Tabroom.com

Western Policy Debate Championship

2016 — CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Calvin Abbasi CSU Northridge 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 3, 2015 at 12:18 PM EDT

Competed – 4 years

Judge – 3 years

Undergrad: USC (Fight On), CSUN (Go Matadors)

Debate coach and grad student at CSU Northridge

Pet peeves: Unneccesary aggression (please do not confuse this with using rage or anger as part of an argument or advocacy), talking over your partner, excess snarkiness devoid of humor, Zooey Deschanel.

Debate teaches us, all of us. Through a depth of issue understanding and a distinct competition of ideas/methodologies/philosophies, through community building and hard work.

As such, my main concern when judging a round lies making sure debate is optimized as an educational tool. Arguments without depth or those that don't explain and delineate their plans/ideas tend to be significantly weaker in my book. I am not more or less susceptible to certain kinds of arguments.

In full disclosure as a debater and through my academic career philosophy and critiques were my preferred argument to run, however, I also ran DAs, topicality, anti-K arguments, and framework. And as a judge, I prefer to hear all manners of arguments.

The forms of arguments mean much less to me than the content of the round itself. Line by line responses, detailed explanation of standpoints, and contextualization of evidence hold a lot of weight. As such, I also value quality over quantity in argumentation and evidence.

Speed is mostly a non-issue to me, unless your argument is specifically tied to that notion and contextualizes it in a larger, relevant frame of reference. Also, complexity and confusion of arguments (complex philosophy/performativity) are also not issues to me so long as they are, again, explained, and formed into a relevant argument.

When it comes to speaker points two things determine my scores: grasp and explanation of the arguments and how you treat each other in round. Winning the round is important and it's part of what produces so much education in this activity. However, learning your evidence and being able to truly tie it into the narrative of your argument and treating your fellow debaters with respect are paramount to me when deciding your individual speaker points.

Other than that, try to have some fun and that's about it.

- Calvin

Teddy Albiniak San Francisco State University 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 26, 2018 at 10:13 AM PDT

Some tidbits to consider, no particular order:

I try to make decisions based on criteria established by debaters. If none are offered, I will rely on my knowledge of convention, style, and execution to guide me. What that means - I am equally likely to vote for a good thought experiment or critical intervention, as I am a traditional policy proposal. That being said, I have a higher threshold for what counts. Asserted risk calculus is as unappealing as unapplied critical jargon.

Mediocre debaters copy others. Good debaters advance arguments. Great debaters persuade.

Don’t assume I know what you are talking about

I prefer organization and development of arguments as the debate proceeds. That means: â€¨Details matter. Warrants matter. Cross-ex matters. History matters. â€¨â€¨Evidence matters when a claim is contested. "We have a card" is not a warrant for an argument. How one chooses to highlight evidence should be of relevance to you, but it is especially relevant to me.

â€¨â€¨Argument "type" is not extremely relevant to me - select the arguments that you are prepared for rather than those that you think I agree with. I obviously have preferences but am interested in seeing how you make sense of the activity, not with advancing my agenda.

â€¨â€¨I think the activity is at its best when rounds are serious and complex investigations of policy, philosophy, and politics based in literatures and discussions made relevant by and to the resolution. â€¨â€¨That means I am less likely to care about miniscule theory debates or certain kinds of performances until/unless their relevance is clearly explained and impacted. Then, it's awesome.

I like:

case debates

disadvantage impacts that focus on early internal link claims and less on terminal impacts

affirmatives that affirm things

consistent but tricky negative strategies

counter plans with solvency advocates and real net benefits

alternatives

some relation to reality, even if contested

ethos

serious theoretical objections, including topicality

Everyone is always learning - including me and you.

Jared Anderson Sacramento State University 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 1:48 AM UTC

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

Carol Barbalance CSU Northridge 6 rounds None

Joseph Barquin Southwestern College 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:53 PM PDT

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Slammy Binley City College of San Francisco 3 rounds

Tom Boroujeni Fresno State 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 1, 2021 at 5:56 AM PDT

-Last Updated on 1/1/2020

Online Debate: SLOW DOWN - SLOW DOWN - SLOW DOWN

TLDR: I vote for K affs and I also vote for topicality against K affs.

Please add me to your email chain: tom.boroujeni@fresnocitycollege.edu

Please do not contact me for other schools' speech doc. Contact them directly. I have been contacted multiple times by different people asking me to share other team's speech doc. Why don't you contact them directly?

Novices: I am the strong proponent of the novice packet. Do what you will with this information.

Who am I?

I was the Director of Debate at California State University, Fresno from Fall 2016 to the summer of 2020. I now coach the Fresno City College debate team. I started as a tradition policy debater and made the transition into K debate. I have respect for both camps and whatever is in between. I tell you what I tell all my students, only run arguments that you fully understand and can explain to the judge. I also believe that debaters should have a basic understanding of policy debate before venturing off into the critical realm but that is a decision you should hash out with your coaches. I understand the implications of that statement and I am willing to defend it if you want me to do so. There is not any particular argument that I will not vote for. However, it is your responsibility to persuade me.

Speech Time and Evidence Transfer:
Your prep time stops when you pull the memory stick out, send the email, or drop the document into Speechdrop. If you forget a card, your prep time will run until you give the other team the evidence. Stealing time will lead to severe reduction in speaker points. Speech time is non-negotiable (No 10 min constructions or extra rebuttal speech).

Evidence Quality:

I am very sensitive to the quality of your cards. Things are getting out of hand with power tagging and out of context evidence. Section XVII. EVIDENCE POLICY of CEDA's constitution indicates:
|
|
-B. Competitors shall be prohibited from using fabricated or distorted evidence.
------1. "Evidence" is defined as material which is represented as published fact or opinion testimony and offered in support of a debater's claim.
------2. "Fabricated" evidence refers to the citing of a fact or opinion that is either from a source that is found to be non-existent or not contained in the original source of the material in question.
------3. "Distorted" evidence refers to the misrepresentation of the actual or implied content of factual or opinion evidence. Misrepresentations may include, but are not limited to, the following:
------------a. Quoting out of context: selecting text from an article in such a way that the claim made with the selected text is clearly inconsistent with the author's position as that position is manifest in the article, book, or other source from which the quotation is drawn, when that material is taken as a whole.
------------b. Internally omitting words from a quotation or adding words to a quotation in such a way that the meaning evident in the resulting modified quotation deviates substantially in quality, quantity, probability or degree of force from the author's position as manifest in the quotation in question prior to modification.
------------c. Internally omitting words from a quotation or adding words to a quotation without indicating, either on the written form of the quotation or orally when the quotation is delivered to an opponent or judge, that such a deletion or addition has been.
------4. Fabricated and distorted evidence are so defined without reference to whether or not the debater using it was the person responsible for originally misrepresenting it.
-C. Competitors shall allow their judges and opponents to examine the evidence on request, and provide on request sufficient documentation on the source of the evidence which would allow another person to locate the quotation in its original form.
-D. Adjudication Procedures for by-law XVII
|
|

Any challenge over tagline and content of the card is important to me. Make sure you know what your cards say and tag them properly.

Speed:
This section used to say "I am comfortable with speed but if you have your 1AR analytical arguments pre-written and you are machine-gunning them at me, be sure that I will miss a couple on my flow and if it is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision on it. I will yell "CLEAR" if you are not."

But I had to change it. I don't feel comfortable with some of your speeds anymore. My ears do not process too high or too low pitch of voices. I will tell you to be "clear" or "louder". No matter who you are and what you are saying, I reserve the right to ask you to be more clear. Slow down ESPECIALLY on analytical arguments. Analytical arguments are very important so If you want me to put them on the flow, please slow down.

Topicality:
I enjoy topicality debates because I have some legal background as a litigation consultatnt. I argue (and defend) that at least half of the arguments in the legal field are topicality arguments.

