Updated January 2023

Email: greg.achten@harker.org please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: he/him/his

Pref Shortcuts: 1: substantive arguments about the topic 2: mainstream K's, good T debates 3: Theory, Pomo K's 4: Phil 5-6: Tricks

Overview

I expect the debate to be conducted as though it were a classroom setting. As such inappropriate behavior, specifically cursing, will not be tolerated. If you choose to curse during the debate expect dramatically lower speaker points. Further, if the behavior of one of the teams crosses the line into what I deem to be inappropriate or highly objectionable behavior I will stop the debate and award a loss to the offending team. Examples of this behavior include but are not limited to highly sexual or sexualized performances, abusive behavior or threats of violence or instances of overt racism, sexism or oppression based on identity generally.

My background prior to coming to Harker in 2010 was almost entirely in college policy debate though I have been coaching LD since then and Public Forum since 2016. But it is hard for me to separate my years of policy debate experience from the way I judge all debates.

I do not judge very much anymore but enjoy judging when I am able to do so! Despite not judging a great deal I am very involved in our team's evidence production and preparation and judge lots of practice debates in class so my topic knowledge is fairly strong.

.

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: I am familiar with most mainstream critical arguments that are prevalent but anything outside of that is likely to require more explanation. I took a handful of continental philosophy classes in grad school but that was a long time ago and my knowledge of a lot of the underlying literature for lots of critical arguments, particularly high theory, is likely lacking. Having said that I think I am an ok judge for critical arguments, especially when executed technically. I often find the strongest elements of K's to be the link and the weakest to be the alternative, though of course this varies from argument to argument. I also think impact turning is an underutilized strategy though I get that can be hard to pull off at times in LD.

Critical Affs: I think the affirmative should have a meaningful relationship to the topic. Thus topical, soft left affs are often very strategic. I am very sympathetic to t/framework against affs with little or no relationship to the topic. In these debates I think the best aff strategy is to impact turn framework, depending on what that looks like in the context of the aff. But overall I am likely not the best judge for non-T affs.

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Although I do take a fairly strict view of the topic and am willing to enforce that view when teams do a good job of arguing topicality. I often find topicality arguments that are not based on expert/technical definitions of key terms of art in the resolution to be fairly hard for the negative to win. I am also more likely than most judges to vote on reasonability if well explained and this is true for most theory arguments as well.

In debates about counterplan theory, I probably err slightly neg. on most theory issues, though I have voted aff. on things like PIC’s bad, etc. so I am not terribly biased. The main exception is that I think that a lot of mainstream counterplans that compete on the function of the affirmative are not competitive (think consultation, delay). I am kind of a sucker for the argument that counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive though this is not something I will automatically check in on, especially if the negative has strong explanations for their defense of their counterplan.

I am a solid no on judge kick. Make strategic choices.

Theory arguments like “abbreviating USFG is too vague” or “You misspelled enforcement and that’s a VI” are non-starters. Don’t waste your time.

Theory arguments are generally too underdeveloped for my tastes so if that is a key part of your strategy invest some time.

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances. I will not allow debaters to insert re-highlighting of evidence, it must be read aloud in the debate like any other piece of evidence.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.

Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery (especially important in online debates), quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards lack of clarity. I will say clear once or maybe twice and if clarity does not improve afterwards I will flow the things I understand and the speaker's points will decline significantly. I will not vote on a card or argument I was incapable of flowing. I will under no circumstances flow from the speech doc.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

I am a head coach at Newark Science and have coached there for years. I teach LD during the summer at the Global Debate Symposium. I formerly taught LD at University of North Texas and I previously taught at Stanford's Summer Debate Institute.

The Affirmative must present an inherent problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

This paradigm is for both policy and LD debate. I'm also fine with LD structured with a general framing and arguments that link back to that framing. Though in LD, resolutions are now generally structured so that the Affirmative advocates for something that is different from the status quo.

Speed
Be clear. Be very clear. If you are spreading politics or something that is easy to understand, then just be clear. I can understand very clear debaters at high speeds when what they are saying is easy to understand. Start off slower so I get used to your voice and I'll be fine.

Do not spread dense philosophy. When going quickly with philosophy, super clear tags are especially important. If I have a hard time understanding it at conversational speeds I will not understand it at high speeds. (Don't spread Kant or Foucault.)

Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it.

I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Offs
Please don't run more than 5 off in policy or LD. And if you choose 5 off, make them good and necessary. I don't like frivolous arguments. I prefer deep to wide when it comes to Neg strategies.

Theory
Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence
Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. If I read evidence and its been misrepresented, it is highly likely that team will lose.

Argument Development

For LD, please not more than 3 offs. Time constraints make LD rounds with more than three offs incomprehensible to me. Policy has twice as much time and three more speeches to develop arguments. I like debates that advance ideas. The interaction of both side's evidence and arguments should lead to a coherent story.

