Background

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

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

General Philosophies on Debate

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

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

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

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

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

Specific Evaluations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

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

Judging Paradigm

For Policy Debate: Novice Rounds only, If you spread I will not listen to you I will just flow off the email chain, If you want me to listen you have to slow down, Ks preferred.

For Parlimentary (NPDA) and IPDA: Open/Varsity rounds, Topicality is a voting issue but should not be the sole reason I vote for a side otherwise I'll be annoyed.

PF: (any division) Impact calculus is key. Offense and defense is crucial and will be weighed on my flow but it helps when you bring it up yourself as well.

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

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

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and have their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Current College policy JV debater

ethandoespolicy@gmail.com

Add me to the email chain

I have an extremely high threshold for Heg arguments- I would not recommend running Heg good in front of me.

K affs are cool

Ks in general are cool

I’m using this platform to encourage y’all to put your pronouns in tabroom. It’s not hard. I’ll probably bump your speaks up if you have them.

Blue Key 2023

I did some traditional LD debate in high school and policy debate all four years at UF, but I have not debated or judged in over three years. The information below is from when I was more active and is generally still relevant. However, I have been out of the debate space for a while so please slow down and emphasize clarity and explanation. I am generally open to any arguments, but DO NOT assume I know your literature (I don't) - if I don't understand your advocacy I will not vote for it. Otherwise, make good arguments and have fun!

Please add me to the email chain and feel free to email me after the round morganwspicer16@gmail.com

Top Level

- Have fun and be nice to each other!

- I think judges should adapt to debater's preferences, not the other way around. Please make arguments that you like and care about and I will do my best to evaluate the round.

- I default to a util framing so if that is not what you want please offer me another way to evaluate the round.

- Both tech and truth matter but I lean tech > truth. That said, I will not vote on any argument that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc.

- I am willing to vote on solely defensive arguments (i.e. presumption or 0 risk of a DA), but would prefer not to.

- If you aren't clear and I don't get something on my flow I will not vote on it. I will say "Clear" a few times, start docking your speaker points after the second time, and will eventually give up. So, please be clear.

Affs

I tend to think that affs should have some relation to the resolution, but how and to what extent is up for debate. If you are non-t, be prepared to defend why you have chosen to not defend the resolution and show me how your aff does something. I will be more compelled if a non-t aff can explain the role of the neg and why the ballot matters.

DAs

I like them, the more specific (and ideally the more true) the impact the better. Be prepared to do impact calc throughout the round, and tell me why the impacts of the DA mean I shouldn't risk voting aff.

CPs

Again, I like them. I like smart, interesting, and specific CPs but please make sure that you are explaining how it solves the aff, or how it solves sufficiently to avoid risking the DA. A net benefit is crucial, and if it's not in the 2NR I won't vote on the CP.

If you have multiple planks please explain all of them - or just don't read spend the time reading them in the 1NC.

I am not a big fan of judge kicking but am willing to do so if I am asked to and it is not refuted by the aff (also true for K alts).

Ks

I really enjoy these debates, but please do not assume I am well-read on whatever literature you are reading. Also, please don't continue to use jargon without explaining to me (or the other team) what that means. I also want to know how the K interacts with the impacts of the aff, and the more specific the link the better. Explain the alt, please.

FW

As someone who has read a non-t aff and fw on neg, I like to think I have as little bias as possible in FW debates. Things I need from either side: continuous extension of your interpretations, advantages to your interpretation, and offense as to why the other teams understanding of debate is bad. TVAs are very persuasive, and I do tend to view out of round impacts as more important/persuasive than in round impacts.

T

I like T debates when they consist of more than debaters just speeding through their blocks. PLEASE slow down when reading T shells. Just saying the word "fairness" is not a sufficient impact, tell me why the other team is making debate uniquely bad.

Case

I appreciate a good case debate. Affs can be bad and I enjoy seeing the aff being pushed back against. Don't be afraid to go for a case only 2NR if you have the args.

Theory

I think most theory violations are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. If the argument "reason to reject the team" isn't made and defended I default to reject the arg. I am unlikely to vote on theory if there isn't actual abuse. I am unlikely to vote on condo if there are only 2 or 3 conditional advocacies.

Because my background is policy I am generally unfamiliar with friv theory and tricks. I'm willing to entertain it (however, the more frivolous the arg = the lower threshold I have for responses), but this is not my preferred style of debate.

Experience: I'm currently a high school teacher/debate coach, but not too long ago I was debating policy in college, and before that, in high school. I have also debated LD and parliamentary extensively, and, occasionally, PF.

I often flow without a speech doc. You can only go as fast as you are clear; unfortunately, I think this is necessary to dis-incentivize the race to the bottom of debaters ejecting un-enunciated syllables out of their mouths as quickly as possible, relying on the judge to evaluate off the speech doc. This is not generally a problem in novice or JV, because these debaters are rarely fast enough, but they may still be too unclear for me to understand. I will verbally clear you up to 3 times per speech if necessary. To clarify, spreading is fine IF it is clear (most people should be fine!)

Be kind and loving. Follow basic ethics both competitively and in your interactions with others while in the debate room.
Here's the stuff you need to know, policy first then LD at the bottom:

-----

Policy Debate

K vs. Policy: I ran more K-oriented cases in college but I was policy-oriented in HS, so I have a feel for both sides. I'd like to consider myself mostly balanced, but keep reading for specific situations.

Which type of K: Do whatever. Identity/high theory/cap/biopower/etc. are all totally fine with me. I have a degree in philosophy so unless you're doing some real wacky stuff I can hopefully keep up with you.

Framework: I will evaluate it and vote on it if you're winning, but typically I'd suggest you beef up your other positions in front of me -- I think the generic Cap v K debate is substantially better for most teams, especially novices/JV, as opposed to the FW v K debate. Liberalism good is also a very good argument in front of me.

K vs policy aff: Historically I think I tend to vote more for the K when vs "hard policy" cases, i.e. cases which go for the classic magnitude-focused impacts like extinction. However, I typically favor soft-left affs (i.e. affs with a plan which go for non-extinction impacts) vs the K.

The K either needs a coherent alt to weigh against the plan OR a coherent reason why my actual, physical ballot is important. I am unlikely to buy arguments that I am somehow part of a bigger movement of scholarly refusal or have a pedagogical burden or whatever -- I'm not even in academia anymore.

Policy stuff: CPs/DAs/etc - I am typically very sympathetic to arguments that claim various generic CPs (states, XO, etc.) are anti-educational because they obscure the core civics conversation of the debate. Making me sit through a states CP debate is a precarious position for you. Basically everything else should be fine.

Theory: 80% of the time theory is a waste in front of me. Theoretical arguments for substantive claims on other flows (e.g. a K flow) are fine. Exceptions covered below.

Condo: I find myself voting on condo bad a surprising amount of the time in situations where the neg has more than one conditional position.

PIK/PICs bad: I lean toward them being bad, but that is not a hard and fast rule.

Utopian/vague alts bad: Could be, but you can't just do boring fairness/education blocks. The best theoretical objections to alts deal with the substantive political implications of their form -- i.e. there are a lot of reasons why utopianism is bad and why vague political projects are bad, you should argue those and not "i can't possibly prep for this!!"

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

LD:

K, LARP, and phil debaters should probably pref me highly, especially phil debaters. Tricks and traditional debaters should probably not pref me highly. Friv theory is bad, Ks need well warranted explanations & alternatives and plans should be topical under the resolution.

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.