Frank Annie

Assistant coach at Florida State University

Debated at West Virginia University

Updated 2/17/16

My paradigm is simply, I am completely open to any case or plan. I enjoy hearing more theoretical cases vs more real world plans. But this is not to say that if a real world plan is run correctly I will not vote for it. Nothing is off the table from being used within rounds I judge. Topicality is welcome and encourage teams to use it if it fits their strategy     

***Assuming there are no more non-paperless teams out there: Prep time ends when the usb drive leaves your computer. None of this 20 minutes to save the file. I suggest having your speech doc already on the drive so you can just hit save and be done.

I can keep up with any speed and I'm a pretty good flower. But if you're disorganized (jumping between flows, not sign posting, reading random cards without any clear purpose) you might lose me.

Feel free to ask questions before the round or email me

 Fha13@my.fsu.edu

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

I debated with Binghamton University and previously helped coach Vanderbilt University.

I'm going to try and keep this short and simple. Here are some general thoughts:

Cross-Ex: I love a good cross-ex. I will flow it sometimes if something sticks out to me or if someone tells me to flow it. It's probably binding.

Theory/Topicality/Framework: Go for your theory args if you think you have a legitimate claim. You need to prove substantial in round abuse. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. Topicality is definitely not my area of expertise but I'll vote for it. If you're going for it in your last speech make sure to spend most of your time on it to convince me that it's so important that I should decide the round on it. I'll vote for framework if you win it; however, if the aff can show that they are reasonably related to the topic then I think you should be able to engage them in some way.

Kritiks/Critical Affs: Kritiks are what I am most experienced in, although I did not run many 'high theory' kritiks. My familiarity does not mean however than I will just autovote for you because you're running a k. I will hold you to a high standard when running these arguments. Also, don't just assume I know your kritik; you still have to explain and warrant it out. Try to get specific links from their 1AC/2AC rather than just using generic links.

Counterplans: The best counterplans are usually case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates. I'm not a huge fan of consult counterplans but I will vote for them if you win them.

Disads: Uniqueness is key with disads. Impact framing and a clear, defined link are generally necessary to win your disad.

Case: Case arguments are a great tool that usually go underutilized. Make sure that if your strategy is to go for a specific case argument that it's not a two second blip in most of the debate and then the 2AR spends six minutes on it.

Most importantly of all, have fun and do what you do best!

More to follow at a later time but here is the jist:

I think that the affirmative should do something and have an interpretation that gives both sides equal opporunity to win based on pre round preperation and in round execution. I think negatives should respond to the affirmative and tell me why they are wrong. 

K- I probably haven't read the literature base but I have done debate long enough to see most K's. I think an aff's best opportunity for offense is the alternative and generally find rejection alt's to be unpersuasive, the negative needs to go a step further and say what I'm rejecting in favor of and how that occurs from my ballot.

Theory- For me to vote on it I think the argument must be made coherently originally (Link, warrant, impact) then expanded upon and developed by later speechs. Half sentence theory arg that are shadow extended won't cut it . Conditionality is probably fine to an extent but can be done abusively. I generally don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team rather an excuse for the aff to go wild on the perm debate. Agent CP's are okay. Delay/Consult /Review cp's I'm less a fan of but have run/voted for them. 

DA's- yes please, politics, tradeoff etc. I like them.

Case- Case debate is under utalized and a good block can really do some damage by investing time here.

Neil Butt -- Vanderbilt University

District: 6

CEDA Region: Southeast

I have judged ADA/CEDA/NDT since: 1992

I have judged policy debate since: 1988

Background:

I debated for George Mason University 1988-1992.

I coached for George Mason University 1992-2000.

I coached for John Carroll University 2000-2005.

I coached for Wayne State University 2005-2008.

I was Director of Debate for Vanderbilt University (2010-2019).

My email is: neilsbutt@gmail.com. I would like to be included on email chains.

***Updates for October 2018***

The recent ADA rule change to further limit decision time may be too much for me. There were good reasons to put caps on decision times (in fact I probably WAS one of those reasons), but this further cut leaves me concerned that I will not have enough time to make a thorough decision and generate useful feedback. I will probably be limiting my judging even further this year, and intend to limit myself to Novice and/or JV debate, to mitigate the impact of the lack of time.

Framework (Modified again)

The affirmative should advocate a topical course of action. How we determine what is topical is still up for debate.

This document has a concise list at the top for pre-round scans, and more detail below. Right before the round you probably just want to know what to avoid, and are probably not interested in my rationale for why you should avoid it. If you are figuring out long-term prefs, the nuances may be more relevant.

Short Version: Be Nice. Be Clear.

Basic Stuff

Judging time

In the past, I have tended to take a while. Recent community moves to reduce decision time have sometimes made me feel rushed. If this is a concern for you, read more on this below.

I am also likely to just call for speech documents, rather than individual cards, after the round. I am not going to read everything, reconstruct the round, or steal your cards (though I might get cites)—I just want to save some time by eliminating the need to find specific cards and create new documents.

Prep time

I run prep until the other team (not your partner) has the flash drive. For more specific prep scenarios, see below.

Arguments

1. If the negative counterplans, presumption shifts affirmative. The negative must win a clear net-benefit (more than a "direction arrow") to win the debate. This shouldn't really change how you debate, but it helps me resolve “ties.”

2. Absent specific arguments otherwise, if the 2NR extends a conditional CP, I will not consider the SQ as an option, i.e., I won’t make that decision for the negative. If the 2NR kicks the CP and goes for case, that’s fine.

3. I’m OK with most Kritiks, so don’t panic because you saw my position on Framework above. Most of the Kritiks I have judged recently haven’t relied on winning a framework debate anyway. If you are negative and running a Kritik with an alternative that operates outside of a policy framework: I would like to consider myself agnostic in Framework debates, but my voting record in close framework debates seems to favor “traditional” frameworks lately (more below). I am definitely happiest judging a case debate, maybe with an advantage counterplan and disadvantages, but I have voted for a lot of other stuff.

4. If you win “Fairness Bad,” you lose (for reasons that should be self-evident). You can obviously feel free to make arguments that contextualize fairness, as long as you aren’t making a totalizing claim.

5. Don’t ask me to assess individual debater emotions or sincerity. Do not make the claim that you are sincere and they are not. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt unless there’s evidence to the contrary.

6. I probably have a lower threshold for voting on theory than most judges, but I do have a threshold, that threshold has actually gone up a little. I am not going to vote for something that I couldn’t initially flow. The key is starting clear. Most 2AC blocks I hear on theory are unflowable.

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

You should be clear and should not rely on me to intervene to make you clear.

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t get every cite initially when I flow, but I listen carefully for references to specific cites, especially in the rebuttals. That said, I don’t think “Jones ’98 answers this” is an argument. “Jones ’98 says fertility is high now so the turns aren’t unique” is much better.

Tags that are a paragraph long totally defeat my ability to flow them. It generally results in me writing down random words that are somewhere in the tag, which may or may not enable me to get references to them later in the debate.

You need to identify what you are answering—don’t assume I know.

If you think there is a new argument in the 1AR or 1NR, you need to point it out. If I hear them in the 2NR/2AR I will try to find and disallow them myself.

The Rest

I take ethical issues very seriously. If you argue your opponents are taking evidence out of context, then that will become the only issue in the round, and you better be able to prove it.

I pay attention to CX. I don’t flow it, per se, but if you say something in CX I will hold you to it unless there was an obvious misunderstanding or something. It’s OK if there are more than two participants in CX, but not at the same time, and please don’t marginalize your partner.

I like debates about evidence qualifications and bias, and don’t see enough of them.

I like clear debates (fast or slow)—though maybe you should slow down a little for analytical/theory/critical arguments as those can be harder to flow.

Be nice (to EVERYONE). That includes, and is especially true of, your partner. I don’t care if your partner IS a tool—they’re putting up with you too and you’d be nowhere without them.

ADA Rules

If (and only if) I am judging you at an ADA tournament: ADA Rules. I am a firm believer in the ADA. I don’t like all the rules, but I regard that as a reason to try to amend them, not to selectively enforce them. I will self-impose rules that apply to me, but I leave most infractions to the debaters to point out (e.g.: full cites, counterplan theory, etc.). Don’t bother arguing that I shouldn’t follow the rules. Feel free to debate about how the rules should be enforced, and whether certain “punishments” fit certain “crimes.” I will vote on these issues (I have done so in the past).

More Detail

Judging time

I’m a slow judge (deciding—not flowing). Left to my own devices, I take a while to decide. The recent community moves to reduce decision time have impacted my judging. While it has been great to finish before all the restaurants close and to get a little more sleep, it has definitely affected how I decide rounds. It is no longer “the best decision I can make,” it is “the best decision I can make in 40 minutes” (or 30 or whatever the specific tournament calls for). I have to take shortcuts and don’t get to double-check things. The most difficult part has been generating feedback. In novice and most JV rounds, I still have time to generate a lot of suggestions and talk to the debaters after the debate. In many varsity rounds, I generally have to focus exclusively on the decision, and find it is more difficult to answer questions like: “What should I have done differently in the 1AR?” (though I will, of course, still try).

Prep time

Given that I have less time to decide, and your stealing prep comes out of my decision time, I am getting more strict about prep time. Yelling “Stop prep!” annoys me. “I'm ready,” or something similar serves the same purpose without grating on me. Either way, if you are paperless, I am going to keep running prep until the other team gets the flash drive. If you give it to your partner first, I am still running prep time. If you didn’t already set up your collapsible lectern, that’s prep time. When your partner asks you a question about the 1NR after you have given the 2NC roadmap, that’s prep time. When you are out of prep time and aren’t moving fast enough to start the 2NR/2AR, I’m starting speech time. I hate to be a curmudgeon about such things, but fair is fair (and I want time for my decision—see above).

Frameworks, Projects, Performance, etc.

*My philosophy evolves when I grow uncomfortable with how my decisions work out. I have been increasingly uncomfortable with my decisions in Framework debates (and just judging them in general). I have had to explain to teams that they lost to an approach they could not have been reasonably expected to be prepared for, and I have had to vote against teams that, given their framing of the debate, saw my decision as a rejection of them as individuals (which is obviously not how I saw it, but I don’t get to decide how they see it). I have reluctantly decided that I need to narrow the focus of the rounds I judge. Please do NOT read my change in philosophy as an endorsement of one approach over another. I realize that it functionally plays out that way if I’m judging you, but that begs the question of whether I should be judging you. In a world of ubiquitous MPJ, I see it more like registering for one class instead of another, and/or like picking a section based on how well that instructor matches what you want to get out of the class. I realize I could resolve this in the other direction (e.g., I won’t accept any framework arguments, so anything goes), but I also have to be realistic about my preferences and expertise. Traditional and non-traditional approaches are both potentially educationally valuable, just like different classes are. “Women, Rhetoric, and Social Change” and “Argumentation and Debate” could both be good classes, but while I could teach the former, given that I’ve done graduate work in Feminist criticism, why would I when Bonnie Dow can do a much, much better job? [This section is really just a brief synopsis of my decision—there’s more I could say, and am happy to discuss it if you would like.]

Since I might be judging a negative team with a Kritik that assumes a non-policy framework, I’ll include elements from my previous philosophy: My recent record on framework debates has been about 50-50. As indicated above, I’d like to think I can be completely open on these issues, but I’m not sure I am, and my shift regarding Topical affirmatives certainly highlights this. My Dissertation was about how we teach argumentation and debate, so I like the issues involved in Framework debates (“traditional” and “non-traditional”), but don’t like how many of the framework debates I’ve judged play out. The arguments I’ve seen tend to mutually indict each other’s assumptions, making resolution very difficult, absent some work by the debaters to clear things up. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile my desire not to intervene with what I feel is my responsibility as an educator. At any rate, just make sure it’s clear. I won’t vote on anything I can’t understand, but if you can get me to understand, I will listen.