How do I evaluate topicality you ask? As an Aff, you should be able to solidify a relationship to the topic or tell me why what you are talking about is so important that you felt the topic should be ignored. For me, the most important components of topicality are education and fairness in that order. OR why topicality is bad.

Framework:
I put a very high value on this flow because it is about the activity itself. Framework tells me how I should be looking at the debate. Part of wining the framework flow is how you win through your lens. Absent the explanation of how you win, I probably vote against you because I think you don't know how you are winning and if you don't know why you should win through the lens you are advocating for then you have no business running framework.

Disadvantage:
Love them. I think most negative arguments are modified DAs. You can run a DA on anything that advocates for an alternative (i.e., Case, CP, and K). Explain the scenario of the DA to me. You also need to win that the DA outweighs the Plan or the Alt (or part of it).

Counter Plan:
Counter Plan is a way of solving one or more of the affirmative's advantages AND offering a Net benefit. The perm must be dealt with adequately.

Ks:
Like them and will vote for them. My threshold of acceptance for your explanation is higher because I think Ks do not have argumentative breath so they need to satisfy the depth. That depth requires a lot of work. So do the work for me because I will not do it for you. Make sure you link to the case. If you are have a link of omission, then you probably should have a root-cause claim or some other sort of explanation.

You need to solidify and explain your links. Impact analysis is important to me.

Remember
It is YOUR responsibility to persuade me and not my responsibility to understand your argument. Unnecessary yelling and fighting in the round will lead to severely reduced speaker points unless it is your argument that yelling and fighting is good (In that case it would not be unnecessary).

Last word
I think respect for the judge's RFD is very important. I see the debate in a particular way and judge it based on that view. If you do not like that lens then you probably should have done a better job of telling me what lens I should use and why that is a good lens (See Framework above). You do not have to pref me if you do not think I am capable of judging your debates, but if you do, respect my RFD. Do not make any sort of assumptions about my judging style. I do not vote for a particular style of debate, a particular school, or a particular team. I vote for the team that does a better job of arguing. I do not care if you are a first round or a novice debater, if you make the better argument you are going to win my ballot. If you do not respect my opinion as a judge then you should probably put me at the bottom of your pref sheet (strike me).

Role of the ballots that are self serving are bad. I think role of the ballot is always to indicate who has done the better debating. I rarely find role of the ballots persuasive.

Sara Beth Brooks Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 4:45 AM PDT

Officially dragged back into the activity by the pandemic. I'm doing some administrative work for the Sacramento Urban Debate League. Don't expect to find me on your pref sheet but feel free to contact me at sarabeth@sudl.org if you have research questions.

Officially retired. Feel free to contact me with research questions but I'm no longer actively involved in the activity. - May 2019

I debated policy for 5 years in college and qualified twice to the NDT for UNLV. I coached policy for College Prep (Oakland) for 3 years, and policy for Wake Forest for a year.

I also have several years of high school public forum experience and occasionally judge and coach those debates, but I am not actively coaching the 2018-2019 topics.

A little more about me: white, crip[pled], queer, femme, she/her or they/them pronouns.

Three Important Things

a. If you need to communicate an access issue to me before the debate, please send me an email before the round. This is a private way for you to give me information that you do not want to share with the entire room (for example, if nonverbal communication isn't accessible to you).

b. I have an auditory processing disorder. I can flow fast, technical debate but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I have to call clear repeatedly, I will just stop flowing. If music is a part of your arguments please turn the volume down a bit so that I can hear you (I understand that music/audio are important and vital to certain argumentation; you do not have to turn it off -- just adjust the volume in front of me).

c. I will listen to almost anything, with a couple of caveats; I am not interested in hearing arguments like racism good or rape good, etc, or in hearing arguments or jokes about suicide. Also if appropriating culture or literature that doesn't belong to you is the strat, please don't pref me.

Everything Else

Debate is a communicative activity. Pick an argument and defend it, and answer the other team's arguments. Be persuasive. Make claims, back them up with warrants, and please compare impacts. Make jokes. Speaker points will go up. Cards are good, contextual analysis using cards is better, comparative claims contextualized to the evidence in the round is best. I don't read much evidence so don't count on me to read the 16 cards you shadow extend in the rebuttal; it is your job to tell me why a few of them tip the debate in your direction.

As a competitor I read everything from elections to Baudrillard, but had the most competitive success with structural criticisms about ableism and disability. I valued fast, technical debate and I appreciate and understand those debates. I also did performance debate for a year and have read a lot of critical race theory, critical disability studies/crip studies, gender/queer theory, and colonialism literature. Yes I will vote on in-round rhetoric arguments, so do not use racist/cissexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic language. I will be very persuaded by a well-constructed argument about it from the other side.

I like all different styles of debate, so read arguments you are comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the debate in front of me. Speaker points are almost always between 28 and 29, adjusted for division; above or below indicates a unique round. Please remember that I am an imperfect being in the service of the imperfect god of debate, but I do promise to be attentive, work hard to understand your arguments, and try to give an RFD focused on education and how to improve for the future. One last thing: I give long RFDs, #sorrynotsorry.

Max Bugrov Fresno State 6 rounds

Deven Cooper Fresno State 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 8:23 AM PDT

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

Bryan Delgado Sacramento State University 6 rounds None

Brandon Garcia Sacramento State University 4 rounds

Olivia Gover Hire 2 rounds None

Mark A. Hernandez Sr. Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:59 AM PDT

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

Sterling Kempf Hire 6 rounds

John Kephart III CSU Northridge 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM PDT

DOF - Cal State Northridge

Competed: 8 years. Critic: 14 years

Last updated: 9-2-16 (Most recent update: General topic discussion)

I had originally said that my judging philosophy is “tabula rasa.” However, judging over the years has caused me to rethink that position somewhat. I don't think anyone can actually be a blank slate. So, instead, I have included some ways that I approach debate/debating that may be helpful for your style.

I have noticed I have a hard time hearing debaters in rounds the last couple years, so you may want to go slightly slower than top speed or speak louder if possible during analytic arguments/long K tags if you want to make sure I get all of them.

I tried to be thorough in this judging philosophy (so it is kinda long), but while I competed on the national circuit in college, I am mostly regional these days, so if I missed a question of current significance, please feel free to ask. I haven't judged a ton the last two years (2014-2016), and almost exclusively on the regional circuit, so I am probably less-versed than usual on trends in the activity. What this means for you is that if there is general agreement on the meaning/use/significance of a piece of evidence or a particular theory argument, I may not be familiar. This doesn't mean you shouldn't make/use it, but that you should probably warrant all of your claims and not rely on general community agreement as that warrant.

Role of the Judge/My Preferences

I am an educator outside of debates and view myself as such within debates. I will do my best to comment on how to use our experiences together in debate as a learning experience. As such, don't work to change your style because you are debating in front of me. I will still listen to any type of argument. I am as comfortable with politics/CP/case disadvantages as I am with philosophical discussions in critical and performance literature.

I will do my best to decide the debate how the debaters ask that I decide the debate. What I list below are my default positions, so absent any argumentation on the question, this is where I lean. This does NOT mean you will automatically pick up my ballot if your argument is in line with my default. If contested, you still need to win that your argument is true/relevant in the debate you are in, regardless of what I say here. I often vote against my own preferences.

While I will vote against my own preferences, I have found that I have the most difficulty removing myself from the debate with arguments that say people should be excluded from debates versus debating about the utility/agency/ability of perspectives that people speak from, within, or toward.

