Tabroom.com

Novice Round Up

2016 — TX/US

CX Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Eli Barrish Kealing Middle School 7 rounds

Bill Batterman Woodward Academy 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:55 PM EDT

Bill Batterman
Associate Director of Debate — Woodward Academy (2010-present)
Director of Debate — Marquette University High School (2006-2010)
Assistant Debate Coach — Marquette, Appleton East, Nicolet, etc. (2000-2006)
Last Updated 9/17/2021

Twitter version: Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge; clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates.

My promise: I will pay close attention to every debate, carefully and completely scrutinize every argument, and provide honest feedback so that students are continuously challenged to improve as debaters.

Perspective: During the 2010s (my second full decade of judging/coaching debate), I coached and/or judged at 189 tournaments and taught slightly more than 16 months of summer debate institutes. I don't judge as many rounds as I used to — I took an extended sabbatical from judging during the 2020-2021 season — but I still enjoy it and I am looking forward to judging debates again. I am also still coaching as actively as ever. I know a lot about the water resources protection topic.

Pre-round: Please add billbatterman@gmail.com to the email chain. Respect your opponents by sending the same documents to the email chain that you use to deliver your speeches. If you create separate versions of your speech documents (typically by deleting headings and analytical arguments) before sharing them, I will assume that you do not respect your opponents. I like debaters that respect their opponents. I will have my camera on when judging; if it is off, confirm that I'm ready before beginning your speech.

1. I care most about clarity, clash, and argument comparison.

I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I'm still not bored by strong fundamental skills and execution of basic, core-of-the-topic arguments.

To impress me, invite clash and show off what you have learned this season. I will want to vote for the team that (a) is more prepared and more knowledgeable about the assigned topic and that (b) better invites clash and provides their opponents with a productive opportunity for an in-depth debate.

Aff cases that lack solvency advocates and claim multiple contrived advantages do not invite a productive debate. Neither do whipsaw/scattershot 1NCs chock-full of incomplete, contradictory, and contrived off-case positions. Debates are best when the aff reads a plan with a high-quality solvency advocate and one or two well-supported advantages and the neg responds with a limited number of complete, consistent, and well-supported positions (including, usually, thorough case answers).

I would unapologetically prefer not to judge debates between students that do not want to invite a productive, clash-heavy debate.

2. I'm a critic of argument, not a blank slate.

My most important "judge preference" is that I value debating: "a direct and sustained confrontation of rival positions through the dialectic of assertion, critique, response and counter-critique" (Gutting 2013). I make decisions based on "the essential quality of debate: upon the strength of arguments" (Balthrop 1989).

Philosophically, I value "debate as argument-judgment" more than "debate as information production" (Cram 2012). That means that I want to hear debates between students that are invested in debating scholarly arguments based on rigorous preparation, expert evidence, deep content knowledge, and strategic thinking. While I will do my best to maintain fidelity to the debate that has taken place when forming my decision, I am more comfortable than most judges with evaluating and scrutinizing students' arguments. I care much more about evidence and argument quality and am far less tolerant of trickery and obfuscation than the median judge. This has two primary implications for students seeking to adapt to my judging:

a. What a card "says" is not as important as what a card proves. When deciding debates, I spend more time on questions like "what argument does this expert make and is the argument right?" than on questions like "what words has this debate team highlighted in this card and have these words been dropped by the other team?." As a critic of argument, I place "greater emphasis upon evaluating quality of argument" and assume "an active role in the debate process on the basis of [my] expertise, or knowledge of practices and standards within the community." Because I emphasize "the giving of reasons as the essential quality of argument, evidence which provides those reasons in support of claims will inevitably receive greater credibility than a number of pieces of evidence, each presenting only the conclusion of someone's reasoning process. It is, in crudest terms, a preference for quality of evidence over quantity" (Balthrop 1989).

b. The burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder. As presented, the risk of many advantages and disadvantages is zero because of missing internal links or a lack of grounding for important claims. "I know this argument doesn't make sense, but they dropped it!" will not convince me; reasons will.

When I disagree with other judges about the outcome of a debate, my most common criticism of their decision is that it gives too much credit to bad arguments or arguments that don't make sense. Their most common criticism of my decision is that it is "too interventionist" and that while they agree with my assessment of the arguments/evidence, they think that something else that happened in the debate (often a "technical concession") should be more determinative. I respect many judges that disagree with me in these situations; I'm glad there are both "tech-leaning" and "truth-leaning" judges in our activity. In the vast majority of debates, we come to the same conclusion. But at the margins, this is the major point of disagreement between us — it's much more important than any particular argument or theory preference.

3. I am most persuaded by arguments about the assigned topic.

One of the primary reasons I continue to love coaching debate is that "being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy" (Fleissner 1995). Learning about a new topic area each year enriches my life in profound ways. After 20 years in "The Academy of Debate" (Fleissner 1995), I have developed a deep and enduring belief in the importance of public policy. It matters. This has two practical implications for how I tend to judge debates:

a. Kritiks that demonstrate concern for good policymaking can be very persuasive, but kritiks that ignore the topic or disavow policy analysis entirely will be tough to win. My self-perception is that I am much more receptive to well-developed kritiks than many "policy" judges, but I am as unpersuaded (if not more so) by kritiks that rely on tricks, obfuscation, and conditionality as I am by those styles of policy arguments.

b. I almost always find kritiks of topicality unpersuasive. An unlimited topic would not facilitate the in-depth clash over core-of-the-topic arguments that I most value about debate. The combination of "topical version of the aff" and "argue this kritik on the neg" is difficult to defeat when coupled with a fairness or topic education impact. Topical kritik affirmatives are much more likely to persuade me than kritiks of topicality.

Works Cited
Balthrop 1989 = V. William Balthrop, "The Debate Judge as 'Critic of Argument'," Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory Practice & Teaching (Third Edition).
Cram 2012 = http://cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/view/295/259
Gutting 2013 = http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/a-great-debate/
Fleissner 1995 = https://the3nr.com/2010/05/20/chain-reaction-the-1995-barkley-forum-coaches-luncheon-keynote-speech/

Patrick Bender Jesuit College Prep 6 rounds None

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 26, 2024 at 6:11 AM EDT

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Please read rehighlightings out loud rather than inserting them.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Michael Cerny Highland Park (Dallas) 5 rounds

William Crowdus Georgetown Day School 7 rounds

Jared Demunbrun Crossings Christian School 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 23, 2024 at 3:11 AM CDT

Alumni of Liberty University - Debated 2 years in college - qualified to NDT (2019-2020 season)

Email: jareddemunbrun75@gmail.com

tech>truth

I debated 4 years in high school and 2 years in college.

Top Level Things

Debate to your strengths. My role as a judge is to create an environment where participants feel valued and heard. I believe in the power of well-prepared arguments and encourage debaters to engage in discussions on topics they genuinely understand.

I am most familiar with policy arguments, and I like to see good strategy and evidence quality in these debates (Strategy + Quality Evidence = good speaker points).

"K/Non-Traditional" Teams - While I may not be the most adept at adjudicating method versus method debates due to a less comprehensive familiarity with the literature in these discussions, my inclination leans towards non-traditional affirmative positions in clash debates. Approximately 60% of my votes go to non-traditional affirmatives, reflecting a discerning standard for evaluating framework arguments against most K affs. It's important to note that when policy teams thoroughly warrant their arguments in these debates, my predisposition towards voting for framework strengthens. However, it's worth acknowledging that a majority of teams tend to fall short in providing the necessary depth of argumentation in this regard.

Specific Arguments

T - I tend to default to competing interpretations but will buy reasonability if it is explained well with reasons, it should be preferred over competing interpretations. I love a good T debate as long as there are clear standards in the end of the debate and reasons I should vote for a team on topicality.

Framework - I am a 2n in college and think that framework is a very viable option. There should be clear impacts in the rebuttals and treat the impacts just as you treat them on a DA.

DA - I like a good DA debate. At the end of the debate, there should be good link analysis and good impact calculus so that I don't have to insert myself into the debate. I think that all DA debates should have a focus on the IL to impacts of the affirmative – this means make arguments like we access, or we turn their impact.

CP - Love a good CP debate - the more specific the better - good CP's should have a good net-benefit. I tend to lean more towards the negative side when it comes to theory (conditionality). With that said if the neg reads 4 conditional advocacies I will lean towards the affirmative side as long as the standards are flushed out and explained.

K - I am well versed in most forms of K literature. I debated the K as a freshman and sophomore (psychoanalysis, Baudrillard, Settler Colonialism) and am a 2A so I know most K's. I also love a classic Cap K or security K as long as the links are contextualized to the aff. Debate like you know how!

Doug Dennis Fullerton Union High School 7 rounds None

Jake Galant St. Mark's School of Texas 7 rounds

Bonnie Gerard Casady School 7 rounds

Joe Hall Jesuit College Prep 3 rounds None

Jeremy Hammond Pine Crest Preparatory School 4 rounds

Jordan Innerarity The Hockaday School 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 16, 2024 at 5:27 AM CDT

For my general paradigm, I consider myself tab. There are no arguments I do and don’t like. I will judge the arguments presented in the round and I don’t want to impose my own beliefs or arguments into the round. You have to tell my why the arguments made in the round matter. If you fail to give me a way in which to evaluate the round, I will default to a policy maker. Being a policy maker, I am looking for the negative team to run disadvantages, counter plans, kritiks, and anything else. As a policy maker, I am looking for you to terminalize your impacts. Why specifically is nuclear war bad? Does it kill millions of people? Just saying dehumanization or nuclear war is bad isn’t an impact. I will gladly listen to counter plans, theory arguments and Kritiks. My only advice on the k is to tell me what the role of the ballot is. Why is my ballot key to your alt?

Topicality/Theory

I will vote on T when there is proven abuse. I need to see in-round abuse for me to pull the trigger. I think T is a legitimate tool for a negative team, but I strongly urge the team that goes all in for T to make sure they can prove in-round abuse. If the aff is just failing to make arguments on the T, I will vote for it, but my preference is for in-round abuse to be occurring.

Spikes
I am not a fan of LD 1AC spikes. I honestly don't think that the Aff gets to remove ground from the negative. I don't think these arguments are legitimate. Let the neg make claims and then argue against them. I will tell you now, that I WILL NOT vote on them. I see them as a waste of time for you to run and they are highly abusive. I also rarely vote on RVIs. If you plan on trying to run spikes in the 1AC, I am not the judge for you. I will give the Neg a lot of access to simple arguments to knock down your spikes.

Ethos

I think it is important that you are an ethical and nice person in the debate. It is ok for the round to get heated, but I don't see the need to be rude to your opponent. This will result in a hit to your speaker points.

Speed
I don't have a problem with speed, but make sure that you are clearly telling me your tags. Slow down on the tag if you can. Be clear in your transitions. I like next or and to let me know you are moving from the end of a card to another tagline. The same thing applies to your plan text or alt. Slow down for the plan text/alt or repeat it for me.

Ansh Khullar St. Mark's School of Texas 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 4, 2022 at 2:09 PM EDT

Ansh Khullar

St. Mark’s '16

Trinity University '20

UT Law '24

Put me on the email chain: ansh.debate@gmail.com AND be sure to put smdebatedocs@gmail.com on.

I've been a 2A and 2N. Me and my partner, Ian, got a First Round our senior year. I've cut soft left affs, heg affs, and process counterplans. Sometimes I read a planless aff. When I was a 2N, my most common 2NRs were politics/elections + states CP, the economy DA, the cap K, and Afropessimism. I don't care about what your strategy is so long as it engages the resolutional question/case and demonstrates a lot of research.

I love debate and I'm really happy to be judging.

2022 NDCA Update

I haven't judged any debates on this topic so please don't assume that I know your acronyms. I also don't know what direction stuff is going this year so, especially if you're having a T debate, and topics like 'what direction does the literature go,' 'what is/isn't quality neg ground,' and 'X side wins X% of the time' come up, please take extra time to explain the trend or bias you're referring to. Besides that, everything below still applies.

This is unrelated, but, after judging 15+ tournaments during the 2021 season, I've realized that I'm kind of a stickler when it comes to new 2AR arguments. I find this especially true in topicality and theory debates where 1ARs really need to do a thorough job of laying a foundation for the kind of impact calc/narrative the 2AR wants to go for. When I have a hard time drawing lines from 2AR impact calc to the 1AR, I've found that I'm likelier to diverge from other judges.

TLDR

I'm tech inclined, but, when tech is close, truth (evidence quality) matters.

***Things I will never, ever vote for

- X team did __ that didn't happen in round (X team is bad, their coach is bad, their prefs are bad, etc). You can group this with anything that's non-falsifiable. If something heinous happens during the round, that's different.

- Circular reasoning or incomplete arguments. Saying something is a "voting issue" without warrants is an incomplete argument.

