fiated and not mutually exclusive with the plan, there is almost no way to convince me that the perm won't solve. This is not true on topics where the alt impact turns the resolution. You truly can't do both sometimes.

-Framework debates are won by engaging the theory aspect and is pragmatism/action desirable, not just one. Typically the neg spends a bunch of time winning the aff is an unethical method, while the aff is talking about fairness and limits.

-please slow down on framework blocks!

K v K debate:

I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way. I have *technically* judged a K v K debate, but I'm pretty sure it was a cap debate that was more impact turn-y than theory of power-y.

I'm interested in seeing debates like this despite my lack of experience.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit. I'm reading a bit more of the stuff y'all debate from in grad school, but it's still safe to eli5. My masters work is mostly on pop culture, hip-hop, and Black Feminist literature. If you want to debate about Megan Thee Stallion, I should be your ordinal one because it is the topic of my thesis.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post-modernism. I am the opposite of persuaded by post-modernism.

-I DO NOT recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc. You might think "but I'm the one that will change her mind;" you aren't. I will be annoyed for having to judge the debate tbh. You have free will to read it if you want, but I have free will to tank your points with ZERO remorse. If this third warning doesn't do it for you, you are responsible for your speaker points. If I was swapped in to judge your debate last minute, I won't tank your speaks. I only clarify because this happened to a team once.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory is in tough shape. It's not unwinnable, but I was a 2A… Tricky process counterplans that argue to result in the aff by means of solvency, but are *actually* competitive (more than just should and resolved definitions), game on. If that means you have to define some topic words in an interesting way, I'm fine with that. Also, despite being a classic 2A, I find myself holding the aff to a higher standard sometimes. Maybe it's because I went to MSU, but a lot of times I find myself thinking "this CP obviously doesn't solve. why doesn't the aff just say that or try to cut a card about it???"

-Make the intrinsic perm great again!

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team.

-2ACs that spend 15-plus seconds on the theory shell will see a lot more mileage and viability for the 2AR. One-sentence blips with no warrants and flow checks will be treated as such.

-impact comparison and turns case are lost arts in theory debates.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

PF/LD:

I have coached LD and PF for years, but it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates. I was trained for 8 years as a policy debater and continue to coach that format. I have participated in both LD and PF debates a few times in high school, so I’m not a full outsider

LD

I’m not a trickster and I refuse to learn how Kant relates to the topic. Similarly, theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are silly to me. Plan flaws are better when the aff results in something meaningfully different from what they intend to, not something that an editor would fix. I’m not voting/evaluating until the final speech ends. Period.

Dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

PF:

Do not pref me if you paraphrase evidence.

Do not pref me if you do not have a copy of your evidence/relevant part of the article AND full-text article for your opponent upon request.

Please stop with the post-speech evidence swap, make an email chain before the debate, and send your evidence ahead of time. If your case includes analytics you don’t want to send, that’s fine, though I think it’s kinda weaksauce to not disclose your arguments. If the argument is good, it should withstand an answer from the opponent.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be an untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names.

Add me to the chain: thoma.austin@gmail.com

I've noticed that as a judge I tend to close my eyes while I'm thinking. Some debaters have assumed that I was sleeping during their speeches. I assure you that this is not the case.

Fifth year judging college debate. Director of Debate at Wyoming. Previously coached for Cornell. Judged and coached high school in the past.

Philosophy:

I do not reject any argument on its face. Everything I say here is preliminary - these ideas can be changed by arguments in-round. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I do have predispositions that will influence my decisions - as we all do. I will try to highlight critical points here, but will clarify anything at tournaments or via email - contact me at thoma.austin@gmail.com. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it in any particular order.

It takes an awful lot for me to call for cards. If you aren't explaining it, it doesn't really matter. The arguments you make about the cards are more important than the evidence itself.

One good argument is better than lots of bad arguments. I have noticed that my theory threshold is not as low as it once was, but I believe that it is still lower than average. Theory debates are my favorite, but only if teams engage instead of just reading blocks.

My presumption is neg - aff should propose a change from the status quo.

Aff should be in the direction of the topic. This is a fairly ambiguous concept, but I feel like you'll know it when it happens. Does your aff want more executive control? If so, I probably won't be predisposed to vote for it, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Engaging "the system" (political, social, whatever power structure you want to talk about) is productive (perhaps with negative consequences).

Rhetoric choices matter - and come before evaluation of plan action.

Aff severence of 1AC rhetoric / assumptions is illegitimate.

Conditionality on neg is good for debate.

Condo does not let you no link rhetoric/reps arguments.

2NR condo is illegitimate.

Fiat is good for debate.

Performative argumentation is good for debate.

Fairness is of at least as much importance as education in the context of debate.

Narratives - personal or otherwise - need to be applied to broader, more generalized arguments to make sense in the context of the round.

"100% no link" is real and possible, but difficult.

Politics DAs are pretty silly.

Debate rounds are not particularly good forums for starting social change.

"Traditional policy" framework is a legitimate strategy better served with fewer arguments that are better developed than a multitude of arguments that are less developed. To get my ballot here, I suggest focusing on skills development.

Preferences:

Try to refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names. I rarely write all of these down. This is obviously less true when attacking cites or comparing evidence, but it is certainly true in extensions. "Extend the Johnson evidence" doesn't do much for me.

Prep stops when you tell me it stops. Prep starts when speeches end. Don't prep during evidence flashing/emailing. I will punish it.

Debated China, Courts, Middle East @ University of Kansas
Debated Agriculture, Nukes @ University of Texas at San Antonio

Coached @ UTSA (2010-2011)
Coached @ Wake Forest University (2011-2013)

Coached @ Gonzaga (2013-2015)

Coached @ Valley High School in Des Moines (2013-2016)

And I’ve been working at a handful of high school debate camps in between over the years

Presently, I am an Assistant Profess in the Department of Communication at The College at Brockport, SUNY.

Meta-Level

§ I’m coming back to judging college debate. My knowledge of some of the evolutions within debate are sparse and my knowledge of the topic is even more limited. That said, I’ve kept up with debate in some way or another over the years.

§ For the most part, I don’t care what you do. There are arguments I enjoy more than others, but that should not influence your argumentative decisions at the end of the day. I debated weird stuff, but I’ve coached and taught across a wide range of argument styles.

§ I appreciate argument congruence (that may mean less arguments) more than throwing the (digital) tub against the wall and seeing what sticks.