I agree that race, class, gender, ability, sexual identity, nation of origin, faith, and a host of other markers of identity have profound effects on our capacity to deliberate, discuss, engage in activism, or recognize, challenge, or otherwise engage our privilege. I see that as a starting point for discussion, not as a warrant to exclude someone from the debate. We participate in a communicative activity. I am happy (or at least willing) to listen to arguments about perspectives that should or should not be included. I will not tolerate arguments that suggest people themselves should be removed from the activity.

Framework/Performance/The Res:

I think that critical, philosophical, and performance based arguments are a valuable component to forensics - which means that I think that both the affirmative and the negative should be able to use critical arguments to generate offense.

Does that mean that I value critical arguments OVER more policy-oriented arguments? No. But what it does mean is that I default to believing that affs should get to use critical advantages to weigh against disads, and that negatives should get to run criticisms against the affirmative.

That being said, you can still have your realism good/PoMo bad debates versus the K. I have voted for “realism is inevitable – your K is idealistic and ineffective” about as often as I have voted for “your war impact claims are inevitable unless we criticize.”

I think a primary problem in a lot of these debates is that there is either no in-depth discussion of method (despite using the words "our/their method"), which leads to (a) no clear articulation by the aff as to what an aff vote accomplishes if we aren't passing a policy - just because you say the words "role of the ballot" doesn't mean you have explained what that role is and/or (b) how the neg arguments turn the aff if they aren't tied to political action outside of the debate as an end goal. Often, this results in a lack of clash where the aff says they don't need fiat, but don't say what they do need, and the neg says the activism the aff never really advocated will be bad activism. Some clear discussion of method and function of the advocacy in the round will not only generate clash, but make the resolution of the debate far easier.

It seems to be relevant to let folks know whether or not I read/have read critical theory for fun and/or profit. I have done both. My doctorate is in rhetoric, cultural studies, and gender studies, so I have read a fair amount of that literature. That does not mean that I default towards this lit, or that I am any more likely to value it over other forms of argumentation, just that I am fairly well versed in it. I actually don't hear as many disads as I would like.

My default position is that affirmatives have to defend the resolution. I do believe that topic specific education is good and finding creative ways to be topical stimulates critical thinking. I think it is entirely possible for affirmatives to be critical/perform and defend the resolution. This year, we should be talking about whether it would be a good idea for the USFG to establish a climate policy to reduce emissions to some degree in the debate. Again, I have voted for aff teams that don't defend the resolution - this is just my default.

Thus, framework arguments on both sides of the debate need to be well articulated and warranted with specific impacts for how I situate myself as a judge/critic/spectator/educator/policymaker.

Topicality: Interpretations must be well articulated, and voters well explained. Potential for abuse is potentially a voter – debate it out. I enjoy well articulated T debates, but am often frustrated with the lack of comparison of impacts, or how standards/internal links relate to one another (i.e.: predictability v education). If you would like to win my ballot on T, explain these types of things.

Theory: I don’t lean one way or the other on theory (Dispo/PICS/etc). I do have a pretty low threshold for conceded theory arguments that are well articulated, and will vote on them if they are there. I will not vote on them JUST because they are there – that is the “well articulated” part. If you are going for theory, you should not be going top speed. For contested theory I would say I have a medium threshold - not particularly high or low.

Disads: I don't tend to think there is 100% defense, but I also can be persuaded to substantially mitigate that risk through both evidence and analytics. I often lament that there is no discussion of how the disad impacts relate to the case advantages. Generic links and turns can be made specific by analytics/discussion if well articulated - they can also be made irrelevant the same way. Which is really just my way of saying you should actually debate the link instead of competing over who can read more 2 line cards that are plan-adjacent.

Counterplans: See disads and theory. I think artificial competition is an argument that has more utility than is currently being used. I also think that permutations should be accompanied with a text and more nuanced than "do both", but if the neg let's the aff get away with it, so be it.

General in-round/deciding issues:

Paperless/Prep: While a great idea, paperless debate tends to annoy me. Consider this the "get off my lawn" section of my philosophy.

I think debaters rely too much on the document jumped to them, and not enough on the debate as it is occurring. I won't be following along on the viewing computer or e-mail chain - I still think it is the debaters' responsibility to speak to me as a critic.

I also run your prep time until the document is prepared, and we are only waiting for the other team to be able to access your speech - so if that is e-mail/Dropbox link sent, or jump drive is out of your computer, your prep time is running until you have finished preparing and are able to speak.

As a general rule, I don’t read very much evidence. I tend to read more evidence in out rounds, though not by much I flow parts of the evidence, and listen for warrants. I think it is the debaters’ job to explain what their evidence says. Merely extending a cite will be ineffective. If you demand that I read all of your evidence after the debate, I almost certainly won’t. I usually call for cards when (a) there is a dispute about what the evidence says (b) I don’t believe the debaters are explaining the evidence/interpretation/plan text correctly (c) there is evidence on both sides of a question that is explained by both teams and I need to resolve it or (d) I want cites.

Similarly, evidence is good, but so are well articulated analytics. I think we rely too much on having cards for arguments instead of making smart, well reasoned arguments for why something is or is not true.

Interactions between debaters, and between debaters and their arguments:

I can’t stand people being rude or overly obnoxious in debates. If you are too rude or combative, dismissive of the other team, their argument, or their attempts to engage your argument, or generally discriminatory in approach or intent (racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, ablist, etc) I will adjust your speaker points accordingly.

Tech v truth:I am not totally flow centric - if an argument is answered in the debate, but not necessarily on the particular line that the original argument was made, I will tend to give it to you. However, that presumes that you have articulated such a response. While I don't keep a strict hi-tech flow, I will also not connect the dots for you. If your evidence/analytic answers an argument elsewhere on the flow, or responds to a class of argument (e.g.: Perception links), say so.

Speaker Points:

UPDATED: 12/30/14: After reading other people's philosophies doing prefs for the swing, it appears I have a view of speaker points that is quite out of step with the average. I have adjusted the following section accordingly.

I view speaker points similar to how I view grading. Doing what you are supposed to do on an assignment is a B/B- depending on quality. Doing what you are supposed to in order to win a debate is in the 28 range. Doing work above and beyond what is needed to win is in the 28.5 range, and truly superior work is in the 29 range. Arguments that win, but do so as a result of the other team's failings, or ignoring a reasonable request for accommodation or inclusion may not result in "reject the team", but may result in a 27 or lower.

Banafshae Khan Sacramento State University 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 4:09 AM PDT

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

Zack Lampitok Hire 4 rounds None

Becca McDonnell Hire 1 rounds None

Ben Menzies Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 28, 2020 at 5:00 AM PDT

[Updated paradigm for Berkeley 2020 below]

New paradigm given my new circumstances. After 11 years coaching and debating at the high school and NDT-CEDA levels, I'm no longer actively coaching or competing in policy. I’m an experienced judge and have competed and coached at a very wide range of levels over the years, including the NDT and TOC, but I have pretty much tuned out debate since the end of last season. I'm looking forward to hearing my first debates on this year's topic as international topics were some of my favorites, but you should know that Berkeley will be my first tournament judging this topic. I am currently in my second and final year of a masters program in public policy here at UC Berkeley.

I’d like to be on the email chain if applicable: Menzies.benjamin530@gmail.com. If using flash drives or paper, I’ll ask for cards at the end of the round.

I debated at Nevada Union (2007-2010) and Whitman College (2010-2014), then coached at Whitman (2014-15) and C.K. McClatchy (2015-18). I coached NDT and TOC qualifying teams and attended the NDT myself (as well as participating in some pretty locally-focused lay debate and working at a very regionally-focused debate camp in the northwest – so from the most fast and technical kind of debate to the opposite of that).

