I am a former high school and college debater. I competed in Lincoln Douglas and Policy debate in high school and CEDA debate in college (1990 - 1995 as CEDA was becoming more policy oriented). I coached college debate teams at Saint Louis University and the University of Missouri at Saint Louis. I am currently a teacher of art history and philosophy at Cleveland High School's Humanities Magnet in Reseda, CA. I have been coaching high school debate for over 15 years and have sent at least one team to the quarter-finals of the CA state debate tournament for the last seven years.

What I like to see in debate rounds.

I can handle a moderate speed policy round and a full spread Parli or LD round. I have lost hearing in my left ear and wear hearing aides, so I simply cannot flow a full speed policy debate round, but have had no problems in LD or Parli. I prefer plan versus counterplan and disad debate. I try to be a tabula rasa judge, but I admit that I am not a fan of performance debate and find most kritik debate to be too esoteric to vote on in most rounds. I will vote on critical theory, but it needs to clearly articulated, providing a specific alternative and weighing mechanism versus the plan or case offered by the affirmative. Reject the aff is not a persuasive alternative for me. I also do not like most plan inclusive counterplans (PIC's). I find them abusive because the negative is basically affirming the plan/resolution in order to negate. I automatically sever any topical portions of the PIC and just evaluate the non-topical portions versus plan benefits. I rarely, if ever, vote on PICs. I also despise rude debate. You can be assertive without being aggressive and rude. I will deduct speaker points for debaters who are overtly rude, abusive, or have offensive body language (rolling eyes or laughing at opponents - even if you are trying to be discrete).

Bottom Line

Be smart, be courteous, debate well, and tell me why you win the round (write my ballot for me in the final speech), and you are likely to win the round and get high speaker points in the process.

Affiliation

Chaminade College Prep High School '15

UC San Diego '19

Email me if you have any questions about my philosophy, affiliations, or coaching - jec150@ucsd.edu

Prep ends when the file is sent or flash drive leaves computer

My role in the debate is to listen to whatever you have to say. I will not make judgments about what you are reading because that is not my role. However, I have listed my personal leanings on certain issues in debate.

Policy

General

1. default to policymaker

2. i can flow, but slow down on tags and authors; i will clear twice before docking speaks

3. presumption goes neg, until another world is introduced

Kritik

1. open to all args

2. explain the alternative and how it solves

Theory/topicality

1. err neg on condo

2. rejecting arg usually solve abuse against most other theory (ie fifty state, int'l, object fiat)

3. judge kick is NOT assumed, until neg says it either in cx or the 2nr if the aff doesn't use cx

K Affs/Framework

1. Important caveat - even if you are good at the tech of fw, you're going to have a bad time if you don't answer the thesis of the aff or how that relates to fw

- run whatever - couple things here

- against fw args, i will be much more persuaded if your aff relates to the topic in one way or another

LD

I have a traditional policy background and so I'll evaluate things on an offense defense paradigm. my role is to listen and not limit, so run whatever. If your trying to pref, here are my preferences

1. try to debate substance and not blippy theory because it will affect your speaks
2. make sure your k makes sense. i've seen weird franken k's as of late and the alt never resolves the impact
3. traditional ld nc's are fun to listen to but need to be linked to the aff mechanism to be offense
4. i dislike when coaches post-round just to post-round because it negatively impacts the student. the student might be displeased with a decision, but your coach arguing with me won't 1. change the ballot 2. do anything else besides be unpleasant
5. these frankenK's/mashing together of random k cards/monstrosities are not good. if your alt is simply the squo, your k is 1. nonunique 2. probably doesn't solve the harms

Qualifications:

Polytechnic School '15

Washington University in St. Louis '19

Debated 4 years in high school at Polytechnic, two time TOC qualifier. Currently coaching/judging for Polytechnic.

Quick philosophy:

- Anything goes, don't be offensive. I will vote for policy and K arguments, and I have no problem listening to and voting for performance arguments or no plan affs. I only evaluate what is said in the round. Speed is fine, slow down on the tags, and tech over truth in most cases.

Longer:

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Hathaway%2C+Richard

Former coach. Current debate boomer. Put me on the email chain, leokiminardo@gmail.com.

Please standardize the title of the email chain as [Tournament Name] [Round x] [Aff] v [Neg].

Zoom

1. I will say "slower" twice, and if it becomes more incoherent, I'll stop flowing.

2. I'll have my camera on during your speeches and my RFD.

Kindness

1. If a team asks you to not spread, please make the accommodation. If you don't, you can still win the debate, but I'll dunk your speaks.

2. If your arguments discuss sensitive issues, talk about it before the round. If there aren't any alternatives, please be thoughtful moving forward.

K Affs

1. I personally lean 80/20 in favor of reading a plan. I end up voting 50/50.

2. Debates should be about competing scholarship or literature, not about ones self.

3. DA/CP debate makes as many good people as it does bad people.

Speaks

1. I'm tough on speaker points.

2. I'm very expressive, so you'll know whether I vibe with what you're saying or not.

3. Technical, well organized policy debates make smooth brain feel good.

4. DA + Case or T 2NRs are always impressive and brilliant.

5. Copy/pasting cards into the body will drop your speaks .1 every time it happens.

Have fun!

Thesis: I WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME WHY POLICY DEBATE IS WORTH SAVING

Experience: I was a debater for five years (4 years hs, 1 year open college policy) a long time ago. The last time I made a speech or cut a card was in 2009. I judge lots of debates a year. For the past two years I have mainly judged LD, Parli, and PuFo. I do not listen to a ton of fast rounds anymore. I flow on paper.

I like critical/performative debates*. I am a "big picture"-style judge. I don't like the "heg good" debate. I don't like procedural debates.

I don't dig "heg good," "cap good," or full-blast circuit speed very much but I will do my best to place myself in whatever framework you give me (read: Give me one). I have a reputation as a K hack even though I vote on topicality all the time. See below for more detailed thoughts on critical debates.

You won't win the round on defense, but you can beat the offense. One contextual, well-explained perm is better than 2 dropped blippy perms. Perms are a test of competition, but that still means I weigh the opportunity cost of world of the perm vs. world of only the counter-advocacy. "Judge-kick" is not a thing unless you tell me it is, by default I evaluate every world present in the 2NR as best I can.

I think a multiplicity of debates is good. I am usually not persuaded by most arguments in favor of excluding "non-traditional" debate, and generally hesitant to drop a team on T or theory if I can avoid it (unless it's dropped, you prove blatant in-round abuse, or you crush it technically). I don't like playing the debate police. If you're going to go for T or theory in front of me, you need to really go for it. You should have some sort of big-picture abuse story that demonstrates the kinds of debate you wanted to have that they have prevented you from having, and reasons why those debates are important enough to reject the team. To be persuasive, the procedural needs to be the centerpiece (preferably your entire) 2A/NR--I think presence of another decently-developed generic argument in the 2NR could sometimes be enough to solve the offense on T, and case-specific turns or link stories pretty much prove no in-round abuse. Condo can be a voter if there are multiple mutually-exclusive worlds in the 2NR. I am often persuaded by reasonability, and I often reject the argument but not the team. Despite these preferences, don't hesitate to go for these arguments in front of me if you really think they are the best strategic decision, lots of my neg ballots are for topicality.

I tend to be very laid-back in terms of decorum: I really don't care if you tag-team CX or speak from your seat as long as your delivery doesn't suffer. I don't time evidence flashing unless it begins to take an inordinate amount of time. Oral prompting is fine, but I only flow what comes out of the designated speaker's mouth. I listen to CX but usually don't flow it. I don't call for speech docs and will try not to call for evidence unless the quality of specific cards or warrants are explicitly brought up in the round.

There is no 3rd rebuttal: your job as a debater is to clearly communicate your arguments to convince me to sign the ballot your way and adapt a little if I don't happen to be your ideal judge. If you have not done this than no amount of post-debate hassling will change the decision. This is in fact a great way to get a 25 from me.

Notes for surveillance topic: I haven't done research on it, and haven't coached any kids on it. I have judged policy at one bid tournament (La Costa) and two regionals this year. I don't know the commonly used cards by name. You need to be specific and explain stuff to me like I am a small child.

*So here's the deal: I only did critical debate for a couple years and I'm not a philosophy or rhetoric major or anything, but I am into a lot of these authors in an amateur capacity. Don't assume I already understand your k, or know what it is based solely on the author's name. You will need to explain which Žižek you happen to have brought to our debate round, and tell a good clear story about what your k means for the debate. In k debates I tend to prefer the style of delivery to somewhat gel with the content of the argument, so I'd really rather not watch you say you create a critical pedagogy of the oppressed at 300 wpm as one of 3 possible 2NRs. Extending tags and saying "they cause genocide" is not persuasive. I don't like hyper-generic "you use the USFG"-style link arguments and can usually be persuaded by a well-explained perm in those cases. I think that sometimes specific legal reforms can create specific material gains for specific oppressed people that impact their daily lives, but I also think that real radical change probably would require a revolution. I believe no debate is outside the world: this round has a social/historical/spacial location and does not happen in a magical non-place. This applies to both sides of a clash of civilizations debate: your arguments are advocacies in an educational space--external impacts are only valuable as far as they inform debate practices/discussions which may or may not produce good education. This means they do not on-face outweigh arguments which indict the kind of education your methodology produces. This is honestly the only model of debate that makes sense to me, and I'm often at a loss when teams ask me to weigh nuclear war scenarios against the K because they are "more real world." As you may have guessed my natural bias is definitely toward the left but I try my best to vote within a framework laid out by the debaters--that means comparing competing frameworks and explaining what my ballot does and how I should evaluate impacts. I am fine with critical affs, non-topical affs, performance affs, whatever, but like anything else you need to justify what you do in the round. Though I encourage teams to make the debate round whatever they want it to be, I don't feel comfortable when teams ask me to actively participate/intervene in the discussion; this puts me in a weird position in terms of choosing a winner and I don't really feel it's possible for me to participate without in some way telling the debaters what to say. All this means is that in such a situation it is impossible for me to be an impartial adjudicator; I am open to arguments that I shouldn't be--but this is definitely something that needs to be addressed.

If you are running anti-blackness, you should read this article first: http://fivefouraff.com/2015/08/21/on-white-afro-pessimism/

Jon Williamson

B.A. Political Science; M.A. Political Science; J.D. & Taxation LL.M Candidate - University of Florida Levin College of Law

Experience:

Competitor: HS Policy Debate 2001 - 2005; College Policy Debate 2005-2007; College NPDA Parli Debate 2009-2010

Coach: 2007-2020: Primarily Policy and Public Forum; but coached all events

Basic Judging Paradigm Haiku:

I will judge the flow

Weigh your impacts at the end

Don't be mean at all

Public Forum: All arguments you want me to vote on in the final focus must have had a minimum of a word breathed on them in the summary speech.

Lincoln Douglas/Policy:

I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to policymaker. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.

I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all other theory.

I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.

I particularly enjoy critical debate like Feminism, Foucault, and Security and impact turn debates like Spark & De-development. Not a fan of nihilism but I get the argument.

I tend to avoid reading evidence if it is not necessary. I would like to be on your email chain (my name @gmail.com) so I can look at cards that you reference in cross-examination.

LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.