I was very involved with debate during high school and did some judging during college, but this was many years ago. I got back into debate 3 years ago and I am now the new coach for a high school team. I am open to all forms of arguments, but have limited ability to follow full spreading and the more complex national circuit type argumentation. In final speeches, tell me why you have won the round.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no actor, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if not argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. I generally consider them attempts to exclude the aff from the round or else shut down discourse by focusing the debate on issues of identity or discourse rather than ideas, especially because most pre-fiat Ks are performative but not performed. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts. Performance is important here.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true. I have a fairly low threshold to vote on "psychoanalysis is unscientific nonsense" arguments because....well, they're kinda true.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

This is my tenth year judging speech and debate. I also competed for all four years in high school. I have judge tournaments for both national and local circuits across the country and enjoy seeing great rounds. I understand and respect the hard work given to prepare and

DEBATE

I am a flow judge so make sure to make extensions for every speech. Debate rounds should have clash. Be sure to address arguments made by your opponent. Speed is fine as long as it is clear. I also do not mind theory arguments. I consider myself a blank slate and believe it is important to not let personal opinions sway the round. However, I am normally persuaded by arguments being unfair. Do not waste time explaining if something is abusive during the round. Below is the ranking of what I will use to determine who picks up the round:

1. Framework (Value and Criterion Required in LD)

2. Key Issues

3. Voters

4. Impacts

Speaker points: I generally evaluate speaker points on things like clarity, argument structure and development, extensions, and overall how presence. However, I expect civility in the round. Please avoid ad hominem attacks.

SPEECH

I will first and foremost value delivery including tone, clarity, and gestures. Creativity is the second factor that influences my ranking. For extemp, I enjoy hearing sources incorporated into the speech. Most important, be sure to have fun. I will give time signals from 3 down.

If you ever have any questions, feel free to email me at jl.bradford@hotmail.com. It may take a little while, but I will respond.

UPDATE: 2/14/2020, re: Harvard tournament - This will be my second tournament judging Congress; I judged previously at last month's Barkley Forum at Emory. In other years, here at Harvard, I've judged both PF and LD.

I have judged both PF and LD, on local circuits and at the Harvard National tournament, for the past three seasons and judged BQ @ the 2018 NSDA Nationals. I'm a former high school (Science) teacher, and love being involved with high schoolers again through Debate.

A few things:

-Although I've been judging for quite awhile now, I began as a parent judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll ultimately actually CONVINCE me.

- I'm not a fan of progressive debate strategies. IMO, spreading is a gimmick, and devalues the essence of debate. If I can't follow what you're saying, you're not communicating with me. And if you aren't communicating, what's the point? So, while a little speed is fine, if you see me stop flowing, you know you've lost me. Similarly I'm not a big fan of counterplans/Ks etc. either. BUT I'm always open to hearing them; sometimes they're awesome! (Just don't pull that if you're a 1st year novice debater going against another newbie. It's no fun to see a 14-yo kid get obliterated in only their second round ever because your varsity teammates shared their cases with you for the purpose of doing just that to your opponent. I've seen it - more than once - and it's really painful to watch and demoralizing for your opponent.)

- I WILL be flowing throughout the debate, so please organize/structure to make that easier for me - i.e. a clearly defined framework and contentions (signposts!), off-time road maps, voters etc.

- I like when opponents challenge evidence during CX, so that we ALL know the info is being accurately and honestly presented. Have your 'cards' ready!

- Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my thoughts.

- Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's. I WILL deduct 'speaks' if this is a problem, or if really egregious, I will drop you.

- I'm very relaxed as a judge. I want you to be comfortable in the room with me, and am really proud to have gotten a lot of positive feedback from debaters about that. Introduce yourself. Feel free to joke/laugh. Smiles are great. Remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!

TL;DR:

Coached at The Galloway School (2013-2021); Limitedly debated for Emory (2004-2008)

She/Her

Please add me to the email chain: cdespathy@gallowayschool.org

Slow down a bit, do lots of signposting, write my ballot with explicit impact calc.

Debate has brought a lot of joy to my life and I love the intellectual playground it creates. Please be respectful of debate and of debaters. Hold yourself to a high degree of integrity. Like I tell my own squad: Have fun and LEARN.