§ I flow on paper. I think it lets me actively engage the debate. This also means I need pen time, especially on case and/or theory arguments.

§ I don’t really read evidence, unless critical for my decision.

§ CX is a lost art. It would do you well to be strategic, not argumentative. Listen, too. It helps.

Micro-Level

§ Case Debate: Affirmatives get too much leeway in how they debate case. Block nuances are often overlooked by the 1AR. I enjoy the strategic use of case arguments in the 2NR strategy, too.

§ Topicality: Woof. I’ll be honest, sometimes debaters are far more concerned about these debates than I am. These debates need to be organized well by the neg and not done at top speed either. Reasonability makes sense.

§ Disads: Negs need more impact calculus. I have no problem voting on low risk of DA and high risk of aff. Politics debates often rely on quantity of evidence, I get that. Refer to my comments above about flowing on paper.

§ Counterplans: I generally think negs get to be conditional, welcome to persuade me otherwise. Other counterplan theory, I’m open to arguments. Mechanism-based counterplans need some extra explanation, I’m new to the topic and don’t like voting on things I don’t understand.

§ Critical arguments: My debate and coaching backgrounds are pretty expansive in this area. However, don’t confuse my enjoyment for an easy ballot. Do what you wish, but have a purpose. Also, don’t be alarmed when people tell you that you’re wrong, mistaken, or should lose the debate. A debate about methods is insanely boring and, often, lacks competitiveness. There should be more to a debate than method, at the very least. The ballot is a vote for who does the better debating, tell me if it should be for something else.

Ironic, given the kind of debater I was. But, if you could try and not be jerks to each other (unless rightly justified) or me. I'll try my best to listen and judge and you try your best to debate and understand my constructive feedback.

.

Judge Paradigm for Sarah Beth Thomas (SBT)

Debated for Emory University 2006-2010

Debated for Calhoun High School 2006-2010

Coached at Johns Creek High School 2010 - 2014

I'm writing this Fall 2016, after a patchy 2 year break from debate. I imagine debate will always be a hobby that I feel comfortable returning to, and as such it's important to me that you have a good debate round. I'll offer helpful feedback when and where I am able.

In general terms, it's probably best if I explain what kinds of debates I enjoy judging. I still flow on paper, and so a neat debate is preferable. In my experience on the Georgia and D6 circuit, I was exposed to 'straight up' arguments mostly (what a terrible term of art); however my thesis for my master's degree was a feminist analysis of the day to day operations of the UN, with special attention to the IEAE. All to say - I'll follow your arguments as long as you make them clearly.

I don't have a favorite argument, I don't have a favorite debate round. I like clash centric debates (who doesn't), mostly along the lines of the topic, but really the round is about you. I'm less of a technical debater (I was a 2a), and do view the round more broadly. It is my personal preference to refrain from obscenities, but that shouldn't matter to you. I've been very lucky to judge mostly respectful debates; let's keep it that way.

Sometimes a good debate about why we do the things we do is fun: theory, kritiks, etc. In round challenges of norms are great - but I'm also able to work well in the policy system. Sometimes a good debate about political actions/responsibilities are also invigorating; but I'm not entirely sure these are separate worlds.

As I've gotten a bit older, I'm not as expressive as I used to be. However, I'm assured that my reactions are still visible. I suppose I'm still on the higher end of awarding speaker points, statistically speaking.

I'm fairly friendly, and value the respect of my colleagues. If there is some disrespectful occurrence, my tolerance will wane or fizzle out. I'm interested in education and stimulating thoughts - that's a pretty easy way to win my ballot.

T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are important. I consider T an argument that doesn't specify the relationship between the debaters and the resolutional actor (i.e. how the debate is evaluated and what the role of the judge for evaluating the debate is still in question).  To me, framework is a category of arguments that establish a limit that restricts not just the resolution but the role for the judge.  I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are difficult for me to accept, while criticisms of framework have frequently been successful. 

DAs- I’m unlikely to assess uniqueness/link in absolute terms.  It tends to be easier to get me to consider direction/quality of link & internal link over uniqueness.   Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give analytic and defensive arguments more weight than many judges. 

CPs--I've rarely voted against CPs for theory reasons. This probably has more to do with what affs are willing to do/commit time to more than it demonstrates any real appeal of certainty-based competition arguments. 

K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to not being obnoxious in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags. Historical examples help a lot for either side.
 
Theory—I tend to dislike theory debates focused on narrow comparison of interpretations.  For the most part, people would be better off discussing the logical implications of a practice rather than a potentially arbitrary implementation of that practice (i.e. conditionality rather than "neg gets 1 CP and 1K").   I am biased in favor of conditionality, though not that strongly.  To me, "status quo is always a logical option" or other logic-oriented defenses of conditionality require a judge to evaluate the plan versus the status quo even if the negative goes for their CP.  I say this for clarifying purposes -- this has very rarely changed the outcome of a debate that I have judged.  I often judge debates that do not presume conventional plan-focused models for debate yet still contain theory arguments that presume a plan-focused terminology and its resulting constraints.  I point this out only to suggest that I think debaters should devote some time to thinking about the consequences of strucutral changes in the form of debate that they advocate for the smaller theoretical practices that occur within those debates. 

Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the 2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely dislike random unqualified internet evidence.

I prefer cross-ex strategies premised on listening to an opponent's answer and using it in a subsequent speech, not posturing/arguing as though c/x were another speech.

I'm a bit of grump, especially when it comes to my consistent facial expressions in debates.  It's not often that is about you,  the debaters.  I often talk a great deal after debates. 

I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is lower than our current average.  I've tried to get more in line with current norms so as not to punish people for speaker point inflation.  That said, for high points (28.5+) I still need to be impressed. 

Debated in policy debate for the University of Kentucky (2013-2016), before moving to NC for my PhD. Currently working at UNC. She/her.

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about.

My paradigm was written in 2017 for policy debate, so know that I've been out of the judging game for a while. I won't have in-depth topic knowledge, so when in doubt, invest more time in explaining your argument. In general, I think debate is pretty cool, but I think it gets a lot cooler when we all treat each other like human beings. You can be competitive in your speeches and CX, but try to treat each other with basic levels of respect. There’s no need to be rude when someone’s emailing their speech.

Yes, I want on the email chain: ava.vargason@gmail.com

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing has zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated.

Theory:

Conditionality is infinitely good and it will be difficult to get me to vote on it.

Most everything else is a reason to reject the argument & not the team. I like counterplans about the affirmative with net benefits that have real links.