Speaker Points
30 I learned something from the experience. I really enjoyed the thoughtful debate. I was moved. I give out 30's. It's not an impossible standard. I just consider it an extremely high, but achievable, standard of excellence. I haven't given out at least two years.
29 Excellent
28 Solid
27 Okay

For policy Debate (And LD, because I judge them the same way).
Same as for LD. Make sense. Big picture is important. I can't understand spreading dense philosophy. Don't assume I am already familiar with what you are saying. Explain things to me. Starting in 2013 our LDers have been highly influenced by the growing similarity between policy and LD. We tested the similarity of the activities in 2014 - 2015 by having two of our LDers be the first two students in the history of the Tournament of Champions to qualify in policy and LD in the same year. They did this by only attending three policy tournaments (The Old Scranton Tournament and Emory) on the Oceans topic running Reparations and USFG funding of The Association of Black Scuba Divers.

We are also in the process of building our policy program. Our teams tend to debate the resolution with non-util impacts or engages in methods debates. Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it.

I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

Important: Don't curse in front of me. If the curse is an essential part of the textual evidence, I am more lenient. But that would be the exception.

newarksciencedebate@gmail.com

Byron R. Arthur

The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men

Judging Since September 1983

Debate Events Judged : All of Them

Debate Events Coached: All of Them

Overview:

I have worn a number of professional hats through the years and they all influence how I see the debate. First, I am an attorney. This means that I insist upon evidence and its integrity. Under no circumstances do I tolerate debaters who play fast and loose with interpretation of evidence. Second, I am an educator which means I seek to maximize education for all of us who are involved in the debate. Please join me in that effort when you are debating in front of me.

Public Forum

I encourage you to read the LD section of this paradigm from the section on Points through the end. That information pertains to you as well.

During practice rounds I have had debaters ask me if I am ok with speed. Please see my comments below but I will add this to the mix: Why? Given the format of this event, I have seen debaters strain to make a plethora of arguments in the first two speeches that they never mention again due to time constraints. I would rather you seek a depth of arguments rather than breadth.

I can tell you that if I don't hear it in the Summary, I am not paying any attention to it in the Final Focus.

I am not going to supply analysis for your arguments. Explain what you say and tell me its implications. This is not an exercise in how much I know but what you can convince me to be true

LD:

Topicality – I am happy to vote on T if it is argued well. You should know that I tend to interpret T very broadly so in some instances you might want to choose something else if your violation is one that is based upon a fairly strict interpretation. Not a huge RVI fellow. I tend not to ignore all else in the round in order to give the AFF a win for meeting one of its burdens.

Types of Arguments – There are no arguments that I reject out of hand. While I was in high school when LD was created, I am not opposed to all of the ways in which it has evolved. Counterplans are not only acceptable but encouraged as long as they are meeting all of the traditional burdens such as competition and net benefits. I would say the same for the disadvantage and its burdens.

I am very fine with the K debate as well. But at the end of the day, there must be a link for me to consider. I love debates about race, gender, sexual orientation, and other opportunities for debaters to engage in discourse about issues that are important. Yet, I also believe that individuals spend time crafting topics for a reason and call me old-fashioned but I still like those discussions. Most topics allow us to have the best of both worlds but at times they do not. Learn to recognize the difference if I am in the back of the room.

Theory is a means to an end and those who love the idea of theory as its own thing should definitely strike me.

Speed – There was a time when I would walk out of a room very impressed with the debater who was incredibly fast and offered a cornucopia of arguments. That was about 40 years ago. Now I am impressed with the debater who does more with less and values depth of discussion and argument. If I can't understand it then I can't vote on it.

Points- My range for points is generally between 26.5 -29.9. 26.5 is reserved for those who are incomprehensible, disengaged, non-responsive, or simply missing the boat. 29.9 is reserved for the debater who demonstrates a mastery of argument, communicates nuances, has the ability to analyze arguments and make meaningful comparisons, has on-point evidence, and has outstanding communication skills. THOSE WHO ARE RUDE TO OPPONENTS OR USE PROFANITY WILL RECEIVE A 20. IF YOU ARE UNEASY WITH THIS YOU SHOULD CONSIDER STRIKING ME.

I am very sensitive to the way that we treat each other in this activity. I take allegations of bullying and intimidation very seriously. As an adult in the room, I will immediately deal with these issues and protect the rights of all individuals involved. If you feel that there is an issue when you are debating in front of me, know that we will proceed in the following manner:

1. Please raise the issue when you are aware of it. I will then allow both debaters to go and find their respective coaches/adult chaperone before we proceed. I will not engage students on issues of this magnitude without their adult advocates present.

2. I will listen to both sides of the discussion to determine whether or not we can proceed with the debate or if it should be brought to the tournament director for further resolution.

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

I am the Director of Debate at Immaculate Heart High School. I am a conflict for any competitors on this list.

General:

1. I will vote on nearly any argument that is well explained and compared to the arguments your opponent has made.

2. Accusing your opponent of an evidence ethics or clipping violation requires you to stake the debate on said allegation. If such an allegation is made, I will stop the debate, determine who I think is in the wrong, and vote against that person and give them the lowest speaker points allowed by the tournament.

3. I won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand or that I don’t have flowed. I have been involved in circuit LD for almost ten years now and consider myself very good at flowing, so if I missed an argument it is likely because you were incomprehensible.