Stylistically, I believe debate is up to the debaters and will judge whatever kind of debate you want me to. As both a coach and a competitor, I’ve been all over the framework spectrum and find that I am pretty flexible when it comes to issues of engaging the resolution, alternative approaches to impact debates, or whether debate is a good vehicle for various kinds of political commitments. Just do whatever you do as well as you can, and I promise I will give you the fairest opportunity possible to win my ballot. Absent some other story about how I should decide my ballot, I’m generally just going to weigh the benefits and costs of voting affirmative versus negative, as articulated to me in the last rebuttals. I’m pretty partial to offense-defense analysis since it makes sense to me and is what I was mainly trained in, but I’ve voted for plenty of other methods of weighing arguments on the flow.

Having spent most of my competitive career working on the affirmative side of the resolution, I find that I am generally sympathetic to many aff claims about the problems with some generic strategies that have cropped up over the years. In particular, I just don’t like process counterplans that are lazily executed as a way to steal the whole aff. But I have voted for plenty over the years, and I generally think the best answers to bad arguments are good analytical arguments or clever applications of thin evidence (not theoretical challenges). I have also cut a lot of politics/elections cards over the years, although I feel like these arguments are somewhat on the decline these days. I’m totally fine with critical arguments as well, although I will admit I have never been a huge fan of the psychoanalytic variety of Ks (but, again, have voted for them). I’m also now a graduate student in public policy and have worked on policy the past few years at the state level, so I’m naturally pretty interested in the “real” policy analysis that sometimes doesn’t show up in policy debate (but can be quite effective – it mostly takes place on the case!).

I don’t really have any strong opinions about conditionality and don’t really find the number of off-case positions read by the negative to be a salient point in many of those debates (i.e. “they read six off case positions, so we couldn’t answer their arguments” doesn’t really read to me as a complete argument or reason to vote affirmative).

I always really enjoyed cross examination and find it sometimes weighs pretty heavily in my speaker point allocation. It is some of your most precious time in the debate and can often prove decisive, so I recommend preparing for it like it is a speech and trying to make the most of yours. Also it’s sometimes not particularly relevant to the question of who won the debate, I do like to see quality evidence read. Most debate evidence is really not very good, so it’s always nice to see evidence of good research and preparation. And it’s easier to weigh persuasively than bad evidence!

Happy to answer any other questions you have. Remember that this activity is intended to be fun and educational, so do your best to create an inclusive community conducive to making that available for all people. In a communicative activity, rhetoric is certainly material, and you should pay attention to making yours constructive, thoughtful, and non-exclusionary toward groups underrepresented in debate.

Joe Patten Monmouth University 6 rounds

Kenton Raiford San Francisco State University 3 rounds None

Romin Rajan Cal State Fullerton 3 rounds

Michael Souders University of Washington 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 12, 2023 at 9:28 AM EDT

Mick Souders

Director, James Madison University

20th year judging NDT/CEDA debate

micksouders@gmail.com

Updated 11/2/2022

CNTRL F "Short Version" for a summary version.

CNTRL F "Long Version" for rambling long version.

CNTRL F "Critical Identity Team" for full views on that.
CNTRL F "Ethics Challenge" for full views on that.
CNTRL F "Speaker Point Scale" for full views on that

CNTRL F "Procedure Notes" for info about card procedures and humbugs about CX.

*SHORT VERSION*

Debate is game with a very serious purpose: teaching critical thinking, argument and research skills, subject knowledge, and tactical and strategic perspectives. I will take your debate seriously.

-I try to be objective, not neutral. I see job my as evaluating the disagreement in debate using my critical thinking abilities and, if necessary, my prior knowledge and experience.

-Disclosure is a courtesy, not a rule. I will not vote on an argument about a team not disclosing. I will only vote on a mis-disclosure argument if you can show its (a) factual and (b) intentionial.

-The topic is important to promote clash. However, I often vote for non-topical teams because topicality is debate-able and teams arguing for the topic must be able to win the topicality argument.

-I am not likely to be persuaded debate is a bad activity. Criticism of how we debate is different than saying debate is bad.

-I flow on paper. Iexpect debaters to flow/note take and do not think opponents are required to provide pristine speech docs or analytics.

-I do not usually read speech docs during the speech. I read lots of cards after debates/in prep time.

-I believe I am a good judge for a variety of K teams but most K teams disagree. This is probably due to my views on topicality. I think that establishing a negative framework for impact evaluation and alternative solvency are the two most important aspects of winning a criticism.

-I am burden of proof oriented. I expect claims to be supported, not presumed. That means I vote on no risk of a link or no solvency more often than other judges.

-I am not a good judge for self-referential/circular arguments (i.e., 'Vote for what's best for me and I'm the judge of what's best for me').

-CX is not prep time. Prep time is not CX time. I will end CX if you aren't using it. I will not listen to prep time CX. Blow off your CX and see the results in your points.

-I have of views on counterplans and counterplan theory. If that matters to you, see below.

-I often look and sound upset, annoyed or angry but I am actually rarely these things in any meaningful sense. My thinking face looks like an angry scowl. My slightly confused face looks like I'm seriously enraged. My 'slightly annoyed for 2 sec' face looks like I'm about to toss over a desk. Sorry about this. I was born with this face.

*END SHORT VERSION*

LONG VERSION

Mea culpa

I believe that I’m out of step with contemporary debate. I feel it almost every time I judge. It’s not about the type of arguments that are made, it’s about how I judge them. I try to be even-handed and fair to both sides, but compared to most debaters’ expectations: I’m too opinionated about what constitutes adequate support, I’m too willing to dismiss badly supported arguments, I have too high of standards of engagement between two teams, I expect extra-ordinary claims to have at least decent proof, I don’t think repeating a prior block is a respectable extension of an argument even if the other team didn’t respond, I don’t think 2-3 sentences is usually enough to win a major argument. I do think you need to explain the claim, warrant, data for arguments in rebuttals, even when dropped. I don’t think a dropped assertion is necessarily true for the purposes of debate. I will ignore arguments I cannot understand and I have a coherence standards for positions and arguments. I think lots of ‘defensive’ arguments end up being terminal for positions.

Which is all to say that I am probably far too opinionated and interventionist for most debaters’ tastes. I like to think of it as being a principled critic of argumentation, but call it what you will. Does that make me a bad judge? Well, I certainly don’t think I’m what debaters want. I don’t know. But I am this way because I feel like these principles matter and I find them impossible to ignore.

Philosophy

Debate is the kiln in which minds are strengthened into ever better forms. The goal of each debate is not necessarily to find the right answer to a question, but an exploration of ideas and an experiment with concepts, enabled by the unique forum of debate that protects us from the full consequences of the ideas we advocate. It is the freedom of debate which enables it to be so effective. Hence, debate is a political project as well as an educational one. It is a democratic experiment. In it, we exercise our freedom to advocate for ideas—and to oppose them—in the spirit of putting our minds to work on a wide set of problems.

As a judge, I try to evaluate the quality of ideas and argumentation that debaters present. I do not have a preference for policy debate, critique debate, non-traditional debate or whatever any wishes to call their format. I do ask that ideas are presented coherently, cogently, and be well-supported by epistemologically-appropriate evidence.

I do have some argument biases (charted, per others):

Killing/letting die on purpose good--------------------------X--Killing/letting die on purpose bad.
Children are good-X--------------------------------Children are bad.
Ha funny debate only stupidity good!------------------------X-Ha funny debate only stupidity bad!
Topic ------X------------------No Topic.
Conditionality Good--X------------------Bad
ESR good for debate--------------------X---ESR is nonsense.
Offense/defense paradigm yes----------------X----no.
Alt-less Ks yes-----------------------X---no.
Stupid contrived fiat on CPs yes!-----------------------X--no.
Asserting another person has no role in debate: YES good strat-------------------------X---no.
Fairness It's an objective truth--------X--------------------It doesn't exist & we shouldn't consider it.

Here's that in another form.