I will kick the counterplan unless given a compelling reason not to. Just because the counterplan is a bad idea does not mean the affirmative is better than the status quo.

Critical Strategies:

I am fine for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading framework. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

Other:

I won’t evaluate a clipping ethics challenge unless there’s a recording.

I will disregard evidence that doesn’t say anything.

I am expressive when I really like or dislike something, so you should pay attention to that.

Current Director of Debate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, previously coached at Wake Forest (2 years), University of Central Florida (2 years)

(They/Them Pronouns)

I believe debate is for the debaters. Do your thing, and do it well.

I try to leave as many of my argumentative preferences at the door as possible, but I generally believe a few things:

1. Debate is both a game and a site of activism, and the best conversations about aff and neg ground take both those functions into account.

2. Debaters who tell a story and make strategic decisions about where to apply nuance are more persuasive than those who delve into intricacy but don't frame it as part of a cohesive narrative of the round.

3. Quality > Quantity (of arguments, neg positions, etc)

4. Process > Product

Some things I love

- Mechanistic analysis- how do things happen in your scenario?

- Cards that are highlighted to include full sentences and warrants.

- Innovation.

- Getting strategically aggro in CX.

- Caring about your opponents. Just don't be the worst pls.

Yes, include me on the email chain: CVVitolo at gmail

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

Hays Watson, former head debate coach @ University of Georgia. whwatson@gmail.com. I split my time between political consulting and caretaking for a dying parent. Haven't judged a debate since 2020.

Online debate 411 - Please slow down, speak up, have patience, and make sure that everything (sound/camera/wifi/tech) is on and working properly. I will do my best to judge as I normally do and make the best decision possible while providing helpful feedback.

My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments made in the debate. That being said, I remain a teacher at heart and I'll also offer suggestions for how you can improve. That's why I still write full ballots and send them via email to the teams that I judge.

Here are many of my preferences, simply-stated:

Clarity trumps speed...the best debaters are able to achieve both.

Evidence matters...but not much more than logical, analytical arguments. Many positions (case advantages, politics, etc.) can best be defeated with smart, analytical responses. Use your brain.

Efficiency and explanation both matter - but doing one while sacrificing the other produces bad debate. Explanation seems to lose out quite a bit these days...there is such thing as being "too efficient."

Process questions determine substantive questions. The "who" of action does, in fact, determine the effectiveness of "what" action is being taken.

I prefer that Affirmatives advocate topical action. Specific plans of action are preferable over vague/generic policy suggestions. Yes, that means I still appreciate spec-based args.

I tend to find more persuasive logical/plausible scenarios ("truth") than technical/strategic ones ("tech"). A dropped DA is a dropped DA, but a card saying the economy will collapse tomorrow doesn't make it so.

I reward arguments grounded in the topic literature over arguments based upon non-germane net benefits or advantages. In other words, I'd prefer that you read the deterrence DA and an advantage CP over a made-up counterplan with an artificial internal net-benefit or a crappy politics DA.

Links/internal links are more important (and more interesting) than uniqueness questions. Most debate impacts are silly - not everything causes extinction. Yes, advantages/harms can be linked turned. Yes, impacts can be turned as well.

I'm increasingly frustrated by the relative absence of debates about important theoretical questions. Topicality no longer is seen as a strategic Negative tool. Affirmatives consistently refuse to challenge the theoretical legitimacy of various negative positions (conditionality, politics DAs, kritiks, etc.). Why?

Impact defense alone is an insufficient way to answer an argument. I'm confused as to how case attacks based solely around impact defense have become the "norm." The best argumentative strategies involve mixture of offensive and defensive responses. "No impact" doesn't cut it.

Effective cross-examination is still the most underutilized tool in debate. Poor, un-strategic cross-ex questions (and responses) make me sad.

I can spell 'K' despite my reputation. It's impossible not to acknowledge (albeit begrudgingly) that a well explained and case-specific kritik supported by high-quality evidence is an important strategic tool. Play to your strengths - even its gooey and critical.

I flow. I still flow on paper. It's hard to flow stuff - blippy T args, theory, embedded clash on the case, etc. Keep that in mind, especially if you are debating online.

Updated 9/9/2016

A few firm rules:

-Speech times are 9 minutes for constructives, 6 minutes for rebuttals, and 3 minutes for CX. Prep is determined by tournament invite. Each debater should give one constructive and one rebuttal, with only one debater giving each speech. 

-Note on CX: you get 3 minutes of CX time. If you ask the other team clarification questions during prep (“Did you read this card?” “Can you confirm your CP text?” etc), it would be pretty rude of them not to answer, but I will not flow this/treat it as argument-development time like CX.  

-I will use my ballot to decide the debate in front of me. Debaters can advance various criteria for how I should evaluate that debate, but I can’t render a decision on the basis of something that did not occur in the debate I have been watching.

-Be transparent about your evidence. The other team should receive the same speech documents that I do. That doesn’t mean you are obligated to include analytical arguments – people should also flow! Also, mark stuff during the speech, you probably aren’t going to remember each word you stopped at once the speech is over. 

A few argument leanings:

-I am pretty convinced that competitive debate requires a point of stasis. That doesn’t mean I think there is only one way to read/interpret the resolution, but it does mean that I am most persuaded by affs that relate themselves to the resolution in a way that they can argue provides predictable points of contestation for the neg. In short, Predictability/Argument Testing Good > Policymaking Good.

-I like plan/CP texts with some specificity. If your plan text is just a re-printing of the resolution, it will probably annoy me. If a team is vague about their advocacy, I am more likely to give the other team leeway in interpreting how it would play out through evidence.

-I am more sympathetic than average to aff theoretical objections (conditionality and multi-actor fiat stand out). If theory debates reflect well thought-out visions of debate rather than regurgitation of stock phrases, then I actually enjoy them.

-I can be persuaded that theory arguments are a reason to reject the team, and not simply the argument, if persuasive reasons are given. However, my default position is always to reject the argument (conditionality is an exception; rejecting the argument would make it conditional, so teams are encouraged to explain an alternative remedy), unless a developed warrant is made to the contrary. 

A couple general reflections on my judging:

-I think I care more about evidence than I did a few years ago. Debate requires skill in framing arguments and making comparisons, but also in finding good evidence to support your claims. Obviously I prefer to watch debaters do good evidence comparison, but it’s often hard to fully interrogate every piece of evidence in the debate. If a team has invested good effort in evidence comparison, I will try to extend their skepticism in a limited fashion as I read other evidence after the debate.

