Seth David Halvorson, Ph.D


Years in the Activity: Longer than you have been alive
Coach: Bard High School Early College, Newark
Conflicts: None


Experience:
Lab Leader: Advanced Labs at Stanford University and University of Iowa (20+ years)
Co-Author: Introduction to LD Debate, with Cherian Koshy

Policy and LD Coach: Lexington H.S/Bronx High School of Science/Apple Valley High School
Debater at Apple Valley High School and Macalester College
NFL LD Curriculum Writer

Rule: Be nice and be smart.

I like smart, thoughtful, strategic debate, and love ideas. I also think speaking style is important. I dislike a bunch of stuff thrown against the wall to see what sticks, is dropped, and then turns out to be a “strategy.” There are really only a few good (like 4) arguments on each topic, and thus I don’t see any reason to speak quickly. The slow round is often the better round. I am hard of hearing so speak at a decent volume. I never vote on dropped arguments because they are dropped, development is necessary. A few arguments with solid internal links will always beat a bunch of blips. People have said over the years, some of them my students who are your coaches, say I vote for the smarter debater, not the tricky debater.


Good debates address the topic, using specific literature. I don’t like cases that over-emphasize meta-ethical/onto-ethical/ slash/slash considerations at the expense of the substantive nature of the debate. Thus, I often vote (most likely ALWAYS WILL) for the debater with topic specific evidenced turns over the generio-debater who argues something about the onto-poetic and Schopenhauer and never mentions the connection to the resolution. (I am happy to talk about those ideas over tea, however.) I don't think there are "pre-standards" arguments...maybe there are, but you need to convince me and the bar there is rather high. You want to resolve the problem of induction in 14 seconds? Wake up. Get to the topic.

A few years ago, prior to the TOC, someone told me that I pioneered the “scope/magnitude/long term/short term/likelihood” impact calculus in LD debate. I am not so sure that is true, as that is the basis of policy analysis and highly doubt it was me, but you should employ that impact calculus in comparing arguments to the standard. The more you do that, (provided you have the internal links to do so) the better for you. Also, I LOVE EVIDENCED INTERNAL LINK TURNS.

SOLID INTERNAL LINKS WITH A SMALLER IMPACT BEAT AN ARGUMENT WITH WEAKER INTERNAL LINKS AND A LARGER IMPACT.

I like evidence, and read widely. Read the author’s name, her qualifications, and the title and year of the publication of the card. I hate reading cards after rounds, and often only do so because I wonder if they actually say what you say they say. Or, you were too fast and didn't read this closely. Too often debaters say evidence says something, which it does not say, so you should critique evidence. (Since no one really constructs their own internal links these days)....

I don’t like theory debates, but will need a standard format for a theory violation if you will run one, and hate voting on theory without a clear in-round abuse. I hate sentence fragments, truncated forms of expression. An argument is at least three sentences long.

The activity is to teach a number of skills, professionalism being one of them. Being angry, a jerk, or offensive will result in things going badly for you. I never ever vote for jerks or mean people, even if they "won" the round. Be nice and be smart.


Note:

I am a philosopher and authentic presentation of ideas matters to me.

I don’t like the weird machismo of debate at all, never have. Never will.

Darwin had a good idea: Adapt to your environment.

Any specific questions, just ask!

This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.

I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.

Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.

H.montague1998@gmail.com

OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague

UNDER CONSTRICTION:

Tech or Truth?

I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.

CURRENT THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

I am currently working as an assistant coach to the Newark Science debate team. I am very much indebted to debate for the person that I am today. I find debate (and especially debate rounds) to be very much a part of life. This means that I would encourage everyone to understand that the things you say in a debate round have real implications even outside of the debate round. Fellow debaters and opponents in the past, present, and future are not just obstacles, but are other people whether that is outside or inside civil society. Debate does not allow the things you say to exist in a vacuum, so as a judge, coach, educator, and a petty black man I will not tolerate or evaluate the following ideas (LIKE EVER):

 

RACISM GOOD/ RACISM DOES NOT EXIST

SOCIAL DEATH GOOD

STOPPING WARMING WILL SOLVE RACISM

 

(These are the only things that come to mind at the moment, I know and will try and add more, but understand I put these first for a reason.)