I tend to dislike misanthropic arguments that ask me to kill people or increase suffering. If you read any argument says people dying is irrelevant, mass suffering is good for people or that children should not exist or be killed, you simply do not want me as a judge.

I tend to dislike arguments that rely on ideas almost everyone knows are wrong or originate out of dubious sources.

I tend to dislike arguments that attempt to stop rather than promote the development of ideas.

I tend to think the concept of a resolution is good and affirmatives should be topical, although I vote for non-topical affirmatives when it seems warranted by the debate (see note).

I tend to err negative on many theory questions, except when it comes to fiat. In that, I believe that international fiat, state fiat, and object fiat are unfair to affirmatives but to be honest these don't seem like voting issues, just reasons the counterplan should be ruled out.

I do not believe your assertion alone constitutes an argument that I am required to respect.

I tend to place great weight on cross-examination.

I tend to dislike arguments or positions that indicate that the other team has no place in the conversation.

I’ll limit how much I inject my own ideas into decisions but I will not prohibit my evaluative skills from the debate. I demand greater argumentative power from what appear to me to be counterintuitive arguments. I try to be reflective about my biases but I will not defer to other persons to make decisions for me.

I fundamentally believe in standards of decency and respectful treatment of colleagues and a sporting attitude toward competition. I understand that debate is serious. I realize that civility is sometimes a policing standard and there are limits to its application. But I persist in believing debaters should be free to make their arguments free from undue personal insults, discriminatory remarks, interruption, intimidation, or slurs regarding their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, sex, sexual behavior, religion or socioeconomic standing. I am quite willing to step in and object or refuse to continue to participate in debates in which such activity continues.

Speaker Point Scale (novice doesn't follow this scale):

2021-Present Averages:
Open: 28.49; JV: 28.05; Novice: 28.31

29.5-29.9 Very to extremely high quality speeches that I would consider very good even for Copeland/Top 5 plaque competitors.

29-29.4 Excellent speeches that significantly advanced your team's chances of winning. Good to very good speeches for First Round-level competitors.

28.6-28.9 Above average speeches that I would expect to see out of clearing teams. Good to very good speeches for competitors at the NDT qualifier level.

28.1-28.5 Average to somewhat above average speeches that contributed to your team's chances of winning. Slightly above to somewhat below average speeches for the NDT qualifier level.

27.6-28 Mediocre to average speeches that only moderately advanced your team's position toward winning the debate.

27.1-27.5 Fairly poor speeches that did not significantly advance your teams position in the debate and likely did not sound good.

26.5-27 Poor speeches that had a negative impact on your team's chances of winning.

< 26.4 You did something very insulting and/or turned a near-certain win into a certain loss via your speech

**I am moderately hearing impaired. This should not affect you except that it helps if you enunciate clearly and project your voice. Rooms with echoes or ambient noise pose particular problems for me. If you see me moving around the room to hear, it's not necessarily you, it may be me trying to get a better angle to hear you.

Critical Identity Teams

Originally written in 2014 so maybe out of date. I haven't revised it in quite a while. Most of it still accurate to me even if the language and named arguments are a bit out of date.

I find it a nearly undeniable fact that the growth of critical identity arguments has dramatically increased the inclusiveness of our community in the past ten years. This is meaningful change. So I’m taking the time to write this extensive addendum to my judging philosophy because I think it’s important to recognize that there are terminological differences and stylistic differences in debate right now and I want to help the teams that are helping make our community more inclusive feel more comfortable in front of me.

Teams that make critical identity arguments are widely varied and so I’m reluctant to comment on them (or define them), except that I have noticed that those I think of *provisionally as critical identity teams are sometimes surprised by my decisions (for and against them). After some thought, I think it is because of a certain divergence in the judging pool. Critical identity teams, roughly speaking, share a common judging pool that emphasizes certain things, takes others for granted and has certain expectations. My background in traditional critique and policy debating has emphases and vocabularies different from this pool. In a few decisions that a few teams have not liked, I’ve explained my perspective and it’s sometimes been rejected or received push back and even dismissal. That’s regrettable. I want these teams (you, if you’re reading this) to see me as pointing them to the path to victory with me as the judge and I encourage these teams to see me as an opportunity rather than as a barrier.

So, rather than wait until a post-round to translate my views—which is too late—I’m going to post them here. It’s long, yes, but I put some effort and thought into this.

Overview over, here are my notes:

NEG:

It’s probably true that it’s easier for you to win on the negative because there’s no topical barrier for you. There’s a huge exception to this, noted in the affirmative section. Here’s my hints:

-Argue the alternative. This is the number one point of difference between myself (and judges like me) and the pool of judges I’ve noted above. Winning a link and impact isn’t enough. You’re going to need to focus on extending, arguing, and explaining how your alternative solves your link arguments, how it solves the case and/or how it is the ‘better’ choice in the face of affirmative case arguments. If your alt solves the case, explain how. If it doesn’t solve the case, explain why that doesn’t matter. Your alternative needs to solve the link to the case, because if not, there’s simply no uniqueness to your arguments against the affirmative—they are true whether I vote affirmative or negative. That doesn’t mean that you need to solve the WHOLE link. For example, if the law is fundamentally anti-black, then even if the alternative doesn’t solve the law being anti-black it might provide us with a path to a non-law based perspective or something of that sort. When I’ve voted AFF against critical identity teams, there’s often been a post-round attempt at a gotcha question: “So, you just voted for a law you agree is anti-black/queer/ableist?” And I’ve answered: “No. Voting for an anti-black/queer/ableism law was inevitable because the alternative didn’t solve any bit of anti-blackness/queerness/ableism.” I will say that 90% of the time I’ve come to the conclusion NOT because I evaluated a contested debate about the alternative but because the negative barely extended the alternative or did not do so at all. I'm generally unpersuaded by "reject" arguments without some value to the rejection.

-Argue the case. Affirmatives often solve impacts—and those impacts can outweigh. If you don’t just let that slide, the fact that they CAUSE another impact cannot be easily dismissed. I watched a debate at the NDT where the critical race team just slayed the policy affirmative by reading phenomenal cards that indicating the structural, racist roots of climate change and consumption patterns. It was excellent. However, that doesn’t happen very often. Being anti-queer is bad…but so is climate change that kills millions, particularly vulnerable populations. It’s easier to pick which one I must address first if the chances of the cases chances of solving climate change are either mitigated or critiqued in a fashion that undermines its solvency.

-Frame the impact. A certain group of judges might think that if you win “social death now” that means basically all the impacts of the case are irrelevant. I don’t think it’s nearly that easy. Think of it this way—you, the debater, are often in the population that your argument says is socially dead. Yet I think that your life matters. And I want to stop bad things from happening to you despite your state of partial or total social death. So, you must say MORE than social death. You may explain, for example, that social death perpetually PERMITS radical violence at a constant or increasing rate; that massive real violence is a terminal and immutable consequence of social death. This does not, by the way, mute the entirety of offense gained by an opponent’s policy action, but in combination with a won alternative provides a nice pairing of a systemic impact with strong empirical grounding and very high future risk with a method of addressing that risk. Some framing evidence helps here.

-Fiat is illusory isn’t a real argument (nor is the affirmative argument that the “The plan REALLY happens!”). I get the plan doesn’t happen but it’s a worthwhile thought experiment that enables us to discuss the merits of the plan. I don’t AUTOMATICALLY assume this, but if the affirmative team frames their case as an representative anecdote of how we can learn to engage in politics, or how this kind of debate informs politics, either in general or in specific, I tend to agree that’s reasonable since that is the whole reason I think debate is educational. THUS! The KEY is is not to argue, “Fiat is illusory, they lose on presumption”—which is a bad argument—but to argue that given that they are teaching a BAD politics and that you present a better one. Your better framework may include arguing for the abandonment of plan-based politics.

