Policy:

When judging policy rounds, I look for answers to the following 3 questions:

1: What is the problem in the status quo?

2: What Harm is the problem in the status quo causing?

3: How is the Affirmative plan solving for this problem/Harm?

With those 3 questions in mind, I consider myself a Policy-Maker judge with a conservative bias.  I love to hear topicality arguments, counterplans, and DAs. I do not like kritiks and typically will not vote on them. Topicality, if argued, must be run in the 1NC.

Cross-Ex:

I prefer closed cross examinations as I believe that cross examinations allow the debaters to show the judge how well they understand what they are debating through the questions they ask and the answers they give.

Speaker Points:

I prefer a clear presentation. No Speed and Spread.

Typically the debater with the clearest arguments, most comprehensive rebuttal, and best cross examination performance receive my #1 rank.

Lincoln Douglas:

Having a background in Policy debate, I prefer debates that are contention based, not philosophical.

When judging Lincoln Douglas rounds, I look for the answer to the following questions:

1: If I had to do what the resolution asks in the Real World right now, which way would I go, based on what I just heard?

2: Whose value criterion was clearest? Which debater convinced me that he or she best supports his or her value? If it’s equal, which proved to have the “higher” -- more important -- value?

3: Whose arguments were more convincing?

Speaker Points:

I prefer a clear presentation. No Speed and Spread.

Typically the debater with the clearest arguments, most comprehensive crystallization, clearest value criterion, and best cross examination performance receive my #1 rank.

Experience: 4 years policy Neenah High School, 2 years policy UW Madison

For the sake of efficiency, I will start this paradigm with a basic list of issues and mistakes that most frequently appear in rounds and shape my decisions.

1. Impact calculus shapes my decisions more frequently than any other issue. Impact calc is more about relativity than telling me whether or not your advantage/DA has a big impact. Giving me a speech about how large your nuclear war scenario would be is ineffective by itself because it offers no comparative claims that help me distinguish between your impact scenario and your opponents'. Teams have historically won more of my ballots by telling my why their nuclear war scenario is bigger than their opponents' climate change scenario, to use an example. Making DA turns case arguments or case solves the DA arguments are also helpful in facilitating this process for me.

2. "Perm do both" is not an argument by itself. I have dropped affirmative teams in the past because they spent a 2AR telling me that the negative conceded the permutation without actually telling me anything about what the world of the perm looks like. In order to win a permutation, I require both an image of how the CP/K and plan interact in the world of the perm and an explanation of how the perm solves the net benefit.

3. "They conceded condo bad" is not an argument. If the negatives have indeed dropped condo bad or any other theory argument, please extend at least your interpretation and standards. The growing theme here is that conceded arguments still need to have impact calc attached to them in order to sway my decision.

4. If you read framework as part of a kritik, your explanation should thoroughly explain to me how I should evaluate both the kritik and the affirmative through my ballot. I have had many negative teams say something like "the judge should act as a critical educator" without actually telling me how I evaluate arguments under that paradigm. Does that mean the aff gets to weigh its impacts? Is the aff hypothetically implemented? If I don't weigh the aff's impacts, then how DO I weigh the aff?

5. Please treat your opponents with respect. Being assertive and displaying outright hostility towards the other team in cross ex are two different things. Your ethos will not increase by acting excessively sarcastic to your opponents, and it's always uncomfortable to watch rounds like that. I realize that tensions inevitably increase from time to time due to the competitive nature of the activity, but please realize that we are all just here to learn at the end of the day. I'm also not about to vote for racism good or similar arguments, and death good is probably an uphill battle for you.

Next, onto some more specific arguments. I'm not the type to outline every single genre of argument and explain what I like to see, but here are some important ones:

Framework v. K affs: I am more persuaded by arguments geared towards argumentative refinement and institutional engagement being beneficial as opposed to arguments about fairness. I tend to view fairness as an internal link to education, and I'm not usually persuaded by "debate is a game" arguments because I have derived more education from debate than from any other game I've ever played. You will have an easier time winning my ballot if you thoroughly explain the bounds set by your interpretation and clearly explain how a TVA under your interpretation can still access their portion of the library. The less exclusionary your interpretation is to various forms of scholarship, the more likely you will earn my ballot.

K Affs/Antitopical Affs/Non-traditional Affs: I am happy to hear these and evaluate them like I would any other argument. I have a few comments to keep in mind, however. I have seen a lot of teams use some sort of performance, poetry, etc. in the 1AC and then not talk about it for the rest of the round. If you performed something, that performance usually has some sort of value in terms of scholarship, so it's definitely worth your time to extend it. Also, if you're debating against T-USfg, craft your counter-interpretation carefully. Many teams will make a CI that seems rather self-serving and tailored to their specific affirmative. Those highly narrow CI's make it easier to prefer the negative's framework from an education point of view.