4. I am a strong proponent of disclosure, and I consider failing to disclose/incorrect disclosure a voting issue, though I am growing weary of nit-picky disclosure arguments that I don’t think are being read in good faith.

5. For online debate, please keep a local recording of your speech so that you can continue your speech and share it with your opponent and me in the event of a disconnect.

6. Weighing arguments are not new even if introduced in the final rebuttal speech. The Affirmative should not be expected to weigh their advantage against five DAs before the Negative has collapsed.

7. You need to use CX to ask which cards were read and which were skipped.

Some thoughts of mine:

1. I dislike arguments about individual debaters' personal identities. Though I have voted for these arguments plenty of times, I think I would vote against them the majority of the time in an evenly matched debate.

2. I am increasingly disinterested in voting for topicality arguments about bare plurals or theory arguments suggesting that either debater should take a stance on some random thing. No topic is infinitely large and voting for these arguments discourages topic research. I do however enjoy substantive topicality debates about meaningful interpretive disagreements regarding terms of art used in the resolution.

3. “Jurisdiction” and “resolvability” standards for theory arguments make little sense to me. Unless you can point out a debate from 2013 that is still in progress because somebody read a case that lacked an explicit weighing mechanism, I will have a very low threshold for responses to these arguments.

4. I dislike critiques that rely exclusively on framework arguments to make the Aff irrelevant. The critique alternative is one of the debate arguments I'm most skeptical of. I think it is best understood as a “counter-idea” that avoids the problematic assumptions identified by the link arguments, but this also means that “alt solves” the case arguments are misguided because the alternative is not something that the Negative typically claims is fiated. If the Negative does claim that the alternative is fiated, then I think they should lose to perm do both shields the link. With that said, I still vote on critiques plenty and will evaluate these debates as per your instructions.

5. Despite what you may have heard, I enjoy philosophy arguments quite a bit and have grown nostalgic for them as LD increasingly becomes indistinct from policy. What I dislike is when debaters try to fashion non-normative philosophy arguments about epistemology, metaphysics, or aesthetics into NCs that purport to justify a prescriptive standard. I find philosophy heavy strategies that concede the entirety of the opposing side’s contention or advantage to be unpersuasive.

6. “Negate” is not a word that has been used in any resolution to date so frameworks that rely on a definition of this word will have close to no impact on my assessment of the debate.

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Feel free to email me with any questions about my paradigm

Only send speech docs to Powell.demarcus@gmail.com

ASK FOR POLICY PARADIGM - The paradigm below is designed mostly for LD. Some things change for me when evaluating the different events/styles of debate. Also when you ask please have specific questions. Saying "What's your paradigm?", will most likely result in me laughing at you and/or saying ask me a question.

About Me: I graduated from Crowley High School in 2013, where I debated LD for three years mostly on the TFA/TOC circuit. I ran everything from super stock traditional cases to plans/counterplans to skepticism, so you probably can't go wrong with whatever you want to run.I debated at The University of Texas at Dallas, in college policy debate for 3 years. I taught and coached at Greenhill School from 2018 to 2022. Running any sort of Morally repugnant argument can hurt you, if you're not sure if your argument will qualify ask me before we begin and I'll let you know.

Speed: I can flow moderately fast speeds (7-8 on a scale of 10), but obviously I'll catch more and understand more if you're clear while spreading. I'll say "clear"/"slow" twice before I stop attempting to flow. If I stop typing and look up, or I'm looking confused, please slow down!! Also just because I can flow speed does not mean I like hearing plan texts and interpretations at full speed, these things should be at conversational speed.

Cross Examination: While in front of me cx is binding anything you say pertaining to intricacies in your case do matter. I don't care about flex prep but I will say that the same rules of regular cx do apply and if you do so your opponent will have the chance to do so. Also be civil to one another, I don't want to hear about your high school drama during cx if this happens you will lose speaker points.

Prep Time: I would prefer that we don't waste prep time or steal it. If you're using technology (i.e. a laptop, tablet, or anything else) I will expect you to use it almost perfectly. These things are not indicative of my decision on the round rather they are pet peeves of mine that I hate to see happen in the round. I hate to see rounds delayed because debaters don't know how to use the tools they have correctly.UPDATE. You need to flow. The excessive asking for new speech docs to be sent has gotten out of hand. If there are only minor changes or one or two marked cards those are things you should catch while flowing. I can understand if there are major changes (3 or more cards being marked or removed) or new cards being read but outside of this you will get no sympathy from me. If you are smart and actually read this just start exempting things. I don't look at the speech doc I flow. If you opponent doesn't catch it so be it. If this happens in rounds I am judging it will impact your speaker points. If you would like a new doc and the changes are not excessive per my definition you are free to use your own prep time, this will not effect your speaker points.

Theory: I don't mind theory debates - I think theory can be used as part of a strategy rather than just as a mechanism for checking abuse. However, this leniency comes with a caveat; I have a very low threshold for RVI's (i.e. they're easier to justify) and I-meet arguments, so starting theory and then throwing it away will be harder provided your opponent makes the RVI/I-meet arguments (if they don't, no problem). While reading your shell, please slow down for the interpretation and use numbering/lettering to distinguish between parts of the shell!