-Frame the meaning of winning a key premise. To some extent, I find that to be true of anti-blackness or anti-queerness or anti-intersex, etc. If you win that blackness is an ontology and anti-blackness is a political ontology (although, to be honest, I’m not sure I understand what a political ontology is) you’ve won a premise that gets you a long way in the debate. However, you haven’t WON the debate, per se (nor does losing this premise necessarily lose you the debate). If society is anti-black, does that means politics is irrelevant? My presumption is NO. If you are black and live in anti-black civil society, I still presume that it would be better to do things that blunt the force of anti-blackness with ‘liberal’ policies. Now, you have a huge advantage if you win your premise because in a larger sense you’re winning that liberalism is doomed—but you need to make that clear. Finally, you should work at backstopping this argument. I’ve seen teams go all-in on winning queer is ontological without looking at how they could win if they did not win this premise. I saw a team at the NDT nicely win a debate where they lost that blackness is ontological by arguing that even if its socially constructed, its so deeply embedded that it can’t be extracted and that the alternative resolved it best. Well done.

AFF

Most of this is about topicality because once you’re beyond that barrier you’re just in regular debateland and the above guidelines apply.

Topicality

First hint with me on this overall—persuade your opponent not to go for topicality. When negative teams don’t go for topicality against blatantly non-topical teams, I have a ridiculous affirmative voting record. The reasons are obvious: Links and competition are hard to generate when you’re not topical. That’s why topicality is vital for those teams. But let’s ignore that for a moment.

-Topicality: First hint: Be topical. I think it’s possible. I particularly think it’s possible to defend the topic from the outside—I think it’s possible for queer victims of police violence to argue police who harass queers should be arrested by the state without being or endorsing the state. I think you can be topical and argue that you shouldn’t need to answer process arguments. As the coach of repeated, successful topical K teams I don’t think topicality automatically means role-playing in the strong sense. I also think these debates are essential. Surely it can’t be the case that all critical identity positions of value require non-topicality and I’m very interested to hear the ways critical queer, race, gender, intersex values can be met with a topical plan. ***HOWEVER, if you have me as a judge and you’re NEVER topical, it’s probably a bad idea to just toss a plan in. It’s bad because you haven’t thought through how to defend yourself against arguments.

-Ok, so you’re not topical. Let’s talk about my presumptions on that. The main barrier for you here is that I don’t believe that any state action 100% pollutes any action. That doesn’t mean the state is good. Far from it. But considering the fact that many of the teams that refuse to ever agree with the topic attend STATE UNIVERSITIES with coaches receiving paychecks from THE STATE it’s hard for me to understand why talking about state action is impossible. That’s not a killer argument, but it does seem to hint that SOME state actions are not entirely poisonous. This is my own view and while it does color my T arguments, it’s not insurmountable. Here’s how you overcome that.

-Don’t be anti-topical. It’s a lot easier for me to vote for you if you’re not anti-topical. If you are anti-topical, say, your affirmative says (last year’s topic) that prostitution is bad (and implies shouldn’t be legal) then it’s going to be much harder for you to win in front of me. The reason is simply that you’ve staked out negative ground. You’ve admitted there’s a debate to be had on something and chosen NOT to take your assigned side. You refuse to take up the affirmative side yet you functionally attempt to force the other team to do just that.

- Being PRO-TOPICAL still requires you to be smart. The problem is that the other team will ask, “Why NOT be topical?” You need an answer to that question that isn’t just “State messed up, yo.” You CAN argue that. You CAN win that argument. But I’m going to want nuanced reasons that are specific to a particular to a place and time. Saying, “The US government is messed up and did bad things” seems to me to beg the question of what it SHOULD do to change. So, to overcome that you’ll need to explain why it’s better to debate about your adjacent discussion of topical things rather that government action AND you’ll need to explain why that’s an AFFIRMATIVE argument and not a negative argument.

-Answer their offensive arguments on T. Limits, ground, fairness, predictability, education—these are real things in debate and they matter. You will do well to answer these arguments with both offense and defense. I often see all offense (limits debate protect white folks) without any defense. PARTICULARLY answer their arguments about why topical/legal debating is good, in addition to the regular T argument set. These cards tend to be pretty good so your responses need to be good as well. “Fairness for who?” is a good question—but it needs to be answered rather than just leaving it open ended. On your education arguments you need to move beyond “All our arguments are educational” to explaining why you lead to good, predictable debates that are relatively fair and deeply educational. I am in agreement with the point that critical identity arguments are intrinsically educational (see my intro to this whole thing) but the bigger question is how do they create good debates where both sides explore issues in depth? There are really good reasons that this is the case—you need to make those arguments.

-Address topical version of the affirmative and understand that the legal debates good is a net benefit to this argument. A good team T will argue that you do not have a right to the perfect affirmative, just one that lets you discuss similar key issues. Also understand that “State bad” isn’t necessarily an answer. If can be, but even the anti-statist needs to understand the state. As a former anti-capitalist advocate, I still needed lawyers to get me out of jail and I still needed knowledge of the law to protect myself from the police as much as could be managed..

-Realize that “No Topical Version” is a trap. If you say no topical version, you are setting yourself up to link to the “this is anti-topical” argument, i.e., that your aff is wholly unpredictable and in the reverse direction of all of the regular topic negative arguments. The “no topical version of the aff” made by the 2AC sounds like, “Our whole affirmative advantage is illegitimate.” If you say “yes, topical version” then obviously you’ve also set yourself up. At the very least, so don't assert the 'no topical version' and set yourself up for this debate intentionally.

-Have an answer for the topical research burden argument. Critical identity teams are fond of arguing that there are many different versions of their arguments—TRUE! Which for teams going for T just shows how large the research burden becomes to prep for every single iteration—every different case is its own topic area. You need offensive and defense arguments. The argument that “You just don’t want to answer/research queer/black/feminist/trans/ableism arguments” is a good starting point but it’s not enough (and solved by topical version of the affirmative). “Case list” is also not answer to this argument, because research burden isn’t a question of predictability. Don’t fall into the trap of listing off a bunch of crappy positions you refuse to defend (state good, cap K) as neg ground.

-Find A CERTAIN TOPICALITY. Optimally, a strategic team will find a way to be topical, yet not defend the state. FYI, I absolutely do not think that having a plan that mentions what the US or USFG should do obligates you to defend “the State”. I think it obligates you to defend that particular state action. However, I think you can go beyond that. I think you can defend the plan as a critical intervention, as an imaginative starting point, as epistemological experiment etc. without defending state action in other ways. Now, you’ll have to defend your plan (or a topical advocacy statement—you need not have a PLAN, per se) in SOME ways but probably not a lot of different things.

-Impact turn topicality. If all else fails, impact turn and be extremely offensive against it. Disallow me from voting for T—you can complete this tactic by providing defense against their impact arguments while working on your own. Defense wins championships.

Hints not related to topicality

Once you’re past the topicality gate, you’re in the realm of normal non-procedural arguments and I have few suggestions in this area to avoid common errors (certainly not universal errors) I see in debates in front of me:

-Back up outrage with arguments. Excellent critical identity teams do this…but younger/lesser teams seem to struggle with this. Don’t get so wound up in your position that it stops you from making your argument.

-Antagonizing your opponent won’t sway me. There are reasons that you may choose to antagonize your opponent, some of which may be strategic, some not, some both. But as for how I view the debate, it will not contribute to me voting for you. See note in original philosophy about respectful behavior toward colleagues.

-Make the history lesson pay. Sometimes these debates collapse into scattered historical anecdotes that are only lightly tied together—get full credit for your analysis of history by investing time in explaining its application in this case.