Answering Kritiks on the Affirmative: I see a lot of policy aff teams forming unnecessarily defensive strategies when answering kritiks. Spending two minutes of the 2AC explaining to me why there's no link to the K is probably an inefficient way to spend your time because there's almost always SOME link. Instead, focus your time on making the impact of your 1AC massive and using that as offense against the kritik. Impact calc, explaining why the alt can't solve your impact, and explaining why the case solves or is a prerequisite to the K are all better ways of spending your 2AC/1AR/2AR time than trying to no link the K. Also, keep a perm alive in the debate.

Finally, some more general tips for the round:

Impacting your arguments out generally wins more ballots than focusing on every nitpicky detail of the line by line. You obviously shouldn't drop or overlook even "small" arguments on your flow, but a 2NR that discusses 2-3 arguments in depth with comparative work will likely beat a 2AR that spreads for 5 minutes but technically answers everything on the flow. I will probably miss dropped arguments if you spend virtually no time on them. It's always your job to impact out conceded points and turn them into key voting issues for me.

Ethos is crucial. I would bet that 90% of ballots go to the team with the stronger ethos and presentation of their arguments. This means that you should pay close attention to your delivery and the tone of your argumentation. Looking confident and making judges feel like your arguments are obviously true can seriously help shape an RFD. Additionally, take time to slow down in the 2NR/2AR and have two or three "ethos moments" where you stare a judge down and explain to them why a couple arguments are the most important ones in the world. If your 2NR/2AR is just you spreading for 5 minutes without actually changing your inflection or speed to articulate the crucial segments of your speech, I will likely miss some important arguments.

Other than that, I have few preferences from a substantive perspective about what arguments I want you to read or how I want you to argue them. I have seen a diverse array of strategies throughout my time in debate, and I would prefer a round in which both teams just argue whatever they like to argue.

Debate Experience: I debated LD for a year in high school, and I have been judging policy debate in Wisconsin for the past two years.

In general, you’ll do best in front of me with conversational speed, clear impact, and careful explanation of the relevant issues in the round and the important impacts. I am willing to vote on almost anything, but please don’t assume that I will automatically weigh the round the way you want me to without good reasons to. I am especially interested in hearing critical impacts in the round, and have a reasonable level of familiarity with Marxist and anarchist social critique. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t do other things, of course - I would love to hear strong work in many other areas, but you should make sure that you make the link and alt very clear to get my ballot.

On theory issues, I have very few pre-conceptions about “the way debate should be”, but I tend to prefer education as a terminal impact, so you will do well to explore exactly how your interpretation affects education in the round. On topicality specifically, please make the standards debate strong!

Oh, did I mention I prefer conversational speed? Take that seriously. I will ask you to clear up once before I put my pen down, and after that point, your speech time is being wasted.

I'm relatively new to Policy Debate. I consider myself a "tabula rasa" (TABS) judge. There are three things I give the greatest weight towards when I evaluate:

(1) Impacts

(2) Sign-posts

(3) Speaker skills - I appreciate clarity and reasonable speed. If I can't understand your arguments, I can't effectively evaluate you!

I was in policy varsity debate for 2.5 years and have been judging for another two years. I am a policy focused judge but I am fine with all other arguments as long as they are presented well. If you are going to argue non-traditional routes, just make sure to let me know why you should win. I'm fine with speed and prefer it if possible.

I fall under the confines of the tabs judging philosophy.... so there isn't an argument I won't vote on if you're winning on it.

I debated for two years at SPASH, and since then I have been judging Varsity debate for eight years now at in state(Wisconsin) and national tournaments ranging from the Iowa Caucus to the NFL National tournament. I've probably voted negative about 55-60 percent of the time.

Speed is highly encouraged so long as you're clear, especially when moving on to another argument. If you aren't clear, I'll warn you twice, but if you're still unclear beyond that, look at me with my pen down.

I love the kritik, and I've voted for it far more times for it than against it, but I hate when teams think its good enough to keep repeating the same tag line of what their argument is but fail to understand what their author's original intent of their writings were. I'd encourage an elaborate link story, especially with the Cap K since teams seem to run it in response to anything under the sun. So please, please, please, be able to explain exactly what your kritik is trying to say in SPECIFIC terms relative to the round. The framework/role of the ballot debate is also extremely important to my decision.

