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

I did LD debate for three years, served as an assistant LD coach for 5 years, and have coached LD and PF debate as a head coach for 6 years. I have coached and judged on the national LD and PF circuits, including coaching numerous TOC qualified debaters in both LD and PF and judging at both TOC and NSDA Nationals multiple times.

GENERALLY

I will look for the easiest way to evaluate the round. In general, I will determine the round based upon the standard in LD or any framework in PF. You should link explicitly and clearly back to the standard/framework for me to weigh your offense. I will typically vote on whatever argument is clearest and allows me to do the least amount of work. If you use a different type of framework, please make sure to explain the decision calculus you prefer me to use. Weighing analysis is crucial.

SPECIFICALLY

PF PARADIGM:

Arguments you want me to vote for must be consistently extended and present in both summary and final focus. Dropped arguments are dropped. Please focus on clear weighing and argument interaction to allow for a cleaner decision.

LD PARADIGM:

It’s probably best not to run Ks or other alternative forms of argumentation in front of me. I’m not theoretically opposed to voting for such arguments (and have voted for debaters running such arguments), but I will not do any work for you and you will need to clearly win at every step of the link chain.

I will not flow new arguments in the 2AR. I will not vote on warrants fabricated later in round for in case assertions.

It has been some time since I have judged consistently on the national circuit. I am fine with some speed, but likely can no longer handle elite circuit speed. If I cannot understand you, I will say “slow,” “clear,” or “louder” as necessary.

THEORY

I have decided to use the power of the ballot to curb certain theory trends in debate or, at the least, to avoid having to listen to certain types of arguments.

I will not vote on theory which alleges abuse that I do not consider unfair or uneducational. If you run theory in front of me you must run it to rectify real abuse in the round, not for strategic purposes. If you run theory for strategic purposes and ask me to drop an argument or a debater for practices which I do not consider unfair or uneducational, I will vote you down. Even if you are winning on the flow, I will vote against you for running theory needlessly.

What constitutes real abuse in a round is my decision as it concerns my ballot. Practices which constitute real abuse in my opinion include (but are not limited to): abusive remarks (racism, sexism, sexual harassment, etc.), positions which exclude the other side from accessing ground under the resolution, positions which severely and unfairly limit ground, unethical practices (lying, purposely miscutting cards, other intentional misrepresentation, etc.), and other unfair or uneducational practices. Practices which do not constitute real abuse in my opinion include (but are not limited to): having to adapt to an unprepared strategy, having to kick one’s own arguments to win on your opponent’s side of the flow, arguments which appeal to structural issues in the activity (side skews, time skews, etc.), and any other practices which I consider to be consistent with the educational goals and fair parameters of debate.

Note: I have already been asked how this paradigm interacts with so-called AFC/parametricization etc. I originally thought I would permit such arguments to be made so long as they were not extended and used in the round. However, to be more consistent with the aims of this new approach, I believe it is better to discourage the reading of these and similar arguments altogether. Therefore, I will vote down debaters who run these arguments in case.

It is still possible to win on theory in front of me. However, you must meet the above guidelines. Your theory must be in response to something that I believe is truly abusive in the round. If the issue is borderline and you think you can convince me that the practice is abusive, I will hear you out and will not vote you down for attempting to go for theory. In such a case I would evaluate the debate normally, determining who wins on theory and other arguments in the round. If an abusive practice does occur in round and you decide to run theory, please note that I don’t think theory is an inherent voting issue in the round, so you will need to clearly explain to me why theory is a voter if you want me to vote on it. You will need to explain thoroughly and clearly how the violation constitutes abuse in the round and I will not make inherent links for you.

Please take this theory paradigm seriously. I will not tolerate the running of theory for strategic, trivial, or other reasons, except to combat what I consider to be real abuse. I will drop you and drop you immediately. You will receive the lowest speaker points I can convince myself to give you.

If both debaters violate my preferences regarding theory, I will drop the debater who violates the paradigm more egregiously. I will make that determination and will not listen to arguments made by debaters in round that one has violated my paradigm worse than the other. Both debaters will receive low speaker points as well. If this situation occurs at a tournament which somehow allows double losses, both debaters will receive a loss.

If I drop you on theory for the above reasons, it is not because I dislike you or because you are a bad debater or any other reason except that you ran theory in a manner that I explicitly do not wish to see in rounds any more. I have changed my paradigm to respond to the prevalence of theory arguments of this type, which I consider to be bad for debate for a variety of reasons.