-I give the best points to debaters who have a good big-picture strategic vision of the debate and how the relevant arguments interact. If debaters invest their time in the right places and explain their strategic decision-making, I am more likely to view the debate the way they would like.

I debated 4 years at Towson University, coached Stanford University during the 2015-2016 season, Wake Forest University from 2016-2018, and am now the Director of Debate at Towson University.

I have judged very few debates on this years topic so assume that I am unfamiliar with your acronyms and/or unique theoretical approach to the topic. In-depth explanation of your arguments and evidence comparison will get you far in the debate.

I'm was performance debater. With that being said run traditional policy arguments at your own risk, but if I don't understand what I'm voting for, I'm very likely not to vote.

If the K is what you like, do that; give me links and impacts and tell me how those impacts interact with everything else going on in the round (needs to be explained thoroughly). A good 2AR/2NR tells me how I vote and why I vote that way.

An argument conceded is an argument won by the opposing team--unless I'm told otherwise.

Framework comes first--unless debaters tell me otherwise.

I do not prefer theory debates, so run them at your own risk.
In general, don't leave me to my own devices as my opinions on certain arguments tend to occasionally shift or be somewhat different than the norm. Tell me how to vote and I'll vote.


I would like to be on the email chain KwhitL15@gmail.com

This paradigm is a work in progress.  I will continue to update when I have the time.  

Me: queer, black person.  Head Policy coach at the University of Puget Sound, graduate of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Social justice is very important to me.  Zero tolerance for anti-blackness, transphobia, sexism, classism, ableism, racism, homophobia and the many ways our community can often make people feel excluded.  This is something that can lose you speaker points and potentially lose you the debate.

In terms of debate arguments, I'm flexible.  I've been all over the debate spectrum in my capacity as a judge, debater, and coach.  At the end of my career I gravitated towards the K but I'm not opposed to listening to a t/framework debate, disads, counterplans, whatever.  Do what you do best and I'll enjoy the debate a lot more than a failed adaptation.

I will work very hard to make good decisions and judge the substance of the debate as objectively as possible.  It is unlikely that my RFD will contain anything that wasn't said in the debate.  The debaters have the burden of giving me the round winning calculous.  This generally includes a pretty tight explanation of your internal link chains.  Every argument should be impacted.

That's really all I have for now. 

Update: 2020

Hello, I would like to preface this paradigm with "I have been out of the activity since 2018" and I'm coming back to judge. Since leaving the activity, I have started my PhD in communication studies and performance studies at LSU. For policy debaters, I have been still in the critical theory literature, but I'm still adjusting back to the activity. If there is one thing I remember from judging: Impact framing!!! Every debate I've judged since coming back ends up coming down to both sides comparing why their "worlds" or "positions" are better.

Lastly, please be nice. My biggest frustration is teams that are mean and unnecessarily hostile on issues that do no matter to the debate. I understand being loud and proud on key issues in the debate, but being indigent about micro level things = lower speaks.

This was my first year of judging college debate, and I’ve learned a lot about myself as a judge, hence this addendum to my current judging philosophy. I know that for many seniors, this is your last tournament, and it’s only right that I let you know so you can decide where you want me (if at all) in your prefs. As a judge and a competitor, I’ve always tried to embody the mantra of ‘You do you, ’ and this sentiment is still true. However, there are ‘little truths’ that I will not negotiate as a judge.

1. I will flow in a linear and straight down manner regardless of any team’s request. First, flowing is important because it forces me to pay attention and process your argument better. Second, I don’t have the ability to remember a debate, especially the particular framing of the arguments without my flow.

2. Debate is an activity with set speech times. If both teams do not agree to alternative rules of engagement, then the default must be 9-minute constructive speeches, 3-minuete cross-examination, 6-minute rebuttal speeches. During each constructive or rebuttal, only one team may speak. The other team must respect that rule. Under no circumstance is that up for debate (unless agreed upon before the 1AC begins). I’m not a good judge for debate innovators that seek to question or change the form (i.e. speech times), but I’m a good critic for teams that criticize the content and style of debate (i.e. the resolution and the norms established by the constraint of the form). If you interrupt an opponent while speaking, and they ask to you stop, but you don’t stop, then that will reflect in your speaker points.

3. Tech over truth, with obvious caveats. Personally, the flow matters to me. It’s primarily, with the exception of speech docs, what I use to evaluate the debate. Not all dropped arguments are true, but dropped arguments, impact framing, claims, and so on become the easiest way for me to make a decision without intervening. I’ve been told by some ‘very’ left and non-traditional teams that I’m often too technical for them. For example, I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on procedural fairness and truth testing, which means you don’t get the 1AC if it means I don’t intervene.

4. Embedded clash – based on my previous point, I want to clarify distinction between a dropped argument and embedded clash, but first I would like to express my views on embedded clash. I often judge many debates where the 2NR/2AR will speak, with presumed embedded clash, and just talk about what they want to talk about straight down with little reference to the previous speech. Let me clear, I’m not asking for a technical line by line, but rather I want teams to use embedded clash and cross apply it where it’s necessary. I.e. cross apply the link debate on the perm. In my philosophy proper, I explain a lot about my love framing, which you should read if I’m judging you, and I will often go rogue and not connect the dots the way you understand the debate.

5. Dropped arguments – I’m not technical to the extent where, if you drop something blippy, then you auto lose. Obviously, winning smaller arguments makes it harder to win larger claims, but the 1AR should be able to explain to me why the 2AC didn’t drop ‘x’ arg because of ‘y’ argument/card.

5. I will not vote on arguments with a metathesis that I do not understand. There’s a difference between methods, such as a praxis that allows for particular groups to communication between one and other in a manner that cannot be understood by the hegemonic majority, and poorly explained high theory or philosophy. Often, I judge debates where the 2NC clearly pivots from the 1NC and will apply a different theory to existing pieces of evidence. This kind of strategy is not a good move if you’re going for my ballet because I will often default to cards and speech docs as a means to understand the debate. In other words, I use evidence to trace the debate if I cannot trace it via of the flow.

6. When in doubt, assume I have never been in your lit or that I understand all of ‘your big words.' I’m smart enough to follow along and if you can teach me. I’ve judged many debates where students will say, “they dropped the libidinal economy,” and why didn’t I auto-win. Yes, there are meta-levels claims, if dropped, make the debate over, but you need to explain to me why that is the case. Impact out why dropped arguments and buzzwords matter. In other words, frame your arguments as “if we win “x”, then that mean “y” and that means the aff can’t win for “z”.