 

BACKGROUND THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

I’m a proud member of the Eastside debate team senor class of 2014. I am the closest friend with Daniel Mendes (who all of sudden became a celebrity in HS debate) and Chaz Wyche (if you don’t know about him you shouldn’t worry about it to affect my judging.). From my time on the Eastside debate team (Eastside BR) I am a member of the few teams from Newark to ever get a TOC bid (Scranton 2013) in over a decade. All my time in policy debate has been devoted to traveling, and debating in national tournaments all over the country (Scranton, Yale, Georgetown, Emory, U-Penn, NAUDL, etc). During my travels I have had Elijah Smith (CEDA AND NDT 2012 CHAMPION), Chris Randall (CEDA AND NDT NATIONAL 2013 DEBATER, and also Elijah’s partner), and Willie Johnson (CEDA 2013 FINAL ROUND JUDGE) as my coaches and most influential to my success as a debater. I am luck enough to have even judged at the college level of policy debates at tournaments such as Vermont, and West point and look forward to judging the HS level. 

 

DEBATE THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

GENERIC THING WITH JAYE:

 

I’ll try and be quick and painless for the people who are waiting to know how they should pref me. Now I have judged policy, critical, and performance, but I find performance to be the debates I’m truly most comfortable with. If you could not tell by the three coaches I have stated above, I am very familiar with performance rounds and by coincidence I am also a performance debater. I ran an Afro-pessimist critiques in all my national tournaments my senior year (exception Yale and Georgetown: I ran Decolonaility, there is a difference btw). At all the other the tournaments I have read at least 2 Wilderson cards in every speech I’ve given. There are other authors that I read that talk about anti-blackness, but the point is that if you are talking about black people I have probably read the books/articles they came from. Now policy is by no means something I can’t judge. No performance debaters I know have started out running performance arguments, the same is true for me that I had to learn policy debate in order to be the debater I am today so I’ll talk about the specifics of policy first. 

 

POLICY THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

TOPICALLY

 

• AFF

You should pick up on whether the negative will truly go for the argument, and let that choose how you will answer in the 2ac and 1ar. Reasonability is a really strong argument in front of me, but that does not excuse you for dropping any arguments that can be used to make topically important.

• NEG

I do evaluate topically. If you are going for topically you need to go hard people. I will not vote for topically if you don’t hard for me in the block. I need in round abuse, topical versions of the Aff, and voters that are going to be impacted in the round in order for me to take topically as more than a time crew you thought of for the round. If you actually do go for topically in the 2nr (which I would be beyond shock and a little impressed if you do it well) to make me vote on topically you need to go for this argument for the whole five minutes. Topically is a prior question in the round it would only make sense to just go for topically in the 2nr. The way I see topically used now as a time screw for a very minimal infraction of the Affirmative that is probably resolved through reasonability.   

 

THEORY

• AFF

 The best thing you could do for me would to try and set up theory in cross x. A simple “What is the status of the off case position?” would help me to at least prepare for a theory debate. I also like theory on a separate flow so that needs to be in the order at the beginning of the speech.  That helps me evaluate the separate offense and defense on that debate. Theory like topically needs to have same time spent on it in order for me to vote for this argument. Your tagline will not be enough for me.  

• NEG

It is of the utmost importance for you to set this argument up in cross x for me if you can. Theory should also be on a separate flow, and similar to what I said on the Aff. You need to spend time on his to have me vote on this.  

FRAMEWORK

 

• AFF

For the Affirmative the framework is really helpful to how I should evaluate. I can guest that a utilitarian framework is the way to evaluate your impacts or you can tell that utilitarianism is the framework, and give some comparative analysis if the negative has their own framework.  A role of the ballot and judge is something you also want in any 2ac because it makes sense.

• NEG

I’m talking about the “Resolved means a USFG topical policy action”. This type of frame is the scorn of my life. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard this argument. I WILL CRINGE EVERY TIME I HEAR THIS ARGUEMNT. I will unfortunately listen to the argument, but no one will like this debate. I believe that you should probably just run the topical version of the plan against whatever Aff you didn’t care to engage with. You can still weight all the education and ground arguments, but we now have a better debate, and I’ll be a lot happier.

AFFFIRMATIVE

 

All Policy affirmatives NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN THE INTERNAL LINK AND THE IMPACT OF EACH ADVANTAGE. I also need a clear line to the SOLVENCY AND HOW THAT WORKS FOR EACH ADVANTAGE. The Aff should tell a story and have a good flow to it. This means the Aff should not be you trying to read as many cards as you can in the 1ac. The 1ac should be slow on tags to contribute to the idea of telling a story. Even policy Affs can be creative. Don’t be afraid to something other than nuclear war/extinction and have some cool advantage with a framework behind how I should evaluate the advantage. The best example of this I can tell you is probably structural violence advantage that stops something like police brutally, but this will require work. I will be happy to see that effort in a debate round and be sure to recognize you in some way for that work.   (Probably a speaker higher)

 

DISADVANTAGES

 

They are ok, but make sure think is a clear link to the Aff. You also need to tell me how to evaluate this impact in round. The answer is YES! I would like a specific impact calculus for the round that compares all the impacts in the round.