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

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

Background: I am the tournament administrator for Liberty Christian School in Argyle, TX. This is my third season of judging.

Judging Experience: I have judged Novice/Varsity LD, PF, and IEs for 3 years


Updated: 03/18/15

LD and PF:

TL;DR
Speed: NO!!!
Clear: Yes
Flex Prep: Only for Clarification
Card Calling: Yes
Disclose: Yes, if allowed.
RFD: Sure, but don't argue.
Speaker Points: See below.

Traditional: Preferred
Philosophy: Use it
Kritiks [Pre/Post Fiat]: Yes
Kritiks [Discourse]: No
LARPING: Sure
Performance: Depends
Theory: No

Speed/Aesthetics/Pre-Post Round:

• I am NOT a fan of spreading! If I cannot understand you, I cannot vote for you.
• I will say clear twice. If you continue to spread I will not flow you.
• Debate the resolution and the argument not your opponent (no ad hom)
• I don't care if you stand or sit during speeches
• Flex Prep is fine, but only ask clarification questions (i.e. "What is contention three" or "Do you defend X)
• I will call for cards after the round to check validity of evidence when contested
• I disclose unless told not to, but I'm going to be honest, my oral RFDs are pretty bad. I flow and know what happened in the round, I'm just not the best at putting my thoughts into words
• I am admittedly a bit of a point fairy. I don't want to be that judge whose speaks prevent you from breaking

Speaker Point Scale:
30-Clear, Concise, No errors to speak of (for the love of all that is holy please don't say "if you don't buy that")
29-Clear, Concise, but with a few too many "Ums"
28- I've heard better all day
27-You need a bit of work
26 or below- you offended me in some way

Traditional:

• I consider myself to be a very lay judge
• These are my favorite types of debates, especially when done well and at a conversational speed
• I like a good, philosophical framework with solid contentions
• I prefer recent evidence [within the last 5 years] unless it is philosophical

Philosophy:

• I enjoy listening to philosophy, but don't make it the crux of the round, I definitely want to hear some resolutional analysis
• I understand a lot of philosophy and can reason through it, but I would avoid overly complex frameworks

Kritiks [Pre/Post Fiat]:

• I really enjoy kritikal debate when done well
• I prefer when the kritik is linked to the specific position, not necessarily the resolution
• You need a clear alternative, tell me what you're doing instead of the bad things (no reject alts)
• Please provide a strong link. I have an extremely low threshold for answers to weak k links
• I am comfortable with ROTB/ROTJ, but I will evaluate it if presented

Kritiks [Discourse]:

• I don't link these. Don't run them.

LARPING [Plans CPs, DAs, etc]

• I am okay with these arguments so long as you can justify them
• When you specify an advocacy, stick with it
• NO CONDITIONALITY It makes me sad :(

Performance:

• Open to it if it's not offensive
• I am not comfortable with Race/Gender/Sexuality/Ableism debates
• NO SLURS OF ANY KIND
• Narratives are fine if properly cited IF NOT CITED AND I HAVE ANY REASON TO DOUBT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE NARRATIVE I WILL DROP YOU
• Art/Dancing performance is a lot of fun
• Music performance is cool as long as it's appropriate

Theory:

• Please don't do this. It seems like you're whining and I don't like it

Things I hate that you should know about:

• BE ON TIME! I will dock speaker points for tartiness. I'm also not afraid of the 15 min DQ rule.
• When you get to the round, be prepared to debate (don't be shuffling papers or preflowing in round)
• "Ought" vs "Just" Debates. Don't do it.
• Incoherent or overly complex frameworks
• Redundant Contentions or points
• PRESUMPTION. There is always SOMETHING to vote off.

Things that make me happy:

• GOING FOR THE JUGULAR. The one caveat is do not be mean or rude
• Short Roadmaps and SIGNPOSTING
• Clear, solid voters
• When you adapt to my paradigm
• When you read my paradigm and i don't have to explain it when you get here [+.2 speaks for telling me you read my paradigm]

IF THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU COULD POSSIBLY BREAK:

• Have Fun!!!
• Running weird/off the wall cases in this situation is totally fine [Fluffy Bunnies/Death of Debate/Reptilian Illuminati/Double Drop/Decathalon/etc]

IEs:

• I am NOT a progressive judge. I do not like profanity filled, non-age appropriate material.
• Watch blocking and timing.
• Make me forget I am judging, bring me into your story.