---------------------------------------------------------

Hello, my name is Andrew Wirth. I debated for three years in high school at Forest Hills Central, and for four years at Wayne State University. I have 9+ years of debate experience at the college and high school level.

Preface (General):

When I started the activity in 2007 (wow, that seems so long ago), I debated in the traditional manner (plan text/USFG action good) and transitioned to critical debate, more specifically queer theory and disabilities studies, my senior year of college. As a coach, I found myself coaching an assemblage of different types of teams ranging from policy to performance. When describing myself, I don't consider myself a "tab judge", a critical hack (whatever that means), or a traditional policy judge. The only way I can describe myself as a judge would is by quoting famous philosopher Hannah Montana:

You get the best of both worlds

Mix it all together and you know that it's the best of both worlds

I know what you're thinking, "is this guy really quoting Hannah Montana?" If you think that's a reason to strike me, then go for it, I wouldn't blame you tbh.

As a judge, I feel like you get the best of a judge who's been trained in policy debate and analysis. I'm interested in debates that centered around methodological questions about if the state is a good actor, even redeemable, or maybe that doesn't even matter. You tell me. [If you're thinking to yourself, "it sounds like this guy judges a lot of clash of the civ debates," then you're totally right].

However, Hannah Montana didn't state that when you get the best of both worlds, you often get the worst of both worlds too. In this case, I will confess that I have major short comings in policy and critical debate. For example, I'm the worst judge for intense counterplan competition debate. Seriously, that's one thing that never really carried over from my policy debate training. [Note, I know actor CP (ie, xo, congress, courts) aren't, or maybe are competitive]. In regards to critical debate, I'm still somewhat new to all the literature. I often find myself judging debates where both teams are screaming buzzwords that I have no idea what they mean. Just to be safe, assume that I'm an idiot.

Also, I almost forgot, I'm a huge fan of ghost stories, paranormal activity, and spectators. If you have an aff that deals with the spookies, then I'm your ordinal 1.

Now back to the regularly scheduled program.

Top Level:

1) Personally, I’ve debated every style of debate; I’ve read everything from one advantage heg affs to performance. I think every different style of debate has a unique pedagogical benefit, and you shouldn’t feel obligated to adapt to what I think a good debate looks like. You do you and I'll come along for the ride.

2) Personally, I believe arguments should have a claim, warrant, and impact. Any argument that has these three things is fair game for my ballot, regardless if it’s carded.

3) A dropped argument is a true argument, however, if it doesn’t have a claim, warrant, or an impact, then I don’t think its true. I tend to give leeway to teams answering dropped arguments if the other team presents new warrants and impacts to those claims.

Framing questions:

So I've been judging for about 8 years and my biggest pet peeve is that I don't think that many 2NRs or 2ARs give very good impact framing. Personally, I find it difficult when the final two speeches of the debate spew out a bunch links and impacts and don't tell me how to intpret or weigh them. I think that we've all come to the conclusion that judge intervention is the worst, and we hate it when our fates are arbitrarily decided by a judge.

Framework:

My final year of college debate, I decided to read affirmatives that did not endorse USFG action. Typically, many framework teams believe this makes me incredibility bias towards the affirmative. However, I find myself voting on framework more often than not. This may sound weird, but I'm most comfortable judging a framework debate.

I find framework to be more persuasive when it’s framed as critique of method because it directly clashes with the method of the 1AC.

My only aff side bias is that I tend to have a higher threshold for topical version of the aff.

Topicality:

I will first confess that I don't like judging T debates. At the high school level, debaters are often going way to fast for me and it's difficult to keep up T debates at full spreading speeds. Another issue I find is that high schoolers do not know how to transition between arguments, and that makes T debates only more difficult for me to judge.

Spoiler: I hate judging T debates tbh.

Theory debates:

I tend to default on reject the argument not the team in most theory debates. I think it’s up to the 2NR/2AR to present a reason why I should vote down the other team. I think winning theory gives you access to strategic benefits in the debate, like leeway on perms for cheating counter plans.

Condo is pretty sweet in my opinion, well at least in moderation. I find it difficult for a team to persuade me that one CP and K ,two CPs, or two Ks is impossible for the 2AC to handle.

Consult/Delay/Process CP: This is my inner 2A coming out here, and if the counter plan results in the plan, then I’m pretty sick to my stomach. Unless the counter plans contain specific evidence about the affirmative. I don’t think they are a reason to reject the team, but justify abusive permutations. Did I mention that I'm horrible at judging counter plan competition debates?

Perm theory: Reject the arg not the team because any other standard is silly. Even if the other team drops severance is a reason to reject the team, I think that doesn’t have a real warrant….

Counter Plans:

I love a good counter plan debate, however, I'm not really the best judge for CP debates that compete on immediacy or really intricate texts that makes the CP uniquely different from the plan. Based on the nature of debate tournaments, I have very little time to make a decision and I would ideally love an hour to sit down and hash out these kinds of debates. Please, don't make me judge a counter plan competition debate.

Critiques:

Critiques are fine by me. I must confess, there might be a high chance or probability that I may have not read your literature, which means I find it very important for the negative to define particular terms. I mean, I know what epistemology, ontology, methodology, and so on are, and however, I have yet to read the entirety of feminism studies or various other disciplines.

I think the aff needs to defend the method of the 1AC, and these are often the most beautiful debates to watch and judge.

I think it’s hard to win the perm because the negative team will often always win a risk of a link, however, I think winning the impact and alternative level of the debate is the best way to go for winning my ballot. However, I've started to realize that teams aren't reading links these days, and by that I mean the neg is just reading generic links no about the aff, so maybe the perm is an option.

Have fun, don't be mean, and make me laugh.

Above all, debate to your strengths. If that is a K, go for it. If it's DA and case, go for it. My paradigm should not determine your strategy, it should inform your decision-making and issue-framing.

I place a high value on evidence quality. If the evidence doesn't back up your argument, then it is just your argument. I also won't give you credit for all the awesome warrants your evidence makes, if those warrants aren't made and extended in speeches.

