Jared Bressler. My email is jbressl3@gmail.com if you are using an email chain or you want to email me a question (Include tournament name and debate in the subject line if its a pre-round question). I did LD debate for four years a very long time ago. I competed in then coached NPDA debate at Texas Tech for a very long time. I have also coached LD on and off for the last decade or so, some traditional some less so. I will go into my stylistic preferences bellow but there are a few things that apply no mater what style of debate you chose. Warrants are good, weight impacts, be nice to each other, I will evaluate the debate if front of me based on the arguments made to the best of my abilities. Also I am ok with speed (I know that should go without saying at a bid tournament but I also know that I am new here)

I am happiest judging policy style debates (I like to evaluate the aff plan vs either the sqo or a compitive CP). I have judged and am capable of judging any style of debate you chose (critical (identity or otherwise) traditional ect.) I will reward quality arguments with speaker points in a way I will not reward tricks.

Policy making: I will cover more of this in the theory section, but a few things. Offence is your friend, don't forget uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I really like heg and politics debate. Impact turn debates can also be fun.

Theory I judge all theory on competing interpretations. All that matter is the aff (or the neg) meets the best interpretations in the round as decided by weighting standards. I struggled with rather to give you my theory prepositions since they are not strong since a: they can be overcome with quality arguments and b: they were formed doing NPDA and policy which has different resolutions and times so I'm not even sure that these preconceptions are good for LD, but I think its good to have as much idea as where I am coming from so here they are. A good interpation provides predictable limits. The aff should be topical, CP should be textually and functionally competitive (they can of course be topical), all neg advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise (though if you want to go for condo bad you should clarify in CX). I am willing to vote on framework/wrong form arguments. Also make sure you share your theory interps (and advocacy texts) or if for some reason you can't read them twice at below conversational speed.

Critical debate. I ran this a lot as a debater, but have become less fond of them as a judge. My default is to weight the alt as a competing advocacy. I am cynical of ballot of advocacy but I have voted that way before. I am able to follow most critical litature as long as its extend properly.

Traditinal LD: I have judged a bunch of this and some of it has been pretty good. Remember that debate is still about impacts, saying my value is "..." dose not automatically make that important. I have seen too many rounds where half the speech time was spent arguing value/criteria in a way that was completely detached from the rest of the debate where the impacts were.

updated: October 24, 2019

Experience: 2 years of parliamentary debate at Northwest Community College, and did 3 years of NPDA and NPTE debate at Washburn University. During this time, I was semi-competitive at both levels. Many of my thoughts and upbringing of debate comes from a multitude of people from the community college circuit and the national circuit. I would say my views on debate though have been largely shaped by Jeannie Hunt, Steven Doubledee, and Kevin O’Leary.

General: Debate to me is a multitude of things meaning that it is an open space for a diversity of arguments. It still to me though is largely a game that is shaped by the real world and lived experience. I am fine with you doing whatever you please, but I am not saying that I will understand it, I will do my best to evaluate all arguments as best as I can. Make the debate yours, have fun, and compete, that’s what I believe.

--Defense (I love terminal defense, to me it is very underutilized)

--Ask for copies of texts or repeat them (ROTB, interps, or anything I will need word for word please read slowly and repeat)

--Partner Communication is fine

In general, I do not have a preference in the style of the way you debate, do you, and I will evaluate the best I can.

Theory: This is one subset of arguments that I wished I delved more into when I debated. I will not say I am the best at understanding theory, but I do not mind a good procedural or a strategic use of theory. Deploy it as necessary or as an escape valve, it doesn’t matter to me. I think having impacted out voters is nice. Although, the standards debate to me is the crux of the shell, gotta win a substantive standard to get the impact/voter. I probably would mostly default to competing interps, as well, to me it just makes the most sense.

Case: I love case debate. Good terminal case defense and awesome turns, to me, is an underutilized strategy. Aff’s be able to defend the case, sometimes as MG’s we get too bogged down prepping for the off case positions, just be sure to be able to defend your case. I think LOC’s should get to case to at least mitigate each advantage, but I understand time constraints and time management.

Performance: To me all debate is a performance, right? Like the judge is basically the audience and evaluates two opposing speakers, seems like a performance, but I digress.

- You should have a role of the ballot/judge argument (probably in your framework interp).

- Explain how the opposing team ought to interact with your performance.

- Explain the importance of your specific performance within the context of the topic.

- Frame your impacts in a manner that is consistent with your performance

The K- I think a good criticism has framework, thesis, links, impacts, alt, and alternative solvency. The thesis allows the judge to be able to better understand the K itself, by giving a short synopsis of the K, the framework tells me how to evaluate it, is fiat illusory, should evaluate epistemology over ontology, etc. The links should be specific to the topic and grounded to the literature or if the aff is a critical aff then there should be good justifications for why you are rejecting the topic ( I will vote on framework). If the aff is a critical aff, if you are on the neg and don’t have good links to the aff and you prepped your k, and you are also going to read Framework, just make a decision and either go for framework or the K (I just think many instances framework contradicts criticsms so reading framework and a K seems to be contradictory to me unless they don’t contradict). The K should probably outweigh and turn the aff. I do not know all critical literature but the literature bases I do know are:

- Post Modernism

- Post Structuralism

- Whiteness

- Critical Race Theory

Don’t let this constrain you though, I love to learn new things and don’t mind listening. I will try my best to evaluate your arguments

CP Theory: Read whatever theory related to Counterplans you want, if you win it you win it. If you lose it, you lose it.

Permutations:

- Always and only a test of competition

- Should explain how the Permutation resolves the links/offense of the DA/K.

- You don't ever need 8 permutations. Read one or two theoretically sound perms with net benefits.

- Sev/Intrinsic perms are probably not voting issues given they are merely tests of competitiveness.

Speak Points: I will probably range from 26-30. 30 would be excellent, 29 is almost excellent, and so forth.

My background: I debated for 5 years on the NPTE/NPDA circuit (2 years at the University of Texas at Tyler and 3 years at Washburn University) from 2012 through 2017. I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years. I have my BA in Political Science with a minor in Women and Gender Studies. I'm now an attorney so my involvement in debate has been rather limited in the past few years. However, I typically judge and coach at least a couple of college LD tournaments a year.

Paradigm framing update: I have lately transitioned into a career role that utilizes many portable skills from debate in real life. I am the General Counsel for the Kansas Governmental Ethics Commission, which enforces state campaign finance laws and conflicts of interest laws. Re-entrenching myself in government and legislative work has made me appreciate policy arguments even more. This does not mean that I do not enjoy critical arguments, quite the contrary actually. I would simply appreciate an explanation as to how your position interacts with the state. In my new position, I have directly used portable skills that I developed in debate, such as the ability to argue effectively and the ability to adapt to my audience. Sometimes my audience is a Commission consisting of attorneys, sometimes it is the legislature, sometimes it is a judge. I mention all of this because it frames my paradigm. Please read and consider this update in light of the remainder of my paradigm below.

Highlights: I think that debate is a game in which you should make use of all the tools that you can creatively deploy. I prefer debates that engage the topic and in an ideal situation utilize fiat to do so, but I will definitely listen to arguments that interpret the topic differently. I would prefer that you read advocacies unconditionally and I will vote on conditionality. Impact calculus is the most important thing to me as a judge. I want the rebuttal speeches to help me craft my ballot through the lenses of timeframe, probability, and magnitude.

Identity/Performance/Critical Arguments: I need a clear advocacy; it does not need to be an alternative, but make your advocacy clear (whether it be a poem, metaphor, alt, etc.). I need you to frame the debate for me through unique impacts you may garner from these type of arguments. I'm willing to listen to "role play as the state" framework strategies from the negative, but I think the biggest mistake neg teams make here is not answering the arguments on the aff proper and they end up being framed out. I do think that if you are rejecting the resolution then you need some sort of justification for doing so or a link to the resolution.