-Don’t rely too heavily on enthymeme (don’t rely on me filling in the blanks for you). Too often, I hear judges (on MANY sides) say, “I guess I just know what they’re talking about.” No. You have an explanatory burden to help me cognitively grasp the situation. I grasp the frustration that comes with my lack of cultural connection to your argument, but I’m doing my best. If you think, “I’m tired of explaining myself to straight people, white people, cis gender people, able-bodied people, etc” and then don’t explain, it becomes really hard for me to vote for you (as well as making a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be accurate, depending on your judge). I won’t vote on what I can’t explain.

FINAL NOTE: You might be thinking, after reading this, ‘WOW, we’re NEVER preferring him. Look all the things he wants us to do—his presumptions are just too high. What a T hack.’

Maybe. But what I’ve tried to do is review almost every argument I find persuasive on T and flag it for you and send you in the right direction in answering it. In REAL DEBATES, teams won’t make all these arguments and they won’t always make them well. I ALWAYS evaluate the debate in front of me. But I wanted to flag all these so you could think through your answers and win my ballot. I wanted to flag these because winning my ballot is possible, not impossible.

I also think this can serve as a primer for winning in front of judges that are like me. To succeed in the big picture, you need to expand your judging pool. At the NDT and in national circuit elimination debates, you can’t hide from all the judges who think topicality is a thing or who have a grounding in traditional critique or policy debate. In my ideal world, you’d see me (or someone like me) on a panel against a non-critical identity team and think, “Good. Mick is a fair judge who sees the value of our arguments. He cares about our role in debateland and the world and even though he might not be our wheelhouse judge, we know the route to win with him.”

And, in the ideal world, your opponent would think the exact same thing.

Ethics Challenge

I want to say that I am not a fan of ethics challenges but they may be the only resolution to certain circumstances. In most cases, I prefer lesser solution from a team with a ethics-related issue: i.e., rejection of the piece of evidence, rejection of a position, rejection of all evidence with demonstrated problems, etc.

I have a relatively standard procedure on ethics challenges. Ethics challenges are accusations of academic misconduct against the opposing team that are outside the bounds of what can be adjudicated by the debate. Justifications for an ethics challenge include, but are not limited to:

1) Mis-representing evidence, i.e., “cutting out of context”--This includes highlighting, reading, or constructing evidence in a way that allows the team to present the evidence as supporting a claim that directly contradicts the intention of the author.

2) Fabricating evidence– This includes altering evidence by adding or deleting parts of cited evidence or wholesale making up evidence and presenting it in a debate.

3) Mis-representing what evidence has been read in the round, i.e., “clipping” or “cross-reading” or falsely claiming a piece of evidence has been read when it has not, or, alternatively, claiming a piece of evidence has NOT been read by the team when it has.

4) Refusing to provide your cited/read evidence to your opponent in the debate or intentionally leaving evidence out of a speech document in order to gain a competitive advantage.

5) Intentionally mis-citing evidence in order to gain a competitive advantage, i.e., leaving out an author or source that might be a liability in a debate. Incidental mis-citation is not subject to an ethics challenge.

6) Using ellipsis or leaving out parts of evidence that are part of the context of the evidence because the part excluded by the ellipsis would be a significant liability in the debate.

7) Intentionally mis-disclosing to another team in pre-round pre-round preparation in order to gain a competitive advantage.

8) If you generally accuse the team ‘cheating’ on any non-debate argument issue and try to make it a ‘voting issue’ (disclosure, speech docs, cards, etc), I will ask if you intend this as an ethics challenge.

This is not a complete list. Please note that some of these include a factor of intention and others do not. If you read a card that’s out of context or fabricated, it doesn't matter if you or your partner didn’t cut the card. In other cases, there must be intention.

Process and burden of proof for ethics challenges:
1) An ethics challenge will stop the round. I may pause once and try to talk through the issue briefly, trying to find a negotiating solution short of the challenge. But once the challenge is confirmed, it’s round over for me. If the tournament or organization procedures turn it over to the tournament officials, I will do that. If it is left to me to decide, I will ask for proof and defense and make a decision. I may give time for teams to produce evidence. For example, to provide a full length version of a card, article, book to demonstrate a defense. Moreover, I am NOT simply relying on team arguments. This is no longer a debate where I rely solely on the arguments presented. I will use any resource I can to reach a conclusion. If I am on a panel and it is not in my sole power to stop the round, I will adjudicate the debate based on the initial charge and defense. I will not evaluate the rest of the debate, even if the rest of the debate proceeds.

(2) I have a fairly high bar for voting on them. I must see clear and convincing evidence of the conditions above. Suspicion or even simply me believing it’s likely is not sufficient for me to vote on an ethics challenge against a team.

(3) If an ethics challenge is proven with clear and convincing evidence it’s a loss for the team challenged. If it is not proven to a clear and convincing level, it’s a loss for the team conducting the challenge.

***PROCEDURE NOTES.

1. I am worn out of looking through 6 different speech documents for cards. I am implementing a policy of asking that cards on positions that have been gone for in the 2NR/2AR be consolidated and sent to me). You don't need to sort out WHICH cards you went for, it's easier if I pick through what matters. Just consolidate them, organized by SUBJECT and SPEECH and send them to me. If you are paper team, you're are a cruel person who wants trees to die, but, on the other hand you make judging much easier :).

2. Most CX answers that given outside the 3 minutes of designated CX are not relevant to my decision. You want to get your argumentative question in? Fit your question and the opportunity to answer it into the CX time. You don't get to use some prep time to cover the argument you dropped, so you don't get to used prep time to ask the questions you forgot. Exception A: Filibustering to run out the clock will cause me to ignore this rule. CXer, you'll know you are free to keep asking because I will keep paying attention instead of getting up or walking away. Exception B: While answers might be non-binding, deception is misconduct foul, auto-loss. If the Cx-ee answers a clarifying question in prep like, "What's the status of the counterplan?" and then CHANGES it and thinks that's a clever trick, I see that as misconduct. Exception C: I think clarifying questions are fine in CX. Examples: What was your third argument on the DA? What's the status of the CP? Which card did you read? Answering these questions are matters of courtesy and fair play. Of course, they might just answer: "We didn't take a position on CP rules in the 1NC." And you'll be out of luck in arguing with them.

Orion Steele University of San Francisco 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 24, 2016 at 1:08 AM UTC

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

Graysen Stille University of San Francisco 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 30, 2024 at 8:05 AM PDT

Add me to your email chain: Graysen.stille@gmail.com

I have kept event-agnostic notes at the top and event-specific notes will have their own section.

This paradigm is meant to reflect various questions that I feel remain unanswered for me in debate writ large. If you don't see something that feels applicable to your style then assume there's a lack of bias.

Catch-All:

I'll admit that I've been out of the game for a few years so my ears are rusty; slow down maybe 40%. This will change as the year progresses and I won't take offense if you ask me where I'm at with speed. That being said, I have a lower threshold than most regarding speed/clarity. I will say clear 2 times and if the speech is still unclear I will stop flowing.

I am most at home with K debates. However, my threshold for explanation is higher than others. I believe that the starting point for a kritik is to attack the rhetorical assumptions of the affirmative and explain the mutual exclusivity of those assumptions and the alternative. Materialized analysis and implications are always preferable to high-level claims. Refusal/rejection alts are not persuasive to me and nor do I think they would be if explained in front of the author you're citing.

Ethos has a grip on debate that I'm not, nor have ever been, a fan of. I'm not persuaded by an author within the field making a simple claim that supports your side. Rather, I want to hear the warrants behind the argument.

Specificity will always be more persuasive than broad-stroke claims. If your evidence does not directly indict your opponents arguments this can be stymied by intricately explaining the causation between both sides. What I want to see is your understanding of the topic and how that translates in-round.

Identifying, explaining, and impacting out key questions to the debate at the beginning of your final rebuttal will influence my decision greatly. Your job in these final speeches should be to write my decision for me. I am lazy and do not want to spend a majority of my time conjuring a decision. Tell me how you've won the debate and work backwards.