Specifics:

 T - I'm fine with T, just give me a very clear picture of what the topic should look like including a caselist. If you exclude a whole section of the topic (Cyber, etc) then your interpretation is probably not very good. I have a reasonability-lite outlook on T. In other words, even if you win I should use competing interpretations, you need to clearly we an impact to your T argument. I probably won't vote for you if your interp only limits out one more case than theirs, if your interp only gives you the link to one more DA, or if you don't clearly articulate the terminal impact to your standards. Just saying "explodes limits" without telling me what kind of cases they allow, giving me an idea of how many that would be, and telling me *why* a limit is needed, is probably not going to win my ballot. You may think this is a high threshold, but I don't think it's any different than what judges require in a disad debate: impact calculus.

CP/Theory - I'm a fan of specific counterplans. I'm ok with generics, but they have to be debated well and I probably won't love your CP if you don't have a card that is at least mildly related to the aff (not just the topic). For theory, there is nothing that I WON'T vote for and nothing that I WON'T vote against if theory is debated well. Conditionality is good (anything over 3 advocacies is stretching it), but I'll vote that it's bad (I really prefer in-round impacts here). PICs are great. Anything that does the entire aff is suspect.

Case/Disads - By far my favorite thing to watch, you will get higher points in front of me if you debate case well (whether they have a plan text or not).

Kritiks - I'm fine with Ks, even though I didn't read them all that much when I debated. The more specific your link arguments are and the more you explain the interaction with the case (particularly impacts), the more likely I will like the argument and be willing to vote on it.

Affs should be topical, but I'm open to non-traditional conceptions of what it means to be topical. Having said that, I think predictability, limits, and clash are very important, and I definitely lean neg on T against affs without plans.

An argument needs to be complete for me to vote on it. This means that if you read a bad DA with a nonsensical link, I will not vote on it even if it is dropped.

Be relaxed, be confidence, and you will do well in front of me.

Hi all

-----Paradigm Starts here-----

Background:

Current Head Coach/ADoD? at Binghamton University (2021 - Present)

Debated/Coached for George Mason University (2009-2019)

-----Super short version 10 min before round-----

I always want to be on the email chain - email to woodward@binghamton.edu

I have judged or have seen pretty much every argument in debate at least once.

As a debater I mostly read policy arguments, but ended my career doing critical arguments. I was also a 2A and 2N at different points.

I prefer you do what you're best at- don't over adapt to me

Am a sucker for judge instruction -> If you tell me to evaluate in a certain way and the other team doesn't rebut it then I'm going to.

I require explanation - my understanding of K lit is better because I've been at Bing for a while now, but I still not super great at it. Assume you know your lit more than I will. Examples from the 1AC or historical examples go a long way. This also applies to policy things. I cut policy cards but that's not my main focus most of the time so I'm not gonna be super up to date on the latest meta shifts/counterplan acronyms.

Good analysis and explanation beats a card the majority of the time in front of me

Be polite. (This is different from being nice, but there is a cutoff point)

Have fun!

Would prefer that people slow down/go to about 90% of top speed. I don't think this matters for most debates but it would be appreciative. I will yell slow/clear as applicable.

Harvard HS Tournament specifically - Two things to note.

1. I have read/judged/thought 0 about the HS topic- most of my time is focused on NDT/CEDA topic. I will need explanation and clarifications about jargon, arguments, etc.
2. My limits for "acceptable" behavior in terms of how people should treat each other is lower than in college rounds.

-----You have time to read/more specific things-----

---Novice/JV---

Is the most important division. We should be doing what we can to help the division grow and new debaters to improve and feel welcome- the community depends on it.

The packet at this point is not helpful outside of providing evidence to programs who need it to help start their programs. It needs healthy reforms to make it a better educational tool. That being said I will not enforce packet rules after the first two tournaments, or in any division above novice.

I'm fine with novices learning whatever arguments they wish. I would prefer if novices did defend the topic, or if they took alternate routes to the topic they still defended topic DAs and were in a topic direction.

I am also not a fan of misinformation type arguments in novice. This doesn't mean hiding DAs or case turns on case, or an extra definition on T (because those promote better flow practices) This means arguments that are obtuse to be obtuse for no reason.

---Topicality---

Is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

I am not persuaded by "norms" or "it's 1st/last tournament etc." style arguments. I do not need abuse to vote on topicality.

Competing interpretations is what I default to.

After Fall Semester/Wake- I feel even more strongly we have overcorrected and have made the Nukes topic entirely too small. I still have some limits when it comes to subsets of topic areas, but I can be persuaded that allowing a few more affirmatives is a good thing.

Going into Districts/NDT/CEDA thoughts - Still think letting the aff have subsets makes this topic more interesting but after hearing 2-3 debates on it, I am still 50/50 on this debate but my default leans aff, if both sides debated perfectly. I'm still down to hear the argument because I do think there's some room to convince me.

---Disadvantages---

DAs are good, turns case arguments are good, I think there isn't a ton of nuance here. My only 2 caveats are as follows.

I wish more teams would attack DAs on the internal link level-

Politics and Elections DAs are decent educational discussions and are strategic. But the current political system is so flawed it is hard to take the arguments seriously. I am very persuaded by arguments about why radicalism in our government has doomed the ability for it to function. (or arguments that explain why congress is in a terrible spot for legislation currently)

Elections/Midterms DAs, the closer we get to November 2024, the better the DA sounds in front of me. Interpret this as you wish.

---Counterplans---

They're good - but I reward teams for more specific reasons why the CP solves the aff vs no federal/xyz process good key warrant. I'm not a fan of no solvency advocate + just the CP text in the 1NC, but generally i'm cool with most counterplan ideas.

I don't judge kick the counterplan, it promotes neg terrorism. I can be persuaded otherwise, but outside of strong neg defenses, and/or a lack of aff response I will not give the neg the status squo if a CP is in the 2NR.

I default to reject the argument on theory. I can be persuaded most things could be a reason to reject the team, or gives leeway on other arguments. My standards for voting on theory even with this are somewhat high.

Conditionality in limited instances are good. That being said my cutoff is lower than most judges. The max before I start to err affirmative is 2 conditional worlds. If there is a new aff, i'm fine with 3. I do think more than 3 conditional worlds isn't needed. I also think kicking planks compounds and makes any conditionality arguments even stronger

---Critiques (When you are neg) ---

Judge instruction + framework is your friend. I usually compare the aff vs the alt in a vacuum, but when one team is telling me what to do, and one is not with this information this goes a long way into deciding my ballot. Sometimes good judge instruction can overcome technical drops. "Weigh the aff" is not an aff interp on framework. I think it does you a disservice unless the neg's interp is legitimately you don't get the aff without jumping through multiple hoops. I would prefer interps based on something more specific, whether it's extinction/impact based, or even better education towards an issue, or even the self serving ROB = best at fighting nuke weapons.