Also theory debates tend to get very messy very quickly, so I prefer that each interpretation be on a different flow. This is how I will flow them unless told to the otherwise. I am not in the business of doing work for the debaters so if you want to cross apply something say it. I wont just assume that because you answered in one place that the answer will cross applied in all necessary places, THAT IS YOUR JOB.

• Meta-Theory: I think meta-thoery can be very effective in checking back abuses caused by the theory debate. With that being said though the role of the ballot should be very clear and well explained, what that means is just that I will try my hardest not to interject my thoughts into the round so long as you tell me exactly how your arguments function. Although I try not to intervene I will still use my brain in round and think about arguments especially ones like Meta-Theory. I believe there are different styles of theory debates that I may not be aware of or have previously used in the past, this does not mean I will reject them I would just like you to explain to me how these arguments function.

Speaks: I start at a 27 and go up (usually) or down depending on your strategy, clarity, selection of issues, signposting, etc. I very rarely will give a 30 in a round, however receiving a 30 from me is possible but only if 1) your reading, signposting, and roadmaps are perfect 2) if the arguments coming out of your case are fully developed and explained clearly 3) if your rebuttals are perfectly organized and use all of your time wisely 4) you do not run arguments that I believe take away from any of these 3 factors. I normally don't have a problem with "morally questionable" arguments because I think there's a difference between the advocacies debaters have or justify in-round and the ones they actually support. However, this will change if one debater wins that such positions should be rejected (micropol, etc). Lastly, I do not care if you sit or stand while you speak, if your speech is affected by your choice I will not be lenient if you struggle to stand and debate at the same time. UPDATE. If you spend a large chunk of time in your 1AC reading and under-view or spikes just know I do not like this and your speaks may be impacted. This is not a model of debate I want to endorse.

General Preferences: I need a framework for evaluating the round but it doesn't have to be a traditional value-criterion setup. You're not required to read an opposing framework (as the neg) as long as your offense links somewhere. I have no problem with severing out of cases (I think it should be done in the 1AR though). NIBs/pre standards are both fine, but both should be clearly labeled or I might not catch it. If you're going to run a laundry list of spikes please number them. My tolerance of just about any argument (e.g. extinction, NIBS, AFC) can be changed through theory.

Kritiks and Micropol: Although I do not run these arguments very often, I do know what good K debate looks like. That being said I often see Kritiks butchered in LD so run them with caution. Both should have an explicit role of the ballot argument (or link to the resolution). For K's that are using postmodern authors or confusing cards, go more slowly than you normally would if you want me to understand it and vote on it.

Extensions and Signposting: Extensions should be clear, and should include the warrant of the card (you don't have to reread that part of the card, just refresh it). I not a fan of "shadow extending," or extending arguments by just talking about them in round - please say "extend"!! Signposting is vital - I'll probably just stare at you with a weird look if I'm lost.

Some of the information above may relate to paper flowing, I've now gone paperless, but many of the same things still apply. If I stop typing for long stretches then I am probably a bit lost as to where you are on the flow.

jasonlrussell1@gmail.com

School: Wichita State University
Years Judging: 20
College Rounds 2017: 40, High School Rounds: 50

Have the email chain set up starting around 5 mins before the debate. The prep time doesn't end until you've sent the email, not when you start compiling documents or attaching them. Part of preparing for paperless debate is having a time efficient method for document dissemination. That should start at home, in practices.

New new new content:

I strongly support policy debate. Most K affs that are just policy debate bad do not appeal to me much. If you believe that there ought to be some changes to policy debate, they ought to be specific, strongly supported, and feature a well articulated alternative model of debate. Absent any of these, you'll struggle to win. If your aff does not support the implementation of the topic as a policy, you'll almost assuredly lose. If your K on the neg fails to articulate an alternative or defend the SQ, you'll almost assuredly lose. I will vote for K's, but your window is much narrower than it would be with a friendlier audience. I will not lower my expectations nor will I apologize for it. 

I still think most Aff framework args are bad. The cheatingest thing about Ks is the alt so win that they need one and theirs is unfair. I'm pretty much always going to weigh the Aff impact but that doesn't mean an ethics arg won't precede it necessarily if well articulated and won. Aff framework is probably a waste of your time & potentially a liability. 

Method doesn't make anything compete and just saying that is adequate for me. This arg is nonsense. If the alt can't be desirably combined with the Aff, then it competes. And only then.

I strongly prefer to hear debates about the policies involved in the topic, although the approach to implementing and rebutting those policies may vary widely. 

Generally, most kritiks are mumbo-jumbo. The links are stale and weak, the alt is contrived and probably contradictory to many of the links, in addition to being wholly ineffective, and the analytic lens is generally far less insightful than they purport to be. If the K aff doesn't do anything, I will vote on presumption without hesitation. A great number of K's make psychologically untenable claims that can be defeated easily with limited to no evidence. Often, the team debating a K would be well served to read fewer generic K cards and make some strong arguments from the perspective of logic that suggest that the thing they're suggesting folks should just do isn't as easily done as they make it out to be (embracing insecurity, fugitivity, abandoning hope, etc).