Debate is an activity focused on producing individuals who can produce high-quality arguments. Pathetic (pathos-based) appeals will not persuade me.

Evidence should follow normal sentence structure. I'm annoyed and will reduce speaks, or even vote down a team given specific circumstances, if their highlighting sounds incoherent. This is, unfortunately, becoming a norm in debate that I want to see stopped. If your highlighting would make an English teacher shudder change it.

Policy:

From my cursory glances at college and high school wikis I've noticed a proliferation of conditional advocacies in the 1NC. My old standard used to be 2 is fine, 3 is pushing it, and more feels abusive. However, I'm open to changing this opinion given the right arguments. Obviously, what remains post-block will affect my interpretation.

Framework is something that I've struggled to come to terms with. I am not opposed to the argument but I do wonder about its merits as ground for the negative if considered as an alternative epistemological basis for how debate should operate. I'm not opposed to voting on a policy-centric method of debate if you are able to prove why alternative methods are harmful or unable to solve for the harms that the 1AC has outlined.

LD:

I am less familiar with the norms of this activity. I've seen some people refer to "tricks" and do not feel comfortable voting on these arguments.

Do NOT assume that I understand non-policy nomenclature. If you make a theory argument revolving around an argument you think I might not understand take the 5 seconds required to explain it and it will benefit you.

I am not convinced by RVIs and I won't vote on them.

Erika Thomas Cal State Fullerton 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 6:01 AM PDT

co-Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2019

Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2010

3 years coaching/judging primarily policy debate during graduate school (Wayne State)

2 years coaching/judging primarily policy debate during graduate school (Miami University , Ohio - sadly, this program no longer exists)

4 years debate, Novice – Open (John Carroll University - sadly, this program no longer exists)

I'm an Associate Professor at CSUF in the Human Communication Department. My research interests include rhetorical theory and criticism, critical/cultural theory, in particular feminist and queer studies especially related to body rhetoric. As a critic, I put a great deal of time and effort into making my decision – I like to be thorough. As a result, you can make my job a lot easier if you are clear and specific in the last rebuttals. Frame the debates well by telling me where I should cast my ballot and why. Tell me what evidence I should read and why. Here’s what else you should know about me:

The topic: Since I started directing, I cut fewer cards on the topic and, as a result, do not necessarily know all the acronyms or jargon on the topic. Currently and moving forward, I expect to complete little topic-specific research so you will need to educate me on your affirmative and case-specific disadvantages. Explain your case or DA and its advantages/parts in the round. Provide clear standards and warrants for Topicality arguments that reference the resolution. While I may proceed cautiously with kritiks that seem dependent on "links of omission," I am open to cases that creatively connect to the topic and will often view cases that some would label untopical completely acceptable if they have a good defense. Additionally, anyone can make any argument on on why I should be compelled to listen to an argument, and I will do my best to weight such arguments objectively. (More on topicality below). Generally this understanding of my perspective of debate should help you convince me to vote for your position.

Flowing: Please note that when judging online debates I appreciate teams that slightly minimize their speed and work extra hard on clarity and articulation given the technical issues that can arise. Otherwise, I’m generally fine with speed and have a pretty decent flow, however please be clear on your tags and cites, it just makes my life a lot easier. It is possible to go too fast for me, especially on theory debates; if you plan on going for the argument or if you think the argument could threaten your success in the round, your time is best spent slowing down just a bit. This is really good advice for blippy theory, framework, or topicality debates.

Paradigm/Framework: I will vote on anything if it’s a good argument and impacted. My own experience as a debater has left me equipped to judge in a general policy paradigm, however, I am very much open to the idea of alternative debate paradigms, such as performance debate, and since coming to Cal State Fullerton, I primarily coach and watch these types of debates. I tend to err on the side of allowing alternative forms of argumentation as long as the other team has reasonable ground to debate. I will vote on anything, as long as the argument is clear and I understand what I am voting on. I primarily see debate arguments as either offensive or defensive claims and although I think it is much easier to win with offense in the debate, I am willing to vote for compelling defensive arguments. I avoid putting myself in debate rounds whenever possible, but if all the debaters fail to make their position clear, I am forced to intervene and weigh impacts from a strictly utilitarian perspective. I like to be included in the exchange of speech docs especially given that I will need to interpretation the weight and importance of some evidence if the work is not done for me by the debaters. If I read a lot cards after the round it’s probably because you failed to explain the timeframe, magnitude, or probability of the impact, or because you failed to explain the warrants in your evidence. It could also mean that it’s simply a close round, and that both teams did such a nice job explaining their arguments that I need to resort to cards to determine who provides the most persuasive story as supported by the evidence. In short, explain your frameworks and impacts throughout the debate and especially at the end of the round.

Kritiks/Framework: To be honest, I probably enjoy these debates the best, and I am probably most equipped to judge critical rounds. I have a strong working knowledge of post-structural theorists, including Butler, Derrida, and Foucault. I have a decent understanding of Wilderson/antiblackness and Lacanian/Zizek theory but please be clear to explain particular components of your K, especially if it is psychoanalysis. Debaters tend to bastardize the philosophy for all these theorists so don't expect that just because I read these authors I automatically understand the way you use them or that I understand all of a critical theorists’ jargon. The argument needs to be clear in its explanation and impact in the round. If I don’t know what it means to vote for a kritik, I probably won’t vote on it. Also, have a clear framework – if the framework is clear, I am more than willing to evaluate the kritik. The same goes for performance. I am wary of alternatives that do little but suggest they can solve the entirety of the aff plan. At the same time, I question alternatives that are too utopian. Over the years, I have changed my approach to "rules," such as the American Debate Association (ADA) rules; anything is debatable, especially "rules." Also, I take language kritiks and other impacts with in round implications seriously (although just because the team links to the argument that does not necessarily mean that the opponents win the debate; the team running the argument needs to impact). For example, if a teams fails to use gender-neutral language, and they fail to answer the kritik appropriately, I am certainly willing to pull the trigger here if the opposing team can provide compelling implications.

Disadvantages: Although I tend to watch critical debates, I can evaluate traditional, realist-framework debates. But, be sure to tell clear stories on Politics DAs and Economics scenarios – don’t assume I know the internal link stories – I’ve never taken a class in Economics and I was not a political science major. Don’t simply revert to referencing the claims of political theory on politics without explaining the warrants.

Counterplans/Theory/Topicality: I will consider and vote on theory debates, especially CP theory, however you should make sure you are clear with the warrants with your arguments, do not assume that I know that any one particular theory argument means, and do not expect me to vote on blip theory arguments/voters. Proving abuse/or explaining the impact is necessary; if the risk of the impact is legitimate, I will vote here. I am certainly willing to consider and vote on topicality and generally think affirmatives need an offensive approach to their claim's that their case is topical. Although I am lenient on what I consider topical, if the negative proves that the affirmative is not playing fair or if the activity is suffering as a result of these types of cases (or other in-round impacts), I will certainly pull the trigger. When a team goes for topicality, they should invest the majority of the 2NR on this flow. Regarding arguments like ASPEC and Vagueness, you have to work a lot harder when convincing me to vote on arguments.

When debating negative: Don’t undercover the case. If you do not go for case turns or take-outs, be sure your positions actually complete with the Aff’s solvency claims.

Finally, show respect to your opponents, your partner and myself. I really enjoy debates that are funny and/or passionate but also are friendly and collegial. Please do not steal prep time. I won’t count sending/receiving evidence as part of prep time, but don’t abuse the privilege. Some of us really need to pick up this process or you will not leave me sufficient time to adjudicate your decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask, and have fun!!!

Login to Tabroom

Western Policy Debate Championship

2016 — CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges