//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Brian Drake
Affiliation: Monticello High School
2015-2016 Judge Philosophy

I've been in the policy debate activity since 1992. I debated for T.A. Edison High School (1996) and Mercer University (2000). I used to coach several college teams, but have been inactive for about ten years.

Etiquette: You will quickly discover that I am very easy going about how a debate goes down. I prefer a relaxed competitive environment as opposed to having a cutthroat animosity toward one another. If you address any of the participants in a disrespectful manner, then I will not hesitate to amend your speaker points.

I will disclose the decision at the end of the debate. I encourage and welcome comments and questions about my decision after the round. That being said, I will not tolerate rudeness when we discuss the decision/round.

General Stuff: I will vote on the arguments as they are articulated in the round. I believe developed and well-explained arguments make for better debates. Teams that follow this principle are more often awarded the “W” in front of me. Sometimes I will read cards after the debate to clarify and resolve arguments for an informed decision. I will also read cards if attention is drawn to particular pieces of evidence during the speeches.

Theory Issues: I have been known to vote on Topicality from time to time. With regard to Topicality I am more persuaded by provable abuse rather than potential abuse. I believe presumption shifts to the Affirmative if a counterplan is run. I have no other predispositions.

Performance/Personal Position/Philosophical Positions: I will vote for a personal position/advocacy argument if the performance is compelling. That said, my bar for voting on this issue is set pretty high. The advocating team must clear articulate the harm to them, the world, or the activity. They must clearly explain the links and “implications” for the debate. You must answer the question, "Why should *I* vote for this issue?" It's important to explain what role a white, heterosexual, male (me) has in this dialogue.

I will also listen to and vote on philosophical positions. Same rules apply: They need to be explained in the context of the debate. Clear links to the opposition are important and a clear reason why I should "reject" their position.

Political Disads: I am not a big fan of political disads. I will listen to them and I have been known to vote for them. The problem I have is that the evidence rarely supports the story being told. I have a difficult time resolving conflicts in evidence where it is clear that no one in the news media or other sources fully understands what is going on and must rely upon conjecture and rumor. In short, go for these positions if you are certain that your story AND evidence is superior to the other team’s.

Judging Philosophy: I do not judge based on my personal position on a matter before me. I judge on whether the arguments are supported and defended between the teams or individuals.

Background: I am experienced Circuit and Classic judge having judged local, regional, and national tournaments for the past twenty years. Recently judged all preliminary 2023 NCFL Grand National Policy Rounds and the Octo, Quarters, and Semi-Final Rounds. I was the 2022 NCFL Grand Nationals Parliamentarian for Student Congress (Semi-Finals) in Washington, DC; 2022 NSDA Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2022 NSDA National Tournament Supplemental Congress Parliamentarian (Finals); 2022 WACFL Student Congress Metrofinals; 2021 NSDA Policy Finals; 2021 Parliamentarian for Student Congress; 2020, 2019 NSDA Policy Finals (including qualifying rounds); 2018 NSDA Policy Rounds; 2017 National Qualifiers for NSDA Speech; 2016 NSDA Nationals for Congress (Parliamentarian); 2016 NCFL Grand Nationals (Policy Debate); 2016 Congress WACFL Metrofinals (Parliamentarian); 2015 NSDA CX Policy Semi-Finals; the 2015 NCFL CX Quarterfinals; 2014 NCFL LD Finals.

For Policy and Public Forum: I judge as a policy maker and not truly on a line by line (but will evaluate all arguments in the context of a policy making decision). Better debaters analyze the opponents' case/points and prove why their opponents' case is either without foundation or weak and the policy position should not be adopted.

Able to judge Circuit style policy arguments. However, to prevail with Circuit style arguments, the debaters must still ensure they meet their prima facie obligations. See Unusual Points No. 1 below as an example.

Speed is an issue if the speaker is unintelligible and the speaker points will reflect that problem. What I don't understand, I can't flow, and if it is not on my flow, I cannot evaluate. Clarity is the name of the game. Teams should properly provide clear "taglines" for their arguments in order for me to follow (I will not accept flash drives or links to arguments).

For LD: I judge on the basis of cogent and clear arguments without reaching the value and value criterion debate. The better debaters, however, will incorporate the philosophical rationale in their arguments. Unless both cases are weighted equally in terms of argumentation, do I then go to the value criterion debate. The better debater demonstrates that his value is met using his/her value criterion. If the debater does not have a value criterion, I will weigh that debater's value against his/her opponent's value criterion.

For Congress Debate: (1) As a Parliamentarian, I rank and judge the PO based on his/her effective control of the Chamber, fairness to the Representatives or Senators on recency, and understanding and implementing the Tournament Rules and Roberts Rules of Order when necessary. (2) As a Judge, I rank and judge a speaker on clarity of his/her argument for or against a Bill or Resolution along with appropriate evidence following Tournament evidentiary rules; the better speaker is one who does not read a speech and who rebuts another Representative's or Senator's points. I do not appreciate form (sounding good) over substance. I give less points and ranking for consistent "rehash" throughout the Session. The effective Congressor is one who blends persuasive speaking with substance and debates the other speakers.

For Speech: Speech is not "acting", it is interpretation of an event, a person's situation, or a story-line that is impactful. The use of one's voice, body, and facial expression all play into the scoring of an individual's performance. I am not a fan of "popping" to delineate characters, but do not take any points off for using that method.

Each event has particular rules that must be followed. For example, in prose and poetry, the individual uses a binder and must appear to be reading it to the audience. In duo, the partners must not look at each other nor touch. In dramatic interp, if you have multiple characters, your characters must be distinct by voice characterization or body language.

Now with Extemporaneous Speaking, I look to the speaker's ability to explain and answer a domestic or international question with poise and understanding of the topic question. I am not a true fan of the "Unified Analysis" ("UA") approach, but it is the standard in HS Speech. I coach a hybrid UA approach that stresses persuasive argumentation and analysis. I do not appreciate the "extemp walk", which is very stilted and not natural.

Impromptu Speaking, the ability to tell a story with an impactful meaning is what I look for between the competitors. Using the UA approach is fine, but any way of telling an impactful story or narrative will do.

Unusual points.

1. Burden of proof for all forms of debate. Because the AFF has the burden of proof of presenting a prima facie case, so too the NEG has the burden of proof when presenting its case. For example, if the NEG argues a Kritik without providing an alternative, it has failed, in the classic sense, to meet its burden of proof and I have the ability as a judge to mark down the argument as carrying little weight. A NEG Kritik without an alternative is nothing more than a non-unique disadvantage. To that end, the same goes with the AFF in terms of its failure to provide a Plan Text and Inherency if it is running an AFF K.

2. Kritik for all forms of debate. A Kritik as an AFF case in Policy can be run. However, be warned that as a classic judge, you must present the Kritik as an AFF by presenting a prima facie case and solvency through a detailed Plan. Failure to do that most likely will result, as in any case not meeting the burden of proof, a loss. The team must provide a Plan or Solution that solves the underlying Kritik whether it be Capitalism, Racism, Sexism, or any other "ism".

Although not favored by some, a Kritik can be argued in LD as a "classic" counterargument to realism or rationalism. To get around the prohibition, a creative student will argue that if the Affirmative fails to address the underlying "ism", the Affirmative Case in support of the Resolution cannot be accomplished because there will be more harm than good.

3. Cross-Ex for all forms of debate. Cross-examination information will be used in the decision making process. As in real life, cross and direct examination are oftentimes the key to resolving issues and the answers can and will be held for and against a team. In "Open CX", if one debater is answering all the questions, the one who should be answering will have a lower speaker point.

4. Topicality for Policy. If the Case and Plan directly link to the Resolution and appropriate definitions are provided to clearly establish that link, topicality is generally not a voter. However, this does not mean that I will not entertain all T arguments. As previously stated, the NEG has the burden of proof of demonstrating a violation.

5. Counterplans. If the Negative runs a counterplan, it must not be topical (i.e., using a federal government agency). Otherwise the Negative concedes that the Resolution should be upheld. In order to win a counterplan you must show that it is better than the Affirmative Plan and that it is net-beneficial to do only the counterplan as compared to the Affirmative Plan.

6. Document Share. I do not partake in document sharing. This is a communications event, not reading event, which requires the debaters to inform the judge of their arguments. However, when required, I do ask for evidence that has been challenged as incorrect or improperly cited for the position it advanced.

Qualifications.

1. Assistant Coach for Dominion HS, Sterling VA, for all Debate and Speech Events since its opening in 2003. Total time as a judge commenced in 2002.

2. Former HS policy debater at the Championship Level (dating myself) and Forensics (Dramatic Interp and Declamation).

3. Former HS Model United Nations Third Place North American Invitational Model United Nations winner (representing Belarus).

4. Former Judicial Clerk to the Honorable Roger J. Miner, US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, former Assistant United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, former USAF JAG Civilian Attorney, and former Assistant General Counsel for a Global IT Company. Current Legal Counsel to R&D IT Engineering Firm specializing in AI, AIOPS, ML, Cybersecurity, and Secured Cloud Operations.

Ian Lowery (also goes by "Izzy" and/or "Bishop"),

Assistant Director of Debate at George Mason University (2022 - Present).

Former Policy Debater at George Mason University (2014 - 2018).

Former Assistant Coach at James Madison University (2020 - 2022).

Former Head Coach of Speech & Debate at Centreville High School (2018-2019)

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Top Level: I believe that my role as the judge is to absorb the information provided within the round and decide who wins based on the debater's ability to explain and defend their positions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that may make my decision easier or increase your speaker points.

I mostly ran kritical arguments during my time as a debater. In my earlier years I did traditional policy but most of my best experience is with the K.

Tech over Truth - I believe in voting on the flow, and unless I am more than 95% sure that a statement or argument is universally false, it can be debated and proven true on the flow. Beyond that, I will still try to be unbiased in my evaluation the argument, but you're rolling the dice.

I will evaluate arguments which suggest that I should not flow or not decide the round based on traditional policy argumentation standards - but I need to be given a clear alternative method of evaluating the truth-value of competing arguments. Otherwise, I don't see how I won't just end up voting for whoever I think was more technical or voting for whichever team I vibed with more (which might be the point... I guess. But trying to predict my vibes without knowing me very well is a dangerous game imo).

Conduct - Don't be a jerk. It's aight to be aggressive, if there's a point/reason behind it. At it's core, I think debate is a game, so everyone should have fun.

Time - I don't keep track of time well in my personal life or in debates. Please don't rely on me for that. Keep track of your own and your opponent's time.

E-mail Chain - Yeah, put me on it: itlowery20@gmail.com

If you have any questions, feel free to email me.

About me:

Update January 2024.
Whew. Been a long ride since I last updated. If I'm in the back of the room for you, it's because someone drafted me into judging a tournament as a fill-in for somebody else. My work has gotten increasingly busy, and now I work close to 12 hours a day. I also have a baby on the way (due April 2024!) so there may be some elements of sleep deprivation. I have stopped actively coaching debate, and probably will not pick it back up until the aforementioned child is in middle/high school and has decided to join the debate team.

As a result, a few things to think about.

My ability to hear speed hasn't gone away - I listen to debate rounds online from time to time, and fast spreading still sounds like conversational speech to me. What has gone away is my ability for my flow to keep up with speed. I can pretty much guarantee that if you spread anything except the text of evidence itself I will miss arguments on my flow. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what happens when I don't judge regularly.

I will not be familiar with the topic beyond what I follow in the news (though admittedly, I read a lot). It might be beneficial to think of me as a well informed person, but someone whose knowledge is much wider than it is deep. As I've stated in past updates, it's to your advantage to read deeper piece of evidence that you can explain well. Keep in mind that any narrative you build based on that evidence is vulnerable to disruption by the other team, and so be prepared for that.

If you want to read T, theory, or framework, that's still fine. It's my general perspective that framework debates have changed as the community has started embracing a lot more Ks, and given my unfamiliarity with that literature base, I'd spend some time explaining it if I was in your shoes.

I'm a lot more flexible, however, on what I'm willing to judge. I used to have a strong preference for reading a plan text. Judging so much PF and LD, where plan texts are less common (especially in PF, where it's usually a bad idea to read one), pulled me away from that preference. I'm more concerned with the central thesis of the debate more so than I'm concerned about plan action. That's not to say I don't enjoy the whole plan text + advantages structure which dominated my time as a debater, because I do. It's just that I recognize that affirmative solvency isn't necessarily dependent on the implementation of a plan. Most plan-less debates still have the concept that you need to present an alternative to the status quo and solvency for it, but that doesn't need to a plan implemented by a government entity.

Finally, a general thought. I do make a point of trying to keep up with developments in the debate community, especially in the policy and progressive LD domains. There is a lot of public pushback against both activities as exclusionary because of the various Ks that get read, and it creates an image that debaters are trying to push out people who don't agree with them. There are people outside of debate who will cherry-pick judging paradigms, or streamed debates which are K-heavy, and then present that as evidence that debate is broken. As someone who has been around debate for a long time, and as someone who has a lot of friends still coaching and judging who have informed me otherwise, I really don't think that's the case. Unless I see something which really leads me to believe otherwise, I will defend and advocate for debate as much as I possibly can. I only ask that you help me in this goal by being the best version of yourself - do deep research, constantly refine your speaking skills, practice flowing, and always do redos after your tournaments. Just like you need evidence to win your debates, I need it too.

Thanks for letting me be your judge.

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

Update for Harvard 2022

I am super tired at this point in time, largely because I started a demanding new job in the middle of a pandemic while remote coaching a 10-person LD/PF team by myself (though my older debaters are finally cutting their own evidence, so that helps.) Please consider slowing down. I'm fine with all your tech, but maybe focus on reading deeper pieces of evidence and explaining them to me instead of going fast. I just wanna hear a good debate at this point, but not a fast one.

Rest of my philosophy is below, nothing has changed in the macro sense except the speed stuff.

My email is zoheb.nensey@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any questions post round or put me on the email chain.

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

I debated for four years at Miami (FL), took a year off to coach for the Chief at KCKCC, and then returned to school to coach at Florida State. I then spent 5 years in DC, where I worked with Oakton HS for like a year or two, and then with the Washingtion UDL for 3 years. I've since moved back to Florida and work with Jesuit (Tampa) on the side. We do a little bit of policy, and a lot of PF/LD (good locally, mostly a bunch of pretty bad 1-5s, 2-4s on the circuit).

Short version:

1) Speed's fine - I'll let you know if you're going too fast. Sorry if I miss it on my flow, but my local circuit is not very fast.

2) I have an ongoing love affair for T. You can turn it with your K if you want, but know that I'll evaluate the T flow before I evaluate anything else (including any turns.) Please slow slow slow down on these debates as I rarely judge T (or theory, for that matter) anymore. For 2018-9, I am not as familiar with the topic and what is normally considered topical as I would like. So keep that in mind when you're arguing about what the core of the topic is.

3) Arguments I consider outlandish but will still vote for (but warning - high threshold here):

a) Must define all terms - only if the aff somehow drops it.

b) nuclear malthus, spark, wipeout - only if the neg goes all in on it during the block and the aff doesn't win any offense against it. Feel free to bust out your turns, affirmatives.

c) ASPEC - only if the neg asks who the actor is in the 1AC cross-x, and the negative can justify loss of ground based on that actor choice.

4) K debates - go for it. Please provide real world examples of the kind of logic that the affirmative is using and why that logic is a bad idea.

5) Framework debates - go for it. But please let me know you're reading framework in your roadmap - I flow these separately, and much like a T debate.

6) Disads - have fun. Read them. I'm still skeptical of political capital being zero sum after having lived in DC for 5 years, but read it anyway if you think you have a good argument. All other disads are fair game, but don't make your internal link chains too contrived.

7) Counterplans - these are cool too. I'm skeptical of consult CPs from a theoretical perspective, but handle the perm debate and you'll be good. Also - if you're the aff, don't go too fast through your perms, and make sure you explain them in detail. If you're the negative, slow down on your counterplan text - I need to write it down.

8) Theory - I only really vote on super egregious violations (except as outlined above, like on consult CPs), but please avoid reading conflicting worlds.

Longer version:
Theory
I always read theory in debates as an answer if I didn't have anything else. My past experience has been, though, unless its a really egregious violation, I'm not likely to vote on theory. If you're reading more than one counterplan or alternative, AND they conflict, that's a pretty sure way to get me to pull the trigger on theory. If you’re saying “condo”, and then read conflicting positions which can function as offense against each other – you have another thing coming if you think I won’t let the affirmative make you defend both. If, however, they don't conflict then I see no real problem with multiple conditional positions.

T
I like T. I've won debates on T. I think that affs should have a clear link to the topic. For me, its always been a question of competing interpretations. I do think a lot of critical affs can still be run with a topical plan. That's not to say I won't vote for an affirmative that doesn't have a plan text - I've done it before - but you have to have a really good reason why doing your plan through a personal advocacy rather is a better idea then having the USFG doing the plan.

CPs
I think that counterplans are a necessary part of any debate. I'm fine with most counterplans, with the one major exception being consult counterplans. I don't like consult counterplans because it seems that most of the time the net benefit is pretty artificial and stems entirely off of the counterplan's action, rather than any direct link to the plan.
These debates always seem to be pretty heavy on theory, so when you're debating the theory part of these debates slow it down a little and explain things out, because if you're blippy on the line by line I won't be able to catch everything you write down.

DAs
Nothing's better than a good disad. I'm pretty fair game with almost any disad. Though I have a higher threshold for politics.

Ks
I like the K, but I'm not especially familiar with it. My background is such that I’ve spent a lot of time looking at political science things, communication things, statistics things, and computer things, but I have not had the chance to dig into philosophical literature much beyond the basics. I have judged a number of K debates over the years, so my basic feeling is that if you run into a K Aff, you should try and read a K against it.

If you’re an affirmative and you get a K run against you, try and engage it. I am not averse to the idea that the affirmative can be a step in the right direction. That being said, the negative should spend time highlighting the logic and assumptions of the affirmative – I tend to view the link in these terms, and I am persuadable by arguments along the line that even if the aff is a step in the right direction, its’ underlying logic means that it won’t achieve any sort of long term solvency for the harms that the K expresses. But it’s on the negative to prove that the bias of the affirmative is strong enough to preclude any risk of affirmative solvency or perm solvency at all, and on top of that I need to understand why the K’s alternative will eventually resolve the problems presented by the aff. A change in logic can lead to changes in how we formulate policy, but you need to explain that.

One other thing – on framework. I am not averse to it. I will judge it much like a T debate for the K – it comes first if it’s get read. But my threshold for rejecting frameworks that simply say that we should only do policy analysis is low. Policy considerations are always based on assumptions and ways of looking at the world, and your framework argument should tell me what your view of the world is and why that’s better than whatever the negative is proposing. Make it specific. Also let me know if you’re reading framework (in the form of – you’ll need an extra sheet) during your roadmap. I flow framework separately.

Offense/Defense
Offense is good --> having lots of it at the end of a debate makes me happy. In the case that the other team has lots of offense too, I need a clear explanation why your offense is more important than theirs, because otherwise you're opening the door for a lot of judge interventionism. I don't like intervening, but if I have to intervene I will.
Defense is good too --> I think you can win on an argument purely on defense. If you have some really good evidence that takes out their link or takes out the uniqueness to their disad, by all means, read it and use it to its fullest extent. I need there to be more than just a risk of a link to vote an argument. If you're negative, make sure your link is as concrete as you can possibly make it.

Miscellaneous
Be nice to the other team and to your partner. I once had a partner who was blatantly rude, and it cost us debates and caused a lot of bad feelings. Rudeness will hurt your speaks.
If you don't know the answer to a question in CX, it's far better to say I don't know or look to your partner to answer it than to stand there blankly or try and dodge the question.
I'm fine with tag-team CX.
Jokes about the Florida State Seminoles (even though I went there), the Florida Gators, and the Ohio State Buckeyes will be rewarded with a laugh and a slight increase in speaker points.
Humor in general will be rewarded with increases in speaker points.

Speaker Points Scale
30 - you're the best debater I've ever seen, and your execution was flawless. I don't think I've ever given a 30, but if someone were to get it they would probably also be in late outrounds at the NDT.
29 - 29.9 - You're one of the best debaters at the tournament (in your division.)
28 - 28.9 - You're good, You'll probably clear.
27 - 27.9 - You're an okay debater, you need some work, you didn't drop anything major.
26 - 26.9 - You dropped at least one or more important arguments that lost you the round.
25 - 25.9 - This is reserved for people who were either so atrocious that they answered nothing (an unlikely scenario, no matter the division), or were exceptionally rude to one or more people in the debate.


At the end of the day, do what you do best. If you can run and explain a K really well, then run it. If your pleasure is politics disads, go for it. I've voted against my personal preferences before, and I'll do it again. I'll work hard in deciding the round for you because I know you work hard to prepare. So do your best, keep it civil, and have fun.

Rob Wimberly
Debated for 4 years at Dominion High School, 2 years at the University of Mary Washington, 2 years judging/coaching

I would like to be on the email chain. My email is robert.wimberly95@gmail.com. If I had to direct you to my paradigm to get my email and you're just now reading this, know that I'm disappointed that you didn't read my philosophy before the round.

Please label the subject of the email chain with both team names, the tournament, and the round

Big Stuff:

Debate is a communicative activity, and it's your job to make sure that I understand the arguments that you're making. I'm a pretty expressive judge, so if I'm not understanding your argument, I will probably give you a weird look. If clarity is a problem I won't yell clear, but my face will show it - it's your and your partners' job to make sure that you are communicating clearly. I don't like trying to put together poorly explained arguments at the end of the debate, and in the post-round I'm more than willing to tell you that I didn't understand your argument based on how it was presented in the round. 

Beyond building communication skills, I think debate's other big benefit is exposure to a wide variety of literature bases (international relations, critical theory, public policy, economics, etc.). I like it when teams are experts on the research they're presenting, and if I feel like I've learned something new, it will show in your points. 

Organization: Line by line matters. I'm happy when my flow is kept clean. I reward efforts to help me keep my flow clean with speaker points. Please name your flows in the 1NC. I'm not a huge fan of overviews. Debate like this and I'll reward you with points http://vimeo.com/5464508

Quals matter. I would prefer it if you read the qualifications to enter them into the debate before you argue that your author's qualifications are better than your opponent's. Remember that qualifications aren't necessarily based on education alone - relevance of experience to the substantive argument in question is also a factor.

Truth matters. "Alternative facts" are not facts. I reserve the right reject evidence that is blatantly out of context or arguments that are particularly morally repugnant (i.e. "racism good"). I will read the unhighlighted part of your evidence to assess "truth," but I do my best to separate that from how your argument was explained in the debate. Ev comparison is welcome.

Prep starts at the end of speech time and ends once the email is sent/the document is saved.

Specific Arguments

T - I'm not really sure where reasonability begins and ends, so I tend to favor competing interpretations. I think vagueness and specification arguments are important and worth evaluating, but this should begin in cross-ex

Advantage/Disadvantage debate - Impact comparison is important and necessary. I am frustrated by 

Uniqueness shapes the direction of the link. If you're hoping to go for link shapes uniqueness, refer me to parts of the uniqueness debate that you think proves that uniqueness is close.

Counterplans - 2nr should be explicit in weighing the risk of a solvency deficit against the risk of the net benefit. Affs should be specific when making permutations. Most counterplan theory is a reason to allow cheaty perms or reject a counterplan altogether rather than a reason to reject the team.

Conditionality - I'm OK with the community consensus of 1 CP 1 K, but that can be changed by good debating. Convince me that your interpretation is better for accomplishing the big picture issues I noted at the top, and you'll do well. Affs should capitalize on strategies that are abusive for a combination of reasons (floating piks with a conditional alternative for instance). 

Critiques (and critical affirmatives) - I'm open to them. I'm not super familiar with all but the most basic parts of the lit base. I tend to be much better at concrete (rather than abstract) thought, so use lots of examples. Long overviews should be discouraged (see above). Root cause arguments don't make a ton of sense to me logically - if a carbon tax solves global warming by making renewable energy comparatively more economical than fossil fuels, why does it matter that capitalism caused global warming? Likewise, "alt solves case" arguments tend to fall victim to timeframe problems. The best way to win in front of me is to go for scholarship related arguments - if you prove that the scholarship of the 1ac leads to faulty conclusions that implicate solvency/the 1ac scenarios. 

Case - Presumption is a thing. Most 2nrs should address the case

Feel free to email me with questions!