 

COUNTER PLANS

If the counter plan doesn’t make any sense after the permutation then I will probably not vote for the counter plan. It needs to complete. That means a net benefit and a reason why the Aff is a bad idea. I believe that even if the counter plan solves the Aff it does not mean game over. The negative still needs a reason why the Aff is a bad idea on top of the net benefit or I will just vote Aff on the permutation. 

 

CRITICAL THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

 

 

• AFFIRMATIVE

 

This for the Affirmative that have a plan text, but have a very philosophical background:

YOUR AWSOME 

 

• CRITQUE

 

I LOVE CRITQUES, BUT IF YOU DON”T KNOW THE LITERATURE I WILL NOT LIKE YOU. This simply means if you read a critique you should have picked a book and read. Not just the introduction, but have read the book. You can easily tell an experience K debater from someone who is just beginning. I find that people can earn high speaks here, but with all high speaks they come to those who have a working knowledge of the hell they are talking about. Know Your Stuff. Links need to be as clear as possible. The better the link story, the better the speaker points. The alternative needs to solve the Aff or resolve the essential question posed in the debate. Make sure I know what the world of the alternative looks like. If you say that you end the work I need to know what the process looks like because my ballot will final end the world and I’ll take great pride in that.  

 

 

PREFORMANCE THINGS WITH JAYE:

 

• AFFIRMATIVE

As stated above I’m very comfortable with this argument. Be sure to have some clear connection to the topic. IF YOU RUN THIS ARGUMENT YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THE SUN SHINES (not really tho)

• NEGATIVE

I do believe that the negative can also have performances. These are really trick to deploy in a round sometime, but when done correctly they are one the most powerful arguments in debate. I prefer these debates to happen when the Aff gives there performance, and he neg provides a counter performance/methodology. These argument hold a special place in my heart as this was the only I ran on the negative of my senior. There is nothing special you get from me by reading this argument but that shouldn’t hinder you from reading this argument in front on me anyway.    

 

 

END OF THNGS WITH JAYE

 

 

I graduated from Dartmouth College in 2015, and am currently teaching and supporting a debate team in Newark, NJ. I debated policy in Texas for two years and was recruited to Dartmouth to debate, but life took me elsewhere. I am very flexible to different styles of debate, and will judge according to the quality of your arguments and your strategy rather than the types of arguments you choose.

Here are somethings that I weigh when deciding the outcome of a debate…. 

K- I love the K and I like to hear them in a debate. I went for kritiks a lot in my senior year but am also okay with judging counterplan/ disad debating as well. Relate it to the competitors in the room and state the harm, but you don’t need to convince me that your opponents are terrible humans. I like when kritiks are run like disads 

Framework- needs to be run well, but I will not vote for you simply saying "not having a plan is cheating and unfair". I also find that these arguments can get boring quickly. If you go for the procedural/fairness portion of framework, I want to hear a list of what kind of unpredictable cases the aff justifies, what arguments you lose, why those arguments are important/good to debate (if the aff wins that the arguments you lose are epistemologically bad, why should I evaluate them?) and why fairness is good.

DAs and CPs- go for it, but needs to have impact comparison. Please don’t make the entire spiel a card-stacking bonanza. I will stop flowing.

Dropped arguments are true arguments

I am okay with theory, but have an interpretation. I also enjoy a good topicality debate, but don’t run as a time suck. Give me a T version of the aff. Give me a list of lost neg ground. In round abuse? Should I vote on potential abuse? Should I prefer fairness or education? Why?

Evidence Ethics

·         Clipping evidence destroys the very premise of debate, and I do not look kindly on that. If you are caught evidence clipping, it will result in a Loss 0. If you accuse someone of clipping but are proven wrong, the same decision will be made for you.

Speaking Preferences

·         Having dabbled in sports, I prioritize civility and sportsmanlike conduct in a debate round. I will not look fondly on rudeness in round. Put simply, being assertive doesn’t mean being rude. Show me with your evidence and argumentation rather than making serious accusations about other competitors. While this obviously won’t affect how I judge the quality of the argument you are making, I will not hesitate to take speaker points.

·         I’m fine with speed, as long as it is clear. I will yell clear if it is not. Slow it down for tags and author names please

·         Prep time ends when you are done editing the document.  That being said, don’t steal prep time or waste substantial amounts of time flashing documents.