I require a bit of explanation. My critical knowledge is better than it was in the past but you are more likely to know your argument more than me. Empiric examples, applications to the affirmative, etc are all useful and persuasive.

Go for tricks, if the aff messes them up then it's a valid strategy, I don't think you need the alt alone if you're winning a sizeable enough impact + link for a case turn type of argument

But do what you do best, I do genuinely like any presentation or idea for argument, as long as it's explained clearly and developed before the 2NR.

--- Critiques (When you are aff) ---

I prefer affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic and do something, or if they do neither have a good justification for doing otherwise.

Defend your arguments and be strategic. IF your 1AC is saying Heg + Prolif, it does not make sense to go for the link turns. This doesn't mean don't make the arguments if it's what you've prepped for but think about what your aff is designed to do and don't shy away from impact turns or alt offense.

Framework is viable and a decent strategy in front of me. I default to Limits > Fairness > Skills based arguments. Another thing from being at Bing is I am slowly leaning towards Fairness is more of an internal link vs an impact alone BUT I can be persuaded otherwise. I am also fine with impact turn debates but not having defense on neg framework standards (Or case defense to the aff) is pretty devastating and a problem for the team without said defense.

Something I have noticed as a pattern for lots of the framework rounds I judge is that not having defense, or at least references/cross applications that can be clear to answer terminal impacts on either side is usually something that can be a round ender. I find that I am somewhat persuaded by 2NR/2ARs that go for conceded impact scenarios on framework/affirmative answers to framework. Outside of heavy framing articulations this is usually hard to overcome.

When resolving a clash debate (most of my rounds) I think my preference is Case specific strat > Framework > Cap unless that is your specific thing you do.

Case should be in the 2NR in some way or fashion. I am willing to vote on presumption or case turns alone.

Critical teams should think hard about if they want to defend DAs or not. I'm not sold one way or the other, but i do get a bit concerned if the 2AC says they'll defend the deterrence DA, but the 1AR/2AR drastically doesn't apply (unless the neg doesn't read a link)

---Misc---

Speaker points are weird and rough at the moment. I don't want to keep people from breaking however. My speaks guidelines end up looking like this for varsity. This may adjust due to trends at all levels.

Nationals

Speaker award - 29.3

should/can clear - 28.7

Regional

Speaker Award -29

Should clear - 28.6

I adjust for division, but IF I give a student in JV or Novice a 29+ I believe they could debate a division up and succeed.

I don't like trolling - if you do not want to debate, simply forfeit, or have a discussion/pursue other methods of debating. IF you read an argument with the sole plan of being disruptive or trolling a debate you get a 15. IF you're funny you get a 25.

Don't cheat- I have fortunately only had to resolve this in 1 round. But if you accuse someone, round ends and will not restart. We don't have that many rules in debate, we should follow them, especially the rules about academic honesty/evidence.

Be polite- doesn't have to be "nice" but generally we shouldn't make rounds overly hostile for 0 reason. We will see each other multiple times over the next few years. There is a cutoff for being snarky and being a jerk.

---Other Events---

I am a policy coach. I have spent the vast majority of my time coaching and preparing things in policy formats. I will flow, I evaluate my decisions based on that flow. I believe the best debaters are ones who both prove their side of an issue is the most effective, and have combatted the opposing side effectively. I will never determine a round solely based on presentation, decorum or speaking style unless something problematic happened to where coaches/tab have to be involved.

LD - i've judged maybe 40 LD rounds in my life (if being generous). I still am shaky about value criterions, I will have done 0 topic research. If you do LD like it's mini policy I am prob very good for you. Disclosure is virtually mandatory. I have heard explanations from LD'ers about theory. My gut is if it's something like counterplan competition or conditionality it is fine. If it's something frivolous or ridiculous I am not great for your speaks or chances to win the ballot. But do what you do best. I don't believe in RVIs

PF - I did PF in 2007-2009 while in high school. I coached a team in PF in the spring of 2021. I generally vote on and will flow. I will heavily follow judge instruction. Disclosure theory is a very persuasive argument and I think evidence practices are egregiously awful for PF. Paraphrasing, and only sending links for evidence is not acceptable for evidence. It must be in a format that is easily accessible and reviewable by both teams AND should be provided before the speech. I'm very flexible on most things, Evidence and disclosure I am not.

Other formats- have 0 experience but will take notes and evaluate based on the rules given.

Background: Debated 2006-2010 at Michigan State University, Assistant Coach at Gonzaga 2010-2011, Coach at MSU 2011-present

carly.wunderlich@gmail.com

---Updates Based on Getting Old---

1. What happened to 1NC DA shells that were complete arguments? Card 1 – Dems will win now – health care is a thing that matters. Card 2 – Dem win stops impeachment. Card 3 – Trump causes nuclear war. Um, no. You don’t have an argument here. The aff gets a wreck of leeway to answer stuff in the 1AR because this isn’t even starting to establish a causal link chain in the 1NC.

3. What happened to 1NC solvency cards for CPs? If your 2NC starts “they dropped the announcements plank in the 2AC it’s GAME OVER” but you haven’t read solvency for that plank that’s a no as well.

They all have huge strategic benefits, I get it – you can just spread them out and then piece it together once the aff drops everything. It’s gross to watch, your speaker points will reflect it and I won't forget who's fault it is that the debate is a wreck to try to decide because the debating didn't start until the block. This is also all true of ludicrous aff moves in the same vein

---Old Philosophy + Minor Revisions---

Things I like about debate

1. Working hard/preparation--- I think quality research should be a guiding factor when making decisions. Specific strategies rewarded, poo-nuggets punished

2. Critical thinking--- nothing gets you thinking you your feet like debate. I like interesting pivots and fast-moving debates

3. Argument testing---looking at both sides of an issue to parse out the most compelling arguments on both sides without confirmation bias – more important than ever, in my opinion

Topicality

As an old 2A I think reasonability works out well for the aff in a lot of spots. I'm very close to living in a post-T world if I'm being honest. The link to the limits DA should be well explained and evidenced (either by analysis or with actual evidence). Need clear case lists with explanation why you do/don’t include a specific case. T-substantial/significant is no for me.

CPs

I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, states) as reasons to reject the team. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. I also do not think that distinct is competitive and I think the neg should compete off a mandate of the plan.