Indignant complaints about how it's rude to disagree with people will not be accepted as arguments. 

The room a debate occurs in is shared by the opposing teams and the judge. Do not monopolize the room by loudly playing music, taking up all of the space with your materials and coaches, or generally behaving in such a way that both teams can't adequately prepare for a debate in a reasonable manner. I will give you points that are akin to clipping or other cheating practices if you do so. 

New content 2015-2016

Points:

Between UMKC and UNLV I decided to raise my points a bit. Nothing radical, but probably a .2 increase on the top end. I'm still giving points below the mean as often as ever, but my high end points will more accurately reflect trends for the top 20 speakers at a major. I do this reluctantly as I don't like point inflation, but I also don't want to disadvantage quality speakers that would like me to judge them by holding them to a different expectation than the rest of the pack. I find it very troubling how often 29.6 and above points are handed out. People should stop that. 

Don't ever ask me for speaker points. Those are mine and mine alone. I mean, I guess you can ask, but I won't do what you're asking me. I will give you the points you deserve. 

Decision-making and diversification are figuring highly into my points. So, good argument choices throughout -- recognition of your strengths, their weaknesses, time allocation, block division, 1AR elaboration, etc -- will be rewarded and bad choices will be deducted. Diversification can be horizontal or vertical. In other words, you can still be a one-off K team and have excellent points provided that your block is interrogating the case, developing a variety of well-explained link arguments, engaging in good epistemological attacks on the aff ev, and explaining your impacts. Lazy polemic will not be as highly evaluated as in-depth attacks involving clash throughout. In other words, "state bad" is not my jam unless it's some very well-developed, context-specific state bad arg. I can imagine one, but haven't seen one. 

T: 

A great many things are not T. I'd encourage you to go for it. I like evidence-based T debates. What should be considered military presence is highly debatable and many affs do not meet a reasonable interpretation of military presence. Even fewer are significant reductions in said military presence. 

K's:

The "aff didnt do enough" K isn't doing much for me. If this is your best option, I'd recommend T instead. Perms solve it and it's not offense. 

K debaters that can't debate the case enough to prove that the aff doesn't simply reduce military presence but somehow reinforces it or some other bad process in trying to do so are having a really hard time winning with me. You need links. "You touched the gov't" isn't getting the job done. If this is your best strat, I am not the judge for you. 

Negative state action undermines a lot of "we shouldn't have to debate as the gov't" args, absent more detailed elaboration by the aff team reading a non-topical or non-plan aff. I can personally entertain some reasons why this arg might still be true, but teams have yet to advance args that are not facile extensions of the standard "gov't bad" arg in explaining this for me. "Decrease military" and "gov't bad" are in the same direction on face. You'll need to do more to prove that they are not. 

Politics:

Thumpers are a thing, UQ CP's aside. I can't even begin to understand people who don't believe they are. I'm not saying they're a universal problem for every politics DA, but there are times where they are a problem for a lot of popular politics DA's. 

New content 2014-2015

 1) K-related info

 

 I am not sure if I’ve voted aff against framework this year (could be once or twice I’m forgetting about). A lot of things can explain this (lop-sided matches, conceptual mistakes, drops, I’m dumb), but teams with non-topical affs should probably know this.

 

 I think most people’s framework args are soft and easy to beat if the aff actually interrogates them, but few do except saying “it’s anti-black” or “it links to Baudrillard/other French guy”. Do the work of K’ing something; your K is not a yellow card: “Penalty: anti-black!”. Develop content.

 

If you haven’t thought about the existential question “If the laws you are against are anti-black/otherwise rude, what should be done about them?”, you will have a hard time winning w me. As far as I know, getting rid of laws requires state action. If you are doing something else to get rid of or otherwise address those laws, I’m gonna need to hear some details. Unflinching paradigmatic analysis is a buzzword requiring further elaboration.

 

The strongest part of anti-K framework args is their “topical version of the aff/do it on the neg” cooptation args. The weakest part is the overall impact. If they win the cooptation args, they don’t need to win much of an impact, though. Food for thought.

Most K’s need an alt. If they don’t, be prepared to put some time into explaining why not.

Neg K’s are worse at permutations than ever. The “it’s a method” arg school of thought doesn’t make much sense to me without further elaboration. Some methods compete; others do not. You still need a link that’s not solved by including your alt (or some part of it) with the aff.

 

Aff’s typically lose K’s by not questioning a sweeping claim at the center of the K that takes out their case. A perm won’t help you much against that. Don’t fool around and forget to answer the central contention of the K. These claims are almost always an overreach; they’re not as absolute as they’re purported to be.

 

A lot of performances seem to be disconnected from the subsequent content. That’s not bad esoterically I guess, but it’s unstrategic because then the time you spend performing isn’t helping you win the debate.