Theory

I think teams let their opponents get away with far too much. Some Affirmatives succeed with cases that there is no way a Negative could be prepared for. Some Negatives succeed with counterplans that don’t leave the Affirmative a shred of ground. I’ll buy that just about anything is legitimate, but I’ll also buy that just about anything is illegitimate (by the way, Affs DO NOT win 70% of the time). Absent the imposition of rules (like what the ADA used to do), the only way to check unfair or anti-educational practices is with theory debates.

I default to policymaking and/or stock issues if that seems to be the assumption the teams I’m watching are making (and I prefer to view the debate as a policymaker), but it is easy to change my default perspective by making some arguments that I should view the round a different way.

Other than ethical issues or fairness issues, I don’t like punishing people much. For example, I think it would be very difficult to persuade me to vote against someone because they used the wrong pronoun a couple of times during a speech (and yet, I have done just that in at least one round—so much for preferences and predispositions…).

It kind of blows my mind that current community norms seem to be that people have to “mark” cards during their speech, but that negative teams don’t have to identify the nature of the counterplan until CX…

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

Clarity is your responsibility. It used to throw me off when judges interrupted my speeches, so I’m reluctant to intervene in yours. I’m also not sure what the threshold for intervention should be. If I just missed a non-critical word or two, we are probably both better off if I don’t interrupt. If I can’t understand you for several seconds in a row, I’m likely to yell, “Clear!” I’ll do that a couple of times and then give up. If I can flow the words but don’t understand the argument, I’ll just hope it gets clarified in CX and ensuing speeches. I am even more reluctant to intervene when I am on a panel, because if the other judges are getting it, I don’t want to throw you off (of course they may be thinking the same thing, and you may be digging yourself a hole and not know it…).

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t like to make applications or cross-applications for debaters. It begs the question of whether they knew about the application in the first place. So if you assume something “obviously” answers something else, you might be disappointed.

Speech docs seem to be undermining some folks’ ability to flow and follow a flow. Since I rely on my flow, this can be a problem. You still have to answer analytical arguments that are not in the speech doc. You shouldn’t answer arguments they didn’t make. While teams should not be giving you a messed-up speech doc, you also should not be up in arms because the 1NR gave you some solvency cards they didn’t get to at the bottom of the document.

So…

My philosophy seems more grumpy than it used to. I think it is just a matter of having to spell things out that I didn’t have to before, given trends in what debaters do. I wouldn’t read too much into it. I’m not actually especially grumpy, and I’m happy to answer your questions.

I totally love debate. I wish I could still debate. Good Luck folks!

I am no debate expert. At this point, debate enthusiast is probably a more fitting description of what I am. All that to say, hear me out and pref me accordingly. I was a policy debater for 4 years in the Chicago Debate League & I competed for 4 years on both the JV circuit and Varsity circuit for Samford University. It took me two years to learn that my talent and gift lie more with teaching debate and judging more so than my actual desire to debate. Had I applied myself a little more, I probably could have been a more competitive debater but meh- allegedly I'm an adult now and that's the past. Pay attention because this provides context for my actual paradigm; see below.

Debate is a game. Debate is a simulation. Debate is real life. Debate is an opportunity to model real life policy making. All of these things are true, and all of these things have a place in debate and deserve to be truth tested within the confines of the rules that exist unless you can articulate a reasonable argument that it is not. I will not tell you what arguments you can and cannot run. I think teams deserve the right to run the arguments that make sense to them, they are comfortable defending, and are prepared to argue. The real question is whether or not you are willing to do the work to earn my ballot.

I am a lazy judge. I will listen to you, and I will flow. I will vote on the arguments that make sense to me based on the work you do in the round. I will not go out of my way to prove I am competent by explaining high level theory knowing you will probably only retain 3 percent of what I say post round. While I will talk about the arguments, I will mostly provide feedback related to the procedural element of debate. If you see me in the back of the room, it is mostly as a favor to an old debate bud, which means that I am probably vaguely familiar with the topic, if at all, and have zero desire to spend time explaining how things came to be within the topic. If you have specific questions about the topic we can talk about it however, my goal is to ensure you receive the feedback you need to be a better debater- the topics change, the skills to actually be a good, competitive debater will not. After we have addressed the most important skills, I will talk about the actual round.

Arguments:

Again- Run the arguments you are comfortable with. If you can explain it and defend it, I will vote on it. Being a policy debater, from a very policy-oriented team, my typical wheelhouse of argumentation involved strong case arguments, disadvantages, T, and Counterplans with the occasional Neolib or Cap K. That's not to say I won't vote on anything else or refuse to commit to learning anything new- If you are going to run more high theory arguments, understand you will have to spend more time explaining the warrants in the cards and how it relates to the round. If you cannot do that, do what you do but good luck. You leave a lot of responsibility on me to figure it out and you may or may not like how I apply it to the round. I only draw the line with arguments that are discriminatory, hateful, and/or harmful. If it is from a place of ignorance, I will spend time to address it and enlighten you on why the arguments have no place in debate. If I feel it is done purposely to demean or hurt your opponent, I am prepared to end the round with a ballot in favor of the opponent enduring the abuse, severely dock speaker points of the perpetrators and I will address it with you and the coaches of both teams. I won't mince words. Consider yourself warned.

T and Procedural theory arguments are very valid debate strategies, however, be prepared to really spend time on it if you want me to vote on it. My threshold for these arguments is incredibly high given that a lot of teams aren't very good at articulating anything other than "our opponents dropped it." I need to know why the standards are important, I need to know what ground is lost, I need to know how this round sets the precedent for the remainder of the academic year on the topic. If you're going to commit to these kinds of arguments, commit.

Disads: Please make sure your warrants in the cards match the tags. I read cards. If it doesn't make sense, I am going to make fun of them. Tag your cards accordingly. Sincerely, Every Judge Ever.

Counterplans: You have the burden of proving you provide the better Alternative that is 1percent better than the plan. It is not enough that you provide an alternative. Do the work.

Kritiks: Not my favorite arguments in debate but again if that's your thing, have at it. You have the burden of proving why they are the starting point before we can even begin to acknowledge the aff plan.

I will not argue about my decision with you or your coaches. I said what I said.

More than anything, as a judge, my primary responsibility to facilitate a safe space for young people to have fun while discussing very important topics that shape the world around them. This is an extra-curricular activity and not anything that warrants stress and despair. While we are here, we are going to respect each other, learn together, and grow our skills. I will not tolerate any language or posturing that indicates otherwise.

All of these seem intuitive I think but alas... the opposite has happened enough to where for a while I entertained the idea that the quality of debate was rapidly diminishing. Jury's still out.

If you have any specific questions that I didn't cover here, please feel free to ask prior to start of the round.

FYI: My face tends to say everything my mouth won't. I have gotten pretty good at filtering what I say however, I am not responsible for what my face does when people start talking. Do with that what you will.

Brandon Evans

Assistant Coach at Vanderbilt University 2014-present

Debated at Binghamton University 2011-2014

Throughout my career, I have had experience debating "traditionally" (topical policy affirmatives, multiple off) and not (kritikal affirmatives, 1-off kritik in every round, occasionally performance). I love this community and everyone in it so long as you do not preach hate and intolerance. I will try my best to judge whatever arguments you choose to run in front of me with an open mind.

Flashing Evidence: Please be competent at paperless debate if you are paperless. Prep ends when you say so before flashing, but do not take advantage of this and do not give me any reason to believe you are stealing prep.

Speaking: If I cannot understand you, I might say "Clear" or "Louder" once or move my seat. Speed is fine. Good debaters are fast and clear; great debaters know when to slow down and use emphasis for rhetorical flourishes.

Flowing: Be clear as to how you want me to flow your arguments. The form of your arguments can affect the way I evaluate their content. This does not mean you have to abide by the traditional line-by-line. If you ask me to evaluate the round holistically and invoke performative elements, I will take this into account while avoiding judge intervention.

Calling for Evidence: I will do it if I have to. You should be able to utilize your evidence such that this is unnecessary unless the opponent contests your reading of it.

Kritiks: My favorite. I was not a philosophy major, so you will need to synthesize your high theory into something that is understandable to someone who does not necessarily have your background knowledge (what you should be doing anyway). I should have at least a shallow understanding of any major critical author you cite, but I should not have to utilize this understanding at all vote for you. You should care about the issues you are talking about, even if you would like to experiment and advocate for a solution you do not necessarily agree with. All links should have an implication. Unless you intend to prove that the plan is bad, you should present an alternative Role of the Ballot; if you do so effectively, I view your links as procedural violations. I would prefer you to phrase kritiks this way instead of running plan-inclusive kritiks because you should win that the stasis of the debate is not the plan.

Theory (General): Proving in-round abuse is helpful, but potential abuse can be a voter. I think fairness is an internal-link to education and not a voter. I prefer substantative standards (Ex. Condo is bad for activism over strategy skew). I am open to reasonability as an argument; I am not sure why competing interpretations necessitates judge intervention any more than reasonability as there is no absolute definition to anything.

Framework: I will vote for it if you win it, though I would encourage at least some substantive engagement as well. If the team running a K aff does its job and explains why what it is doing in this space matters, it should not be hard to find other points of clash. If they do not do this and defend nothing other than some oppressive system being bad, then framework might be a more viable option for me. Remember, if you win an alternative Role of the Ballot, you do not need to disagree with the entirety of their project to highlight a significant flaw with it and win for it; the aff is in serious trouble if it tries to use theory to avoid substantial criticism. Read my section on topicality for other details. Aside from that, I would like to see K affs make connections to the topic and not just allude to it briefly as a prerequisite to talk about other things.

Topicality: If both sides agree that the debate should be about the theoretical enactment of a policy option, topicality becomes a much easier sell for me. Spend the necessary time on T in the 2NR or it will be hard for me to vote on it. Field-contextual interpretations are best, as otherwise, the interpretation can be construed as a self-serving. It always helps to provide a topical version of the aff.

Disads: Turning the case makes it easier for me to vote on the D/A alone than just outweighing it. That being said, merely saying "the D/A turns the case" is not an argument because that statement can mean any number of things. Impact calculus is absolutely essential. I disagree that the importance of an impact is equal to the probability of it times its magnitude. I would advise you to argue that probability is a more important factor than magnitude or the other way around. I am more prone by default to weigh high-probability, lesser magnitude impacts over high-magnitude, microscopic probability impacts. Packaging your impacts as at least relatively realistic helps. A clear "no link" might make me vote on zero-risk, but understand that offense / defense makes this a rough place for a judge to be in.

Counter-plans: The block should give in-depth comparisons between the plan and the counter-plan instead of keeping it as generic as it was in the 1NC. Without this, small PiCs often become hard to adjudicate. Advantage counter-plans are highly underrated. Clearly explain the competition between the two policy options. Permutations need net-benefits in order to win.

Recording: I will be continuing to record rounds with Vanderbilt, and I plan to continue featuring them on Binghamton Speech & Debate's Live Policy Debate Collection. I am also in the process of learning how to effectively stream rounds. If you would like to have your round recorded, talk to me about it. I will not publish anything without the permission of all parties involved.

Ryan Galloway

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances.”I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

1. I prefer if you number your arguments.
2. Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
3. I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
4. I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leaving me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
5. I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
6. I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
7. I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
8. I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
9. I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
10. I still believe in a place called Hope.

Kirk Gibson

Updated 09/12/2020

First things first - this year is incredibly challenging for all of us. I absolutely hate that you can’t experience the thrill of the season opener like I was fortunate to experience. No one ever feels ready for the season opener and no matter how you do at this tournament or at future tournaments, be kind to yourselves! It took dozens of universities like two years to begin the transition to paperless debate when I was a junior in college. You have had to adapt to remote debate in a fraction of the time with *gestures broadly* all of this happening. Take some time to decompress and do something nice for yourself. Eat and sleep well. The number of people at my current job that care about my record at the season opener in 2010 is zero. My mom doesn’t even care and she loves me a lot. Just find happiness and be a good person.

==Boring Biographical Stuff==

If your coaches don’t know me and you want boring biographical stuff: I debated at Emory from 2007 to 2011. I made the octas of the NDT. After that, I briefly coached at Emory before taking a job at Pace Academy, where I coached two NDCA champions. I have been out of debate since 2016 when I changed careers. I am now a social worker and I have worked with individuals facing the death penalty and I now work with restaurant workers who are facing homelessness due to unexpected medical or personal crises.

==Season Opener/Online Debate Relevant Stuff==

You should know that I haven’t even judged a practice debate on Zoom yet. I tend to be pretty expressive when I judge but because, presumably, I’ll be on mute during your speech, I will gesture if you need to be more clear or slow down. I will chime in during CX if I didn’t understand something that both teams seem to get (e.g. acronyms). It is my plan to flow on paper.

==How I Evaluate Framework And Other Impacts==

I wrote several versions of this and cannot seem to be as concise as I wish I could be, so I apologize in advance but I hope it at least helps you understand the experiences that shaped how I relate to debate.

In some ways, I have become quite a bit softer since I debated. My experiences working with people who are facing or experiencing homelessness and who have experienced life changing trauma has undoubtedly shaped how I evaluate impact and role of the ballot claims. In other ways, I was always skeptical of arguments that suggested debate was a site for social change and that belief has, unfortunately, hardened in the last decade. It has made me really quite sad to see the number of my contemporaries and former students who went into corporate litigation, big tech, finance, etc. while being aware of the incredible amount of injustice in the world.

I am also skeptical of arguments that center themselves on individual trauma or are based around intra-debate arguments. I believe that the competitive incentive corrupts our ability to actually process trauma in a productive way. I want to be the kind of human being and social worker who is a resource you can speak with so if you are actually struggling in debate, please know that you are not alone and you should feel that you can reach out to me.

I view debate strictly as a game. It has incredible educational benefits (I wish it had more psychosocial benefits), but no individual round changes anything. It's funny thinking about that argument now. Would my client who is facing homelessness care that I voted in a particular way to affirm a certain principal? Absolutely not. This doesn’t necessarily mean I’m a policymaker! Many policies are “good” because they are based on a calculation that doesn’t include the marginalized. Other times, I could decide that something may be “bad policy” but ethically the right thing to do. I guess all of this is to say that I think "policymaking" and "utilitarianism" is often grouped together and too many judges, when I debated, were fairly unwilling to vote on an ethical basis (and also accepted a certain kind of evidence).

I have yet to see a topic that doesn’t offer many ways to critique how that policy has been formulated to exclude groups of people. As such, I am still skeptical of any claims of the topic as a metaphor. I am dismissive of the argument that “we’ve been running this for a while so you should be prepared”.

==DA/Case==

I think the “direction of the link” people took things to an extreme when I debated and were nearly unwilling to evaluate uniqueness claims. I never understood this and I hope that the caricature I have in my head is just that.

I loved impact turns when I debated. That absolutely hasn’t changed.

==Counterplan Stuff==

I do not like to vote on counterplans that are not grounded in the literature. I nearly refuse to vote on the states CP (I know that’s not relevant this year), and I am a heavy lift on process CPs. If you have something that mentions the plan and was predictable when researching it (not just predictable because debate has tolerated it for years) then that’s different.

Under no circumstances will I kick the counterplan for the negative team. One of the great things about debate is being forced to make strategic decisions in a limited time. Who am I to rob you of that opportunity?

==Other Things of Varying Importance==

1. Debate is not a card submission activity. Extending a card is not a substitute for talking about it.

2. You are more likely to win on a well reasoned analytic than saying “DA not intrinsic,” even if the latter is dropped. It does not constitute a full argument.

3. Not everything needs evidence, we’re all human and watch the news/are aware of things going on. Most things benefit from evidence, however.

4. Please don’t quote parts of this at me. I don’t like that.

5. I watched a lot of debaters be rude to hotel staff and servers. It’s weird what stands out in our memories. If things return to how they used to be, and I really hope they do, please know that the person who serves your food or drinks at a tournament could be one sinus infection away from not being able to pay their rent. Be kind to them and tip them well.

6. Similarly, you should be nice to each other. That was always true before, it’s even more true via Zoom. Let your opponent ask the question and let your opponent answer the question. You know, basic stuff.

7. If you have dogs or cats at the location that you are debating from, I absolutely want to see them during down time. If you don't have pets, I will be equally happy if you share something else with us!

If you have any questions whatsoever, you should feel free to reach out to me at kirkgibson1 at gmail.

I debated for Samford University and am currently a graduate assistant coach at the University of Georgia.  

Be clear.

The quick checklist:

1) I consider myself a “policy judge” who privileges the importance of the link over the impact

2) I love good theory debates and am willing and ready to vote against what most call “negative flexibility”

3) Debate is a game (truth is important, but tech first) and my ballot will only determine who wins the debate, not which political stance or movement I am aligned with.

My “biases” are not harsh rules for debate. You are certainly best off doing what you usually do in front of me – I will work hard to understand your arguments, flow, and evaluate the round with as little intervention as possible. 

T: Reasonability. In order to prove the aff/neg is being unreasonable – talk about what the world of debate would look like if I endorse their interpretation. Caselists and in depth impact calculus will go a long way here. 

Theory: I am more than ready to curtail the community norm of unlimited negative flexibility. I do not think a team has to win the debate has become “impossible” in order to win an abuse claim. Topic education is paramount.

CPs: I love counterplans that test the intrinsicness of the plan to the advantages of the aff. PICs are great. Word PICs are not. I am more than ready to reject the following CPs : consult, agent Cps, international fiat, process CPs, CPs that compete off the certainty or immediacy of the plan. 

Ks: What can I say? Grad school changes a person. After years of judging, coaching, and familiarizing myself with critical arguments, I feel like I am in place to better adjudicate these debates. Still, specific links to the aff are crucial. Generic criticisms, like generic policy strategies, are boring to watch and will get you bad speaker points (and a loss).

Performance: While my experience is in policy debates, I am more than willing to listen and evaluate arguments here just as I do in those policy debates. I generally think the role of the ballot is decide who won or lost a debate (did the best debating, made the best arguments), so asking me to use my ballot to send a signal or align with a particular movement will need a strong defense. 

DAs: I will vote on zero risk of the link – you don’t need offense to beat the DA to zero. Talk about how your impact interacts with the opponent’s.  

Speaker Points: I will reward debaters for specific strategies, (good) jokes, and not stealing prep. 

Speaker point scale:

27-27.5: Did some good things, but needs a lot of improvement. Typically includes a lot of technical drops. Will not clear at a national tournament, will probably go 2-6 or worse if you debate like this every round.

27:5-28: Answered all the important arguments, but didn't do evidence comparison, sufficient impact calculus, or give me a clear way to vote for you. Will likely go 3-5. 

28-28.5: Did a lot of things right, but didn't wow me.  4-4 debating. 

28.5-29:Excelled in the cross-ex, has a positive ethos throughout the round, did evidence comparison, impact calculus, and made smart arguments and connections. You should be 5-3 or better.

29-29.5: Outstanding debating all around. You belong in the elims. No missing on points for you!

29.5-30: Rare. Reserved for the best speeches i've seen all year. 

Misc: Be aggressive. Have fun. Learn something. 

Paperless: I’m lenient. Don’t take advantage of it. 

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

I plan to clap when the round is done; your effort is appreciated!

Argument Defaults

Preference - The good ones about the topic. Most of my research is on the policy side, but lucky to interact with great debaters and coaches across a wide spectrum of approaches for many years.

Topicality - Yes offense first; defense is essential. Impact turning or going just with reasonability without a quality counter-interp rarely wins.

Policy Aff v the K - Specificity is crucial for both sides. It's rare that I don't consider both the effects of the plan and the scholastic/rhetorical choices including the interactions between the two. Aff's should be prepared to defend the claims made in the 1ac. Winning the world is ordered by an oppressive structure is not enough.

CP Theory - Legitimacy of process CP's increases with more specific advocates. Some conditionality most likely OK - go beyond 2 or 3 or 2nc CP out of impact turns to do the opposite of the 1nc impact; less likely to be ok.

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

- Articulate when reading! There has been an increasing trend in debates I watch where syllables are consistently muddled or skipped. I'll yell clearer. If I yell it twice know that you are in the danger zone.

- Cross Ex Matters! and it has a time limit – I listen, flow, and those who reference answers from the CX are likely to get higher points. When the timer goes off, it's judge prep even if the two teams decide to continue the CX during prep time. If the two side agree on something when a judge is not there "ex. neg agreed they could kick planks or part of the alt"...please fill me in.

- Smart Analytics exposing flaws can go a long way. Internal link chains and neg K alt solvency are two of many places where this can potentially be effective.

- Quality of Evidence+Quality of Explanation+Quality of comparison=weight of argument

- 2 Tips for last rebuttals beyond impact calculation - Give your partners credit explicitly. Acknowledge where the other side might be correct, but why that is not enough.

Just in case it happens, some strong defaults....

- No shenanigans policy - I expect a 2v2 debate. No three person teams, no one person taking all the speech time, please don't ask for something besides a debate to determine a winner, etc. Two people speaking in the same speech, ok if part of a pre-scripted performance early in the debate. In subsequent speeches, only one person's words count.

- If you ask for a 30. Your speaker points will likely have a 3 in it; 3 will most likely not be the first number. If both you and your partner are asking for a 30, you are playing a dangerous game given the previous sentence.

- Hard to imagine myself voting on elements not related directly to an argument made in the debate (coin flips, previous debates, what their coach did, how someone interacted outside the debate, initials at the end of the card, month of the year). Verified blatant false disclosure of more than a card or two and could be a voting issue.

- Evidence ethics. Yes, follow AFA, ADA and CEDA guidelines. And also, not really trying to vote on: whether the citation includes date accessed, initials of the card cutter (or who cut the card), if there were accidental exclusions of the text that had no material effect.

ENJOY!

Andrew.j.hart@gmail.com

I have debated or coached for UGA since 2004 and debated for Stratford for 5 years before that. My knowledge and literature base exists largely on the policy side, but I am fairly ideologically neutral and well acquainted with K and K-ish args as well. After all, I have been in debate for nearly as long as many of the current high school debaters have been alive. That last sentence just hurt my soul, but it is true. My basic belief when judging is that as long as you clearly explain the argument and why it is more important than whatever the other side says, you will probably win the debate. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments fairly and without bias.

When it comes to assigning risk to an argument, I do not ascribe to an offense-defense paradigm. I can and will assign zero risk to an argument if defensive arguments are clearly won. If there is no link, there is no link. And no uniqueness if there is no uniqueness. For example, if your uniqueness evidence on a politics DA is 3-4 weeks old and the Aff has definitive evidence from a few days ago saying the opposite and cites a specific change, then there is zero risk to me. This also equally applies to advantages and solvency and pretty much all arguments. I’m perfectly willing to vote on only defensive arguments such as a perm, no link, and impact/uniqueness D, but it is still much easier to get my ballot by reading and going for offense.

I believe that debate is a communicative activity and not a judge reading comprehension test, which means I will not just call for all of the evidence at the end of the debate because it was read. I will pay attention to and flow the warrants of the evidence read if possible, so you should be clear when reading the text of the evidence if you want me to know what it says. I find that judges that just call for all of the evidence tend to reconstruct the debate in terms of evidence read instead of the arguments made. I will certainly call for evidence if necessary, typically if I did not get the substance of the evidence or if there is a debate over what the evidence actually says. Also, extend the warrants of the evidence in addition to extending the piece of evidence.

I keep a pretty decent record of the debate, but my pen does not move as fast as you speak. This means that you need to slow down when reading theory or other multiple analytical arguments in a row etc. If I do not have an argument on my flow, I cannot and will not vote for it. This also means that jumping around the flow can very quickly lead to flow chaos and potential missed arguments because I cannot just add in new cells or flow straight down and rearrange the flow during prep like on the computer.

As far as prep time goes for flashing speeches, I am reasonable if you are. You should be saving the speech when you say end prep and not continuing to copy and paste or compile the speech.

If you are caught clipping cards or cross reading or any other major ethics violations/cheating in a debate in front of me, you will immediately lose the debate. This is a very serious accusation with serious consequences, so there must be rather substantial/conclusive evidence of this occurring for me to be willing to end the debate. I have no qualms whatsoever dropping the hammer if it’s proven. If you believe that the other team has done this, speak up during C-X/prep, and we will resolve the issue before continuing the debate.

*Treat everyone in the round (and also outside the round) with respect and dignity. I understand that debate is a competitive activity that can lead to some heated arguments, but that is no excuse for being a complete jackass and a terrible human being.*

A couple of minor argument disclaimers/leanings/answer to pre round questions to note. These are clearly not strict rules and should not deter you from doing what you do best. I have voted for Condition/Consult CPs, ASPEC, non-topical Affs, and Affs that refuse to even engage the topic, and I believe that almost anything in the round is debatable with the exception of speech order and time.
1. The aff should at the very least discuss and be in the direction of the topic, so the neg at least has some reasonably predictable ground and the ability to have clash. Plans are often the best/easiest way to establish this, but they are not required – just preferred. I can and have voted for Affs that are neither in the direction of nor talk about the topic.

2. I, like most judges, do not want to have to wade through a big theory debate to decide a round. I much prefer the substance, but I will do it if needed. If you think it is your only option or that you are winning the argument and want to go for it, by all means go for it. I tend to default to reject the arg and not the team (except for condo/status) unless you can explain why the violation warrants that level of punishment. Even dropped theory arguments must be developed and explained as to why I should reject the team.

3. I tend to find the argument that counter-plans that result in the entirety of the plan, especially those with competition based off of certainty (condition, consult) are unfair/not competitive persuasive. You can certainly win the debate with these counterplans because they are strategic, and I do vote for them regularly. However the difference between strategic and unfair is a rather thin line in this area and that argument that can be won in front of me. As I said, I will evaluate the arguments based upon what happens in the debate and not my beliefs. Pointing out that this or other specific notes on arguments are in my philosophy as a justification for your argument is not an argument or reason for you to win. I wrote it. I do know what is in my philosophy. You must still effectively explain why these arguments are unfair and answer the neg arguments. There are still good reasons why these CPs should be allowed and good answers to the perm.

4. I’m not a big fan of most any spec argument. If you need to read A-SPEC to force/generate competition for an Agent CP, then by all means do it. At that point, there is a strategic value to this move. However, A-SPEC should probably not be the A-strat going into the round since it is difficult for me to envision a world in which the Aff must specify more than what the resolution demands. Occasionally, there is a good reason for a spec argument, but that is rather rare.

5. Topicality – I will vote on it if you win it and is well developed. Voting on T becomes easier if the argument is well developed beginning in the 1NC and extended with example case lists that each interp allows.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

James H. Herndon - FORMER Director of Debate - Barkley Forum @ Emory University

[prefer to be called Herndon - pronouns are he/him/his. Email is jamesherndon3]

2020 update:

I left the game because I wanted to spend more time with my family. Wow, did I get that #ThanksCovid My relationship with debate was not conducive to being the father, husband, and member of my community I wanted to be. But, virtual judging is easy enough. So, why not.

What else is different - I don’t do debate research anymore, I do a lot of economic/financial research now, I do a lot of tech/zoom/Webex presentations.

In my experience I find it easier to listen/follow along when I can see people’s faces (that’s not possible for everyone, so it’s not a judgement thing) but if it can be when speaking it may aid my comprehension.

————————

everything from Jan 2019
If I am judging you and you are freaking out about it, believe there is no way I would ever vote for you, or are just generally making assumptions about my world view, then I ask you to keep in mind that the following list are things I think I think. I have been wrong more often than I have been right. I will do my best to evaluate the debate neutrally. I view myself as an adjudicator first, and do my best to neutrally evaluate the arguments as defended in front of me. I will vote for anything

Though, like all educators I have biases, those follow.

These statements are things I believe to be true about my judging. They aren't rules. But, it is better to disclose:

1. Debate is a game. I view all theory arguments through this lens.
2. If I don’t understand it at the end of the round then I am not going to vote on it.
3. The Aff should have to defend a plan or advocacy statement that they can defend is topical.
4. Topic related critical literature should be debated.
5. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
6. I will reward good cross-x with speaker points.
7.. I tend to evaluate the strength of the link in tandem with uniqueness – neither exists in a vacuum.
8. Counterplans always switch presumption to the aff.
9. I will NOT kick counterplans for the negative. The 2nr is allowed to present me with a reason to vote for them, that is where the debating ended. If the neg says to kick the cp and the aff doesn’t answer it I will kick it. Absent that, I am not kicking arguments for one team. This applies to all speeches.
10. Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applys to everything.
11. literature shapes the topic. and what you get to do with it.
14. Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of.
15. There is value to life.

16. I am not qualified to evaluate people in the round for or about things that happen outside of the round. Intentions are important & I give people the benefit of the doubt too often for my own good.

17. I feel like fiating the states + federal government might be a step too far. I haven't heard a great debate on this, but since this is for my biases, thought I'd include it. That being said, state fiat is probably okay if there are solvency cards for what you are doing.

18. limited condo is good. the neg's job is to disprove the aff or win a competitive policy option. That being said, if the aff can prove that conditionality was used in a way that undermined the value or competitive fairness of the debate, it is a voting issue.

19. topicality is under-utilized against policy teams and over-utilized vs K teams.

20. future fiat illegit.

Good luck.

2023-24 will constitute my 31st year judging intercollegiate debate.

General comments about my judging:

1) When forced to choose, evidence-based argumentation informed by an understanding of current events is preferred to eloquent prose devoid of substance.

2) Argumentation that directly engages opponents' positions, especially strategic choices that clearly acknowledge and account for the strengths of an opponents' claims while exploiting their weaknesses is considered the highest form of debate.

3) In terms of delivery style, confidence is not measured by volume, aptitude is not proven by aggressiveness, and eye contact is always appreciated.

4) Competitors who know how to employ "Even If" statements ("Even if my opponent is correct about ______, they still lose the debate because ________") are more successful than those who assume, and speak as if, they have won all the arguments.

5) I flow, or at least try to. I don't give up on that exercise because debaters share a speech document.

Specific thoughts about judging the 2023-24 CEDA-NDT resolution:

1. Debating nuclear weapons is a relative waste of our collective intellect, and an unfortunate reminder at the shallow and superficial manner by which our community chooses what topic we will spend an entire year researching, learning about, and engaging in a contestation of contrasting perspectives. US nuclear weapons policy is neither the most salient policy issue, nor even the most pressing foreign policy issue. Sadly, our community is too narrow-minded and scared to use our powers of debate to focus our energy on other areas of public policy that would be much better for college-aged scholars to delve into.
2. My thoughts expressed above do not mean I automatically support Affirmative teams who strategically choose to talk about some other topic, regardless of how passionately they feel about it. Debate is still debate, and if you can't explain how your decision to affirm something beyond the reasonably-expected "topical ground" is both educational AND fairly debatable, then in my opinion you're not any better than the folks who are stuck in the time loop of debating NFU.
3. Especially at the start of the year, don't assume we know the acronyms and specialized vocabulary you're using. My responsibility as a judge is to give the teams my full attention and effort as an adjudicator during the round - I am not required to show up to the debate already having expert-level familiarity with whatever literature base the debaters have been immersed for the last few months - whether that be nuclear weapons policy or any other body of literature.

Final Comment:

Over the last six years, I have become heavily involved in debate outside of the US, having taught both teachers and students, high school and university level, in Africa, east Asia, and the Caribbean. One consequence of my international experience is that a lot of the ontological claims debaters in the US make about the activity (e.g., "Debate is ______" or "Debate must ________" or "________ (people) can only debate like _________" ) ring very hollow to me and reflect a naive ethnocentrism about which too many folks in the US are oblivious.

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

No longer judging

I don't have a public judge philosophy because this website is not secure. Nothing has otherwise changed, I will try to be as fair as possible and I am open to persuasion on most things. Email me if you have questions.

Open to all styles of policy debate. 20+ Years coaching college policy, 20+ years teaching policy at high school camps. Detailed philosophy removed due to lack of site security. email to lundeensb at gmail with any questions

College nuclear weapons topic - I have not been actively coaching/researching this season so keep that in mind in assuming my depth of topic knowledge or "where the community is" on any issue.

I debated for 4 years at Vanderbilt University and have now been judging and coaching there for the last 7 years. 

By default, I evaluate the debate within a policy paradigm. If you want me to evaluate it the debate in a different way you need to tell me that. I prefer CPs and a good case debate---impact analysis being key. I will listen to critical arguments, but do not assume I have read the literature. To win on a critical argument, you probably need to be making specific arguments as to why you solve the affirmative or how the affirmative plan will aggravate the circumstances that the critique indicts.

Topicality: I have been known to vote on topicality, but you probably need either actual abuse or a well-warranted argument of potential abuse to win it. 

Theory: I hate theory debates, but having said that I realize that theoretical objections are a necessary tool to fight against many CPs and strategies, and will take that into account. Slow it down a little on the blippy theory arguments because I need to get them all down. For theory, I usually default to drop the argument and not the team for the “transgression”, so keep that in mind when making decisions at the end of the round. Make sure you go for uniqueness on the theory debate or else I really don't know where the brightline is or why I care. My threshold for voting on a theory or "rules" argument is fairly high, you could say.

I have a very expressive face. Look at it during the debate and you will get a plethora of indications of what I am and am not feeling and/or understanding. 

Be nice.

Finally, I would rather not have to read evidence at the end of the debate. I probably will not unless a. everyone does a bad job on impact and/or warrant analysis, or b. one team alleges the other team is lying about what is in their evidence. Think about that when you are deciding how much warranted analysis you want to give me at the end of the debate.

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013 

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either.  In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate. 

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree)  I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of  basic communication. 

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently. 

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive.  I think  that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact. 

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo. 

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame). 

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial. 

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny) 

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

Things I think:

1. Debate is a public speaking and communication activity. Good debaters engage the judge, speak clearly, and are able to explain their arguments and be funny despite time pressure. Debaters who look up from their flow while speaking will benefit from being able to see my reactions to arguments. Debaters who are clear will benefit from my ability to understand or flow the warrants of their cards.  If I don't understand it/get it/know why it matters, I won't vote on it.  I should know an argument is important from the way you extend it, both in terms of content and style. 

2. Qualified evidence is very important, but only reaches its maximum value if it is unpacked and explained. Evidence or arguments that are comprehensible or well explained during the course of the debate are almost always preferable to evidence that I have to read after the round to understand, even if the latter evidence is "better". Well explained analytic arguments can slay bad advantages, disads, alternatives, and counterplans. To wit: I will privilege explanation in debates over reading I have to do after them.

3. I fucking love Cross-X. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your Cross-x well (eg, if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are used in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase.

4. I like smart debates about the case. Case offense, case defense, the case and a disad, a counterplan the interacts with the substance of the 1AC, a K that is deployed in a case specific matter--those debates are awesome to watch. Process counterplans designed to avoid clash with the majority of the 1AC, generic Ks, and debaters who think impact defense constitutes case debate make me sad.

5. Topicality: T is a voter, but if the aff has a good interpretation, the fact that the negative’s interpretation is slightly better isn’t really a persuasive reason to vote neg.

6. I think the idea that I can kick the CP or Alt for a team is kinda silly. Defending something is your job.  Make choices yourself.

7. Don't be a dick to your opponents or your partner.

--

Please ask me about Emory KT - Klimchack and Tankersley - of late 1970's fame. They were the two greatest and most revolutionary debaters of all time. 

15 years coaching and judging debate in many forms.

Policy Debate:

Overview: I vote for framework as often as I vote against it. I think the best debates occur when the 1NC answers the 1AC and the worst debates happen when theoretical abstraction substitutes link arguments. Here theoretical abstraction can equally be read as "should means immediate" and/or "competing methods." I think the best theoretical abstraction occurs when it assists the examination of objects instead of denying an object's uniqueness.

I take scholarship seriously, I often make comments in the middle of a round, and I have been told I give high speaker points but I don't believe that.

The best rebuttals occur when both teams identify the nexus points of the debate and engage in the other teams arguments while advancing their own. I tend to reward framing arguments and meta claims. When extending arguments, I think debaters should start with a claim, then a warrant, then comparison to their opponent's counter-arguments. I strongly dislike the trend (greatly assisted by paperless debate) to jump right into the comparison. Numbering 1NC and 2AC arguments is an underappreciated artform.

Minor proclivities: "Reject the arg" is sufficient in most cases (T and conditionality excluded), the word "permutation" is not a complete argument (nor is "permutation do both"), "do the counterplan" is not a permutation it's a concession unless otherwise explained, and "squo or a competitive policy option" is the dumbest meme left in debate. "Plan focus", however, can often be compelling if adequately developed.

Obligatory: PICs good, neg fiat good, DAs good, case debate good, sometimes topicality IS the strategy.

British Parliamentary:

Arguments matter more than form. I first decide which side of the motion has won the debate and then privilege teams based on total contribution to the winning strategy. As a critic of argument I try my best to be a blank slate and not bring my own knowledge into the round. A few suggestions to get first in the round:

• Speakers should spend more time on probability and causality than examples
• Make more impact calculus
• Countermodels win debates when they have clear competition and a net benefit that serves as a disadvantage to the gov model. Countermodels lose when they rely on definitional/cosmetic differences.
• Spending arguments are non-starters.
• Rights claims are rarely impacted out well, but can be devastating when they are. How do I compare "restricts bodily autonomy" to "100,000 people get removed from poverty"?

Last substantial edit: Jan 2018

Hello!

My name is Jen! I currently work in nonprofit communications in Boston, MA. Before that, I spent two years as a graduate assistant debate coach for Vanderbilt Univerisity's policy team. I have experience judging for both BP and Policy at the college level, as well as middle and high school policy formats.

For BDL high school tournaments:

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates! More below...

- I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter (but still need to hear the fully explained T argument, please).

- Affs, don't drop this.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

______

For college tournaments:

My pronouns are she/her/hers. I expect all debaters to either use gender-neutral terms for the other debaters in the round or use each debater's preferred pronouns (which can be made known at each debaters' discretion through Tabroom). Speaker points are at stake.

* Please send documents to jennifer.elizabeth.newman@gmail.com *

My judging philosophy...

- I am open to hearing arguments of all types, but I feel strongly that the debate space needs to be inclusive. That's my bias. Other than that, I am pretty chill. Just be considerate.

- Although I have these listed by division, it may be a good idea for debaters to read all the sections.

I. Novice - with the packet

- Be sure to answer every argument. There are cards in there to answer all of the arguments for every affirmative case.

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

II. JV

Some things to note:

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates. In fact, I think this topic lends itself to some incredibly interesting potential policy affs. I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

III. OPEN

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

Framework

- Hard Framework (aka we should be debating government policy action): I don't typically vote on this. I attribute this to seeing K debates where the K team is well-prepared for this. It could also be that I am just not persuaded by it because I think K debates are really important to the debate space.

- Soft Framework (aka you have to DO something, and/or you have to engage the state in some way. You don't have to use the state but you have to engage it): I am actually likely to vote on this. The ground argument, or a version of that, is really compelling to me for Affs that have shifty ground and no-link out of other Ks or DAs. I'd say it's a good thing to go for when you don't have anything else. For the Aff, be ready to explain to me exactly what ground the neg had that they failed to see and go for.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter.

- Affs, don't drop this.

- I am less likely to vote on T for Carbon Tax than I am for cellulosic ethanol. I think it's difficult for most affirmatives to actually BE topical (insert disgruntled comments about the resolution here). I think you should be able to justify your aff is topical.

- Effects T is a thing I will vote on if you go all in and the other team doesn't provide satisfactory answers. In a K debate, I'm less likely to vote on effects T if there are Aff answers like effects T bad or something like that.

Techy Stuff

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. DO. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I know that sounds super rudimentary but really teams miss doing this in the rebuttals. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic (this year, whether a specific climate policy is good) then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about (the problematic) and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

If you got this far (for all divisions)

1. Go prep with your team.

2. JK here's some fun ways to win speaks (I'll only give you credit for two times).

- Beyoncé quotes (or that Beyoncé should have won album of the year) +0.1 speaks

- Disney animated movie quotes (Particularly from the 90s-early 2000s, like Aladin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast...) +0.1 speaks

- I will change this up a bit each tournament.

GOOD LUCK!!!

Feel free to ask me questions, or seek further explanation of my reasonings after the round! :)

Best of luck!

J

P.S. If something isn't in here that you think should be, please let me know!

Ana Nikolic
- I graduated in 2011 from Emory, where I debated for four years. I work full time in energy policy now in DC and have done a fair amount of research on the topic so I have a pretty high level of topic knowledge.

-I don’t have a problem with speed, as long as you are comprehensible and I can understand you. I will likely tell you if I can’t. Or make angry and/or confused faces at you.

-I probably fall in the camp of tech over truth – dropped arguments, no matter how dumb, are hard to ignore. But, even if an argument it dropped, it still needs to meet the basic threshold of an argument - claim, warrant, and IMPACT. Just extending the tag “PC low” with zero explanation of why that means I can’t vote for the DA does not meet this threshold. Dumb/cheap shot arguments can probably be dismissed in little time with just a few smart arguments, but I won’t make the arguments for you if you don’t make the time to do so in your speech.

-When I debated, I was a politics, disads, case, impact turns, and CP debater. This is not meant to imply you should do the same, but rather these were my favorite types of arguments to debate and now to judge also. However, at the end of the day, I would rather listen to a good debate than debaters trying to adapt to my preferences, so do what you are comfortable with.

-DAs: Read them. Make impact comparisons. Make turns case arguments. Tell me why I should favor uniqueness vs. link in this scenario (this applies to the aff just as much).

-CPs: I am very persuaded by “Perm Do the CP” against consult/condition/any CPs that compete off the process of the plan and not the mandates. Condition CPs I could be persuaded are competitive, assuming there is specific evidence to deal with competition/perm and there is a clear net benefit. Aff specific PICs with internal net benefits are awesome.

-T: Topic specific T arguments are great, just keep in mind that I am not a full time debate coach and probably have not spent at much time thinking about these arguments as you have.

-The K: Anyone who knows me will tell you I never ran kritiks, but that does not mean you should change your strategy and run a politics DA you downloaded from a high school camp file before the round. I am more than willing to vote on a kritik, but your explanation might need to change in front of me vs. someone who only ran the K. Turns case/alt solve the aff/impact comparison – all necessary. Dropped framework arguments are hard to ignore, so they definitely need to be answered by the Aff (however it probably won’t take much to convince me to let you weigh the Aff).

-The “K Aff”: I prefer to listen to the big stick policy aff with tons of advantages. But, definitely understand the utility of the small/k aff, and ran a small aff with a systemic advantage most of senior year, not because it was my favorite argument but because it was strategic. So read the aff that’s most strategic for you, not the one that will entertain me the most. That being said, its going to be very had to convince me that your aff doesn’t have to be topical. Or that extinction doesn’t outweigh just about every other impact.

-Theory: Conditionality is good. Two conditional CPs are probably okay, but I could be persuaded either way. Cheap shots, not very persuasive.

-Offense vs. Defense: Offense is obviously great, but good defense can definitely mitigate a DA/Advantage, so it’s not always necessary.

Kirsten A. Porter-Stransky, Ph.D.

I debated on Liberty University's team from 2004-2006 (back before paperless debate).  Now I am a full-time behavioral neuroscientist and occasinally judge for UGA.  I haven't researched this year's topic, but I have debated an energy topic. Please speak clearly, explain your arguments, and don't use jargon.

I believe that the topic exists for a reason and that debates should revolve around the topic.  I enjoy substantive debates with good clash of arguments between teams.  While I prefer arguments about the content of the plan, I will vote on theory arguments if they are reasonable and well articulated. Because debate is a speaking activity, I value verbal analysis of cards and arguments (I do not like to read cards after the round and will not make the comparisons for you).

SPEAK CLEARLY and not insanely fast.  If I cannot understand what you are saying, I cannot flow it or consider it.

For good speaker points, make smart arguments and speak clearly and persuasively.  Do not hide behind your computer so that I cannot see or hear you.  Be kind and respectful; rudeness can tank your speaks. Don't try to steal prep time.

In the last two rebuttal speeches, I highly recommend slowing down and tying all the loose ends together. Make it obvious as to why and how your arguments supersede those of your opponent. 

I strongly believe in the educational value of research and policy debate.  Prepare, work hard, and have fun!

My default position:
I will judge the debate how you tell me. If I’m supposed to believe that I’m every citizen in America then I will. I really don’t care. Please be clear.


Counterplans:
All cp’s are legit until the aff prove otherwise. Cheat how you feel and the aff should be making as many theory arguments as they can.

Kritiks:
I ran the K for the majority of my college time. Explain your link story, how it turns the aff, how your alt functions and how it interacts with the aff. If not, I’ll have to vote on “case outweighs, perm solves residual links”. For the aff answering the k, be smart please. Don’t just say framework and the perm double bind. Diversify your arguments and cross apply your aff scenarios to mess with the k story.

Non-traditional debate/performance:
Do what you gotta do. I’m in no position to tell you how or how not to debate. However, you probably should explain why your performance is important and how it relates to debate, the rez, the other team, me, etc. Don’t just dance or play a song and expect me to vote for you.

DA/Case:
Nothing wrong with that. If your DA is tricky then explain it. If not, keep it simple and make sure to do the proper impact analysis. In fact, start that asap.

Theory:
Conditionality is probably good. T is probably a voter. However, this and every other theory question is up for debate. Chances are I won’t flow the 6th subpoint on your theory blocks because you’re probably just speeding through it. Slow down and make your arguments as needed.

Speaker points:
Be funny, be smart, and don’t be arrogant. Debates happen too early in the morning for me to have to deal with people’s ego.

Sammi Rippetoe

Director of Debate @ DePauw University

University of Georgia, PhD

Communication Graduate Student, Assistant Debate Coach, Wake Forest University '15-'17

I competed for Humboldt State University in Worlds style (or Brittish Parlimentary) for 4 years.

Please add me to your email chains (as proof that you read these things)- sjrippetoe@gmail.com

Top level things

I will reward debaters with better speaker points for a good cross-x that helps their overall strategy in the debate.

If you describe graphic violence (sexual or otherwise) a trigger warning would be greatly appreciated by me, and the other debaters.

Rebuttals are for story-telling, if I'm not interested in buying what you're selling I'm probably not voting for you.

I don't feel personally responsible to read all of your evidence after the debate.  Your job is to explain to me why certain pieces of evidence should be considered/read, if you don't do that, I won't take the time to read them.  This is debate, not Sammi's research hour.

Topicality

Love em, read some cards, make some args.  I am pretty persuaded by reasonability, especially when the aff has a community norm argument behind them, but I'm not wedded to the concept enough that you can't persuade me otherwise.  If we can avoid spec-type violations, that would be nice (but hey you do you).

Counterplans and Disads

Love em.  The more specific they are to the aff, the more I am willing to buy negative spin/negative sufficiency framing arguments.  Impact calc is super important, but don't confuse the timeframe or probability of your impact with that of your internal links.  Most teams do, and that's not fun.  Make sure you don't lose sight of your disad (and conversely, your aff) by the end of the debate, it's not only about comparing terminal impacts so don't lose the story for what you're selling me.

Theory

I don't have a strong preference on any particular theory arguments, but I will vote on them if well impacted and debated beyond the annoying re-reading of blocks in the 1ar and 2nr.  The caveat to this, however, is that I will not kick a CP for the negative if it is extended in the 2nr.  You forfeited your right to the status quo, deal with it.  I'm not against multiple counterplans being read in the same debate, but I do believe the enjoyment of a debate correlates to how well crafted (wink-wink) the negatives strategy is.  Do not see what sticks.

The K

Most of my thoughts from the next two categories apply here.  I will say, have links specific to the plan, with impacts to those link arguments.  Root cause arguments aren't super persuasive to me, unless you can prove that the root cause prevents the aff's specific internal link from solving whatever impact is in question.  

Non-Traditional Affs

My general feelings about them is that they should be in the direction of the topic, and they should change something in the status quo. While this doesn't necessitate a plan text, the aff should have a method that defends some action/change.  I am not a fan of affs that don't do anything, or believe that just pontificating is enough to win the round. You have to prove that your aff is important and creates positive change, not just that it analyzes something (what does that analysis do? And why should I vote for it as a positive change to status quo?). I am very persuaded by presumption when the aff hasnt proven that they do anything.  

Framework

These debates can often can be good, but generally are not.  You all read blocks like it's your job, and they are way too generic.  I'm really persuaded by specific link arguments for things like limits or ground da's that point to in round examples to validate them, and TVA's that are well developed and actually specific to either the aff's method or the impact the aff is attempting to resolve.  I do not believe fairness is an impact on it's own, it's an internal link to variety of other impacts.  

Language Args

These are persuasive, you should not be violent with your language. If you go against a team that you feel has been violent with their word choice, you should make it an argument in the round. Performative consistency is important. You do have to be clear about what the impact of their bad language is, and why I should care about it. You can't just say "this is offensive" with no impact and expect me to fill in the blanks. 

Current affiliation: director at Purdue & assistant at Head Royce.

Did you know Purdue is a public University with over 40,000 undergraduate students? Despite our excellent reputation for our engineering and computer science programs, as well as our success in the NCAA basketball tournament, we are in fact a public land-grant university in West Lafayette, IN. Tuition is less at Purdue than it is at Indiana University.

Past affiliations: Weber State, Wake Forest, Loyola Marymount, Idaho State, West Georgia, as well as College Prep, Georgetown Day, Bishop Guertin, Chattahoochee, and many other high school programs.

I love debate. I chose to return to debate after spending a few years working at a consulting firm. I make less money now, but enjoy the work much more. I appreciate your participation in the activity and will do my best to determine a winner, as well as help you improve in the time I spend judging your round.

I will default to flowing on paper. I appreciate efforts to be organized and go line-by-line; I will reward speakers that make flowing easier.

I will not read along with the speech doc. I believe debate should be a persuasive activity. I think following along with the speech doc is a poor practice, and I feel some type of way about it. I would like to be on the doc chain; everybodylovesjim@gmail.com& hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

If the round has started and there is no timer going, please don’t prep. I’ll kindly ask you to stop prepping if I notice you prepping while no timer is running. I think remote debate may have contributed to lax prep time standards, and I feel some type of way about it.

I’m a fan of multiple flavors of debate. I’m somewhat of a dinosaur at this point, but I still appreciate attempts at innovation. I’ve voted for and against all sorts of arguments. I’ve coached teams on various flavors of arguments. I’m generally agnostic. My best piece of advice for debating in front of me, or any other judge; debate powerfully, make the judge adapt to you.

I love cross ex! It’s generally my favorite part of the round. I usually flow it. I always pay attention to it. If you make gains in cross ex, please leverage those gains in your speeches. I will reward speakers for a well executed cross ex. I prefer you don’t treat prep time as cross ex time, I frequently leave the room during prep time and appreciate these opportunities.

I will reward speakers that focus on clarity over speed. If I ask you to be clear, please make an effort to adjust.

I start the process of deciding who won by establishing the most important issue(s) in the debate and determining who won the core controversies. I ask myself who won the round if both teams win their package of arguments. I frequently write a rough draft of a ballot and then try to argue against that decision to check against overlooking something. I try to edit my many thoughts to keep things more brief in delivering my RFD, particularly when on a panel. Sometimes when I sit I ask to give my RFD last - sometimes this is so I can get a sense of where the other judges are at, sometimes it’s to circumvent judges from editing their decisions when I’m confident in my RFD.

Sean Slattery
Samford University
Fourth Year Judging
GSU 2013

Though I am more experienced with the "policy" form of debate, I do my best to evaluate what I have written down in front of me regardless of content. I prefer to judge rounds that are related to the topic in some capacity; the more esoteric the argument, the less competent my judging becomes.

Given the legal depth of this topic, there is an additional burden on you to explain the nuances of whatever process or policy you are discussing. Simply put, I haven't researched or memorized every Supreme Court case related to the resolution, so please do your best to unpack these details in a flowable manner. 

When it comes to "critical" and "non-traditional" arguments, I am what some call a "checklist" judge. I vote on these arguments not because I am exceptionally familiar with the literature base of the K / non-traditional genre, but because debaters frequently mishandle "a priori" and "inevitabillity" claims.

Counterplans that compete off the word "should" or "resolved" are dubiously competitive. 

Stating an argument is not the same as making an argument. I communicate just as much as you do during round - it's just a question of whether or not you notice. In an ideal world, you would consider what's on my flow during your speech just as often as you'd consider what's on yours. 

Things I Hate:

I hate ASPEC unless it comes with a clear counterplan that would indicate who should be the specified actor. I do not like voting on T. I will if I have to but please don't make me (the exeption is in the rare case that there is a real violation). I hate arguements that end in nuke war or extinction without a clear link. You can't just stipualate that anything you want will end in mass extinction, tell me how. 

Things I love

Clear arguments. Interesting analysis. When done right, I love funny dealings of imprtant topics. I'm a philosopher and so I like interesting and careful cases more than merely having a large sum of cards.

DA/Case

My only requirement for these are to be clear about whatever DA or case you are running. Don’t make logical jumps without explaining why I should follow. Good argumentation is important.

CP

I’m open to any CPs until I have been provided with an argument to not accept them.

Theory

I’m open to various approaches but whatever tactic you choose you need to be clear, careful, and focus on good arguments.

K

Neg: When running a K you need to convince me of the links, there needs to be good contact with the Aff case.

Aff: when addressing a K you need to directly discuss the links and why they fail to link. Engage with the K, don’t just sidestep it.

Speaker Points

Make the debate interesting, pretty much anything goes. However, DO NOT use ad hominem arguments or be arrogant. You can be confrontational while not being rude, these are not mutually exclusive things.

General Points

I’m open to traditional and non-traditional debate. I’m less impressed with speed than I am with affective and valid arguments. Be creative, be respectful, and be clear and careful.  

Updated November 2022

Dan Stanfield

2 Years at Los Rios Community College

1 Year at CSU Fullerton

1 Year at UNLV

2 Years Coaching at UWG

2 years @ Baylor

Iowa 2019 - 2020

IC 2022

Coached for CKM on TI topic

Coached for Juan Diego on Surveillance

Coach for SLC West Education

Coached for CKM Immigration - CJR

Coached for Nevada Union Immigration - CJR

Add me to your email chain stanfield.dan@gmail.com

Michigan 2023 Update:

Pronouns: they/them

Please don't over adjust your content to me, I am a lover of debate in all its forms. Make the arguments you want to make and I'll evaluate the debate.

I have had very few rounds on this topic so if there is any topic specific jargon err toward a higher degree of explanation.

October 2022 Update:

Taylor Swift lyrics cleverly incorporated will result in a speaker point boost. Jokes in poor taste will result in a speaker point drop. Buyer beware.

"I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I do mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and its my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations make me adapt to you instead of the other way around" -- Lindsay VanLuvanee

I will attempt to limit the amount my predispositions will influence how I evaluate a debate round. Don't feel as if you need to change your strategy to debate in front of me, do what you do best, because the alternative is usually subpar debate. The final two rebuttals should write my ballot for me, teams that accurately break the round down and are reasonable about what they are and are not winning will usually be rewarded with increased speaker points.I enjoy a high level of specificity and nuance broad sweeping claims will get you nowhere. I place importance on how pieces of evidence get debated, as opposed to simply constructing debates based on the pieces of evidence that have been introduced. While I also place a premium on quality evidence (which, I would like to be able to hear during your speech), I believe that a smart analytic argument has the potential to gain equal traction to a solid piece of evidence. Quality always trumps quantity.

I find cross ex to be the most important part of debate its one of the few times I feel I get to connect with the individual debaters, while I don't flow it I pay very close attention to it, and what happens here will inform how I see large portions of the round.

Theory:
Theory needs to be well executed. Debates in which theory blocks do the arguing almost always favor the neg.

I don’t like cheap shots.(This does not mean I won't vote on them, I'll just be cranky about it) I like arguments to be well developed. Most cheap shots are not reasons to reject the team and significant time would need to be spent in order to convince me otherwise. However, it is your burden to point out how irrelevant many theory arguments that are advanced in debates are, as a concession may force my hand.

Nearly all theory questions I end up siding in favor of the negative, I think conditionality is fine, any potentially abusive CP is checked by quality of evidence. 50 States Fiat is one arg where an affirmative could convince me this is a reason to reject the team it is likely to still be an uphill battle.

Judge Kick: I think this deserves its own section, when the 2nr goes for a CP I believe the debate is solely a question of plan versus the CP. While a 2nr can instruct me to to kick the cp for them if the 2r wins offense against the counterplan an affirmative can respond that I shouldn't kick the counterplan for the negative and I am likely to side with the affirmative. If the 2nr contains a counterplan I have a very strong predisposition that if the affirmative wins substantive solvency deficits to the counterplan or other offense against it that outweighs the net benefit than I should be voting aff. And that I then shouldn't decide to then evaluate the status quo (i..e the net-benefit) vs. the plan.


T:
Separate from the framework section, I really enjoy evidentiary T debates that aren't clash of civ debates. I find these are some of the most nuanced debates about what the resolution means which is always compelling to me. I evaluate topicality like a DA offense v defense. For affirmatives here do not place all your eggs in the basket of reasonability, I think only reasonability is only a question of the interpretation and not the aff or plan itself. Any other interpretation of reasonability I don't think constitutes an actual argument.

FW

First contrary to popular belief I do not hack for framework, however this year I have noticed myself voting for framework more often than I don't vote for framework. For me there are a few ways the framework debates break down in terms of impact, primarily between procedural and education based impacts. By procedural I mean those impact arguments that result from things such as limits, or grounds internal links to impacts like clash, fairness, debatability. The second form of framework are those arguments about decision making skills, topic education, deliberative democracy.

If you are negative reading framework I cannot stress how much I would rather see the version of framework that couches its arguments in terms of the procedural side, ie. limits , ground, etc. I believe this is the most strategic form of the argument. I believe debate is a game and impacts that make the game unable to be played by one side or the other constitute a reason to vote negative. Explanations of the impact that have been compelling to me is that I strongly believe there should be a negative path to victory, a negative that couches their impacts like this will have greatly increased my likelihood to vote for framework. For affirmatives debating this style of framework if you win a counter interpretation that provides a limit on the topic and can explain why that limit on the topic mitigates some portion of the negative offense regards to limits or debateability, then that is the best route for getting me to vote affirmative. I will also say YOU NEED OFFENSE, playing the middle ground will not get my ballot I need impact turns big disads to their interpretation of the topic with well explained impacts. If affirmative I do not need 5-10 barely explained disads to FWI need 1-4 well explained and warranted DA's to the negative interpretation.

Conversely it is much harder to win my ballot exclusively going for arguments about topic education, decision making skills, or deliberative democracy. I believe any affirmative that is even close to knowing what they are doing will be able to easily impact turn these arguments. This isn't to say you shouldn't read these arguments at all they can be excellent external impacts to your interpretation, but instead you should use these arguments as a supplement to the more game-playing/ procedural versions of the argument.

For negatives who have framework as their go to strat THE CASE STILL MATTERS , the reason for this is the case determines the weight I give to affirmative impact turns / disadvantages to framework. If the affirmative solves 100% of their aff then I gave 100% of the weight of their impact turns to framework, conversely if the aff solves maybe 1% of their aff then the strength of the disadvantages or impact turns will be drastically reduced.

Topical version of the aff: You don't have to have one to win but it can help. They also don't have to solve the entire aff instead they are a test to show that the content of the aff is not precluded by the resolutional prompt. For affirmatives the topical version of the aff doesn't solve our aff not very persuasive to me. However, an argument that the topical version of the aff is not in fact topical under the negative's interpretation of the topic is persuasive. Similarly an argument that the topical version of the aff in fact does not allow for the content of the aff to exist. Form based arguments from affirmatives are also compelling to me in response to topical versions of the aff, how the content may exist but the form of it would not be, can be an extremely persuasive argument against both the topical version, as well as also acting as offense against the negatives interpretation.

Beyond counter interpretations it can be incredibly helpful for an affirmative to have a counter model of what debate looks like, which can act as a filter for a variety of the negatives arguments as well as acting as a type of uniqueness for your own impact turns to a negatives interpretation of the topic.

Something I've told to a few debaters this year may help further contextualize what I've said here -- "If both affirmative and neg execute absolutely perfectly I probably lean slightly negative" -- however it should be noted that I have never seen this perfect execution take place.

The K:
I will do my best to limit my predispositions from giving explanation or advancing arguments for the other team. Specificity and spin are important for both sides of the debate. I don’t like generic explanations of meta theory with no tie to the affirmative. Similarly, I don’t like generic responses to critical theory outside of the context of the aff. Generic evidence does not force generic explanation.

Disability k's -- Due to how I spent my last two years in debate , this is obviously a body of literature that I am extremely familiar with however if you are not familiar with it trying to pick it up just because I am in the back of the room is a terrible decision, and one you will almost certainly regret. Secondarily I thought I should include my thoughts on the various ableist language arguments. Essentially most of the time I believe these arguments in and of themselves don't constitute a great argument unless its an especially violent piece of language this doesn't mean what you say doesn't matter what it does mean is that the negative needs to explain to me why the language warrants a negative ballot and not just punitive measures like maybe lower speaker points or not evaluating certain pieces of evidence. I'm happy to explain this further if there are questions.

Recent years I have found I have a tendency to enjoy arguments described as "high-theory" IF THEY ARE EXECUTED WELL. I have coached teams to read all variety or arguments from the cap k to baudrillard, so if the death K is your jam then you should go for it. A lot of my current academic work revolves around disability and psychoanalysis so take that as you will.

If you ask anyone at Baylor they will tell you (and are correct) in that I really enjoy hearing arguments about psychoanalysis I find this to be an incredibly interesting area of argumentation and always enjoy when the affirmative or negative has to do with these questions of psychoanalysis.

CPs/Das:
I love a good, well-researched, specific strategy. The more generic your strategy becomes, the greater the chance of me assigning an extremely low risk to these arguments. Sometimes there is simply no link. Absolute defense does exist.

The last thing I will say is that debates that I have fun in will be rewarded by higher speaker points. I have fun when I see well thought out and deployed strategy.. Make me laugh and you will be rewarded. Be nice.

Also, I adore good puns (well maybe bad ones even more) make some clever puns in your speeches and you will be rewarded with speaker points.

Change in 2014

excessive / intentional use of racial slurs, jokes in bad tase, misgendering, ableist slurs will result in much lower speaker points. Note: an ableist slur is the R word , or derogatorily referring to someone as a cripple. It is not saying the word stand in your plan text/advocacy statement.

Update (2/12/2019): I am in the novice/JV judging pool for the upcoming D6/SECEDA tournament. Except for the Miami Dade Urban Debate League, I have not judged a policy debate this year, and only a handful last year, so please take it easy on me! Be slow, clear and organized. The rest of this judging statement reflects my thoughts when I was judging policy tournaments regularly and is fairly accurate.

I will vote for the team that in my opinion wins the debate, even if inconsistent with my predispositions. But if you adapt your arguments and presentation to me, you have a much better chance of winning. Keep in mind that I do not hear many policy debates and I am not researching the topic as you are. I still enjoy debate, and I believe in it. There are as many ways to do debate as their are debaters, and I appreciate creativity.

I believe that the focus of the debate is the proposition. And if (as with the current CEDA Resolution) that is a policy proposition, it is impingent upon the affirmative to offer and defend a topical plan. Affirmative advantages and negative arguments should have unique links to the affirmative plan, and policy comparison is my default decision framework. I also believe in the burden of rejoinder, the expectation that you offer on-point answers to your opponent’s arguments, and so, the flow matters. But, my flow is not great, especially in a very fast debate, so you should work to keep a clear and clean flow with references to the specific arguments to which you are responding and which you are extending. Computer debating has diminished the direct clash in debate. Debate is defined by clash. You should reference and respond to each other's arguments and track the linear progression of arguments as they evolve horizontally across my flow. Debate requires reading (of evidence), but reading is not debating. I believe that debate is an oral communication activity requiring some reading, but at its best, also offering spontaneity, wit, and creativity.

I believe that debaters should adapt to their audience (i.e., the judge, ME), NOT the other way around. So I am pleased to offer my thoughts about debate in hopes that you will respect them. And feel free to ask me for more detail. Also, I will at times offer some nonverbal feedback during the debate. Pay attention.

Moral, ethical and critical considerations are not only relevant in debate; they are essential components of policy analysis. But the link to the proposition and the plan advocacy do matter to me. I focus on the topic or the topical plan. So negatives, run counterplans, disads, case turns, solvency arguments, and relevant Kritics that link. Run topicality not as a technical violation based on the game, but as a genuine difference in interpretation or definition based in the world. Don’t assume that I know what you know. Please start with clear explanations and definitions. It is your job to identify points of clash or decision criteria for me.

I have no problem admitting that I didn't get it or understand it if I didn’t. It is your responsibility to help me understand the evidence and position during the debate, not after.

I enjoy style and creativity in debate and I support the effort to expand what is considered acceptable proof. But your time is better spent making arguments than playing music during the round, and profanity does not belong in debate. I appreciate style, humor and wit in debate. On the other hand, I am somewhat uncomfortable with excessive self-disclosure and emotion in debate (and, probably, in most contexts outside debate as well).

For years, I have identified myself in the role of debate judge as an educator and evaluator of argument. I am not a referee. Debate is a subjective activity and there is generally not an absolute winner. Rather, it is my job to express my inherently biased perception of which side did the better job of defending or opposing the proposition based on the content of their arguments. I try to minimize my intervention, but to suggest that I can operate outside of my own perceptual screens and personal history is unrealistic.

I look forward to hearing debates, and I enjoy and believe in the process. I hope I will be able to promote a learning environment and a comfortable experience.

Please enjoy the experience and don’t take it too seriously! It is a game in which we are priviledged to participate. It should be enjoyable. And treat your opponents and me with respect and courtesy.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

E-Mail: cstewart[at]gallowayschool[dot]org

Disclaimer #1:I am a mandatory reporter under Georgia law. If you disclose a real-world risk to your safety, or if I believe there is an imminent threat to your well-being, I will stop the debate and contact the Tabroom. Arguments that talk generally about how to engage systems of power in the debate space are more than okay and do not violate this.

Disclaimer #2: I am partially deaf in my left ear. While this has zero impact on my ability to flow in 99.9% of debates, exceptionally bad acoustics may force me to be closer than usual during speeches.

Speaker Points Update (November 2023):Moving forward, I will be following Regnier's speaker points distribution (see below). This should align my points with national trends and ensure I am not unfairly penalizing (or rewarding) debaters I am judging.

--- Fabulous (29.7 - 29.9) / Excellent (29.4-29.6)

--- Good (29.1 - 29.3) / Average (28.7 - 29)

--- Below Average (28.4 - 28.6) / Poor (28 - 28.3) / Very Poor (27.6 - 27.9)

Experience

Debate Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 3 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate: 4 Years of College Policy Debate (Georgia State University)

-- 2015 NDT Qualifier

-- Coached By: Joe Bellon, Nick Sciullo, Erik Mathis

-- Argument Style: Kritik (Freshman / Sophomore Year) & Policy (Junior / Senior Year)

-- Caselist Link (I Was A 2N My Senior Year): https://opencaselist.com/ndtceda14/GeorgiaState/StNa/Neg

Coaching Experience

--- Lincoln-Douglas: 4 Years (Local / National Circuit)

--- Policy Debate

-- University of Georgia - Graduate Assistant (3 Years)

-- Atlanta Urban Debate League (3 Years)

-- The Galloway School - Head Coach (3 Years)

Preferences - General

Overview:

Debate is a game; my strongest belief is that debaters should be able to play the game however they want to play it. I remain committed to Tabula Rasa judging, and have yet to see an argument (claim/ warrant) I would not pull the trigger on. The only exception to this is if I could not coherently explain to the other team the warrant for the argument I'm voting on. Unless told otherwise, I will flow the debate, and vote, based on the line-by-line, for whomever I thought won the debate.

What follows are my general thoughts about arguments, because for some reason that's what counts as a "judging paradigm" these days. Everything that follows WILL be overridden by arguments made in the debate.

Evidence:

Evidence is important, but not more than the in-round debating. Substantial deference will be given to in-debate spin. Bad evidence with spin will generally be given more weight than good evidence without.

Theory:

No strong predispositions. Run theory if that's your thing, there's actual abuse, or it's the most strategic way out of the round. I have no default conception of how theory functions; it could be an issue of competing interpretations, an issue of reasonability, an RVI, or a tool of the patriarchy. Given my LD background, I likely have a much lower threshold for pulling the trigger than other judges. Defaults such as X is never a reason to reject the team, RVIs bad, and a general disregard of Spec arguments aren't hardwired into me like the majority of the judging pool.

If you're going for theory, easiest thing you can do to win my ballot is to slow down and give an overview that sets up a clear way for me to evaluate the line-by-line.

Counterplans:

Read 'em. While I'm personally a big fan of process CPs/ PICs, I generally default to letting the literature determine CP competition/ legitimacy. If you have a kickass solvency advocate, then I will probably lean your way on most theoretical issues. On the other hand, as a former 2A, I sympathize with 2AC theory against CPs against which it is almost impossible to generate solvency deficits. 2ACs should not be afraid to bow up on CP theory in the 1AR.

DAs:

Specific DAs/ links trump generic DAs/ links absent substantial Negative spin. Love DAs with odd impact scenarios/ nuanced link stories.

Politics:

I functionally never read this as a debater, but my time coaching at UGA has brought me up to speed. Slow down/ clearly flag key points/ evidence distinctions in the 2NR/ 2AR.

Topicality:

Read it. Strategic tool that most 2Ns underutilize. Rarely hear a nuanced argument for reasonability; the T violation seems to prove the 1AC is unreasonable...

Kritiks:

I do not personally agree with the majority of Kritiks. However, after years of graduate school and debate, I've read large amount of Kritikal literature, and, if you run the K well, I'm a good judge for you. Increasingly irritated with 2ACs that fail to engage the nuance of the K they're answering (Cede the Political/ Perm: Double-Bind isn't enough to get you through a competently extended K debate). Similarly irritated with 2NCs that debate the K like a politics DA. Finally, 2ACs are too afraid to bow up on the K, especially with Impact Turns. I often end up voting Negative on the Kritik because the 2AC got sucked down the rabbit hole and didn't remind there was real-world outside of the philosophical interpretation offered by the K.

Framework (2AC):

I am generally unpersuaded by theoretical offense in a Policy AFF v. Kritik debate. You're better off reading this as policymaking good/ pragmatism offense to defend the method of the AFF versus the alternative. Generally skeptical of 2ACs that claim the K isn't within my jurisdiction/ is super unfair.

Framework (2NC):

Often end up voting Negative because the Affirmative strategically mishandles the FW of the K. Generally skeptical of K FW's that make the plan/ the real-world disappear entirely.

Preferences - "Clash" Debates

Clash of Civilization Debates:

Enjoy these debates; I judge alot of them. The worst thing you can do is overadapt. DEBATE HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DEBATE. My favorite debate that I ever watched was UMW versus Oklahoma, where UMW read a giant Hegemony advantage versus Oklahoma's 1-off Wilderson. I've been on both sides of the clash debate, and I respect both sides. I will just as easily vote on Framework as use my ballot to resist anti-blackness in debate.

Traditional ("Policy" Teams):

DO YOU. Traditional teams should not be afraid to double-down against K 1ACs,/ Big K 1NCs either via Framework or Impact Turns.

Framework (As "T"):

Never read this as a debater, but I've become more sympathetic to arguments about how the the resolution as a starting point is an important procedural constraint that can capture some of the pedagogical value of a Kritikal discussion. As a former 2N, I am sympathetic to limits arguments given the seemingly endless proliferation of K 1ACs with a dubious relationship to the topic. Explain how your interpretation is an opportunity cost of the 1ACs approach, and how you solve the 2ACs substantive offense (i.e. critical pedagogy/ our performance is important, etc.).

Non-Traditional ("Performance"/ "K" Teams):

As someone who spent a semester reading a narrative project about welcoming veterans into debate, I'm familiar with the way these arguments function, and I feel that they're an integral part of the game we call debate. However, that does not mean I will vote for you because you critiqued X-ism; what is your method, and how does it resolve the harms you have isolated? I am greatly frustrated by Kritik Teams that rely on obfuscation as a strategic tool---- even the Situationist International cared deeply about the political implications of their project.

AT: Framework

The closer you are to the topic/ the clearer your Affirmative is in what it defends, the more I'm down with the Affirmative. While I generally think that alternative approaches to debate are important discussions to be had, if I can listen to the 1AC and have no idea what the Affirmative does, what it defends, or why it's a response to the Topic beyond nebulous claims of resisting X-ism, then you're in a bad spot. Explain how your Counter-Interp solves their theoretical offense, or why your permutation doesn't link to their limits/ ground standards.

Fairness/ Education:

Are important. I am generally confused by teams that claim to impact turn fairness/ education. Your arguments are better articulated as INL-turns (i.e. X-ism/ debate practice is structurally unfair). Debate at some level is a game, and you should explain how your version of the game allows for good discussion/ an equal playing field for all.

Misc. - Ethics Violations

Ethics Violations:

After being forced to decide an elimination debate on a card-clipping accusation during the 2015 Barkley Forum (Emory), I felt it necessary to establish clarity/ forewarning for how I will proceed if this unfortunate circumstance happens again. While I would obviously prefer to decide the debate on actual substantive questions, this is the one issue where I will intervene. In the event of an ethics accusation, I will do the following:

1) Stop the debate. I will give the accusing team a chance to withdraw the accusation or proceed. If the accusation stands, I will decide the debate on the validity of the accusation.

2) Consult the Tabroom to determine any specific tournament policies/ procedures that apply to the situation and need to be followed.

3) Review available evidence to decide whether or not an ethics violation has taken place. In the event of a clipping accusation, a recording or video of the debate would be exceptionally helpful. I am a personal believer in a person being innocent until proven guilty. Unless there's definitive evidence proving otherwise, I will presume in favor of the accused debater.

4) Drop the Debater. If an ethics violation has taken place, I will drop the offending team, and award zero speaker points. If an ethics violation has not occurred, I will drop the team that originally made the accusation. The purpose of this is to prevent frivolous/ strategic accusations, given the very real-world, long-lasting impact such an accusation has on the team being accused.

5) Ethics Violations (Update): Credible, actual threats of violence against the actual people in the actual debate are unacceptable, as are acts of violence against others. I will drop you with zero speaker points if either of those occur. Litmus Test: There's a difference between wipeout/ global suicide alternatives (i.e. post-fiat arguments) and actually punching a debater in the face (i.e. real-world violence).

I'm a crazy, old man.  You are strongly advised to strike me.  If that didn't convince you, I hope the following will.

While I'm pretty much willing to listen to anything, the following are my biases.  As much as I try to set aside my preferences, I'm sure they influence my understanding what teams say, what the warrants are, and ultimately my assessment of issues.

I firmly believe that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan.  I think this is the only viable way for the negative to have a chance to prepare well. If defended well, there is some chance of my voting for an aff without a plan, and the odds are a little better if the affirmative at least talks about issues related to the topic.

On topicality, I prefer a standard slightly different from reasonability and competing interpretations.  I think it should be negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better.  The best way to prove an interpretation bad for debate is limits – that the interpretation is so broad than the negative could never be thoroughly prepared to debate every possible case.

I do not think debate is role playing of federal actors.  You're you and I'm me, and there is a debate about what we think the federal government should do.  Fiat obviously doesn't assume anything really happens.  Fiat is just ignoring the question of "will" and debating "should" in order to focus the debate on the merits of the idea/ policy.

I tend to be fairly liberal on counterplans, with competition being about the only requirement.  PICs, agents, etc are fine.  There does needs to be some limit on negative fiat for agents, but that can be debated out.  Presumptively governmental actions are OK, and private actors are not.

K's and K affs with plans are fine with me.  I am not that familiar with much of the literature.  So, you should explain things thoroughly.  Ultimately, these debates become matters of what makes sense to me.

Spin, explanation, and telling a good story are crucial to winning my ballot.  Even more important is resolving arguments, and I am increasingly frustrated by debaters in rebuttals emphasizing their own arguments and never referencing opposing responses.  2NRs and 2ARs with lots of "they say…, but" references are more likely to win my ballot.

Please be clear.  Start speeches at less than full speed.  Pause a little before and slow down some on the argument tags.  I hate it when I cannot tell that a card has ended and a new argument is being made.  Please do not get quiet when reading cards.  I know this is hard for you to believe, but if you stop to breathe at punctuation marks, you will be faster and clearer than the awful double gasping that so many of you do.

Current Director of Debate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, previously coached at Wake Forest (2 years), University of Central Florida (2 years)

(They/Them Pronouns)

I believe debate is for the debaters. Do your thing, and do it well.

I try to leave as many of my argumentative preferences at the door as possible, but I generally believe a few things:

1. Debate is both a game and a site of activism, and the best conversations about aff and neg ground take both those functions into account.

2. Debaters who tell a story and make strategic decisions about where to apply nuance are more persuasive than those who delve into intricacy but don't frame it as part of a cohesive narrative of the round.

3. Quality > Quantity (of arguments, neg positions, etc)

4. Process > Product

Some things I love

- Mechanistic analysis- how do things happen in your scenario?

- Cards that are highlighted to include full sentences and warrants.

- Innovation.

- Getting strategically aggro in CX.

- Caring about your opponents. Just don't be the worst pls.

Yes, include me on the email chain: CVVitolo at gmail

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

Hays Watson, former head debate coach @ University of Georgia. whwatson@gmail.com. I split my time between political consulting and caretaking for a dying parent. Haven't judged a debate since 2020.

Online debate 411 - Please slow down, speak up, have patience, and make sure that everything (sound/camera/wifi/tech) is on and working properly. I will do my best to judge as I normally do and make the best decision possible while providing helpful feedback.

My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments made in the debate. That being said, I remain a teacher at heart and I'll also offer suggestions for how you can improve. That's why I still write full ballots and send them via email to the teams that I judge.

Here are many of my preferences, simply-stated:

Clarity trumps speed...the best debaters are able to achieve both.

Evidence matters...but not much more than logical, analytical arguments. Many positions (case advantages, politics, etc.) can best be defeated with smart, analytical responses. Use your brain.

Efficiency and explanation both matter - but doing one while sacrificing the other produces bad debate. Explanation seems to lose out quite a bit these days...there is such thing as being "too efficient."

Process questions determine substantive questions. The "who" of action does, in fact, determine the effectiveness of "what" action is being taken.

I prefer that Affirmatives advocate topical action. Specific plans of action are preferable over vague/generic policy suggestions. Yes, that means I still appreciate spec-based args.

I tend to find more persuasive logical/plausible scenarios ("truth") than technical/strategic ones ("tech"). A dropped DA is a dropped DA, but a card saying the economy will collapse tomorrow doesn't make it so.

I reward arguments grounded in the topic literature over arguments based upon non-germane net benefits or advantages. In other words, I'd prefer that you read the deterrence DA and an advantage CP over a made-up counterplan with an artificial internal net-benefit or a crappy politics DA.

Links/internal links are more important (and more interesting) than uniqueness questions. Most debate impacts are silly - not everything causes extinction. Yes, advantages/harms can be linked turned. Yes, impacts can be turned as well.

I'm increasingly frustrated by the relative absence of debates about important theoretical questions. Topicality no longer is seen as a strategic Negative tool. Affirmatives consistently refuse to challenge the theoretical legitimacy of various negative positions (conditionality, politics DAs, kritiks, etc.). Why?

Impact defense alone is an insufficient way to answer an argument. I'm confused as to how case attacks based solely around impact defense have become the "norm." The best argumentative strategies involve mixture of offensive and defensive responses. "No impact" doesn't cut it.

Effective cross-examination is still the most underutilized tool in debate. Poor, un-strategic cross-ex questions (and responses) make me sad.

I can spell 'K' despite my reputation. It's impossible not to acknowledge (albeit begrudgingly) that a well explained and case-specific kritik supported by high-quality evidence is an important strategic tool. Play to your strengths - even its gooey and critical.

I flow. I still flow on paper. It's hard to flow stuff - blippy T args, theory, embedded clash on the case, etc. Keep that in mind, especially if you are debating online.

Updated 9/9/2016

A few firm rules:

-Speech times are 9 minutes for constructives, 6 minutes for rebuttals, and 3 minutes for CX. Prep is determined by tournament invite. Each debater should give one constructive and one rebuttal, with only one debater giving each speech. 

-Note on CX: you get 3 minutes of CX time. If you ask the other team clarification questions during prep (“Did you read this card?” “Can you confirm your CP text?” etc), it would be pretty rude of them not to answer, but I will not flow this/treat it as argument-development time like CX.  

-I will use my ballot to decide the debate in front of me. Debaters can advance various criteria for how I should evaluate that debate, but I can’t render a decision on the basis of something that did not occur in the debate I have been watching.

-Be transparent about your evidence. The other team should receive the same speech documents that I do. That doesn’t mean you are obligated to include analytical arguments – people should also flow! Also, mark stuff during the speech, you probably aren’t going to remember each word you stopped at once the speech is over. 

A few argument leanings:

-I am pretty convinced that competitive debate requires a point of stasis. That doesn’t mean I think there is only one way to read/interpret the resolution, but it does mean that I am most persuaded by affs that relate themselves to the resolution in a way that they can argue provides predictable points of contestation for the neg. In short, Predictability/Argument Testing Good > Policymaking Good.

-I like plan/CP texts with some specificity. If your plan text is just a re-printing of the resolution, it will probably annoy me. If a team is vague about their advocacy, I am more likely to give the other team leeway in interpreting how it would play out through evidence.

-I am more sympathetic than average to aff theoretical objections (conditionality and multi-actor fiat stand out). If theory debates reflect well thought-out visions of debate rather than regurgitation of stock phrases, then I actually enjoy them.

-I can be persuaded that theory arguments are a reason to reject the team, and not simply the argument, if persuasive reasons are given. However, my default position is always to reject the argument (conditionality is an exception; rejecting the argument would make it conditional, so teams are encouraged to explain an alternative remedy), unless a developed warrant is made to the contrary. 

A couple general reflections on my judging:

-I think I care more about evidence than I did a few years ago. Debate requires skill in framing arguments and making comparisons, but also in finding good evidence to support your claims. Obviously I prefer to watch debaters do good evidence comparison, but it’s often hard to fully interrogate every piece of evidence in the debate. If a team has invested good effort in evidence comparison, I will try to extend their skepticism in a limited fashion as I read other evidence after the debate.

-I give the best points to debaters who have a good big-picture strategic vision of the debate and how the relevant arguments interact. If debaters invest their time in the right places and explain their strategic decision-making, I am more likely to view the debate the way they would like.