Conditionality- for the last decade my philosophy has read “this is an area where I've started to move farther into the aff camp. My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans. It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a better job of protecting the aff in this department.” Unfortunately, I have failed the aff and voted neg in a LOT of spots. I still wish in my heart that we could limit the number of CPs read in a debate but unfortunately my voting record has not reflected that.

Unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

DAs

I think there are many logical inconsistencies with DAs that often go unremarked on by the aff in favor of impact defense. I think the aff would generally do better on engaging at the link/internal link level of dubious DAs. Picking one argument to deal a death blow to the DA works better than death by a thousand cuts.

Ks

Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. Links to the plan action are best. Affs get far on “K doesn’t remedy “x” advantage and that outweighs” if the neg is not good and explicit about it. Almost all frameworks are a race to the middle. Neg gets to question assumptions of the aff, aff gets to weigh advantages- that’s a warning to the aff and the neg.

The Aff

I feel that there are lots of instances where crummy affs get away with it because the neg only focuses on impact calc. I think this is another instance, like DAs, where focusing on solvency/internal link args can pay bigger dividends than impact calc.

Speaker points

Things I like in speeches

1. Connections on central questions- slowing down and effectively communicating about guiding issues

2. Technical proficiency- answering clearly all necessary arguments

3. Clarity- I’m doing my best to be mindful of this but I honestly sometimes just forget- I’ll call clear once if you’re incomprehensible but at a certain point it will affect whether or not I vote on arguments

4. Strategic cross-exs- I’d prefer not to spend another 12 mins listening to “where does your card say that?”

Things that will result in reduced speaker points

1. Cross-reading, clipping- if there is an ethics challenge made I will stop the debate and evaluate it. If the person in question is found to be doing it they will lose the debate and receive zero speaker points.

2. Tech fails- please be prompt and quick with tech things. In a world of decision times this is increasingly getting to me.

3. Creating an environment that is hostile or unsafe for me or the other team – It's important for productive conversations and it's not healthy for all of us to leave tournaments hating each other.

4. Talking over everyone in c-x – I get it, you think you’re cool but I’m pretty bored with watching people get themselves all worked up and then just yell over the other team

My Speaker Point Scale (unless otherwise published by the tournament)

29.6 -30: You should receive a Top 10 speaker award

29.3 – 29.5: In this debate, you were an quarters level debater

28.8 – 29.2: In this debate, you were a 5-3, octos or double octos debater

28.4 – 28.7: In this debate, you were a 4-4 debater on the verge or bubble of clearing

28 – 28.3: You are improving but not quite there on big picture issues

27.5 – 28: You need some improvement on technical items as well as big picture things

Background - 4 years at Wake Forest University (2008-2012), 2A for all 4 years with occasional exceptions.I've been an assistant coach at the University of Central Florida since August 2013. I've debated and coached across the ideological spectrum.

I think I agree with everything in Sean Ridley's paradigm.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aff - Do what you want. Defend what you do and why, but you already know that.

T/FW - I wasn't great debating them, and I'm probably the same way judging them. I'll give it my best effort, but just know that it might be a bit of a crapshoot.

K - Specificity is generally what wins the day for either side. Give clear, concrete examples. Cite something that happened in THIS round. The less jargon the better. I will happily listen to any K (and any K answer) that meets these criteria.

CP - Please don't read some contrived CP that's based around one out of context card or that relies on more weird theory than substantive argument to be competitive.

Theory - You'll need a story for abuse in this round if you want me to do more than just reject the argument. That is NOT to say that you can't win common practices in debate warrant a loss. I'll vote on condo or consult bad or whatever if you can present a good story why. Contextualize it. What happened this round = good. "Unique time and strategy skew, it's a voter" = bad. And for God's sake, slow down. I have no idea how some judges can flow theory debates at full speed.

Clash of Civ - Do not just talk about your side in the rebuttals. Do not just use your terminology. Talk about what they said, use the key words they use, explain how it interacts with your take on things, etc. If you do more work to bridge the gaps between their position and yours, you'll get to put your own spin on what I inevitably end doing in the post-round.

In round etiquette - Be assertive, even abrasive, but don't break basic norms of decency.

Ethics challenges - Better have some convincing evidence.  

My background is in policy/cross-x. I debated for Michigan State for four years in undergrad and also for four years at Pine Crest in Florida in high school. I competed at the NDT multiple times in college, so I have experience with high-level college debate, but also have experience judging all levels of high-school debate. Other than judging PUDL a few times a year and an occasional lecture, I have not been directly involved in the activity for several years. I will likely have little to no background on the topic itself, so please don't throw a bunch of acronyms at me assuming I will know them.

I will aim to remove my personal views about debate or specific arguments from any of my decision-making. Debate should be about the arguments being made by the debaters, not about what I like or agree/disagree with. That being said, I will share just a bit about my background. Having debated for Michigan State, my experience is mostly in traditional policy arguments and I was mostly a "2A" in college. I am open to critiques and planless affirmatives if the rules of the tournament allow, but I will not fill in the gaps for a debater who fails to adequately explain their arguments.

Presentation matters. I will ultimately judge the debate based on content but how you convey information influences how persuaded I am by your arguments. That being said, I do not have a fixed view of what a good presentation looks like. Every debaters should have their own style, I want you all to be the best versions of yourselves.

Here are some things I will appreciate from debaters:

1) At some point in the debate I expect debaters to pick their heads up from their cards (or tags) and actually explain their arguments. It is more valuable to me to have one or two arguments well explained than 10 arguments tag lined extended. Along with this, I value any well thought out and explained argument. Yes, evidence is helpful, but a well explained analytic can persuade me as well.

2) Please listen and respond to your opponents. The best way to get high speaker points from me (And to win the debate) is to show you took into account what your opponent argued had a response to it. Do not discount an argument simply because you feel it is non-responsive or a card was not read on it. I expect debaters to show respect to their opponents, including by respecting their arguments.

3) Debate is a technical activity. Dropping arguments early in the debate may make it too late to make new argument later. On the flip side, just because your opponent dropped an argument does not mean you win. There are numerous creative ways to cross-apply arguments made elsewhere or to get back into the debate, but generally speaking, if the first time you are responding to an argument is the 2NR/2AR it may be too late.

4) Do not forget to do an impact analysis at the end of the debate. Nuclear war is really bad, but unlikely to take place. The ongoing deaths of thousands does not have the magnitude of major war, but the probability is high. A well developed impact analysis in the final speeches can win you the debate even if you are behind in other areas.