 

I’m pretty much over role of the ballot. It’s just an impact framing arg. You still have to win that it’s a comparably preferable impact to whatever you’re debating.

 

K’s that go after the entire aff – their evidence, their harms, their plan, their solvency, their worldview – have a strong chance of winning even with a weak alt. They simply need to find a way to prove that an un-interrogated adoption of the plan would be worse than doing nothing or very little. That’s harder than just wishing away the SQ through magic, but debate is hard and that’s why it’s awesome.

 

K affs should defend changing the laws they criticize, but K the remainder of what the neg says is required to be complete legalization. Or read some cards on T. Or both. If your aff is nothing about the topic, or is anti-topical, you’ll want to be prepared to have a more comprehensive impact turn strategy for framework. This is a much tougher road.

 

 2) CX-related info

 

Answer questions in CX. Seriously. Don’t repeat the question at them. Don’t ignore them and do something else. I’m going to start docking points for wasting people’s CX time. Mark my word. I will intervene once and after that I’m just going to start making notations to knock off some points.

 

Don’t extend the CX unless you absolutely have to. Usually you’re doing it for something useless and wasting your prep time. Also, feel free to deny your opponents a CX extension. Just say “no” if they ask to take prep to ask another question. It’s your prep time too.

 

 3) Presentation info

 

I hate your pre-written overviews. No one can flow those. Your overview would be far better if tailored to the particular circumstances of the debate and delivered as if you were trying to reply to your opponents.

 

Prep time runs until your flashdrive leaves your computer or the email is sent. Start the chain/prepare the jump prior to the debate and deliver it a couple of minutes prior to the start of the debate. Feel free to tell people not to open it until it’s time and I’m sure that they won’t. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE DEBATE STARTS TO BEGIN PUTTING THINGS ON YOUR DRIVE OR I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME WHEN THE ROUND IS SCHEDULED TO START. Also, don’t wait until the debate is scheduled to start to pee.

 

You should think about how the music you’re playing affects others’ ability to hear you. A lot of times, music playing during your speech if not accompanying some performative component is a distraction from or direct hindrance to understanding speech content.

 

Loud music before the debate is irritating. I’d be glad to lend you some headphones.

 

Don’t act offended because someone is debating you. That’s what they’re supposed to do. Disagreeing with you is not akin to disrespecting you. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 

 Consider how you’re tagging evidence. No one can flow your paragraph of mumbo-jumbo that precedes your French philosophy. Tags ought to communicate your interpretation of evidence to the judge, to demonstrate the way the evidence will be used. Tags are not story-time. If your tag is mega-long and uses a lot of high theory, plan to slow down so people can flow it.

 

 I will 100% discount evidence from weirdos. Astrologers talking about global warming or conspiracy theory websites will require deep defenses to stand up to someone merely asserting that they’re not qualified. Honestly, it’s probably not worth your time to defend them. A couple more pointed jokes will likely beat those too. The Internet has caused you all to cut some scandalously bad ev.

 

 4) DA-related info

 

 Politics UQ answers are so bad. Don’t expect me to interpret “Opposition exists” as “won’t pass” if the neg questions it. Everything in Washington has opposition. That doesn’t mean it won’t pass if they have evidence saying it will. You need to have some conclusive ev.

 

 I’m never voting on logical policymaker or a perm to a DA unless it’s dropped. Maybe not even then.

 

 Their new DA, whatever it is, probably has a terrible link.

 

 I would sacrifice a close family member to judge a good economic DA.

 

 5) CP-related info

 

 I still believe in limited counterplan competition. I believe counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive, not one or the other. I still rarely see this arg pursued against CP’s that clearly violate it.

 

 I’m defaulting to judge kick CP’s that are deemed non-competitive unless I’m told not to do so. That means if you’re aff, your answers to the net benefit cannot be all premised around the CP, but must also take into account the SQ.

 

 Nothing can flip presumption to the aff. Presumption is 100% neg. Change is scary.

 

 Don’t forget to review the basic plan vs. CP competition on a technical CP. This is probably your best perm answer (or perm arg if you’re aff). A lot of teams presume we know more about what the original plan was than we do.

 

 6) Case-related info

 

 Actually debating the case is good. Impact D is not actually debating the case. It’s a fair accompaniment to, but is not a substitute for, debating the harm and solvency. Solvency is where it’s at.

 

 Aff plans are too vague. Many would be circumvented as a result of the loopholes the wording of these plans allows. I love this stuff.

 

 7) Points

 

 My points are probably marginally higher than 2 years ago, but not substantially. I would guess I use a 28.5 as average now over a 28.3. 29’s are not common and you won’t get one unless you’re actually really good. I won’t give you one for being a senior, or for showing improvement or effort, or for being snarky and mean. I will give you one (or one plus some more) if you’re very good, technical, complete, display vision and clarity, handle the CX, perform the CX, and read and analyze evidence well. Excessive reading will not get the job done. Excessive slow rambling will not get the job done. Comprehensively replying to your opponents’ arguments is a must for a 29+. If you’re dropping key content, you’re a 28.9 at best. Organization is important. It doesn’t have to be line-by-line (although I have a slight preference for it, historically), but it had better have a logic that makes sense and flows well.