- Debate is bad - I'm referring to the post-modern flavor of "this is a waste of time" or "communication is impossible," not an argument about how the debate community is structurally exclusionary or flawed in some other way.

***Things I don't like voting for but will when you debate well

- Judge kick. My presumption is not to judge kick. The neg has to win the argument for me to do so.

- Planless affs vs topicality

- Cheating counterplans - I expand on what this means to me below, but, generally, if you don't have a good solvency advocate, your CP could be recycled on countless topics, and the majority of your prep time is focused on how to beat aff theory, your CP probably doesn't pass my smell test.

My other argument thoughts are just to alert you to argument-specific things I'm partial to; they can all be overcome by better debating.

E-debate specific

Please keep your camera on. If mine's not on, then assume I'm not there.

You need to slow down ***significantly*** - I can't stress this enough.

Rules and process stuff

I only flow the debater giving the assigned speech; I don't care what speech it is. Do whatever you want in cross-ex.

New explanation merits new answers at any point. If you read a disgustingly underhighlighted 1NC shell only to then blow it up in the block, the 1AR obviously gets new answers.

I don't want a judge doc at the end of the debate. You should be clear about what your best cards are/reference them often; in close debates with evidence comparison, I almost always read cards.

Re-highlighting cards is a good practice. You get to re-insert their cards if you tell me why the card is bad - this is a good way to deter people from cutting bad cards. If you took something from a part of the article they didn't cut, then you have to read it.

DAs and risk

You can beat silly arguments without cards.

Yes zero risk.

Consequentialism bad is silly.

I'd rather you tell me more about why the DA is bad and do less (but not zero) framing.

Counterplans and theory

New affs don't justify all the bad theory things.

CP competition is swung by the strength of your solvency advocate (or the aff not having a good one).

Your plans should say things.

Process, consult, delay, anything that creates a functionally new FG - I don't like it. That includes "concon." The aff needs to invest time on theory to win it.

I don't think infinite, contradicting condo is good.

T (policy rounds)

I like T debates. Competing interpretations is my default, but I can be convinced that is a bad standard.

Caselists, evidence comparison, and t-versions are important. A more limited topic isn't automatically the best thing ever, especially if the neg's interp is contrived and not grounded in predictable literature.

The 1AR needs to do impact calc if the neg block is good - otherwise it's new in the 2AR and I protect the neg.

On big topics with a lack of neg ground and a ton of tiny affs, staleness makes less sense to me as an aff impact to overlimiting.

Framework Debates

I lean negative because most aff v framework arguments force me to suspend logic regarding the nature of debate as a voluntary, competitive activity. Disads to the topic aren't disads to debating about the topic. You have to resolve the following questions (provided the negative asks them when running an impact about fairness/clash/debatability):

First, I don't really know why my ballot does more than determine a winner and loser. If there is some sort of external activism tradeoff that comes from what we say in rounds, then you need to be really explicit about why. Second, I don't think what we say in debate rounds is subject formation. Plans are provisional opinions and we use them test ideas while we come to contingent truths, not absolute ones. Even if the government's irredeemable, I'm not sure why reading a plan disavows its problematic history. Third, I think the burden of proof is really high on the aff to tell me what their alternative form of debate looks like, how the neg wins, and why contesting the 1ac is valuable. So in sum, I think research is good, representational politics for the sake of purely representation is terrible and tokenizing, and there being the conditions for fair clash is a prerequisite to any substantive question.

K v Policy

Love it... if you heavily clash with core 1AC premises/advantages. Links to the plan, and how the advantages implicate the plan's implementation, are even better. I'm well-versed with most popular Ks - cap, set col, afro-pessimism, security, etc... but my understanding of high theory arguments is close to zero, so do more explanation there.

Framework is usually a wash but can determine how I view the alt's importance (or lack thereof). I would like it more if you used framework both purposefully and with lots of judge instruction.

Ontology claims merit a very high level of scrutiny. The burden of proof is on the team making an ontology argument to disprove counter-examples, which, by definition, disprove ontology claims.

K v K

You'd be better off going for T... but, rest assured, I'm unlikely to vote for a perm if you have links to 1AC language, authors, theories of power, or any core premise you can point out. I think "when there's no plan, the entire 1AC is the plan" is the most fair standard. That being said, if the link doesn't rely on any of those things, and the 1AC is clearly written to dodge clash and link to nothing but T, then you're going to lose to the perm.

Beomhak Lee Jesuit College Prep 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 7, 2021 at 9:20 AM CDT

Beomhak Lee

Updated March 2021

Affiliation - Dallas Jesuit.

If you have any concerns/questions/asking for email chain: lbh7746@gmail.com

CJR topic - Very interesting topic. I have pretty good exposure to the topic. Yet, this still does not justify teams in speaking jargons. Personally, I find DA and CP literature on this topic quite disappointing (unless the link narrative can be specific to the aff). So I believe this perhaps is a good opportunity for some teams to engage in critical literature deeper than before.

Stylistic Issues:

- Speed is fine. But clarity >>> speed. Especially given the virtual-ness of debating, I would suggest going a bit slower.

- Please line by line. If you don't even at least attempt to line by line, your speaks will suffer.

- Depth outweighs breadth. One well-warranted argument beats numerous poorly explained/constructed arguments. This applies to the cards too. Poorly and disjointedly highlighted cards are bad. Call them out on it.

- No I don't take prep for emailing/flashing unless it's excessive.

- Usually, it is tech > truth but not all the time.

- Stop being a jerk. There is a fine line between being passionate/competitive vs. being a total jerk.

- I am totally fine with any style of argument. You do you. I am here to listen. Obviously, this excludes arguments like racism or sexism good :)

- This is probably obvious but I think it's important. For me to vote on an argument, it has to make sense in my head. While I will probably understand the general thesis for most of your arguments myself, every argument (K, DA, CP, T, K aff, etc.) requires a nuanced explanation that is different, depending on the circumstances of the round. So, spend some time doing that in the round.

Topicality

Love them if done well. Personally think they are very underutilized in this topic. Will default to competing interpretations if not convinced otherwise. T is all about weighing your interpretation versus theirs. Specificity (i.e. examples of how the aff would explode limits or gut grounds) is good. Just saying meaningless phrases like 'they explode limits' won't be convincing at all.

Counterplans/Disadvantages

Most of my 2NRs were CP+DA or DA alone. More specific your evidence (solvency advocate or link) is to the aff, the better. I think solvency advocate for the CP should be a thing most of the time. If you don't, it's not really a theoretical reason to lose but rather a solvency question. Impact calculus on DAs usually is really really really important. Use the impact debate to frame the ballot and be comparative (especially if you are going for the DA without the CP with only the case defense, which by the way is heavily under-utilized). Good link narratives on DAs will be awarded. Smart analytics will be awarded as well.

Kritiks

Love them. But, if you start to talk in disjointed vocabularies without contextualizing the K to the aff, then the K is not so loving. I think that aff should generally get to weigh the action of the plan, though I can be convinced otherwise in many ways - so put in the work.

Winning a general explanation of the world is not enough. Use the specific link and internal link narratives to prove why the aff would make X worse. To do that, I think real-world manifestations or examples help a ton. Way too many teams just assume "if I win a link, then the impact happens" - welp, a good internal link work will be awarded. Long overviews are mostly useless. Line by line is good.

K/Non-traditional affirmative

Personally, I find these affs way more interesting than listening to generic process CP debates per say. Clarity on what the aff does (i.e. the mechanism of the aff) is the single most important thing to explain to me. Personal narrative, music, poetry - anything is fine with me. Just have a particular reason why you included those parts in 1AC. You need to have at least some relations to the topic, and some reason why you don't use governmental institutions. You still need a reason why your ROB is good, and for the neg teams going for FW, that must be challenged. As always, impact debates on FW must be comparative.

Theory

Chill for a second and SLOW DOWN

Don't run New Affs bad in front of me - I'm not gonna vote on it.

Conditionality is usually good - unless multiple conditional contradictory world is a thing (but is it a theoretical reason to reject the team? Eh - though I think it would benefit you substantive-wise if used well)

Other theory arguments (generally) probably are a reason to reject the argument, not the team UNLESS I'm convinced otherwise. If they drop theory, then the story is quite different (assuming that you invest some time into it).

ETC.

I really love this activity. There probably is a reason why I keep in touch with debate and the community even though I decided not to debate in college. If I happen to judge you, know that I will judge debates as fairly as I can Please respect each other and have fun.

Also, for more nitty-gritty judging philosophies on the style of arguments, look into these judges’ philosophies: Tracy McFarland, Ryan Gorman, and Dan Lingel. They introduced/influenced me a lot (like debate + life) that we almost have a similar "view of debate" if that makes sense. If three judges contradict in their judging philosophy, it would be on my therapy list.

Dan Lewis Pine Crest Preparatory School 4 rounds

Jake LoRocco Jesuit College Prep 4 rounds

Drew Marshall Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 7:40 AM EDT

dmarshall36@gmail.com

copied from a former coach:
"I think 'previous debate experience' sections of judging philosophies are mostly for peculiar in group fronting and/or serve to reify fairly problematic norms of treating debate 'expertise' or whatever like a value neutral concept, so."

i love debate.

tell me how i should evaluate the round. tell me why you win if i choose to evaluate the round that way.

whatever style of debate you feel best doing: go for it. i usually flow by hand so please pop your tags.

keep it lovely. i take speaker points when debaters are mean.

ihate"perm do the counterplan." unless there's some theoretical reason why the cp is aff ground (text comp good or something) i just won't vote on it.

if the debate is lopsided and you're winning by a mile against more novice debaters, you'll get a 30 and 29.9 by going slower, explaining the debate to the other team clearly during cross-ex, and making the round educational.

im familiar with all styles of 1ac's. i consider role of the ballot arguments as framing, and dont necessarily weigh traditional standards and f/w voters above other frameworks unless told to with warranted arguments. using specific cards of a k aff to impact turn framework is undervalued in high school debate, for some reason.

im looking for warrant comparison in the rebuttals. i like to directly quote the 2nr and 2ar in my rfd, so impact stories and reading warrants from important cards are winning strategies to get my ballot.

i have little sympathy for debaters answering cards that are in the doc but are not read in the speech. this is worse than missing a card on your flow, it shows that you're just not flowing. i want to be added to the doc so i can read your evidence throughout the debate, but i will not flow off the doc.

please slow down on tags and interps. you should stop "hiding" interps in the 1nc. slow down on your interps.

High School LD

see above. i try my best to give leeway to the four minutes 1ar, but that can be difficult to discern. i notice a lot of cultural norms around theory debates. to be extra clear: if there is k offense in the 2n and the 2ar goes for theory without addressing the k offense, im probably going to vote that the impacts of the k outweigh fairness or whatever. i simply expect the 2ar to layer the voters for me, extend an apriori issue, or something of the sort. i think that assuming theory is layered before the impacts of the debate is intervening.

PFD

im somewhat familiar with pf. i will not evaluate advocacies in this event.

im bothered by the evidence norms of this event. i see debaters read authors and taglines as if that is sufficient, but debate should include analyzing evidence. that means reading warrants directly from the authors of the evidence. if your opponents are flying through taglines of evidence instead of reading parts of the studies/articles, i would be persuaded by an argument that told me to not evaluate taglines as evidence. if your style is name dropping as many authors as you can, im probably not the best judge for you.

here's some of NSDA Board Member Dave Huston's thoughts on this. i agree with what the paragraph below.

"The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. .........[redacted because im not Dave Huston]...
...If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up."

Martinez Martinez Hire 7 rounds

Hunter Mccoulough Highland Park (Dallas) 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:01 PM CDT

Debated @ UNT 2009-2014

Coach @ St Marks since 2017

Coach @ UTDallas since 2018

If you have questions, feel free to email me at mccullough.hunter@gmail.com

For me, the idea that the judge should remain impartial is very important. I've had long discussions about the general acceptability/desirability of specific debate arguments and practices (as has everybody, I'm sure), but I've found that those rarely influence my decisions. I've probably voted for teams without plans in framework debates more often than I've voted neg, and I've voted for the worst arguments I can imagine, even in close debates, if I thought framing arguments were won. While nobody can claim to be completely unbiased, I try very hard to let good debating speak for itself. That being said, I do have some general predispositions, which are listed below.

T-Theory

-I tend to err aff on T and neg on most theory arguments. By that, I mean that I think that the neg should win a good standard on T in order to win that the aff should lose, and I also believe that theory is usually a reason to reject the argument and not the team.

- Conditional advocacies are good, but making contradictory truth claims is different. However, I generally think these claims are less damaging to the aff than the "they made us debate against ourselves" claim would make it seem. The best 2ACs will find ways of exploiting bad 1NC strategy, which will undoubtedly yield better speaker points than a theory debate, even if the aff wins.

- I kind of feel like "reasonability" and "competing interpretations" have become meaningless terms that, while everybody knows how they conceptualize it, there are wildly different understandings. In my mind, the negative should have to prove that the affirmative interpretation is bad, not simply that the negative has a superior interpretation. I also don't think that's a very high standard for the negative to be held to, as many interpretations (especially on this space topic) will be hot fiery garbage.

- My view of debates outside of/critical of the resolution is also complicated. While my philosophy has always been very pro-plan reading in the past, I've found that aff teams are often better at explaining their impact turns than the neg is at winning an impact that makes sense. That being said, I think that it's hard for the aff to win these debates if the neg can either win that there is a topical version of the affirmative that minimizes the risk of the aff's impact turns, or a compelling reason why the aff is better read as a kritik on the negative. Obviously there are arguments that are solved by neither, and those are likely the best 2AC impact turns to read in front of me.

- "The aff was unpredictable so we couldn't prepare for it so you should assume it's false" isn't a good argument for framework and I don't think I've ever voted for it.

CPs

- I'm certainly a better judge for CP/DA debates than K v K debates. I particularly like strategic PICs and good 1NC strategies with a lot of options. I'd be willing to vote on consult/conditions, but I find permutation arguments about immediacy/plan-plus persuasive.

- I think the neg gets away with terrible CP solvency all the time. Affs should do a better job establishing what counts as a solvency card, or at least a solvency warrant. This is more difficult, however, when your aff's solvency evidence is really bad. - Absent a debate about what I should do, I will kick a counterplan for the neg and evaluate the aff v. the squo if the CP is bad/not competitive

- I don't think the 2NC needs to explain why severence/intrinsicness are bad, just win a link. They're bad.

- I don't think perms are ever a reason to reject the aff.

- I don't think illegitimate CPs are a reason to vote aff.

Disads

- Run them. Win them. There's not a whole lot to say.

- I'd probably vote on some sort of "fiat solves" argument on politics, but only if it was explained well.

- Teams that invest time in good, comparative impact calculus will be rewarded with more speaker points, and likely, will win the debate. "Disad/Case outweighs" isn't a warrant. Talk about your impacts, but also make sure you talk about your opponents impacts. "Economic collapse is real bad" isn't as persuasive as "economic collapse is faster and controls uniqueness for the aff's heg advantage".

- My general line has always been that "I get the K but am not well read in every literature". I've started to realize that that statement is A) true for just about everybody and B) entirely useless. It turns out that I've read, coached, and voted for Ks too often for me to say that. What I will say, however, is that I certainly focus my research and personal reading more on the policy side, but will generally make it pretty obvious if I have no idea what you're saying.

- Make sure you're doing link analysis to the plan. I find "their ev is about the status quo" arguments pretty persuasive with a permutation.

- Don't think that just because your impacts "occur on a different level" means you don't need to do impact calculus. A good way to get traction here is case defense. Most advantages are pretty silly and false, point that out with specific arguments about their internal links. It will always make the 2NR easier if you win that the aff is lying/wrong.

- I think the alt is the weakest part of the K, so make sure to answer solvency arguments and perms very well.

- If you're aff, and read a policy aff, don't mistake this as a sign that I'm just going to vote for you because I read mostly policy arguments. If you lose on the K, I'll vote neg. Remember, I already said I think your advantage is a lie. Prove me wrong.

Case

-Don't ignore it. Conceding an advantage on the neg is no different than conceding a disad on the aff. You should go to case in the 1NC, even if you just play defense. It will make the rest of the debate so much easier.

- If you plan to extend a K in the 2NR and use that to answer the case, be sure you're winning either a compelling epistemology argument or some sort of different ethical calculus. General indicts will lose to specific explanations of the aff absent either good 2NR analysis or extensions of case defense.

- 2As... I've become increasingly annoyed with 2ACs that pay lip service to the case without responding to specific arguments or extending evidence/warrants. Just reexplaining the advantage and moving on isn't sufficient to answer multiple levels of neg argumentation.

Paperless debate

I don't think you need to take prep time to flash your speech to your opponent, but it's also pretty obvious when you're stealing prep, so don't do it. If you want to use viewing computers, that's fine, but only having one is unacceptable. The neg needs to be able to split up your evidence for the block. It's especially bad if you want to view their speeches on your viewing computer too. Seriously, people need access to your evidence.

Clipping

I've decided enough debates on clipping in the last couple of years that I think it's worth putting a notice in my philosophy. If a tournament has reliable internet, I will insist on an email chain and will want to be on that email chain. I will, at times, follow along with the speech document and, as a result, am likely to catch clipping if it occurs. I'm a pretty non-confrontational person, so I'm unlikely to say anything about a missed short word at some point, but if I am confident that clipping has occurred, I will absolutely stop the debate and decide on it. I'll always give debaters the benefit of the doubt, and provide an opportunity to say where a card was marked, but I'm pretty confident of my ability to distinguish forgetting to say "mark the card" and clipping. I know that there is some difference of opinion on who's responsibility it is to bring about a clipping challenge, but I strongly feel that, if I know for certain that debaters are not reading all of their evidence, I have not only the ability but an obligation to call it out.

Other notes

- Really generic backfile arguments (Ashtar, wipeout, etc) won't lose you the round, but don't expect great speaks. I just think those arguments are really terrible, (I can't describe how much I hate wipeout debates) and bad for debate.

- Impact turn debates are awesome, but can get very messy. If you make the debate impossible to flow, I will not like you. Don't just read cards in the block, make comparisons about evidence quality and uniqueness claims. Impact turn debates are almost always won by the team that controls uniqueness and framing arguments, and that's a debate that should start in the 2AC.

Finally, here is a short list of general biases.

The status quo should always be an option in the 2NR (Which doesn't necessarily mean that the neg get's infinite flex. If they read 3 contradictory positions, I can be persuaded that it was bad despite my predisposition towards conditionality. It does mean that I will, absent arguments against it, judge kick a counterplan and evaluate the case v the squo if the aff wins the cp is bad/not competitive)
Warming is real and science is good (same argument, really)
The aff gets to defend the implementation of the plan as offense against the K, and the neg gets to read the K
Timeframe and probability are more important than magnitude
Predictable limits are key to both fairness and education
Consult counterplans aren't competitive. Conditions is arguable.
Rider DA links are not intrinsic
Utilitarianism is a good way to evaluate impacts
The aff should defend a topical plan
Death and extinction are bad
Uncooperative federalism is one of the worst counterplans I've ever seen

Keaton McDonald Westwood High School 7 rounds

Tracy McFarland Jesuit College Prep 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:54 AM CDT

Updated Sept 5, 2022

Tracy McFarland

Jesuit College Prep - for a long while; back in the day undergrad debate - Baylor U

Please use jcpdebate@gmail.com for speech docs. I do want to be in the email chain.
However, I don't check that email a lot while not at tournaments - so if you need to reach me not at a tournament, feel free to email me at tmcfarland@jesuitcp.org

Reason for update - I have updated my judging paradigm not because my fundamental views of debate have changed, really. BUT , as one of my labbies put it this summer, apparently the detail of my previous paradigm was "scary". So, I have tried to distill down some of the most important ways I evaluate debate.

Clash - it's good - which means you need to flow and not script your speeches. LBL with some clear references to where you're at = good. Line by line isn't answer the previous speech in order - it's about grounding the debate in the 2ac on off case, 1nc on case.

Dates and "real world" matter - with WMD after 9/11 and immigration during Trump as close rivals, this topic seems one of the most current event influenced debate topics I've experienced. Obviously I mean this in terms of Russia invasion on Feb 24, 2022 - but I also mean in the sense of Madrid Summitt and new Strategic Concept as it relates to the areas; new president in the US as of 2021 with very different policies about NATO and IR; etc. You do not need evidence to integrate current events into your argument - you do need an explanation about why dates matter - ie what's happened that the other team's arguments don't assume. But these arguments can go far in my mind to reduce risk of a DA or an advantage - so you should make these arguments and use as indicts of the other team's evidence as appropriate. . I am persuaded by teams that call out other teams based on their evidence quality, author quals, lack of highlighting (meaning they read little of the evidence

Process CPs and other neg trickeration - it's such a good topic that I would definitely prefer to see topic specific arguments. This means that there are some process CPs or other debates grounded in the lit that are really good debates; there are some that are not. Particularly as the season progresses, I would expect a discussion of what normal means is - both on the aff and the neg to justify process-y cps.

DAs - it's possible to win zero risk that the DA is an opportunity cost to the aff.

Ks - specific links are good. You should have a sense on the aff and the neg what FW is going to get you in a debate.

K affs - should be tied to the topic in some way. If they aren't, then neg args with topical versions or ways to access the education the K aff offers through the resolution are usually persuasive to me. If the aff has a K of the topic, that's great offense that negs need to have an answer. I don't think that debate is just a game. Its a competitive activity that does shape our political subjectivity.

T - if you have a good violation and reasons why an aff should be excluded, by all means read it. If you are just reading it as a "time suck" then, meh, read more substance. And, an argument that ends in -spec is usually an uphill battle unless it's clever [this cleverness standard does preclude generally a- and o-]

Impact turns - topic specific one = good; generic ones - more meh

New affs are good - and don't need to be disclosed before a debate if it's truly the very first time that someone at your school has read the argument. But new affs may justify theoretically sketchy args by the neg - you can integrate that into the theory debate, you don't need a new affs bad 1nc arg to do that.

Be nice to each other - it's possible to be competitive without being overly sassy.

Modality matters - when you are debating in person, remember that people can hear you talk to your partner and you should have a line of sight with the judge. If you are online, make sure that your camera is on when possible to create some engagement with the judge.

Aly Mithani St. Mark's School of Texas 3 rounds

Aakash Pattabi The Harker School 7 rounds None

Ammar Plumber St. Mark's School of Texas 7 rounds

Colin Quinn Highland Park (Dallas) 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:56 PM UTC

Colin Quinn
University of North Texas

Highland Park High School (TX)

Please include me in email chains, thanks: aqof05@gmail.com

Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.

Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.

Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).

Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.

Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.

Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate.

I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.

Don't cheat.

Daniel Rowe Hire 7 rounds

Emmanuel Ruiz Jesuit College Prep 4 rounds None

Jason Russell The Harker School 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM CDT

jasonlrussell1@gmail.com

School: Wichita State University
Years Judging: 20
College Rounds 2017: 40, High School Rounds: 50

Have the email chain set up starting around 5 mins before the debate. The prep time doesn't end until you've sent the email, not when you start compiling documents or attaching them. Part of preparing for paperless debate is having a time efficient method for document dissemination. That should start at home, in practices.

New new new content:

I strongly support policy debate. Most K affs that are just policy debate bad do not appeal to me much. If you believe that there ought to be some changes to policy debate, they ought to be specific, strongly supported, and feature a well articulated alternative model of debate. Absent any of these, you'll struggle to win. If your aff does not support the implementation of the topic as a policy, you'll almost assuredly lose. If your K on the neg fails to articulate an alternative or defend the SQ, you'll almost assuredly lose. I will vote for K's, but your window is much narrower than it would be with a friendlier audience. I will not lower my expectations nor will I apologize for it.

I still think most Aff framework args are bad. The cheatingest thing about Ks is the alt so win that they need one and theirs is unfair. I'm pretty much always going to weigh the Aff impact but that doesn't mean an ethics arg won't precede it necessarily if well articulated and won. Aff framework is probably a waste of your time & potentially a liability.

Method doesn't make anything compete and just saying that is adequate for me. This arg is nonsense. If the alt can't be desirably combined with the Aff, then it competes. And only then.

I strongly prefer to hear debates about the policies involved in the topic, although the approach to implementing and rebutting those policies may vary widely.

Generally, most kritiks are mumbo-jumbo. The links are stale and weak, the alt is contrived and probably contradictory to many of the links, in addition to being wholly ineffective, and the analytic lens is generally far less insightful than they purport to be. If the K aff doesn't do anything, I will vote on presumption without hesitation. A great number of K's make psychologically untenable claims that can be defeated easily with limited to no evidence. Often, the team debating a K would be well served to read fewer generic K cards and make some strong arguments from the perspective of logic that suggest that the thing they're suggesting folks should just do isn't as easily done as they make it out to be (embracing insecurity, fugitivity, abandoning hope, etc).

Indignant complaints about how it's rude to disagree with people will not be accepted as arguments.

The room a debate occurs in is shared by the opposing teams and the judge. Do not monopolize the room by loudly playing music, taking up all of the space with your materials and coaches, or generally behaving in such a way that both teams can't adequately prepare for a debate in a reasonable manner. I will give you points that are akin to clipping or other cheating practices if you do so.

New content 2015-2016

Points:

Between UMKC and UNLV I decided to raise my points a bit. Nothing radical, but probably a .2 increase on the top end. I'm still giving points below the mean as often as ever, but my high end points will more accurately reflect trends for the top 20 speakers at a major. I do this reluctantly as I don't like point inflation, but I also don't want to disadvantage quality speakers that would like me to judge them by holding them to a different expectation than the rest of the pack. I find it very troubling how often 29.6 and above points are handed out. People should stop that.

Don't ever ask me for speaker points. Those are mine and mine alone. I mean, I guess you can ask, but I won't do what you're asking me. I will give you the points you deserve.

Decision-making and diversification are figuring highly into my points. So, good argument choices throughout -- recognition of your strengths, their weaknesses, time allocation, block division, 1AR elaboration, etc -- will be rewarded and bad choices will be deducted. Diversification can be horizontal or vertical. In other words, you can still be a one-off K team and have excellent points provided that your block is interrogating the case, developing a variety of well-explained link arguments, engaging in good epistemological attacks on the aff ev, and explaining your impacts. Lazy polemic will not be as highly evaluated as in-depth attacks involving clash throughout. In other words, "state bad" is not my jam unless it's some very well-developed, context-specific state bad arg. I can imagine one, but haven't seen one.

A great many things are not T. I'd encourage you to go for it. I like evidence-based T debates. What should be considered military presence is highly debatable and many affs do not meet a reasonable interpretation of military presence. Even fewer are significant reductions in said military presence.

K's:

The "aff didnt do enough" K isn't doing much for me. If this is your best option, I'd recommend T instead. Perms solve it and it's not offense.

K debaters that can't debate the case enough to prove that the aff doesn't simply reduce military presence but somehow reinforces it or some other bad process in trying to do so are having a really hard time winning with me. You need links. "You touched the gov't" isn't getting the job done. If this is your best strat, I am not the judge for you.

Negative state action undermines a lot of "we shouldn't have to debate as the gov't" args, absent more detailed elaboration by the aff team reading a non-topical or non-plan aff. I can personally entertain some reasons why this arg might still be true, but teams have yet to advance args that are not facile extensions of the standard "gov't bad" arg in explaining this for me. "Decrease military" and "gov't bad" are in the same direction on face. You'll need to do more to prove that they are not.

Politics:

Thumpers are a thing, UQ CP's aside. I can't even begin to understand people who don't believe they are. I'm not saying they're a universal problem for every politics DA, but there are times where they are a problem for a lot of popular politics DA's.

New content 2014-2015

1) K-related info

I am not sure if I’ve voted aff against framework this year (could be once or twice I’m forgetting about). A lot of things can explain this (lop-sided matches, conceptual mistakes, drops, I’m dumb), but teams with non-topical affs should probably know this.

I think most people’s framework args are soft and easy to beat if the aff actually interrogates them, but few do except saying “it’s anti-black” or “it links to Baudrillard/other French guy”. Do the work of K’ing something; your K is not a yellow card: “Penalty: anti-black!”. Develop content.

If you haven’t thought about the existential question “If the laws you are against are anti-black/otherwise rude, what should be done about them?”, you will have a hard time winning w me. As far as I know, getting rid of laws requires state action. If you are doing something else to get rid of or otherwise address those laws, I’m gonna need to hear some details. Unflinching paradigmatic analysis is a buzzword requiring further elaboration.

The strongest part of anti-K framework args is their “topical version of the aff/do it on the neg” cooptation args. The weakest part is the overall impact. If they win the cooptation args, they don’t need to win much of an impact, though. Food for thought.

Most K’s need an alt. If they don’t, be prepared to put some time into explaining why not.

Neg K’s are worse at permutations than ever. The “it’s a method” arg school of thought doesn’t make much sense to me without further elaboration. Some methods compete; others do not. You still need a link that’s not solved by including your alt (or some part of it) with the aff.

Aff’s typically lose K’s by not questioning a sweeping claim at the center of the K that takes out their case. A perm won’t help you much against that. Don’t fool around and forget to answer the central contention of the K. These claims are almost always an overreach; they’re not as absolute as they’re purported to be.

A lot of performances seem to be disconnected from the subsequent content. That’s not bad esoterically I guess, but it’s unstrategic because then the time you spend performing isn’t helping you win the debate.

I’m pretty much over role of the ballot. It’s just an impact framing arg. You still have to win that it’s a comparably preferable impact to whatever you’re debating.

K’s that go after the entire aff – their evidence, their harms, their plan, their solvency, their worldview – have a strong chance of winning even with a weak alt. They simply need to find a way to prove that an un-interrogated adoption of the plan would be worse than doing nothing or very little. That’s harder than just wishing away the SQ through magic, but debate is hard and that’s why it’s awesome.

K affs should defend changing the laws they criticize, but K the remainder of what the neg says is required to be complete legalization. Or read some cards on T. Or both. If your aff is nothing about the topic, or is anti-topical, you’ll want to be prepared to have a more comprehensive impact turn strategy for framework. This is a much tougher road.

2) CX-related info

Answer questions in CX. Seriously. Don’t repeat the question at them. Don’t ignore them and do something else. I’m going to start docking points for wasting people’s CX time. Mark my word. I will intervene once and after that I’m just going to start making notations to knock off some points.

Don’t extend the CX unless you absolutely have to. Usually you’re doing it for something useless and wasting your prep time. Also, feel free to deny your opponents a CX extension. Just say “no” if they ask to take prep to ask another question. It’s your prep time too.

3) Presentation info

I hate your pre-written overviews. No one can flow those. Your overview would be far better if tailored to the particular circumstances of the debate and delivered as if you were trying to reply to your opponents.

Prep time runs until your flashdrive leaves your computer or the email is sent. Start the chain/prepare the jump prior to the debate and deliver it a couple of minutes prior to the start of the debate. Feel free to tell people not to open it until it’s time and I’m sure that they won’t. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE DEBATE STARTS TO BEGIN PUTTING THINGS ON YOUR DRIVE OR I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME WHEN THE ROUND IS SCHEDULED TO START. Also, don’t wait until the debate is scheduled to start to pee.

You should think about how the music you’re playing affects others’ ability to hear you. A lot of times, music playing during your speech if not accompanying some performative component is a distraction from or direct hindrance to understanding speech content.

Loud music before the debate is irritating. I’d be glad to lend you some headphones.

Don’t act offended because someone is debating you. That’s what they’re supposed to do. Disagreeing with you is not akin to disrespecting you. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Consider how you’re tagging evidence. No one can flow your paragraph of mumbo-jumbo that precedes your French philosophy. Tags ought to communicate your interpretation of evidence to the judge, to demonstrate the way the evidence will be used. Tags are not story-time. If your tag is mega-long and uses a lot of high theory, plan to slow down so people can flow it.

I will 100% discount evidence from weirdos. Astrologers talking about global warming or conspiracy theory websites will require deep defenses to stand up to someone merely asserting that they’re not qualified. Honestly, it’s probably not worth your time to defend them. A couple more pointed jokes will likely beat those too. The Internet has caused you all to cut some scandalously bad ev.

4) DA-related info

Politics UQ answers are so bad. Don’t expect me to interpret “Opposition exists” as “won’t pass” if the neg questions it. Everything in Washington has opposition. That doesn’t mean it won’t pass if they have evidence saying it will. You need to have some conclusive ev.

I’m never voting on logical policymaker or a perm to a DA unless it’s dropped. Maybe not even then.

Their new DA, whatever it is, probably has a terrible link.

I would sacrifice a close family member to judge a good economic DA.

5) CP-related info

I still believe in limited counterplan competition. I believe counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive, not one or the other. I still rarely see this arg pursued against CP’s that clearly violate it.

I’m defaulting to judge kick CP’s that are deemed non-competitive unless I’m told not to do so. That means if you’re aff, your answers to the net benefit cannot be all premised around the CP, but must also take into account the SQ.

Nothing can flip presumption to the aff. Presumption is 100% neg. Change is scary.

Don’t forget to review the basic plan vs. CP competition on a technical CP. This is probably your best perm answer (or perm arg if you’re aff). A lot of teams presume we know more about what the original plan was than we do.

6) Case-related info

Actually debating the case is good. Impact D is not actually debating the case. It’s a fair accompaniment to, but is not a substitute for, debating the harm and solvency. Solvency is where it’s at.

Aff plans are too vague. Many would be circumvented as a result of the loopholes the wording of these plans allows. I love this stuff.

7) Points

My points are probably marginally higher than 2 years ago, but not substantially. I would guess I use a 28.5 as average now over a 28.3. 29’s are not common and you won’t get one unless you’re actually really good. I won’t give you one for being a senior, or for showing improvement or effort, or for being snarky and mean. I will give you one (or one plus some more) if you’re very good, technical, complete, display vision and clarity, handle the CX, perform the CX, and read and analyze evidence well. Excessive reading will not get the job done. Excessive slow rambling will not get the job done. Comprehensively replying to your opponents’ arguments is a must for a 29+. If you’re dropping key content, you’re a 28.9 at best. Organization is important. It doesn’t have to be line-by-line (although I have a slight preference for it, historically), but it had better have a logic that makes sense and flows well.

I’m sure whatever is already in here is also fine and true. I dunno. I’m not re-reading it. END NEW CONTENT 2015

New addendums: I've adjusted my speaker point scale quite a bit in recent years. I think it's much higher than it used to be when people are good and maybe a little lower when people are bad. The additional variability allowed by the 1/10's system has given me more room to provide finer evaluations.

I assert myself into the CX more than I used to. Blame Dallas. I always thought it was cool when he did that. I typically do this just to protect people from your rambling incoherent responses to questions.

NEW, NEW Addendums:

Cheating of all kinds in debate is deserving of the deepest penalty we can level. I will vote against you and give you zero speaker points if you clip cards. I will not debate with you about clarity or unclarity. I will ask you directly what portions of a card were read and, if your response doesn't match the recorded evidence, I will level the punishment. I don't require the argument to be made in the debate. I will not necessarily be recording every debate, but I will record many. Any accusation of clipping will require recorded evidence to be prosecuted.

I think most people already knew how I felt about this. I did want to clarify in case you're a cheater and want to stop preffing me bc you cheat.

I like basically all styles of debate roughly equally. I think my points reveal a pretty well balanced rewarding of excellence on all sides of the ball. I think "topical version of the aff" and "knowledge is racially subjective" are just about equally difficult to beat. I think my points are often highest for "degree of difficulty" wins -- taking on tough issues eloquently and with style. A large component of my points are subjective -- I don't just give points to teams for "winning"; I also give points based on aesthetics. No rubric is going to alter that, at Wake or anywhere else. I think fast, technical debate can be pretty when combined with, say, humor, insight, intellect, and reason as much as I think performance style debate can be detail oriented when combined with penetrating analysis of the other teams arguments using the lens of their perspective on the world. These styles are, in my opinion, not fundamentally distinct, but different in emphasis.

My points roughly lie in the norms of the Wake judging rubric (I may give slightly more 28.5's and slightly fewer 28.9's than they're suggesting, but, whatever). I wouldn't expect my points to either change much because of the rubric or vary much from it. I'm not going to pay real close attention to it as the numbers seem to indicate I'm basically on par at the moment. One thing to note: your best speech and THE best speech are two very different things. You might think you gave the best possible speech you could and I would still not rate that speech as a 29.9 or 30. It's not just possible, but entirely likely, that you are not capable of giving a perfect speech. That's ok. No one is perfect.

Depth is almost always better than breadth, but I do expect people to answer arguments. I won't ever answer them for you. I don't care in what order you answer them or how clearly you signpost your answers or whatever (i.e. line-by-line as defined traditionally is not that crucial), but if you never answer an argument and expect me to intuit the answer for you, you're not likely to succeed.

I judge a lot. I'm kinda grumpy, but it's not just you. I'll be expressive in debates, a lot of it will be negative; don't cry. I just don't like watching you be bad. Other parts where you're good I'll like a lot (hopefully).

Big picture issues: Debate is for the debaters. I won't tell you what to do and what not to do. I have voted for some terrible arguments. Almost every debate involves some argument I hate. I often vote for arguments I loathe. Don't spend your time trying to decide which arguments I like. You play to win the game. Where this contradicts with something I've said below, you do your thing.

Topicality: Is ok. You need an interp. It needs an impact. The aff needs a reason to prefer their interp, or to meet the negative's interp. I believe aff's deserve predictability as much as the negative does. More aff's should say that. T can be outweighed by substantive arguments against the interp, like that it causes biopower, the state, zphc, derrida, la-dee-da, etc. In the instance that the aff attempts to "outweigh T", the neg should further elaborate on the substantive impacts of their standards. They should also probably say T isn't like the holocaust.

Framework: Is ok. I believe any argument can be introduced and won in a debate, but I'm often convinced that the harm to doing so outweighs the benefits. These debates are often tied up in issues I've discussed in reference to T. See above. Aff's especially should IMPACT their framework arguments. If the K has a link, I'm probably not going to be persuaded that they're trying to play football with a baseball bat (wrong forum) and patently exclude their argument. I may however decide that the neg has lost their alt and that doing so means the margin of the link is outweighed by the affs advantages. However, it is also possible that the K just takes-out the aff solvency and harm claims and turns the case, in which case the neg would win. Many framework debates are, as a result, stupid.

Other theory: PICs, Dispo, Condi, ASPEC, CESPEC, alt text, multi actor, conditional CPs, international CPs, etc. are all ok. So are objections to them. They're like T to me: theoretical disads to the other team's conception of debate. Most of them, however, do not rise to the level of VI. Typically, I believe that they prove that the argument should not be considered, not that the team running the argument should lose. In most debates, these argument are asserted to be a VI and countered by an equally assertive response that they are not. In those instances, I agree, they aren't. Basically, explain the voter if you want to win on 'em. I won't punish your points for consulting because I'm not a douche.

DA's and CP's: If the CP solves 100% of the case, I typically believe that there is a risk of a link to the net benefit. I have been, on occassion, convinced otherwise, but these instances are few and far between. I do not think presumption flips aff in any instance. I can't imagine how it could. I'd need to hear an amazing argument in favor of doing so. Link turns need UQ. If the disad sounds too good to be true, it probably is. "Their evidence is from liars" could count as a zero risk argument for me if articulated well. I tend to believe that the SQ is always an option for the neg unless it is explicitly foregone in the CX or a speech. Plan-plus counterplans are abusive and many CP's are plan-plus. Textual competition is good and many CP's are not textually competitive. Again, these are predilections, not hard and fast rules. I've been persuaded against my beliefs in virtually every debate I've ever judged.

K's: Alt, alt alt. The aff usually loses because the neg lies about their alt and the aff almost always wins if they beat the alt. Realism is real is unhelpful. I rarely know why this argument links. See comments on framework above. The aff typically gets to weigh their impacts regardless of the fabricated nature of fiat. The instance that the aff loses the case because of the K is typically associated with some indict of a. the evidence b. the impact claim itself or c. the solvency. In those instances, winning that you get to weigh the aff is not helpful; you still have to defend it. Good link and impact illustration is always helpful. Why does the K access the aff harm? Why does the alt solve the case? I often leave K debates wondering these things and it'd be helpful to have these questions answered and asked by the debaters.

Performance: Is ok. I don't love it; I can't lie. A good topical performance used as evidence to support a policy conclusion can successfully defeat a lot of the substantive arguments against a case, but performance for performances sake, the non-topical, obfuscatory variety, does nothing to impress me. I'll vote on it. I'll consider the merits of the argument. I may even find parts of it witty and funny. But if you think I'm a member of your project because I worked at OU, you're probably wrong. P.S. don't run your bad version of the Churchill K or nihilism because you think it will get me on your side. It won't. Run what you're good at and do it well.

CX: Is good. I love a grilling CX. You should have an agenda and follow it. Ask a lot of questions. Set things up. Don't badger the witness and don't bore me. CX has a lot to do with the points I give. I will probably be on the Internet and reading and stuff during CX, but, trust me, I'm listening. It matters greatly that you do well here.

Speed and flowing: I judge a lot of debates. I've judged people way faster than you and I get it down when it is clear. I often ask for clarity and the debaters go right back to being incomprehensible. I'm not asking anymore. You'll be clear or you'll get bad points. Seperate your cards, cites, and tags with good vocal inflection or I won't understand you and I won't try anymore. You don't need to be as fast as most of you try to read. Many of you would be more efficient at 75-80% speed. Theory debates are notoriously too brief and too quick. I'll just ignore you if you do this. If you want to win a theory arg, slow down so I can flow it.

Evidence: I don't read a lot of evidence after debates. I don't usually need to. Asking me to read some evidence doesn't mean I will. I think evidence is a tool, not a weapon, and blanket extension of cards without talking about their contents doesn't make an argument. Use evidence to support arguments, not to make them. That said, unevidenced, but well reasoned arguments are good. I'm for it! I don't think only cards can be evidence; a good story, poem, allegory, song, dance, whatever, could be evidence too. Of course, cards can beat non-traditional evidence also.

Overviews: Honestly, I'm pretty tired of them. Most of them are a waste of your time. Typically they are some long unnecessary diatribe about components of the disad ignored by the aff that I already understand. If you have an overview, it ought to be functional and make an argument rather than just "explain the thesis" of the argument or preview why you are so awesome and the other team so dumb. Worthless overviews are a negative speaker point in my mind. More line-by-line, more cards, more content.

Prep time: Don't steal prep. Once the timer stops, everyone must stop filing, writing, typing, etc. until the speech begins. Don't cheat. That said, don't be annoying and take hours to give the order. When you stop the prep time, you'd better know where you're going.

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

Sexist/Racist behavior: Is not ok. Under any circumstances. Ever. The line is often unclear, but don't do anything that could hurt someone else in debate. Diversity is the heart of the activity, it is only just now getting better, and we don't want to turn back the clock to the good ole bad ole days. I'd prefer evidence not use sexist language in their evidence too, but that's not the type of behavior I'm talking about here. I'm talking about debater-directed verbal or behavioral evidence of prejudice. I've never actually seen a debate where it happened, but if it did I'd want to do more than give the team a loss and zero points. I have anger management issues.

Humor: Is good. But if you aren't funny, don't press it. Be yourself. If you're just some debate machine, do that and do it well. Good natured humor can get you good points though. Oh, and making fun of me, my colleagues, my debaters, and my friends are all welcome. If you've got a good burn, bring it. Jokes about the quality of the other team's arguments can be persuasive evidence.

Dennis Savill Crossings Christian School 7 rounds

Pia Sen Liberal Arts and Science Academy - LBJ High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 16, 2023 at 8:49 AM EDT

Add me to the email chain: pia.sen@utexas.edu

Did some coaching for Texas + judging through the NDT 2020-2021 season

Texas Debate 2016-2020

UT Dallas Debate 2015-2016

LASA Debate 2011-2015

Updated 09/16/2023

Online Debate:

Please go a bit slower (80% of normal speed) on tags and analytics to account for video lag. If you're willing, maybe put in analytics for the doc to mitigate tech issues.

Short of it:

Probably best for clash or K v. K debates - not super good for policy v. policy debates except for T (not an ideological thing, just lack of experience with those situations), but I will do my best to evaluate those as instructed. Please explain topic specific acronyms and jargon for now. I believe debate is more about combat than collaboration - there's a competitive incentive to win so though we do learn from each other and have important discussions, I don't feel super persuaded by claims about how we should all work together in a debate (yes, I am persuaded that debate is a game). My role as a judge is to evaluate the arguments in front of me unless given an alternative role.

I think debate is not about me (the judge) but about the debaters - college debate gave me my voice and so much more, helping me grow as a person. It is a game with implications that shape our lives, and I want you to debate the way you are drawn to and find those benefits in whatever form is most important for you. I will do my best to help make your time as fulfilling as possible. That being said, I have certain biases/ ways of seeing debate/ limitations which I will try to describe below - however, I can be persuaded otherwise.

Judge instruction is crucial. My most extensive involvement has been with NDT and CEDA college debate, so I will probably try to adhere to those norms when judging. Fine with framework arguments, fine with K's and K affs. Will probably not vote on theoretical objections to intrinsic or severance permutations. Do impact calculus. I will follow along with your ev. and read the cards as much as I can.

Judges I try to judge like: Brendon Bankey, Will Baker, Michael Barlow, Scott Harris, and David Kilpatrick.

Speaking:

If you spread through analytics with no warrants, I may miss something. I will say 'clear' twice then put down my pen. My flow is okay, but online debate has made that harder so take that as you will. I believe CX is speech time, and accordingly, you will be rewarded/penalized for good CX moments and smart questions. CX concessions and moments need to be brought up and explained/ impacted in speeches to be considered arguments on which I will cast my ballot.

My speaker point scale (I adjust to the tournament): I award speaker points for speaking style, strategy, CX, etc. I do tend to have a soft spot for clever strategic turns and CX moments so I think I probably tend to penalize speaking slips like "uh" or "um" less than most judges.

28.8 - average

28.9-29.3 - Quite good, I think you'll break even or be in early elims of the tournament

29.4 -29.6 - Probably top 15 speaker at whatever tournament (D3 regional)/ outrounds of a major

Case Debates:

Do it.

For policy affs - harder to get me to vote on presumption. For K affs, I am not afraid to pull the trigger on presumption - especially if you don't have a reason why the introduction of the aff into debate is a good idea, or why deliberation around it is good/ why the reading of the 1AC is insufficient to access the aff's educational project. If you just play music in the 1AC and claim that's the aff solvency mechanism, I need to know why this is a departure from the status quo or why the introduction of that pedagogy should be evaluated as something to be affirmed with the ballot. However, if you are going for presumption I would like to have an interpretation for what the aff should do to meet the burden of presumption (whether that be material change, or whatever).

Framework Debates:

I enjoy framework debates on both sides, and think they can be some of the most interesting debates when we discuss the value of debate and what education should be obtained from the deliberative process of the activity. Similarly, they can also be the most stale and least responsive regurgitation of blocks (on both sides).

I think fairness is just an internal link to education, but can be convinced otherwise.

If you go for CIs with framework (Aff teams):

While debate is probably just a game, the education produced is not neutral. I think that limits and clash as internal links to deliberation are persuasive when adjudicating a framework debate, so the aff should provide a counter-model of debate and what the debates that should occur within debate look like under the aff's model (what is the role of the aff? the neg?). Probably, there's a reason why the aff's introduction into debate is a good idea and why discussion over it is good- otherwise we wouldn't be here. Do that work to parse out your role of debate - I think it's best done through a model of competition. Additionally, do good work on the internal link turns to the neg's model of education (debates occurring under that model)

If you go for Impact turns vs. FW (Aff teams):

I'll vote on args like 'debate bad' but you need a reason why I should vote for you/ not vote on presumption/ what voting aff does.

For the negative reading FW:

Ground isn't really a great impact for framework debates in my opinion, because ground is sort of inevitable so going for a limits k2 deliberation impact is probably better.

Topicality Debates (other than T USFG):

T is fun! Do your impact work.

CP & DA Debates:

All good. Do what you need to do. I love Politics DAs and topic DAs. I don't feel super equipped when judging the theory components of consult or delay CP debates but I'll try. I love good advantage CPs.

Kritiks:

Contextualize the link and impact work to the aff you are debating, have a solid alt or a good framework explanation for why I don't need to vote on an alt for you to win the debate. I believe that debate is a question of scholarship production that shapes how we see the world, and so 'revise and resubmit' framework arguments are more persuasive to me than some. I think examples are awesome for contextualizing impacts and how the aff uniquely makes things worse, which is a question I need to be able to answer at the end of the debate to vote for you.

Please do your impact work in terms of the aff, and explain why those are relevant.

Misc:

Probably won't adjudicate based on things that happen outside of the round that I don't witness. Will evaluate in round impacts about performative aspects of the debate. Please no slurs for subject positions that you do not occupy. Decent judge for gendered/ableist/racist language arguments. You must impact out your theory arguments, and I will not vote on an argument that is not well explained with warrants.

Accessibility:

Let me know if there's anything I can do to help- feel free to email me or pull me aside if that is easier.

Lincoln-Douglas:

I do not judge this very often, will adjudicate it similar to a policy debate. Will probably not vote on cheap shot theory or "tricks" unless it is well explained.

Jon Sharp Georgetown Day School 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon October 8, 2018 at 2:24 PM CDT

jon sharp

Director of Debate @ GDS (the actual GDS, not the camp, not the affinity group, not the cultural phenomenon...well, maybe the cultural phenomenon...)

(Relevant) Background: Debated in HS (program doesn't exist any more) and college (Emory); coached at Emory, West GA, USC, New Trier, Kentucky, and GDS; taught around 75 labs (including, but not limited to the Kentucky Fellows, SNFI Swing Lab, Berkeley Mentors, Antilab, and the forthcoming Quantum Lab). This is what i do - i teach, coach, and judge debate(s). This is both good and bad for you.

This is Good for You: One could say that i have been around, as it were. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i got you. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i won't freak out.

This is Bad for You: This ain't my first rodeo. If you want to do something that people do in debates, i have seen it done better and worse. If you want to do something that people don't do in debates, i probably remember the last time that somebody did it in a debate.

Are You For Real? Yah, mostly...i just don't think judging philosophies are all that helpful - any judge that is doing their job is going to suspend disbelief to as great an extent as possible and receive the debate in as much good faith as they can muster...but almost nobody is upfront enough about what that extent looks like.

Well, that's not especially helpful right now. OK, you make a strong point, imaginary interlocutor. Here are a few things that may actually help:

1 - Flow the Debate - I flow the debate. On paper. To a fault. If you do not take this into account, no matter how or what you debate, things are going to go badly for you. Connecting arguments - what used to be called the line-by-line - is essential unless you want me to put the debate together myself out of a giant pile of micro-arguments. You Do Not Want This. "Embedded clash" is an adorable concept and even can be occasionally helpful WHEN YOU ARE MANAGING THE REST OF THE FLOW WITH PRECISION. There is no such thing as "cloud clash."

2 - Do What You are Going to Do - My job isn't to police your argument choices, per se; rather, it is to evaluate the debate. If debaters could only make arguments that i agreed with, there would not be much reason to have these rounds.

3 - If you are mean to your opponents, it is going to cause me to have sympathy/empathy for them. This is not an ideological position so much as an organic reaction on my part.

4 - "K teams," "identity teams," and non-traditional/performance teams pref me more than policy teams - Make of that what you will.

5 - Stop calling certain strategic choices "cheating" - This is one of the few things that just sends my blood pressure through the roof...i know you like to be edgy and i respect your desire to represent yourself as having no ethical commitments, but this is one of the worst developments in the way people talk and think about debate since the advent of paperlessness (which is essentially The Fall in my debate cosmology). Reading an AFF with no plan is not cheating; reading five conditional CPs in the 2NC is not cheating; consult NATO is not cheating. Clipping cards is cheating; fabricating evidence is cheating, consulting your coach in the middle of the debate is cheating. An accusation of an ethics violation (i.e., cheating) means that the debate stops and the team that is correct about the accusation wins the debate while the team that is wrong loses and gets zeroes. This is not negotiable. Ethics violations are not debate arguments, they do not take the form of an off-case or a new page and they are not comparable to anything else in the debate.

Also - just ask.

Tommy Snider Casady School 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 4:21 AM CDT

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

Brock Spencer Casady School 7 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 6, 2024 at 10:41 AM CDT

Brock Spencer – brock.spencer.bs@gmail.com

Experience/Background - Current Assistant Coach @ Casady HS (OK) (6 Years), Judge Experience (9 years), Debated 1 year CEDA/NDT @ UCO , 4 years of National Circuit HS @ Tulsa-Union (Ok), Former Assistant Coach @ Tulsa-Union HS (Ok) (1 year)

TLDR – You do what you do best, and tell me what to do with my ballot as your judge. Write the RFD/ballot for me in the last speech. I’m down with voting for most things that have a well-warranted reason and impact behind it. Offense/Defense Paradigm. I flow meticulously and enjoy line by line debates. Debate can be super fun, enjoy yourselves!

Speaker Points - I tend to heavily reward teams who do phenomenal research/ utilize evidence in comparative ways. A newer development is that I tend to reward teams who flow well, and answer arguments on the line by line especially with numbered responses. Giving your last speech off of the flow, and not reading into a laptop is a great way to have good speaks - (Also just be nice to each other. It's a competitive activity, but doesn't have to be cutthroat.)

Speed -

Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.

(LD Paradigm is below)

(PF Paradigm is further below)

-- POLICY --

Policy AFFs --

Advantages are good....10 advantages are not.

I prefer few advantages w/ specific internal link chains that don't have 8 loosely tied together scenarios begging to lose to a security K. Update your IL UQ's - it goes a long way in front of me.

Utilize your AFF vs. off case args, too many policy affs lose because they start debating on the DA/K flow ignoring, and not using the AFF to it's potential.

K AFF’S –-

AFF’s I have read haven’t defended much so I’m definitely willing to vote for these.

The aff should still defend doing something, but this is a pretty low threshold.

Vs. K's go for perms and impact turns to Alts

Vs. FW go for DA's as impact turns.

Topicality/Theory –-

Topicality and Theory are drastically underutilized. Ya'll are letting these aff teams, and CP's get away with waaaay too much. I love creative Theory/T debates. Limits are love, limits are life!

I evaluate T similar to any DA flow from offense/defense point of view, and default competing interps, but can be swayed to vote for the aff being reasonable. I reward spec interps/violations vs. an aff.

Impact out your standards/counter standards, and make spec args as to things they did in the round that harmed ground, what they could have done based on their strat, or other potential abuse. RVIs are a non-starter, and I will evaluate "K's of T".

I will vote on Condo, but the 2ac needs to be more than 10 seconds if you're going to be going all in by the 1AR. I do think the Neg is allowed to be condo most of the time unless they have done something rather egregious that you point out.

Framework –-

Neg - I'll vote on both soft FW Interps that are creative and hard line USFG FW. Either way limits/predictable ground are most useful standards to win my ballot. Limits are love, limits are life! Point out when aff is vague/a moving target as another link to these standards. Topical Version of the AFF is the easiest way to win my ballot on FW. Typically don't vote on democratic engagement/deliberation args, but not against them.

K AFFs - make sure to leverage your impacts vs. FW. If a negative drops the AFF Impacts I’m easily swayed by the argument that AFF impacts are Impact turns to the interpretation, and why their model of education is bad to begin with.

CP –-

These should have a clear net benefit such as DA or internal net benefit. Better solvency isn’t sufficient. I often find myself voting on perms so these net benefits should be articulated as reasons why the perm doesn’t solve.

Also if you want me to kick it for you if you’re losing it that needs to be clear in the 2NR.

Cheating Cps *you know who you are* - I tend to side w/ the aff on these so you'll want to allocate sufficient time to theory in the block if necessary.

DA –-

DA's are great in debate as generics to rely on, but I'm not a fan of the trend of reading one to 2 card DA's with barely any warrants highlighted. I love a good da although. Specificity is lovely! I'll still vote for your generic topic DA, but apply it to the aff in the block.

Need clear impact calc from both the aff and the neg. - updated UQ/IL UQ will be rewarded w/ speaker points, and usually W's on the ballot!!

Both teams should use comparative analysis and explain why their ! ows, is more uq, or turns the other etc.

K’s –

Background/Preferences -

I’m most familiar with this type of debate throughout high school, and college. I "hack" for Security K's that are embedded in other K's - I find that most policy aff internal link chains are garbage, and you can make them defend things they don't want with security esque arguments. The K’s I’m most familiar with are the greatest hits of dead European dudes (Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze), and being from Oklahoma I hear, and have read Settler Colonialism/Cap a lot. Personally believe the Fem I.R. K is drastically underutilized, but very good in debate because there's literature on everything and it's often just true.

Links/Alts -

For your link, QUOTE THE 1ACEV evidence as link analysis for a K.- You can read your "sick" Baudrillard 81 card, but in the block there should be an explanation of the link in the context of the 1AC ev and scenarios. Alts should have a clear articulation of why it solves the AFF and the links. I also find myself voting on perms b/c the neg doesn’t do a good job explaining the difference in the aff solvency and the K alt solvency world. To help beat perms the Links should be offensive – I typically won’t vote on a link of omission. An Alt should also exist. If you read a K without an alt I default to being a non-uq DA until proven otherwise. I can be convinced why my ballot generates UQ, but that needs to be explained as a type of alternative.

For AFF's answering K's -

Net Benefits to perms are vital, as are DA's to why the ALT doesn't solve all parts of the case, or separate DA's to the ALT itself.

! Turns would be great, I don't understand why debaters don't just say arguments such as HEG GOOD. Impact turns vs. K's can be devastating. Don't debate on their ground, debate on yours.

Other K Things -

I’ll vote on roll of the ballot claims and framing issues as long as there are impacts and warrants attached to those and reasons why the other side doesn’t’ access them.

Floating Piks, and Counter Perms I'm familiar with, and will vote on, but they need to be at least predictably flagged in the block.

Lastly, I enjoy clash with K debates so if someone reads a Buadrillard AFF and your NEG is to also read Buadrillard, you're probably starting off on the wrong foot in front of me.

-- LD --

Most of what I said above in policy applies to what LD is currently, but I'll add a few specific things unique to LD.

Value/Crit -

Offense to their Value/Crit would be lovely. - Winning the framing is helpful, but more debaters need to impact out why it matters.

Use your contentions as net benefits to your Value/Criterion and DA's to theirs and explain why their FW cant access/solve your impacts. I often find myself just voting on impact calc based on which contention OW's the other because the framing debate isn't articulated enough.

K's/CP's/DA's in LD? -

Sure, why not. I'll evaluate these the same as any other argument (read above in policy for specifics)

I am willing to vote for FW args on why this isn't allowed in LD as long as you have well warranted impacts/theoretical args, but tend to think these are allowed and you should have answers if they apply to the case. Most of the time your more "Traditional case" still has very well built in answers to these types of arguments too, but often debaters are overthinking it.

Contentions -

I love creative contentions in LD to justify what should or should not be debated, but open to voting for theory arguments as to why said contention is unfair etc.

Theory -

I typically err aff on theory in LD, but can be convinced otherwise.

Read above for more specific Theory in Policy Section.

Speed -

Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.

Random Info - I find myself voting for floating pics a lot in LD rounds.

-- PF --

For PF specifically, I often find myself frustrated in PF rounds by the lack of line by line answers, and proper extension of arguments. When citing evidence you should give a tagline, an author and then read the evidence. Often PF does this in many different nonsensical orders.

Clash is really important and giving impacts that are comparative to the other teams impacts will go a long way in front of me. Make sure and respond to their cases in every speech after the first speeches.

**To see how I evaluate specific arguments such as disads, cps, t, k's etc. the above sections still apply. I believe all debate eventually just morphs into policy because whenever you give students speech times they will inevitably speak faster and utilize the modern policy style. I'm not necessarily a fan of this either way, but it is what it is. I'll still vote on traditional PF cases against more progressive styles, but need warrants as to why.**

Amanda Tobey Georgetown Day School 7 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 23, 2017 at 4:07 AM EDT

My name is Amanda Tobey. I debated for J.P. Taravella High School, for UCF and George Washington. If you are reading this I am probably coaching/judging for GDS. Use this as a guideline for what to run in front of me, and the end of the day most debaters will do what they do best anyway so just do it well and I’ll vote off of what you tell me to.

I am now retired. I recently taught middle school policy and public forum for GDS, but as they are novices with no circuit to compete in, I am not that caught up on literature for any current topics. You have been warned*

If you have questions for me: Amandathetobey (at) gmail (dot) com.

GDS Invite: updated 9/23/17

Sorry for the late update! Some of this was on the wiki. I just updated this to make my disad and K preferences more open.

PFD THINGS

At the heart of things, I am a Policy debater who is very comfortable with PFD as I have taught and competed in it a bit. I value tech over truth.

You need warrants
You need links and internal links
You need impacts
If you are extending something you need all of the above
weigh stuff/impact analysis

Policy Things

After judging a few debates on the 2015-2016 topic these are things I've been saying after every round:

1. Perm texts should be specific

2. SHORT o/v's in rebuttals are your friend (and mine)

3. Organization counts

4. Impact out f/w, T, and theory if you want me to vote on it.

Short but not so sweet:

Love: theory, T, topic specific (IR) disads, and high theory/regular k’s.

Like: case, adv cps, pics.

Tolerate: politics, identity-based args (ask me about this if unclear)

Hate: any spec arg (you will lose speaks), card clipping (potential loss if proven)

Theory(Framework):

I love theory, I think learning about why we debate the way we debate is important. I was both a cheating 2N and a lying 2A so you do you. I think theory is fluid and changes round to round. I default to competing interps. I like to hear the history of the arguments (i.e. condo and how in the 70’s one off was abuse but in 2002 seven off was the norm) this is important to understand why my ballot matters in these rounds. Please highlight things in these debates that I should focus on (i.e. examples of non-abuse, examples of in round abuse) and/or try not to make these debates messy. RVI’s are almost always shitty. DO NOT RUN SPEC ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME- even if you win on something else your speaks will go down for it. Front-lining is your friend. I default aff framing for framework and this may or may not be a pre-req to theory or T- please keep at least part of these debate alive in the last rebuttals because this is an important questions that should be resolved by the debaters. (look to counterplans for exceptions)

Topicality:

As with theory, topicality is awesome. I used to run really abusive affs and I loved slamming affs for being abusive. I have a medium threshold for voting on extra-t/effects-t, just spend time on it. I’m slightly more truth oriented on T than theory but I still rely heavily on my flow. Affs should have a plan txt that is enacted by the USFG- I am more amiable to wacky plan txts than straight up plan advocacies. Whether that plan txt has to be fiated…..is debatable. I default to competing interpretations and I am very impressed with teams that keep T debates clean.

Case:

If you need another sheet of paper for something like an overview- tell me please. I love card analysis more than new cards. Smart arguments are good arguments, and I will evaluate smart analytics against bad cards. Be clear in overviews, this is your aff, you know it better, don’t forget that. I’m also fine with squirrely things like not going for your aff, case arguments used in theory debates, ect.

CP:

Counterplans are counterplans.if you want me to judge kick you have to tell me and then justify it depending on the theory in the round. I am slightly against multiple plank counterplans and think theory can check back. That along with 50 states and Lopez, I think theory has a good place and I slightly favor an aff ballot. All other counterplans are completely tab and fair game. Please don’t rattle off perms like it’s your job, they should be separate; they should have specific texts with cards if you want to make me super happy. That being said, I sometimes lean pro aff on most all perm theory (except severance).

Disads:

Oy. So I i used to be pretty meh on politics disads. Now, I am a lot more open. I really love a good topic disad. That being said, I will totally vote for any disad, you just must: 1. Keep the debate clean 2. Spend time on it and the entire story 3. Write my rfd. Not one sentence (They dropped the link debate). I mean tell me the impact of that and how that means the 2ar is screwed and has been since the 2ac. I know cutting hyper-specific link cards is a pain, but it goes a long way.

Kritik:

My small amount of time in college made me more disillusioned with the K but I am getting over it. I am most familiar with security, cap, GBTL, and Nietzsch. I have no issues voting for k's. Including high theory stuff.

Performance: I think debate is an academic space and a unique one. Only in this space do academics spread ideas, talk about foreign policy, flow, fiat stuff, ect. I think we can talk about x’s rights anywhere to anyone, but policy prescriptions are unique to this space. Thus, I do not like things that take away from the precious time and space that is policy debate. You should justify how it’s policy prescription or relates to it. General performance and identity don’t meet that standard and I will be very likely to (but not definitely) vote on framework in these rounds. (edit: given our current political climate I can see a world in which this is more "policy" and this I am more open to it)

Exceptions: If someone is racist/sexist in a round, you have impacts that are fiated, or if you are responding to a team that is performance with “but you don’t include me”

Cheating:

I encourage you to record rounds, if someone is clipping cards or cheating in any other way, I will punish them. Bring it up during the round. Make a theory arg.

Tech:

Jumping isn’t prep, all teams must have access to all evidence. I will allow 2 minutes per team per computer malfunction, after that it’s prep. I keep prep, you keep prep, we all keep prep! You may have to remind me of high school times. Act like you know how to work your computer/stand/space even if you don’t. I may have my computer out in rounds. I will not record anything without your permission and will give you my FULL attention during all cx’s and speeches.

Speaks and other important things you should know (and speaks):

My name is Amanda, this is policy debate, please don’t call me Mrs. Tobey or “judge”. Be friendly, act like you've known your opponent your whole life. I like a “cool” style of debate. That being said I was also very passive-aggressive and sarcastic which is fine by me, but should you get too aggressive and make me uncomfortable, speaks will go down. If you want warning for anything tell me- I think it’s noble to know what you need to work on and would love to help but after one warning, if it is something that is bugging me, it will affect speaks. I view speaks as 75% how you say something (clarity, ect.) and the structure you say it with (2ac’s shouldn’t put T at the bottom) and 25% actual smart arguments (that impact turn was a good idea).

Partnering- I very much value my partner and I expect you to, too. I’m fine with open cross but do not cut your partner off if it’s their cross, do not over tool your partner, do not be a dick to your partner please.

Finally, if you ask me something that I already put here (not including clarification) I will be annoyed which is not a good way to start the round. I took the time to write this so you have the best chance of adapting, take the time to read it. If you show me good flows after the round (like as soon as the 2ar ends) I will add .2 to speaks.

So I basically stole this form Shree Awsare- I think it's a good representation of speaks.

< 25: You were offensive or obnoxious and deserve this.

25: No arguments past constructives, no spreading or bad spreading, no strategic thought of usage of the aff/neg constructive.

26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents- bad ethos and bad spreading.

27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims- badish ethos, okay spreading.

28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers. okay ethos, good spreading.

28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. Solid spreading, okay ethos. You use examples and don't just read pre-written blocks, you contextualize.

29+: You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.

30- You did all of the above and you made a connection. Somewhere in the debate (or at multiple points) you looked at me and made a topical one-liner or said something that changed the way I viewed the debate.

Ethan Tsao Jesuit College Prep 6 rounds None

Alandro Valdez Jesuit College Prep 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri December 10, 2021 at 7:26 AM EDT

Alandro Valdez

Jesuit College Prep '17

Email: atvaldez2011@gmail.com

Water Topic specifics:

It has been awhile since I debated and I don't have much experience about how this year's topic has developed, but I am a current Masters student that studies environmental policy, so I do have some background knowledge. Please explain the nuances of your specific position, but I don't need a crash course on water policy.

General Things:

I really enjoy debate and I hope that you do too. So don't be a horrible person and ruin it for others, be nice to each other in round or you might get docked speaker points. Respect your partners and opponents. I really enjoy smart arguments and if you do too, make them and explain them. Yes I want to be on the email chain - see above. Flashing is not prep unless its getting to be ridiculous. I will try to be as flow centered as possible so keep that in mind when you are making arguments. You should make them and not just your evidence. I really enjoy seeing good evidence and really hate seeing really bad evidence. The weight of your argument will depend on that judgement. Most of all, have fun! What are we doing here if we didn't think it was? Stealing evidence is wrong and cheating will be punished.

Speaking:

I prefer clarity over speed because if I can't understand what you are saying, it won't get on my flow and thus wasn't in the debate. Look at me when you speak (not in a weird way but as if I was the subject that you were trying to convince of your argument). My face might betray a lot about how you are currently explaining something (for online tournaments, this is less important as you can't look at me directly per-say). I think that speaker point inflation is a real thing that has happened to the community. I don't believe that I should be complicit in it as well. If you speak well, you will get better points (ie you did line by line, you were clear, etc). Speaker points will begin at 28.3. Obviously, if you are being offensive or racist or something horrible like that, you will receive sub 25 and a stern explanation on why that's not ok. CX should be thought of as a way to explain important distinctions to the judge as get at essential weaknesses in the other team's arguments. I'll pay attention to know when this happens, and it should be incorporated in your next speech.

Theory:

I think that theory should have a clear direction and point of comparison like literally any other argument. This should probably take the form of an interpretation, a counter interpretation, and some standards with real impacts. If your theory shell in the 2AC is less than 5 seconds, think again about reading it. I like good theory debates with substantive impact calculus and interpretation explanation like a good T debate and that will be reflected in my evaluation of theory. Don't be discouraged, you can read theory just make it a real argument. Condo will get less weight than multiple conditional contradictory off-case. Some theory is much less persuasive than condo, looking at you hypotesting. Also, new affs bad is a horrible argument that will not be voted on.

Topicality:

I really like a good T debate that gets into the merits of any particular definition. T should be thought of like a CP and a DA debate. Your interpretation is like a CP that solves some harm and avoids some NB. Your standards are this harm and net benefit. Impacts should be flushed out. T debates suffer and we all suffer when teams only use buzzwords when referencing impacts. What does a good limit mean and what can we get out of it? etc.

Counter plans:

Love them when done well. You should have a decently robust explanation of what the CP does, what part of the aff it solves, and how it avoids the net benefit. I prefer case specific CPs that have solvency advocates because of the depth and nuance that those debates can have. Thus, I am less hip to some really sketchy CPs like Con Con, Veto Cheeto, and other process cps. I think delay and consult cps fall somewhere in the middle. However, I can be convinced otherwise through good theoretical justification or really good solvency advocate. Some people really don't like pics, but I think that they are pretty awesome if done correctly with proper evidence/explanation and competition. Most CPs should be textually and functionally competitive.

Disads:

DAs were my bread and butter argument in my last year of debating. Great if done well. You should have an as specific as possible link to the aff (obviously if its a new aff there will be some changing of standards). If you don't have a specific link, your explanation must compensate and apply the aff to the DA as closely as possible. More diverse links are better (to a point). I will more likely vote on a DA that has a good base of evidence that is being presented. Impact calculus should be case specific and comparative. Give me a frame to order the debate for or against the DA. Offense for the aff is good but might not be sufficient if you can't go deep on it. I think that DAs can be whittled down to a non-argument with enough defense and effective aff argumentation.

Ks:

Some might think that because of my perceived policy centered debate history that I might not like Ks. On the contrary, we were very flexible in what we could do so we read our fair number of Ks. I like specific K links like DA links, they should be as aff specific as possible or generics explained in the context of the aff. Framework is something that should order how I view the rest of the K flow but could also be a victory path almost on its own. Your frameworks should be comparative with actual impacts. The K should have a robust impact explanation as to why it accesses/solves/turns the case. One of the most vulnerable parts of a K is its alternative so the affirmative should attack that and the neg should have a reasonable explanation as to why they solve. Perms can be strategic but they must explain how they solve the links/K itself. I do not like a K debate with only buzzwords without explanation. Also, reading a K does not exempt you from doing line by line. If you avoid those two traps, you will be rewarded. I like less Ks that have a large death/suffering good basis.

Non-traditional affs/Framework:

I have run and been on the receiving end of non-traditional affs and framework. The two seem to come in a pair most of the time. I think that non-traditional affs should have a basis and grounding in the topic because that's what its for but if its not, be prepared for your framework debate. I will judge your non-trad aff just like I would any other aff, but its merits in evidence, impacts, and solvency etc. Framework is probably not violent in and of itself. Each team should have a reason why their version of debate is good and reasons why the other is bad. These distinctions should be compared like any other impact calculus. Framework neg teams should really invest time in answering the ROB or method debate or risk bearing the full weight of the aff's impacts. A defense of not having a plan will probably be necessary.

Zach Watts Jesuit College Prep 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 27, 2017 at 8:52 PM EDT

Zachary Watts

Affiliation: Jesuit College Prep (debated 3 years (including this one))

Speaker Position: 2A/1N

Email: 17275@jcpstudents.org

Updated 4/27/17

General:

I will try my best to evaluate the debate based upon what I flow, although I am human and have some tendencies/leanings (discussed further below). I will flow the debate to the best of my ability - go as fast as you like, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I can't flow you (if this is the case, I will say clear - if you hear this either slow down or enunciate more (or both)). I will read a piece of evidence at the end of a debate if it is particularly important to my decision and heavily contested or you ask me to read it after the round, but I think that the debate should come down to your analysis of the evidence in your speeches and comparative arguments as to why I should prefer your evidence/argument. I don't count flashing as prep - however, if you are obviously prepping after you called to stop, I will start prep and notify you that I'm doing so. If you are cheating (i.e. clipping cards, stealing evidence) you will lose the round and get minimal speaker points; if you accuse somebody of cheating and there is not proof that they did so, the same will happen to you (and, in that case, not the team accused of cheating) - debate is supposed to be a fun, educational activity - don't ruin it for other people by trying to gain an unfair competitive advantage.

Speaking:

As stated above, I'm fine with you speaking quickly, just don't sacrifice clarity for speed. Please engage in line-by-line and clash with the other team's arguments (this means doing some comparative analysis between your argument and that of your opponent, not just playing the "they say, we say" game). Using CX strategically (i.e. setting up your arguments, fleshing out some of their args to contextualize comparative analysis, pointing out flaws in their evidence, etc, and actually implementing them in your speech (it's okay to take prep to make sure some of the good things from CX make it into your speech)) will definitely earn you points. I will start at 28 and add or deduct points from there. Doing the things I said above will earn you more points (more points for executing them well) and not doing them or being rude to the other team will lose you points (the second part applies even if you spoke and debated well - be nice, having ethos doesn't mean being snarky).

Topicality:

I think that topicality tends to be a bit overused as a time-suck for the 2AC, but don't let that deter you from running it - just an observation. If you're going to run T, you need to clearly articulate what your vision for the topic is, why the aff does not fit in that interpretation, and why the aff not fitting under that interpretation is bad and a reason that your interpretation is good. A lot of this comes down to the standards debate, but really explain why allowing the aff's scholarship in debate is bad for debate - why does the aff being outside of your interpretation make debate unfair for the negative team and why is that bad and/or why does the aff's form of scholarship trade off with topic-specific education and why should that come before the aff's form of education? On the aff, you should push back on these questions - you should have a we meet and a counter-interpretation (or at least a counter-interpretation and a reason why their interp. is bad for the topic - I put this in here because QPQ vs. not QPQ is really popular for whatever reason), and you should also have a reasonability argument - if I think that the aff fits within a fair interpretation of the topic and doesn't cause the "topic explosion" internal link that the neg is saying you do, I'm very likely to lean aff in that debate (please don't go for only reasonability in the 2AR - at that point, if you don't even have a we meet, it's very difficult for me to determine how you are reasonably topical). Especially in the rebuttals, please slow down a little bit on T - it's a very technical debate to have and I might not get every warrant if I can't write down the words that you're saying as quickly as you're saying them, which may be frustrating to you if I didn't get something important. There's not a lot of pen time (i.e. times when I can catch up with flowing such as when cards are being read), so slowing down a bit on T would probably be beneficial for you.

Counterplans:

I think that counterplans are extremely useful and strategic for the negative and are often blown off by the aff. Counterplans should be competitive (textually as well as functionally - aff, if you point out that a CP is not functionally competitive, I am pretty likely to lean aff and dismiss the CP - be careful with this, though, as process CPs often have an internal net benefit; you should engage that CP on a theoretical level as well. Use CX to determine what the CP actually does before making the arguments about CP competitiveness), and I view many process CPs as really sketchy and usually not theoretically justifiable. I am more likely to view these CPs a legitimate, however, if you have a solvency advocate specific to the aff or can use the aff's solvency evidence to justify the CP. Perms should not sever or be intrinsic, but this may be justified if the neg is running a theoretically objectionable CP.

DAs:

Neg, run specific links, diversify your impacts across DAs and make sure that the 1NC shell isn't just a case turn. Both sides need to do some impact calculus and tell me why your impacts turn the other team's or just outweigh them. Aff, especially in debates with multiple DAs, make sure your strategy is consistent - don't double-turn yourself across flows.

Politics DAs - I'm not a fan of the politics DA (especially not in the current political climate) - I'm not saying you can't run it, but I'm more likely to reward smart aff analytics indicting the thesis of your links and internal links in a world of Trump even if you read a lot of evidence that makes some not so great warrants. That said, if the aff doesn't make these arguments, I will evaluate it like any other DA. If they do, it's probably going to be an uphill battle for you if this is your A-strat for the debate.

Kritiks:

I don't think that Ks should be excluded from debate, and I think that questioning the philosophical and theoretical basis of the arguments that are run is a good educational exercise that can be enjoyable to watch when it is done well. That said, I think that you should still have to read a specific link to the aff, an impact with a clear internal link to the link argument, and an alternative to solve that. While I think that Ks that impact out the implications of the aff's rhetoric in-round might lower the threshold for alt solvency beyond a rejection of the plan, anything (like the cap K or security K) claiming larger and broader impacts will have to do more work to prove that the alternative is capable of solving that and explaining a reason why the permutation cannot function. I do not think that the aff shouldn't get to weigh their impacts, but you should clearly define what the role of the ballot is (what issue should I prioritize when looking at the K flow at the end of the debate) and why that is good/the counter-interpretation is bad. Make sure to include turns case analysis in addition to the impact in your 1NC. Affs, you should have a reason that your scholarship should be prioritized, and take advantage of the fact that the weakest part of a K is usually the alt - if you can win reasons why the alt can't solve case or the K, it makes it easier for you to outweigh the K using case. Also, if the link is not specific, you should point that out and use your advantages (if possible) to prove a no link argument or a reason why the perm can solve. I'm not very hip to the death good-style arguments, nothing is real-style arguments, or communication bad-style arguments (why are you reading this in an activity about communication??!! I find the argument about accelerating communication to its destruction to be particularly unpersuasive and just a justification for perm do both), but I'll evaluate them - I just think it's an uphill battle for the neg.

Non-Traditional Affs/Framework:

I'm open to listening to non-traditional affs, but they should be grounded in the topic and should probably have some form of an advocacy statement. If you don't, I think it allows the negative to get a bit ahead on the framework debate using topical versions of the aff (probably one of the most useful arguments for the negative) or reasons why switch-side debate solves your impacts. It also might implicate case solvency to not have an advocacy - if you choose not to read one, you should have a pretty good defense of why the 1AC speech act changes anything x times after you read it, why debate is the activity through which your aff should be done, and why including an advocacy would be bad. Even if you are reading an advocacy, the second part of that is pretty important - you should make sure to explain why debate is key to your advocacy and why you should do it on the aff. You also need to have a clearly defined role of the ballot - explain why I should prioritize your form of debate or scholarship over a traditional aff. Negatives that can exploit this will often be ahead on framework. Similar to T, FW should have an interp, violation, standards, and an impact (or impacts) - these should include reasons why your interpretation turns the aff's ability to solve their case. I don't think that framework is violent or analogous to violence.

Theory:

Theory requires a significant time investment for me to vote on it. I think that most theory arguments (i.e. one of the many reasons a process CP is theoretically objectionable) are reasons to reject an argument not the team; of course, conditionality is a reason to reject the team. Theory arguments should have a clear interpretation, violation, and impact when initiated; the answer should have a counter-interpretation and reasons why that's a better vision of debate. I think that smart counter-interpretations can get out of a lot of theory offense because most theory impacts are based on worst-case scenarios. I think that there is definitely a scale for theory (i.e. I'm much more likely to vote on multiple conditional contradictory worlds than just condo; similarly, I'm more willing to vote on aff condo bad than no solvency advocate - my scale is typically determined by competitive equity (I think education is important too, but I feel that it is often linked to competitive equity and/or should be at T or FW question - I'm not really sure why another team not doing as good of a job on research is a reason their argument is theoretically objectionable unless they have mischaracterized evidence - this is probably just a reason I should prefer your evidence and you're better off going for the substantive part of the debate). Like on topicality, slow down on theory. If this is your victory path, it should be the entirety of your final rebuttal (2NR or 2AR) - you're going to win or lose on this, and none of the rest of the debate matters when theory is a question of whether the debate should be happening in the first place.

Toby Whisenhunt Highland Park (Dallas) 5 rounds

abe wickelgren Kealing Middle School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 27, 2017 at 10:00 AM CDT

Background
I debated (policy) for four years in high school, for South Eugene High School in Eugene, OR and for a year at Harvard (NDT). But, all of this was close to 30 years ago. My daughter has now started debating, so I am just getting back into it. This has three relevant implications: (1) I’m not at typical parent/lay judge—I once knew what I was doing, and remember much of it, at least to some degree; (2) I’m rusty—I don’t (at least, for now) flow quite as fast as I use to, nor is my ear for spreading as good as it once was; (3) my debate knowledge is mostly from the 1980s—I know what a kritik is, but I’m not experienced with them, and there may be other terminology that has changed and I’m not aware of.
General Judging Philosophy
I try to be (what we use to call) tabula rasa as much as I can be. We all have biases in the way we interpret arguments, but I will do my best to listen to any argument you make and evaluate it solely on the merits of your arguments and the responses even if I think it is crazy (or obviously correct). So, you should feel free to make any argument and should not think you can simply call an argument stupid and win on that (to take what I understand to be an extreme example today, I am open to RVI arguments on T, but also to the claim that making an RVI argument should be a VI against as well).
While my objective is to be tabula rasa, I will say that I would prefer a policy focused debate to a kritik focused one. I will try not to let that influence my evaluation of the arguments as best I can, however. In some of the few recent debates I’ve seen, some kritiks (like cap) ended up looking (to me) very similar to some of the cps we ran in my day (like socialism or anarchy). That would constitute a policy debate in my book.
Tactical Considerations
Spreading—I have no bias against it (I was quite fast long ago). But since I am rusty, you want to make sure the argument gets on my flow. Remember not only am I a bit rusty, but I haven’t heard many of these cards or arguments before (or not for a long time), and that also makes it a little harder to flow. Some ways to make sure my flow has on it what you want on it:

Be extra clear on the tag line and cite.
If there is particularly important language in a card, emphasize it for me.
Number all your arguments. That makes it really clear when a new argument that needs to flowed separately starts.
When you refer to your opponent’s argument, don’t just give me the name and date of their card, I might not have gotten it down. Refer to it by substance
Go a little slower on the analytics than on the cards. I can call for the card after the round, but not the analytic.

Evidence comparison—I’m very receptive to critiques of the sources, evidence in the card, or the interpretation of the card. This can often be a much faster way to defeat an argument than to read 5 more of your own cards. It is far from inconceivable that you could convince me that your one card (potentially even no cards, just analytics) are more compelling than their 5 or 10 cards.

Kritiks—If it is a more novel kritik (e.g., not cap) that might not be similar to anything that anyone ran 30 years ago, you will have to spend a little more time explaining it to me than someone who has been judging debates recently. I won’t know the jargon and won’t have heard the argument before. Make sure I understand it.

What makes a good debate for me
Explain to me why, despite all the cards and arguments your opponent read, your arguments should prevail. The more you can create a (convincing) story that takes into account what the opponent says and still suggests you should win, the better off you'll be. This is true for individual arguments and for the debate as a whole. For an individual argument, ways you might do this include (but are not limited to):

Evidence quality comparison--some possible examples: (i) our evidence is from peer-reviewed journals or more respected scholars, theirs is from unreviewed blogs or unknown people; (ii) our evidence is based on well-done empirical studies or is historically validated, theirs is just unsupported opinion; (iii) our evidence is more recent and (this is the critical step) the conditions have changed in some important way since theirs was written; (iv) our evidence explains why its conclusions are true, theirs just asserts it.
Evidence relevance comparison: (i) Their cards don't really say what the tag says; (ii) The unhighlighed part of the card suggests the a somewhat different claim; (iii) Their cards are referring to a somewhat different situation or set of conditions; (iv) their cards don't consider some aspect of our plan or counterplan that undermines the argument.
Evidence aggregation: I just made this term up (I think). What it means to me is that you can tell a story that says even if their cards are right, you have an explanation for why you win this argument anyway because of some other factor that their cards don't properly take into account but that you show is very important. This could be a time frame argument, a different mechanism or actor deals with this issue argument, a probability argument.

For the whole debate, ways you might do this are:

We are winning argument X, this trumps every other argument because of Y.
The impacts on the arguments we are winning are bigger
Our extinction scenario happens first
We have many different extinction scenarios that are independent, even if each one is less likely than their one, the probability that none of them will occur is way smaller
Our impacts are supported by stronger arguments/better evidence than theirs, so you should view them as more plausible

The main point of all this is to say, feed me the explanation that you want me to give after the debate when I say why I voted the way I did. I'm going to have to give a good reason for why I voted for you despite the fact that your opponents made a number of good arguments. Don't make me come up with that myself because I might not aggregate the issues and evidence the way you want me to unless you explain to me how to do it in a sensible way in your favor.

Michael Wyxykowski Westwood High School 7 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 6, 2020 at 12:26 PM CDT

Affiliation: Westwood High School

General: I'm open-minded and willing to vote for any argument if you can convince me to vote for it. Spark/Nuclear malthus/wipeout/your weird K are potentially interesting, racism good/patriarchy good/other things along these lines aren't arguments. Try to be nice in round, have fun, and learn something. Keeping this in mind, take everything I say below with a grain of salt.

Email for evidence chain purposes: mjrwyzykowski@gmail.com

Slight personal biases:
I tend to not find "risk of" arguments compelling. It is possible for a side to win impact/internal link take outs and have that effect the round in a meaningful way in the context of net benefits etc.

I tend to be more compelled by structural impacts more so than risks of nuclear war etc.

Topicality: I don't particularly enjoy topicality debates and I tend to think of T in terms of competing interpretations.

Theory: I don't particularly enjoy theory debates.
I tend to err aff on theory in the context of abusive counterplans.
I tend to err neg on conditionality, unless the neg has presented an obnoxious number of conditional advocacies.
Most theory is a reason to reject the argument, unless it's an argument the negative has gone for (you said 50 state fiat was bad and won that argument when they went for the states counterplan), or conditionality. As a result, don't waste time reading your theory block (except in the context of condo) when you're kicking the counterplan in the block. Just address them as a reason to reject the counterplan. Aff's conversely shouldn't try and win on these theory arguments that a negative has kicked out of (except in the context of condo).

Disads: They're great. The more specific the evidence, the better. Super specific, well researched disads are probably the most compelling arguments in front of me.
I usually think the link determines the direction of the link.

Counter Plans: Not a large fan of abusive counterplans or pics, but otherwise they're cool.

Kritiks: I really like K's. They're interesting, and force both teams to view the debate in a new lens. My largest complaint however is when a team comes up, reads a generic K with generic evidence and doesn't really explain how it interacts with the other side.
On the neg-
There is a large chance I won't really know what you're talking about if your argument isn't biopower/security/cap/fem. That's okay if you want to read a critical argument that's not one of the above, it just puts extra emphasis on your ability to explain it well.
I'm generally not persuaded by generic links with little to no analysis specific to the affirmative.
Explain to me why I should evaluate your criticism first
Explain to me how your criticism interacts with the affirmatives impacts and internal links
On the aff-
Instrumentally affirming the resolution on the affirmative is important. If you don't instrumentally affirm the resolution in some way, I am very sympathetic to framework arguments. I think policy making is an important mechanism for enacting change in the real world and we should play devil's advocate if we don't agree with that sentiment. That being said, I am much happier judging non-instrumental affirmatives that do topic specific research instead of reading generic colonialism bad, state bad etc arguments.

Justin Yoon Liberal Arts and Science Academy - LBJ High School 7 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Novice Round Up

2016 — TX/US

CX Paradigm List

Judges