More info:

Debate is not my full-time job and I don't dedicate any time to it anymore. I have had limited to no judging on this topic and don't participate in camps, but I will try really hard to be attentive and to follow the speech. It might help to watch my face/body language to make sure I'm following along with you. You may need to slow down a bit and do extra signposting with me. Limit using acronyms; I don't research the topic and am unfamiliar with a lot of topic-specific stuff especially at the start of the season. Even if you are right or win the debate, if I couldn't follow along you didn't do your burden to adapt to your judge then you might lose. I'm old and slow :)

I enjoy a straight forward case, CP, and/or DA debate, I understand T enough to hear it in the 2NR, and I will listen to Kritiks in the 2NR if that's your best strategy. I'm not very well versed in Kritik literature since I was a policy-oriented/traditional debater. I have a hard time knowing how to manage identity-rooted and/or performative arguments in the policy framework I operate in. I like to hear comparative impact calculus at the end of the round with specifics and explanations. I need 2NR/2AR arguments to have been presented earlier in the round to give them weight. Be strategic; run only as many arguments as it takes to build your case and win the round. Run smart, strategic arguments. Don't cheat.

I have been coaching and judging Public Forum debate for three years now. My preferences are as follows:

Timing:

I'm a stickler for time. I do not allow off-time road maps. Everything you say needs to be in your time. You need to ensure that you are timing yourself, your team mates, and your opponents. If any member goes beyond time (except for closing statements -- "and for this reason, you must ballot aff" and etc.) I consider this a failing in timing for all members, and can affect speaker points. For prep time, tell me what you've used after you've used it. Do not tell me what you intend to use. For a cross fire, if you ask a question at the end of the time, you will not receive an answer.

Argumentation:

I do flow each contention for each round. Each contention should be extended through the summary speech. Failure to extend an argument will be considered conceded to your opponent. If your opponent notices your failure to extend a contention, and also mentions it, that can sink your debate for me. The exception to this is your final focus. Your final focus needs to be exactly as it is titled -- focused. You need to consider where your single strongest contention is and explain why you win on that basis. In the process, be sure to bring back your evidence and reasoning to support your impacts for that contention. Essentially, give me your voters only.

Evidence:

I'm not a stickler for evidence, as some judges are. When prompted for evidence or a source, you should be able to provide it quickly. I hate when a debate is mired with searching through cards to find particular quotations or links. If you cannot quickly find a source, I will assume it does not exist. You should not ask for evidence unless: 1. You know your opponent is making unsubstantiated claims, 2. Your opponent has evidence directly contrasting your own evidence and claim, or 3. You believe your opponent is misrepresenting or falsifying evidence. In any of these cases, as you ask for the evidence, be clear to provide your reasoning. If you believe the evidence is false or misrepresented, I will look at it as well. Otherwise, I never ask for evidence.

Crossfires:

I don't generally note or flow crossfires unless an important development or concession is made. Respect during a crossfire is paramount. I understand and support passionate exchanges, but not at the expense of civility and respect for your opponents.

Speaking:

I can understand and follow spreading, but I generally discourage it. I think your ability to vary your tone, adding vocal emphasis to your important points, and to sound interested and passionate in your topic, are far more important than loading your speech with the most evidence possible. I award points on this basis. I have no preferences for sitting or standing at any point in a debate, and I don't care at whom you look during speeches or crossfires.

Determining Winners:

As stated, I judge each contention independently. I will award a "point" to the side who best argues each contention for each case. At the end of the round, the win will go to the side with the most points (that is, the better arguments for the greatest number of individual contentions). I don't generally weigh frameworks unless both teams provide and debate frameworks, or there is a tie in points and the framework affects the weight/scope of the arguments.

I'm a third-year parent judge with lots of experience judging LD, though I'm still a traditional judge who will not evaluate the extremely technical side of LD debate.

The framework debate is most important, and you should have a value and value criterion. These things should be clearly stated along with your contentions, and I would prefer if you avoided policy jargon (e.g., "fiat," "perm," "pic," etc.) and didn't spread, because I will not be able to follow it.

That all being said, I've become more open to progressive arguments like kritiks and counterplans. There is a caveat to this: your arguments should be clearly explained and presented in a format that is understandable - you should still have a framework even if running a counterplan or other similar argument. Err on the side of extreme caution when reading progressive arguments in front of me.

I always try my best to check my biases at the door, and I will try to evaluate the round using only arguments presented in round.

I debated national circuit LD at Starr's Mill High School '12 (GA) and did Policy at Vanderbilt University '16 (TN).

I think I am a standard national circuit LD judge. If you only have experience with local debate, this means that I'm fine with (and proactively prefer) spreading and non-traditional arguments. However, if doing so, I recommend using a email chain, for which my email is brenthu1717@gmail.com.

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

LD Paradigm

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

My general preference for debate argument types is Framework >= Plan-Focused/Util > Theory >> Kritiks.

Framework

I like philosophy debate a lot, especially analytical ethical philosophy. If you frequently read cards from Singer, Korsgaard, Mackie, and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy in general, I would probably really enjoy judging you.

- I enjoy cases that are balanced between framework and contention-level offense, e.g., the AC spending half its time justifying an ethical system (utilitarianism, Kant, Hobbes, virtue ethics, divine command, moral skepticism, etc.) and then the rest on offense under that framework.

- I'm extremely opposed to theoretically-justified frameworks/affirmative framework choice. I think these things kill philosophy education, which is the most useful part of debate. If you can't prove that util is objectively true, what's even the point of pretending it's true if we have no reason to believe it?

- I'm not a fan of vague standards like "structural violence" where practically anything commonly considered bad can be considered an impact. Winter and Leighton are the bane of my existence.

- Your impacts need to actually link to an ethical philosophy in the round. Explain to me why I should care about people dying, why human rights exist, and why racism is bad in the context of the round.

Plan-focused/Util

I can enjoy a Plan-focused or whole-resolution util debate just as much, however, and I've done Policy in the past.

- Weighing is wonderful, and probably the point where you will best be able to pick up high speaks.

- Things like author-specific indicts or methodological critiques of particular studies are fantastic. Tell me things like, "This study only has a sample size of n=24" or "The study's authors indicated the following problems with their own study."

- Impact turns are great. I can’t promise it’s always the best idea, but I’ll probably love it if the 1AR is four minutes of “global warming good” or "economic collapse prevents nuclear war."

- Counterplans are a very important neg tool, but I think some of the more abusive ones, like 50 States CP or Consult CP are difficult to defend in terms of making debate a good activity.

- In LD, I'd prefer you just read one unconditional CP.

Theory

- If the AC is super spiky, please number the spikes. This will make it a lot easier for me to flow. If you spout out single-sentence arguments for a full minute, I’ll be more inclined to vote on them if I can clearly tell where one ends and another begins.

- I like clearly articulated theory shells in normal Interpretation-Violations-Standards-Voters format. It makes it much easier to flow compared to paragraph theory.

- I would prefer if you shared pre-written shells in the email chain, even if they're only analytical.

- I default to competing interpretations but am receptive to reasonability if mentioned.

- I like RVIs and will often vote on them, especially for the aff. If you're the aff and you're not sure if you should go for 4 minutes of the RVI in the 1AR, my advice is probably yes.

Kritiks

- Post-fiat Kritiks are fine. I'm not very receptive to pre-fiat Kritiks. If you aren't sure about the distinction, think about whether your alternative negates the resolution. For example, if the resolution is "The US gov should do [x]", and your alternative is "The US gov should not do [x]" or "The US gov should instead do [y]", that's fine. If your alternative is only "People around the world should..." or "The judge should..." or "The debate community should...," I'm probably not going to enjoy it. If the alt doesn't even have an actor and is just to "reject the aff," that's even worse.

- Although I’m generally well-versed with the basic ones like Cap/Security/Fem K, my understanding of the more esoteric ones falls off. Although I will try to evaluate the round as fairly as possible, I haven’t spent much time reading 1970s Continentals, and you can’t assume that I’ll have intimate knowledge of their arguments ahead of time.

- I lean towards the Role of the Ballot being just whoever proves the resolution true or false (offense-defense is also acceptable).

- Fairness definitely matters. Education might matter to some degree. I am very loathe to consider anything else as an independent voter. If your argument is nothing more than "Util justifies slavery, so auto-drop them," I am not likely to be agreeable.

- If your NRs often include the claim, "It's not a link of omission; it's a link of commission," I am probably not the judge for you.

Miscellaneous

- I'm fine with flex prep (asking questions during prep time) if you want it. I think it's a good norm for debate.

- I do not care if you sit or stand.

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

Policy Paradigm

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

Read the Plan-focused/Util and Kritiks sections of the LD paradigm, but you can ignore most of the rest. Due to my LD background, I am much more willing to vote on philosophical positions. If you want to go for "Don't do the plan because objective morality doesn't exist" or "Pass the plan because that's most in line with Aristotle's notion of virtue," I'm totally fine with that.

Theory

- I still prefer clearly articulated Interpretation-Violation-Standards-Voters theory shells, even in Policy.

- I'm more willing to accept conditional CPs in Policy, although it gets really sketchy with conditional K's, especially if there's performative contradictions.

Miscellaneous

- I'm probably more willing than most Policy judges to consider analytics. I don't think you need a card for every argument you make, and oftentimes just having a warranted argument is sufficient.

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

Public Forum Paradigm

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

I understand that Public Forum has different end goals than LD or Policy. I will try to evaluate it through the following in contrast to LD or Policy:

- I will not require explicit ethical frameworks. If something sounds bad, like "It kills people" or "It hurts the economy" or "It is unfair," I'll try to evaluate that in some gestalt manner. You can probably expect a little bit of judge intervention might be necessary in the case of mutually exclusive impact frameworks and lack of weighing.

- I will generally keep in mind who is "speaking better." Although this will not change my vote in most cases, if the round is really close I might use that as the determiner.

- If I ask for a card and you can't find it, especially if it has a statistic, I will drop 1 speaker point for poor evidence norms.

* I prefer a conversational-paced debate. If you are going to spread, do it well. I do not judge what I do not clearly understand.

* I prefer solvency to be used together with philosophy.

* I have been judging for four years, but I am a parent judge. If you are running complicated cases, do not assume I have background to understand all debate terminology or philosophy. Please "unpack" what you mean into language a lay person is sure to understand.

* I generally prefer more traditional debate to very progressive debate. With that said there have been times I've voted for a more progressive case, if it was explained well and the debater made the best argument.

* I do not tolerate discrimination (sexism, racism, etc.). You will not win a case I am judging by using philosophical, moral or any other arguments to promote discrimination.

* I do consider cross-X to be part of the judged debate for speaker points. I generally do not judge cross-X for the winner or loser of the debate - therefore, be sure to flow any important points into the round. I do NOT care if you look at each other during cross-X or not.

* Please keep your own time and time your opponent. I do use a timer as well, but have occasionally had a glitch and we want a fair round. Within reason, feel free to complete your sentence once time is up. If an opponent asks a question during cross-X and then time is up, it is your choice if you want to answer that question or not.

* Expect things like eye contact with the judge, voice intonation, covering your face with paper or computer while speaking, nervous habits such as clicking pens/rocking to all be factored into your speaker points.

* I do prefer that you ask if the judge and opponent are ready before beginning. Also, I prefer you give an off-time road map in rounds where it is appropriate.

* Normally, I will vote for any argument if it not addressed by the opponent and is flowed through the rounds. However, if your facts are blatantly false and easily confirmable as false, I will not weigh the argument. Please make sure your research is warranted and accurate.

* I do NOT have preferences on if you debate standing or sitting or if you sit on a particular side.

* If you want to email your cards or constructive to your opponent that is your choice. However, I will not accept emails and only judge what I hear and understand from the actual debate. The one exception is if I feel I need to ask for cases or cards after the round is complete to double check my understanding of key points in order to make the best decision.

I debated in high school and also was active in Model UN over 20 years ago. I help out my wife who is a speech and debate coach. My job as a judge is to serve as a neutral party. I would rather a competitor make two (2) or three (3) coherent arguments than run with ten (10) ill-conceived attacks. I will not vote based on a dropped specious argument. For example, if someone drops or fails defined a word such as "is". Only run or attack definitions if they are actually pertinent. The average conversation occurs at sixty (60) words per minute. Some debaters speak up to three hundred (300) words per minute. You would never do this in real life. Do not do it in a debate!! Imagine I am a CEO or an executive within the Intelligence Community. Each competitor should work to provide clear arguments to let the judge make a decision. In real life an "elevator pitch" may be the only time you have with a senior leader.

My background is criminal justice/law enforcement/intelligence community. I hold graduate degrees in public administration and national security studies. I judge based on evidence and arguments. In most cases my range of speaker points is between 25-30. If you get below 25 you were either completely unprepared or did something unethical.

In debate/public forum run with whatever plans you want. It is your round. Non-traditional or "outside the box" arguments are okay. I tend to put more emphasis on a good summary and final focus. Tell me why I should vote for your team. I do not flow the cross. I tend to keep very general notes of the cross. I do not disclose. My ballot is normally submitted very quickly after the round. So you will know who won.

Former policy debater in high school and college in late ‘70s, early ‘80s.

Best equipped these days for LD and PF, taking knowledge and experience from policy debate days and adapting that to PF and LD issues, policy, style and RFD.

More traditional, but I will consider anything. The more extreme, however, the more justified and persuasive it must be, such as theory arguments, Ks and CPs.

Prefer:

· knowing where each debater is going, whether during the speech or an off-clock roadmap;

· clash, engagement and true rebuttals;

· cross references to earlier arguments are fine to save time if they are clear;

· ending (NR/2AR) with issues to help me decide key points;

· value calcs clearly explained; and

· fewer abbreviations unless they are common or known.

Strongly support the educational, social and analytical development that debate provides, and will work to further those goals.

Jeffrey Miller

Current Coach -- Marist School (2011-present)
Lab Leader -- National Debate Forum (2015-present), Emory University (2016), Dartmouth College (2014-2015), University of Georgia (2012-2015)
Former Coach -- Fayette County (2006-2011), Wheeler (2008-2009)
Former Debater -- Fayette County (2002-2006)

jmill126@gmail.com and maristpublicforum@gmail.com for email chains, please (no google doc sharing and no locked google docs)

Last Updated -- 2/12/2012 for the 2022 Postseason (no major updates, just being more specific on items)

I am a high school teacher who believes in the power that speech and debate provides students. There is not another activity that provides the benefits that this activity does. I am involved in topic wording with the NSDA and argument development and strategy discussion with Marist, so you can expect I am coming into the room as an informed participant about the topic. As your judge, it is my job to give you the best experience possible in that round. I will work as hard in giving you that experience as I expect you are working to win the debate. I think online debate is amazing and would not be bothered if we never returned to in-person competitions again. For online debate to work, everyone should have their cameras on and be cordial with other understanding that there can be technical issues in a round.

What does a good debate look like?

In my opinion, a good debate features two well-researched teams who clash around a central thesis of the topic. Teams can demonstrate this through a variety of ways in a debate such as the use of evidence, smart questioning in cross examination and strategical thinking through the use of casing and rebuttals. In good debates, each speech answers the one that precedes it (with the second constructive being the exception in public forum). Good debates are fun for all those involved including the judge(s).

The best debates are typically smaller in nature as they can resolve key parts of the debate. The proliferation of large constructives have hindered many second halves as they decrease the amount of time students can interact with specific parts of arguments and even worse leaving judges to sort things out themselves and increasing intervention.

What role does theory play in good debates?

I've always said I prefer substance over theory. That being said, I do know theory has its place in debate rounds and I do have strong opinions on many violations. I will do my best to evaluate theory as pragmatically as possible by weighing the offense under each interpretation. For a crash course in my beliefs of theory - disclosure is good, open source is an unnecessary standard for high school public forum teams until a minimum standard of disclosure is established, paraphrasing is bad, round reports is frivolous, content warnings for graphic representations is required, content warnings over non-graphic representations is debatable.

All of this being said, I don't view myself as an autostrike for teams that don't disclose or paraphrase. However, I've judged enough this year to tell you if you are one of those teams and happen to debate someone with thoughts similar to mine, you should be prepared with answers.

How do "progressive" arguments work in good debates?

Like I said above, arguments work best when they are in the context of the critical thesis of the topic. Thus, if you are reading the same cards in your framing contention from the Septober topic that have zero connections to the current topic, I think you are starting a up-hill battle for yourselves. I have not been entirely persuaded with the "pre-fiat" implications I have seen this year - if those pre-fiat implications were contextualized with topic literature, that would be different.

My major gripe with progressive debates this year has been a lack of clash. Saying "structural violence comes first" doesn't automatically mean it does or that you win. These are debatable arguments, please debate them. I am also finding that sometimes the lack of clash isn't a problem of unprepared debaters, but rather there isn't enough time to resolve major issues in the literature. At a minimum, your evidence that is making progressive type claims in the debate should never be paraphrased and should be well warranted. I have found myself struggling to flow framing contentions that include four completely different arguments that should take 1.5 minutes to read that PF debaters are reading in 20-30 seconds (Read: your crisis politics cards should be more than one line).

How should evidence exchange work?

Evidence exchange in public forum is broken. At the beginning of COVID, I found myself thinking cases sent after the speech in order to protect flowing. However, my view on this has shifted. A lot of debates I found myself judging last season had evidence delays after case. At this point, constructives should be sent immediately prior to speeches. (If you paraphrase, you should send your narrative version with the cut cards in order). At this stage in the game, I don't think rebuttal evidence should be emailed before but I imagine that view will shift with time as well. When you send evidence to the email chain, I prefer a cut card with a proper citation and highlighting to indicate what was read. Cards with no formatting or just links are as a good as analytics.

For what its worth, whenever I return to in-person tournaments, I do expect email chains to continue.

What effects speaker points?

I am trying to increase my baseline for points as I've found I'm typically below average. Instead of starting at a 28, I will try to start at a 28.5 for debaters and move accordingly. Argument selection, strategy choices and smart crossfires are the best way to earn more points with me. You're probably not going to get a 30 but have a good debate with smart strategy choices, and you should get a 29+.

This only applies to tournaments that use a 0.1 metric -- tournaments that are using half points are bad.

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

I have judged Public Forum Debate as well as most speech events [Impromptu, Extemp, Dramatic, Humorous, Duo, POI, Original Oratory, and Informative Speaking]. I've judged this variety of speech events for 4 regional tournaments this season.

When I'm judging speech I'm looking for speakers to be practiced, confident, and engaging. I look particularly for good speech organization/clarity. I expect speakers to have good poise [meaning good posture, avoiding distracting movement, loud & clear speaking, as well as professionalism - no hands in pockets, shuffling feet, touching hair, etc.].

My judging paradigm is critic of argument. I believe that tabula rasa is a myth as I cannot separate myself from my life experiences, my culture, and my debate training. However, I will listen to any argument that is made, and do my very best to judge it on its merit based on logic, reasoning, evidence, and grounding in a philosophy. You need not make major adjustments to me as I have no idea where you are in your training, your coach's goals, your goals, etc. In all, don't make any major changes just because I am sitting in the back of the room, or in cyberspace, with my trusty computer.

Some points of my paradigm refer to all formats of debate; some are format and circuit specific. I strive specify when a part of my judging approach refers to a particular format and the educational objects I perceive most of that format to emphasize.

Here are some facts you need to know about me:

1) BIO-- I started debating in my native town of Winston-Salem, NC, at Paisley High School (9th and 10th grade) during the first Nixon administration (1972). Policy debate (I was taught at Wake Forest camps) was the only form of debate then, and cards were actually literal cards. I did policy debate in senior high school (R.J.Reynolds); individual events in college (competed for UNC 1977-1979), and was a graduate assistant student in individual events at Nebraska in 1983-1984, but never during that time quit judging policy debate. I was director of forensics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, where I was the director a comprehensive tournament (we offered everything) from 1984-2001, and learned NDT and CEDA coaching because of a high student demand. My second life as a coach (technically a volunteer adviser for a student run program) started at the University of North Georgia where, as we like to say in the Southeast, a group of students "up and formed a club" and asked me to be there adviser in 2006, with club recognition coming in 2007. UNG currently has debaters and speakers from all of its campuses, and we sponsor a Pi Kappa Delta chapter.. We host end of the semester free novice tournaments, host a state IE tournament run by Berry College each spring, and are actively involved in service learning activities with the Atlanta Urban Debate League. Courses related to debate and speech that I developed and teach at UNG include Public Speaking (forensics version), Argumentation and Debate, Persuasion and Argumentation, first and second year Practicum in Debate and Speech; and third and fourth year Practicum in Debate and Speech. All courses ultimately arose from a student initiative.

In short, I am as old as the hills am still enjoying debate and speech as I enter my 50th year in the activity in 2021-2022. Nevertheless, and importantly, I am not an "argument type or style bigot" and celebrate all forms of debating and approaches to argumentation in this world.

2) Topicality--I view this as a serious ethical charge against another team. To win it, you must win the following steps of this argument hands down: 1) establish and win a clear standard for Topicality (such as reasonability (skewed affirmative); best definition (skewed negatively) or better definition (more even but even neutrality being a good thing is debatable); 2) establish clearly and virtually undeniably that the affirmative has violated a key term, or terms, of the resolution; 3 [importantly] offer a synergistic model of what a topical position would be; and 4) why topicality is a voting issue for the negative.

In extreme cases, I will even consider T as a reverse voter, if affirmative shows that a negative topicality argument is frivolous.

3) Kritiks--love them. The best debates are link wars.

4) Kritiks involving performance--love them, but be careful you way you run them if you choose to do so. The art is rapidly evolving in all circuits of debate. If your performance (or any form of argument) is generic (run round after round regardless of topic),be sure that the link to the round is tight.

5) Speed--I will ask you to be clear if I'm having difficulty keeping up with your arguments. Keep in mind that unlike policy debating with fixed resolution, I cannot look at the cards after the round as I do in policy debate or fixed topic LD, if the format involves a topic which varies each round.

6) I like the stock issues approach when the wording is policy; but am open top hypo testing, counterfactuals, anything as long as you explain your positions and defend them successfully. Again, I try not to be an argument or style "bigot" but see the above on being a critic of argument (taught to me by the UNC debate coach Bill Balthrop) years ago. Look up his writings on it--IMHO they still apply today even though debate has changed much over the past five decades of my involvement in it prior to the 2020s.

7) Structure, evidence, logic, emotional appeal, the story dimension of debating--as Martha Stewart would say, good things.

8) "Generic" arguments and turns are okay, but play the link game effectively and you will more likely come out on top. We all like novel approaches.

9) Trichot) (for NPDA debating in college)--again not a bigot against trichot arguments, although the best debates IMHO are in policy oriented debates where we go the extra step in proving what works, or what is best philosophically justified (as in who bites and does not bite a kritik).

If this is a world format round, please adhere to the commonly practiced norms in that format. Ask if any details you like to before the round in cases where I'm indicated as the chief judge.

Regardless of the format, clear claims, evidence and examples to back the claims; and impacts are the fundamental key to winning arguments and debates; the the four-step refutation process: 1) let me know which argument you are on; 2) give me a counter-argument; 3) give me reasons and evidence to prefer your counter argument; and 4) give the impact--all four steps--are the keys to neutralizing or turning arguments, IMHO, regardless of debating format or type.

Clear, numbered voting issues, labeled such, in the last rebuttals (or last three min of negative rebuttal in any form of LD), are also good and a students ability to do this often makes a difference between winning and losing a ballot when the round is close.

Don't underestimate the ability of an old man to hear your arguments.

Above all, have fun and keep it all into perspective although we are all here to compete as a vehicle for learning.

I am a parent judge - 2020-2021 was my twins' final year as high school debaters, and I usually judged at almost every tournament, so I have been lucky enough to see a bunch of really great rounds. I typically judged PF, but have also judged a fair amount of LD.

I am looking for a DEBATE - not just the best speeches. I will give the win to the team that makes the most compelling case as to why their side is right and/or the opponent is wrong. I tend not to flow every specific point, but rely more on which team's overall argument is stronger. I probably put more weight on cross-ex and final summary arguments than most judges.

I usually am more convinced by a smaller number of really great points that are well defended than a whole bunch of pretty good points (quality of argument versus quantity). I am also looking for the debaters to pay attention to what their opponent says and specifically give a good counter argument to those points.

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 am a graduate of Virginia Tech with a BA in Business Management. I have led people for over 35 years in my professional career and have lots of experience in evaluating proposals, developing people, and making decisions. I say this to let you know, that I listen with a critical ear, looking for value in statements, and overall connectivity in thoughts. I am more of a traditional / framework judge and typically don't go for arguments such as "We live in a multiverse therefore..." Simply put, for a successful debate with me, just make a clear and cogent case.

When it comes to debating, I have very few preferences. I like to have Aff sit on my left and I ask that you do not spread (If I can't capture your points, it's hard to give you credit for them). That is it. Sit, stand, look at me, don't look at me...does not matter. Just give me your best performance.

I ALWAYS declare...That's only fair to you. I will give some feedback as well. This is meant for your benefit. As with all advice, only you can determine it's value.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

I have been involved with speech and debate since my junior year of high school, and I am currently a second-year judge. In high school, I competed in several individual and debate events, and since my graduation, I have judged a variety of events. I also participate in Speech and Debate at the collegiate level. In Public Forum debate, I will be flowing and keeping track of the arguments made by the affirmative and the negative. If every argument is not addressed by a particular side, I will have difficulty awarding a number of points that is competitive with that of the side that attacks every argument. Likewise, in LD, it is essential that every contention is addressed; unaddressed contentions will be validated. Avoid spreading.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'