 

 I’m sure whatever is already in here is also fine and true. I dunno. I’m not re-reading it. END NEW CONTENT 2015

 

New addendums: I've adjusted my speaker point scale quite a bit in recent years. I think it's much higher than it used to be when people are good and maybe a little lower when people are bad. The additional variability allowed by the 1/10's system has given me more room to provide finer evaluations. 

I assert myself into the CX more than I used to. Blame Dallas. I always thought it was cool when he did that. I typically do this just to protect people from your rambling incoherent responses to questions. 

NEW, NEW Addendums:

Cheating of all kinds in debate is deserving of the deepest penalty we can level. I will vote against you and give you zero speaker points if you clip cards. I will not debate with you about clarity or unclarity. I will ask you directly what portions of a card were read and, if your response doesn't match the recorded evidence, I will level the punishment. I don't require the argument to be made in the debate. I will not necessarily be recording every debate, but I will record many. Any accusation of clipping will require recorded evidence to be prosecuted. 

I think most people already knew how I felt about this. I did want to clarify in case you're a cheater and want to stop preffing me bc you cheat. 

I like basically all styles of debate roughly equally. I think my points reveal a pretty well balanced rewarding of excellence on all sides of the ball. I think "topical version of the aff" and "knowledge is racially subjective" are just about equally difficult to beat. I think my points are often highest for "degree of difficulty" wins -- taking on tough issues eloquently and with style. A large component of my points are subjective -- I don't just give points to teams for "winning"; I also give points based on aesthetics. No rubric is going to alter that, at Wake or anywhere else. I think fast, technical debate can be pretty when combined with, say, humor, insight, intellect, and reason as much as I think performance style debate can be detail oriented when combined with penetrating analysis of the other teams arguments using the lens of their perspective on the world. These styles are, in my opinion, not fundamentally distinct, but different in emphasis. 

My points roughly lie in the norms of the Wake judging rubric (I may give slightly more 28.5's and slightly fewer 28.9's than they're suggesting, but, whatever). I wouldn't expect my points to either change much because of the rubric or vary much from it. I'm not going to pay real close attention to it as the numbers seem to indicate I'm basically on par at the moment. One thing to note: your best speech and THE best speech are two very different things. You might think you gave the best possible speech you could and I would still not rate that speech as a 29.9 or 30. It's not just possible, but entirely likely, that you are not capable of giving a perfect speech. That's ok. No one is perfect. 

Depth is almost always better than breadth, but I do expect people to answer arguments. I won't ever answer them for you. I don't care in what order you answer them or how clearly you signpost your answers or whatever (i.e. line-by-line as defined traditionally is not that crucial), but if you never answer an argument and expect me to intuit the answer for you, you're not likely to succeed. 

I judge a lot. I'm kinda grumpy, but it's not just you. I'll be expressive in debates, a lot of it will be negative; don't cry. I just don't like watching you be bad. Other parts where you're good I'll like a lot (hopefully).

Big picture issues: Debate is for the debaters. I won't tell you what to do and what not to do. I have voted for some terrible arguments. Almost every debate involves some argument I hate. I often vote for arguments I loathe. Don't spend your time trying to decide which arguments I like. You play to win the game. Where this contradicts with something I've said below, you do your thing.

Topicality: Is ok. You need an interp. It needs an impact. The aff needs a reason to prefer their interp, or to meet the negative's interp. I believe aff's deserve predictability as much as the negative does. More aff's should say that. T can be outweighed by substantive arguments against the interp, like that it causes biopower, the state, zphc, derrida, la-dee-da, etc. In the instance that the aff attempts to "outweigh T", the neg should further elaborate on the substantive impacts of their standards. They should also probably say T isn't like the holocaust.

Framework: Is ok. I believe any argument can be introduced and won in a debate, but I'm often convinced that the harm to doing so outweighs the benefits. These debates are often tied up in issues I've discussed in reference to T. See above. Aff's especially should IMPACT their framework arguments. If the K has a link, I'm probably not going to be persuaded that they're trying to play football with a baseball bat (wrong forum) and patently exclude their argument. I may however decide that the neg has lost their alt and that doing so means the margin of the link is outweighed by the affs advantages. However, it is also possible that the K just takes-out the aff solvency and harm claims and turns the case, in which case the neg would win. Many framework debates are, as a result, stupid.

Other theory: PICs, Dispo, Condi, ASPEC, CESPEC, alt text, multi actor, conditional CPs, international CPs, etc. are all ok. So are objections to them. They're like T to me: theoretical disads to the other team's conception of debate. Most of them, however, do not rise to the level of VI. Typically, I believe that they prove that the argument should not be considered, not that the team running the argument should lose. In most debates, these argument are asserted to be a VI and countered by an equally assertive response that they are not. In those instances, I agree, they aren't. Basically, explain the voter if you want to win on 'em. I won't punish your points for consulting because I'm not a douche.

DA's and CP's: If the CP solves 100% of the case, I typically believe that there is a risk of a link to the net benefit. I have been, on occassion, convinced otherwise, but these instances are few and far between. I do not think presumption flips aff in any instance. I can't imagine how it could. I'd need to hear an amazing argument in favor of doing so. Link turns need UQ. If the disad sounds too good to be true, it probably is. "Their evidence is from liars" could count as a zero risk argument for me if articulated well. I tend to believe that the SQ is always an option for the neg unless it is explicitly foregone in the CX or a speech. Plan-plus counterplans are abusive and many CP's are plan-plus. Textual competition is good and many CP's are not textually competitive. Again, these are predilections, not hard and fast rules. I've been persuaded against my beliefs in virtually every debate I've ever judged.

K's: Alt, alt alt. The aff usually loses because the neg lies about their alt and the aff almost always wins if they beat the alt. Realism is real is unhelpful. I rarely know why this argument links. See comments on framework above. The aff typically gets to weigh their impacts regardless of the fabricated nature of fiat. The instance that the aff loses the case because of the K is typically associated with some indict of a. the evidence b. the impact claim itself or c. the solvency. In those instances, winning that you get to weigh the aff is not helpful; you still have to defend it. Good link and impact illustration is always helpful. Why does the K access the aff harm? Why does the alt solve the case? I often leave K debates wondering these things and it'd be helpful to have these questions answered and asked by the debaters.

Performance: Is ok. I don't love it; I can't lie. A good topical performance used as evidence to support a policy conclusion can successfully defeat a lot of the substantive arguments against a case, but performance for performances sake, the non-topical, obfuscatory variety, does nothing to impress me. I'll vote on it. I'll consider the merits of the argument. I may even find parts of it witty and funny. But if you think I'm a member of your project because I worked at OU, you're probably wrong. P.S. don't run your bad version of the Churchill K or nihilism because you think it will get me on your side. It won't. Run what you're good at and do it well.

CX: Is good. I love a grilling CX. You should have an agenda and follow it. Ask a lot of questions. Set things up. Don't badger the witness and don't bore me. CX has a lot to do with the points I give. I will probably be on the Internet and reading and stuff during CX, but, trust me, I'm listening. It matters greatly that you do well here.

Speed and flowing: I judge a lot of debates. I've judged people way faster than you and I get it down when it is clear. I often ask for clarity and the debaters go right back to being incomprehensible. I'm not asking anymore. You'll be clear or you'll get bad points. Seperate your cards, cites, and tags with good vocal inflection or I won't understand you and I won't try anymore. You don't need to be as fast as most of you try to read. Many of you would be more efficient at 75-80% speed. Theory debates are notoriously too brief and too quick. I'll just ignore you if you do this. If you want to win a theory arg, slow down so I can flow it.

Evidence: I don't read a lot of evidence after debates. I don't usually need to. Asking me to read some evidence doesn't mean I will. I think evidence is a tool, not a weapon, and blanket extension of cards without talking about their contents doesn't make an argument. Use evidence to support arguments, not to make them. That said, unevidenced, but well reasoned arguments are good. I'm for it! I don't think only cards can be evidence; a good story, poem, allegory, song, dance, whatever, could be evidence too. Of course, cards can beat non-traditional evidence also.

Overviews: Honestly, I'm pretty tired of them. Most of them are a waste of your time. Typically they are some long unnecessary diatribe about components of the disad ignored by the aff that I already understand. If you have an overview, it ought to be functional and make an argument rather than just "explain the thesis" of the argument or preview why you are so awesome and the other team so dumb. Worthless overviews are a negative speaker point in my mind. More line-by-line, more cards, more content.

Prep time: Don't steal prep. Once the timer stops, everyone must stop filing, writing, typing, etc. until the speech begins. Don't cheat. That said, don't be annoying and take hours to give the order. When you stop the prep time, you'd better know where you're going.

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

Sexist/Racist behavior: Is not ok. Under any circumstances. Ever. The line is often unclear, but don't do anything that could hurt someone else in debate. Diversity is the heart of the activity, it is only just now getting better, and we don't want to turn back the clock to the good ole bad ole days. I'd prefer evidence not use sexist language in their evidence too, but that's not the type of behavior I'm talking about here. I'm talking about debater-directed verbal or behavioral evidence of prejudice. I've never actually seen a debate where it happened, but if it did I'd want to do more than give the team a loss and zero points. I have anger management issues.

Humor: Is good. But if you aren't funny, don't press it. Be yourself. If you're just some debate machine, do that and do it well. Good natured humor can get you good points though. Oh, and making fun of me, my colleagues, my debaters, and my friends are all welcome. If you've got a good burn, bring it. Jokes about the quality of the other team's arguments can be persuasive evidence.

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Long time coach with tons of judging experience across most events. California doesn't have OI, Prose, or Poetry so those would be exceptions.

Policy, PF, LD, and Parli you can run any argument you wish. However, you'll need to go slow and explain the position. "Politics Disad" means nothing to me....explain the argument. The default is probably for a debater to think I'm a slow judge or a traditionalist, and on some level that is true, but I'm willing to listen to most any argument if it's explained and warranted.