Flowing: Give me enough time to switch tabs on my laptop when you switch sheets. If I think you are too quiet, unclear, or fast I will let you know immediately. Additionally, please read tag lines for cards slower than the card itself and make a clear distinction when you are switching cards.

Texts and Interpretations: Slow down when you read the plan/cp/alt and repeat it. I think this is very important during theory and framework debates.

Procedurals/Theory/T: I enjoy a good T debate and I default to competing interpretations, but this does not mean that I won’t listen to other frameworks for evaluating T. I am not a fan of RVI’s. I do not need real in round abuse, but an abuse story needs to exist even if it is potential abuse. I need procedurals to have clearly articulated interpretations, violations, standards, and voters not just blips in the 1NC of, “vote for us for fairness and education”. I view topicality similarly to a disad in that I view standards as being the internal links to the voters (impacts).

Disads: I enjoy topic specific disads. As a side note, I have higher standards for voting on politics than most others because I ran the argument so often. I need specifics such as vote counts, whose whipping the votes, sponsors of the bill, procedural information regarding passage, etc.

CPs: I am not prone to vote against any type of counter-plan. I prefer functional competition over textual competition because it is easier to weigh and more tangible to me.

Ks: I enjoy criticisms and I believe that they can offer a very unique and creative form of education to the debate space. If your criticism is complicated then I would like an explanation of what the alternative does. I really enjoy a good perm debate on the K and am not opposed listening to theory regarding the alternative/perms (floating PICs, severance, etc.).

I’m going to borrow a bit about alternatives directly from Dr. Lauren Knoth’s philosophy as it describes my feelings regarding complicated alternatives perfectly.

“***Important*** I need to have a clear explanation of what the alternative does, and what the post-alt world looks like. Stringing together post-modern terms and calling it an alternative is not enough for me if I have no idea what the heck that means. I prefer to know exactly what action is advocated by the alternative, and what the world looks like after passage of the alternative. I think this is also necessary to establish stable solvency/alternative ground for the opposing team to argue against and overall provides for a better debate. Good theory is nothing without a good mechanism with which to implement it, and I'm tired of this being overlooked.”

Perms: I really enjoy perm debates. I think that the text of the perm is critical and must be clear. Slow down, read them twice, and/or give me a copy of the text. You don’t have to read the entire plan text in K debates and instead it is sufficient to say, “do the plan and x”. My definition of a legitimate perm would be that they are all of the plan and all or parts of the CP/Alt. I think that perms serve as tests of competition.

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

My ever-growing list of Things which Peeve Me:

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

- Waiting to start flex until you get your copies]

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

- Asking for a copy of everything

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

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

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

o Spiritual claims

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

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

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

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

General:

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

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

- Condo: Agnostic, be prepared to defend it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ask me before the round

Hey there! Please feel free to ask me about my philosophy before round.

email: david.bo.hansen@gmail.com

Experience

Competitor

2 years - Community College NPDA/IE's
3 years - National Circuit NPDA/NPTE

Coach
2 years - Asian Parliamentary Debate/Public Forum
2 years - NPDA/NPTE
Some BP

My preferred pronouns are he/him/his.

Public Forum Notes

Do you have any strong predispositions for or against any particular arguments? If so, what?

I am open to any kind of argument as long as it is well warranted and reasoned. As a debater and coach, I have worked with all kinds of arguments and tend to think that debaters should read the arguments that they are the most personally compelled by.

What is your stance on student delivery? Should debaters be fast or slow?

I have no strong predisposition for or against speed. I just ask that all debaters are able to comprehend the debate round.

Do you call for evidence in debate rounds? What do you look for?

I call for evidence if there is a dispute on interpretation, but I tend to defer to debaters' interpretation.

What do you tend to think the most important questions in a debate are?

How should the judge decide who wins? Which arguments matter most? Why does my evidence support my claim? I find more specific arguments more persuasive.

I am not prejudiced strongly for or against kritikal arguments.

I tend to think providing a framework for the round is important.

Policy/Parli

General Notes

Specificity wins debates.

(Parli) Interpretations and advocacies should at least be read twice and slowly. Ideally you provide the judge(s) and competitors with a copy.

I tend to believe that the way we discuss the world has real impacts outside of the debate round.

If debaters are debating ethically, I tend to believe that framework arguments are more persuasive than the arguments against it. However, I will vote based on how the debate plays out. If you win that defending the topic is bad and you reject the topic, you will likely win the debate.

An argument without a warrant isn’t an argument.

I tend to believe that recording, sharing, and watching rounds is good for debate.

Theory and Framework

I love a great theory or framework shell. I am happy to vote here. I think a great shell isn't the right buzzwords, it's a specific articulation of how behavior implicates debate as a game.

Counter Plans

I’m uncertain about conditionality. I am sympathetic to arguments about the 2AC/MG being key and difficult. However, I also believe the negative should have some flexibility. The community goes back and forth on condo and I do too. Feel free to run your shell. Feel free to be conditional. I will vote depending on how condo plays out.

PIC’s are usually abusive in NPDA debate, but often strategic and occasionally justified – especially if the topic provides aff flex.

Delay is almost always bad, so are process CP’s.

Kritiks

These are fine. I read them a lot, and went for them occasionally. Please provide early thesis-level analysis. I think most K shells I’ve seen are incredibly inefficient and vulnerable to impact turns. Teams should likely cut major portions of their FW page and instead develop solvency and internal links to the case.

2A/MG’s should be more willing to go hard right (or left) to answer K’s. The aff probably links to Cap, but there is SUBSTANTIAL lit in favor of cap.

K/Critical affs

Can be amazing. However, they are easy to do inefficiently and hard to do well. An aff that is rejecting the motion needs to justify why: 1. Your thing matters more than the topic 2. Why you can’t discuss your thing on this topic OR 3. Why your thing is a prior question to the topic.

On the neg, you need to prove that you are an opportunity cost to the aff. Maybe it’s as simple as you need to keep debating, but you need a reason.

Short Version

Young judge, been judging primarily at Houston area (Rice University) tournaments for the past two years after taking a year off upon graduation. Default to policy/net-bens but will listen to any framework. Theory usually comes first, and competing interps are default. DAs/CPs/Ks are all equally valid tools. Do the work for me in the neg block/PMR, and you're much more likely to win than if I have to work it out myself. Also, have exact texts of plans/CPs/interpretations/advocacies written out for evaluation (I will give leniency to teams having to answer theory on writing counter-interps).

Long Version

I was a 5-year debater at Texas Tech University, finishing my career with an 11th place finish at NPTE and a Quarterfinals finish at NPDA. After graduating, I have taken a job as a corrosion engineer. As such, I have not had much time to attend college debate tournaments, but I have been able to judge a few high school policy tournaments in the Houston area. I am not deeply in tune with current trends in parli (circa about 2017), as I only get to judge 1 or 2 tournaments a year, so keep that in mind when doing strikes/prefs.

Affs

I will listen to any aff you choose to read regardless of what the topic is. In my ideal world the aff would read a topical aff defending the implications of the fiated implementation of a specific plan text. That said, if this style of debate is not your preferred style, forget what I just said and do what you like to do. Performative/unique affs ought be encouraged and are good for the format. However, you should make every attempt to ensure that the negative team understands the aff. If it seems like you're saying nothing but a bunch of debate/academic jargon, and your opponents are having difficulty comprehending the aff, then this will be marked against you in speaker points and possibly the ballot if the negative makes it an issue in round. This ought not encourage a race to the bottom, but should instead encourage good-faith interaction between the teams. Also, please provide a written text for your advocacy if you have a stable text. Preferably write this out before the round.

Negative Theory (T, Spec, Must Take a Question, etc.)

Theory is a strategic tool and a good way to check abusive affs. For me, theory requires a clear, structured format consisting of an interpretation, a violation, standards, and voters. Proven abuse is not necessary at all, which will probably make my threshold for pulling the trigger on theory lower than most individuals. Instead, I will evaluate based on the offense/defense presented at the standards/voters level. A good we meet is terminal defense, and affs should feel free to go all in on a we meet if the neg mishandles it. SPEC in general is questionable but like anything else I will listen to it (I actually won a round at NPDA on spec, so I can't say anything). Both teams should take at least one question regarding their advocacy other than a request for a text (which both teams should provide written copies of regardless). Also, if you're reading a theory position, you should provide a written text of your interpretation. Counter-interps are preferably also written, but I understand how that can be difficult and thus deserve leniency. Finally, if you are going to go for theory, GO FOR THEORY in the last speech. Don't bring up other positions in the final speeches unless doing so in relation to the theory position.

Aff Theory

This is extremely useful for dealing with wonky/cheating negs. That said, the same standards that applied to negative theory apply to affirmative theory. Keep aff theory interps short as I will expect you to hand over a written copy of the text. RVIs are bad theory; if you want to read theory, go the full distance and read a theory shell. Theory after the MG is probably bad (MO/LOR/PMR). I will do all the work I can reasonably do to avoid voting on PMR theory, so if that's your PMR strat it better be a really good shell and the violation needs to be particularly egregious.

Disadvantages/Case

In my ideal world every neg would put out 2 disadvantages and a ton of case arguments, along with a counterplan or two (which should signal my thoughts on conditionality). Disadvantages should follow very clear stories, and have very defined directionality on both uniqueness and links. Case arguments don't need to be as fleshed out but remember, a case argument without uniqueness is beaten the same way a disad without uniqueness is beaten. Verbally structuring these arguments will help out immensely.

Counterplans

Please provide a text and describe exactly how you compete with the affirmative. Counterplans can be topical and don't have to be mutually exclusive. I strongly understand functional competition while I believe textual competition is nonsense unless you are explicitly critiquing some word/structure of the affirmative plan text. Counterplans should also explicitly describe how they solve the affirmative (if applicable) and how they avoid linking back to the neg arguments, even if it's as simple as "we do something completely different." You can read any type of counterplan you like, but you better have answers to theory.

Permutations

Perms do not need written texts, and in many instances perm: do both is reasonable shorthand. If the negative can prove that reading the two texts side by side makes the perm impossible/incoherent, I will probably drop the perm. When it comes to evaluating counterplans/permutations, I check whether the permutation avoids the links to the negative offense. If so, then I evaluate the aff vs the negative offense, and see if it outweighs. If not, then I evaluate only the negative offense. What this means is if you are running an unconditional counterplan and the perm is successful, you can still win the debate via your offense--you just have to actually weigh it against the aff, which loses all offense if their advantages are solved by your counterplan.

Conditionality

I default to the thought that conditionality is good. You can argue its bad and win, but generally going for theory brings debates closer to 50/50, so if you're winning somewhere else, you might wanna go there. As for dispositionality, I still have no clue what that means as there seems to be no universal definition. If you are going to say a CP/Alt is dispo, explain what that means (or better yet, just be condo and make everybody's lives easier).

Kritiks/Alternative Negatives

Pretty much everything I said in the above sections is applicable here. I will gladly listen to any position you decide to run. That said, please note that I am an engineering major that has been out of the community for a couple years, and thus received all of his critical education from debate. What this means is that I probably don't know all the lit you are talking about. I understand social justice kritiks pretty well and jive with them, along with more basic Ks including cap and whatnot. Postmodern Ks are pretty much a no-go for me unless you can ELI5 them. Name dropping is also not a warrant, you're going to have to do the work in parli. As far as how traditional affs can interact with critical negative positions, remember that the affirmative has its own epistemology/ontology/performance that is probably necessary for accomplishing/preventing the impacts of the aff. You may not get access to your impacts as they are, but if the negative can make broad sweeping claims about what they are able to accomplish, so should you.

Impact Calc

I evaluate impacts in terms of magnitude modified by timeframe and probability. Magnitude is obvious while timeframe is the second deciding factor, as sooner impacts of the same magnitude should be prioritized due to possible intervention later on. I evaluate probability a little differently than some might expect--it has nothing to do with the actual likelihood of an event occurring, but rather the amount of defense the other team can successfully argue. While this is how I normally view rounds, if you want me to seriously alter this, feel free to argue it in round and absent rebuttal from the other team I will go with however you want me to evaluate things.

Rebuttals

The PMR and LOR should be making the debate as small as possible, and do impact calc. The less work you do for me in weighing impacts/showing how you win, the harder it will be for you to win. If neither team does the work in the rebuttals, I end up looking at my flow forever, my decision may not be what you want, and everybody ends up sad.

Speed

I am fine with speed in theory. In practice, I do not know how fast I can flow parli anymore, though I figure I can handle most people going 75% speed. I'll signal you however you like if I'm losing you, and will try my hardest to flow your speed. As for criticisms of speed, just answer them. If you lose the round on it, learn answers. Speed is probably good/inevitable, but should not be used as a tool of exclusion.

Points of Order

I will try my hardest to actually rule on these as it may affect the final strategy of the PMR. That said, I will also protect the negative by ruling out arguments as I go.

Annnnnnnnnnnnnd that's about it. Good luck everybody! Feel free to ask for questions before/after rounds, or contact me at dhhoffmaster@gmail.com

Hey all! To start, my judging philosophy is probably similar to David Hansen’s. However, there are certain issues I view differently than David. I say this to encourage you to actually read my philosophy and not assume you know my preferences because you might know David’s.

I started my debate career at Snow College where I did NPDA and IE’s for two years before transferring to William Jewell College. I debated there for three years and won nationals in 2016. I love debate. The thing I love most about it is that it’s not about the judges, it’s about the debaters. To that end, debate what you want to debate about.

*Note for Jewell: I have spent a year living in South Korea working with students who don’t speak English natively, so your top speed may be too fast. I will let you know if I have any difficulty understanding you with either “clear” or “speed”.

General Notes

If I were to summarize my philosophy, I would say I think that you can run whatever you would like to run as long as you justify it. Whether that be the cap k, fem, afro pessimism, heg, politics, etc., if you can justify you have access to those arguments via links or framework, I can be persuaded to vote there.

Interpretations and advocacies should at least be read twice and slowly. I will ask for a copy of your texts (cp, plant text, t interps, etc).

Pretty much nothing in my philosophy is absolute.

An argument without a warrant isn’t an argument.

Theory and Framework

I love theory debates. Framework was the most common argument I ran my senior year. That being said, I do believe most theory debate is executed very poorly. I will not be persuaded by repeating the shell your coach gave you if you can’t explain what standards like “limits” mean. Generally, I’ve found that theory positions that are nuanced, specific to parli, and are good at interacting with standards are rare.

The exception to this rule is straight-up T in policy debates. This is the one theory that I have a high threshold for.

Counter Plans

Generally, I believe that condo is bad. I think it discourages in-depth research and takes away too much MG flex. However, I know there are excellent condo good args. If you win those, I’ll def vote against condo bad.

PIC’s I think are fair game. I think their extremely strategic but can be abusive, so get good specific justifications that are related to the topic.

Delay is almost always bad, so are process CP’s.

Kritiks

These are fine. I read them a lot, went for them occasionally. Please provide early thesis-level analysis. I think most K shells I’ve seen are incredibly inefficient and vulnerable to impact turns. Teams should likely cut major portions of their FW page and instead develop solvency and internal links to the case.

MG’s should be more willing to go hard right (or left) to answer K’s. The aff probably links to Cap, but there is SUBSTANTIAL lit in favor of cap.

***I do have a much higher threshold for psycho analysis K’s (Lacan, Derrida, etc). This is partly because I get frustrated with how these arguments are so different then how their authors wrote them. I also generally dislike continental philosophy. If this is your baby, go for it. Just make sure you clearly explain what your K is and don’t over rely on jargon.***

Performance

I think performance arguments can be amazing. However, most teams do a terrible job of justifying why they don’t have to debate the topic. I think these arguments exist, but that generally teams are bad at explaining them.

I am probably far more likely to vote on framework arguments if the aff’s justification for not debating about the topic is generic, especially if it seems like you are running the position just to catch your opponent off guard. ***This is not to say you can’t run them. Just be nuanced in your justification.***

On the neg, you need to prove that you are an opportunity cost to the aff. Maybe it’s as simple as you need to keep debating, but you need a reason.

The allegory of the cornbread:

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


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

Speech: Long history judging/coaching all events after competing in policy debate for both high school and college.

Extemporaneous speaking: 1. Avoid the generic attention getters and jump into content as quickly as possible. 2. Cite lots of sources (accurately and fluidly--I'd aim for about 10); 3. Delivery/style: word economy is crucial in this event...rate is conversational, but 7:00 is not a lot of time to answer a complex question; 4. I will keep close time and look closely at the extent to which the speech is balanced. 5. All this said, I appreciate a good joke and an effort to breath personality into the speech--be bold and don't be afraid to take chances.

Platform speech events (oratory, informative, etc.): 1. A lot of my thoughts on extemporaneous speaking are applicable, recognizing this is a different genre of speech--it's geared to reach a broader audience. Thus, I might temper my comments on word economy a little--probably makes sense to take your time a little more and utilize a pace that provides more time to let points sink in, etc. Still, I value a quantity of information over cheesy jokes, etc. 2. I really, really appreciate a speaker who digs deep and finds a unique topic that is meaningful to her. So often, especially in out rounds, speakers are very equal in a lot of ways (organization, delivery, etc.), and it's the topic that helps provide a degree of separation--generic topics are fairly easy to spot. This is your chance--you can pick any topic to talk about; make it worth your while--this will make it worth my while.

Oral Interpretation: I'm not the best oral interpretation coach in the world--just never did it myself or anything like it. But, I'm not the worst either and have seen/judged a lot of INCREDIBLE rounds at the highest levels of competition. The great oral interpers make me forget that I'm judging for a few minutes. I definitely recognize great interp when I see it and am more impressed by performers who move me through pace and facial expressions than I am through volume--though the great interpers will use all the vocal qualities and have a knack for what is needed in each exact moment. The material is key--I love seeing unique themes and performers choosing material that they personally identify with. The introduction is incredibly important--here you have the opportunity to take any topic and make it your own--a source or 2 in the intro can often be effective at contextualizing your message. Take risks. Have fun. Speak your truth.

Policy Debate:

Philosophy/Overview:

I began policy debate decades ago as a policymaker (1990's when a good counterplan/disadvantage strategy ruled the day). Critical arguments are fine but don't assume that's a beginning point for me--be sure and frame the debate by discussing its pre-fiat implications. As far as performative based arguments and other more progressive styles of debate, I'm not against them...just don't have a lot of experience with them--definitely not my starting point--be sure and invest time helping me get there. Generally speaking, I feel the Affirmative should Affirm the resolution and any arguments ought to have a pretty specific link/buy-in to it. While I don't consider my understanding of debate to be inflexible or permanent, a few very gifted and persuasive college NPDA/NPTE teams have tried to convince me that the topic doesn't matter and haven't been successful.

Delivery:

Once upon a time, I erroneously gave myself credit as being a speedster from both a delivery and flowing perspective. I've gotten older (OLD) and am not in that kind of shape any more. I haven't coached or judged national circuit style of debate in a LONG time. I value efficient, quick delivery with lots of arguments--but; word economy is more impressive to me than the rate of speaking. If you must talk as quickly as possible, I'll do my best to keep up but don't be surprised if I miss stuff and/or don't have enough time to process it in a way that does you a lot of good. Definitely go slow on tag lines, game-winning arguments, transitions between arguments, and anything that you'd like to have show up on the RFD. If you enjoy "rapid fire," I get it--it's fun and I want you to have fun--and I don't question the pedagogical value in any way; but if you want me to get most of everything on my flow, I recommend slowing it down to at least 75% of your norm.

e-mail: timothy.doty@lubbockisd.org

Section 1: General Information

Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters you are judge debate in front of you. Please be specific and clear. Judges who write philosophies that are not clear will be asked to rewrite them. Judges who do not rewrite them may be fined or not allowed to judge/cover teams at the NPTE.

This is my first year out. I debated for CSU-Pueblo from 2014- nationals of 2017. I picked up a lot of what I know from Kathryn Starkey so if you have had her judge you before I see debate similarly to her.

Section 2: Specific Inquiries

Please describe your approach to the following.

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

My speaker points typically range between 26.5-30. If you are not respectful to your opponents your speaker points will reflect that.

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

I do ask that you refrain from reading arguments about anxiety, depression or suicide in front of me. Should you decide to ignore this request please at least have a trigger warning before you jump in.

Otherwise, I will listen to anything you decide to read but fair warning I probably not as well versed in some literature as compared to other judges.

If you decide to be conditional it is your burden to defend why you are not abusive but if you can do so, go for it.

I prefer to discuss the topic but again I will listen to anything you decide to read as long as you can justify why you win the round.

1. 3. Performance based arguments…

Please be aware of your opponents and judges. Some of the things you may want to discuss can be triggering for others and create an unsafe space for them. Therefore, please provide trigger warnings where necessary. I also prefer you not read arguments about anxiety, depression or suicide in front of me.

As stated above I will listen to your arguments and vote on it if you are winning but I do think that performance rounds are very hard to decide who wins.

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

To vote on T I need a clear interpretation, a violation and standards with net benefits. I love T debates and engaged in them a lot as a competitor so I am all down for it. Unless you tell me how to vote otherwise I will default to competing interpretations

1. 5. Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

-I think PICS can be good or bad but it is up to you to tell me why it is one way or the other.

-I think the opp should identify the status of the CP when they read it so that if theory is read it can happen sooner in the debate and the round doesn’t end with a random theory debate that was barely shelled out at the end.

-I’m all about a perm debate.

-Your cp should be competitive which typically requires you being functionally competitive.

1. 6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans)

I don’t care. Do what you need to do to compete in the round. I am going to judge the round based off of what I have on my flow.

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

Theory comes first. Otherwise you are the ones who tell me where to vote.

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

Unless told otherwise I will default to a net benefit analysis. If you tell me why I should vote otherwise I will 100% vote on different impacts.

Other Random thoughts

• Please read all plans and interpretations twice or give me a copy if you wanted it written down word for word.

• Please weigh impacts :) it makes my job easier

• I protect against new arguments in the rebuttals but please still call point of orders when you hear them incase I miss it.

I debated 4 years of CX/policy debate from 02-06 and parli for San Jacinto from 06-08 and then for Texas Tech from 08-11. Im not sure there is an argument I'm biased against, besides obvious repugnant arguments. If you're not sure the argument is repugnant? Don't make it.

Theory - I'm good with it. Have a CLEAR INTERP with offensive standards/counter standards. Don't be too defensive or you risk losing my ballot. Be offensive. Just like any other sheet. I default competing interps. Responsibility args will get your defensive args more weight.

DA/CPs- like em. Run em.

Ks- I'm good with them. Alternatives and framework are the most important. Focus energy there.

Any specific questions, just ask me.

David Worth – Rice

D.O.F., Rice University

Parli Judging Philosophy

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

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

I prefer debates that are related to the topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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