Generic disadvantages are sometimes interesting to hear, but please be sure that they actually link when they are used.

In general, keep your evidence up to date. It's always a laugh to hear it called out when something thats already come to pass.

Topicality is probably my favorite issue and one of the least well run. Though sometimes acceptably argued as non-substantive, the T debate keeps affirmatives in check.

At the end of the day, I will vote on any type or form of argument winning in the round. You're here to debate, all I'm doing is deciding who gets the W.

Topicality: Although I am not a fan of topicality, I will vote on it. However, I am more likely to vote on topicality if the negative is able to prove in-round abuse. If the negative is able to garnish specific links, it is going to be pretty difficult to prove loss of ground or fairness in order to claim abuse. This is generally how I also vote on theory.

Disadvantages: I will vote on a disad if the negative can prove that the impacts of the disad outweigh the solvency or at least risk of solvency of the affirmative. I believe that the internal link of a disad is a must. It’s difficult to make the leap from some generic or somewhat generic link to some large, terminal impact like nuclear war or extinction; there needs to be an internal link that ties the link and the impact. I also believe that uniqueness is essential, in the sense of how the affirmative plan uniquely triggers the link to the disad. Affirmatives are generally more likely to win a disad by running offense on the disad flow; just a suggestion.

Kritiks: I am kind of in love with K’s and tend to vote on them more often than not. I think that K’s are important in the sense that they tend to raise larger questions about the world that we live in, and the policies we are discussing. They engage in the mindset or framework behind these policies, as well as how these policies perpetuate or worsen the status quo, regarding issues like discrimination, racism, sexism, oppression, poverty, etc. If a negative is able to prove that critiquing these assumptions are good, I’m likely to buy the K framework, or at least weigh it against the policy framework of the affirmative. I think it’s important that the affirmative use the 1AC as a resource for showing solvency of the harms of the K. Like a disad, the affirmative should be making uniqueness claims on the K, questioning the marginal increase in disadvantage of the status quo via enactment of the policy change, comparative to the solvency of the affirmative advantages; if the affirmative is able to prove that isn’t reason enough to reject the affirmative, I’m likely to vote affirmative. I am not a fan of reject the affirmative alternatives, there needs to be more depth, more analysis to the alternative; or give me some analysis why rejecting the affirmative is key, ie. in-round solvency, role of the ballot claims, etc.

Counterplans: A counterplan should be competitive; meaning it should be mutual exclusive of the 1AC, and should include a net benefit. Without a net benefit, the CP is not competitive, and I have no reason to vote for the CP over the affirmative plan; this pretty much comes down to the impact debate again on the net benefit versus the affirmative plan.

Framework: I think framework is a must when it comes to K’s and performance cases. You need to make it clear to me how to frame the round, why I should prefer one framework over another. I also think it is essential to impact framework, within the round, as well potential implications outside of the round.

My background: I debated policy for 3 years at Sheboygan South and 3 years at Lakeland College.

I prefer for debaters to do what they are best at. I'd much rather listen to and vote for an argument that I dislike if it's run well than listen to an argument I like run poorly. Therefore, I don't have much to say about specific arguments here. I'd prefer to be asked specific questions before the round. In general, I like to hear thorough line by line and evidence comparison.

As a debater I competed mostly in Public Forum. As for L.D. I had little to no exposure to that form of debate during high school however since graduation I have judged many L.D. rounds and I am well aware of the in's and out's of L.D. I'm a very tech oriented debater, stick to the flow, answer your opponents arguments, and you’ll have a good chance of winning the round.

Quick Version - Everything is debatable. I will do my best to keep myself out of the round as much as possible. Remember that my preferences are always available for negotiation so do what you do and PLEASE don't try and conform to whatever things I put on here.

Other Meta level things - A good analytical argument beats a bad card everyday of the week. Also, a dropped argument is a true argument, however, this doesn't matter if it isn't impacted. Comparative impact analysis is a must. I try to stick to the flow. I will default to offense/defense. I think it is extremely rare for there ever ever ever to be zero risk of a link.

T - I default to competing interpretations. I think you need to have a counter-interpretation in order to make me vote on reasonability. Topicality debates too often come down to whining, whereas it should be treated like any other section of debate. Impact your arguments and do comparative impact analysis (i.e. why education outweighs fairness, etc.).

CP - They should be competitive. I believe counterplans can be textually competitive, but obviously the net benefit should be formulated as such. I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, dispo, states) and think that you should reject the argument not the team. As a side note, if running topical counterplans is your thing, then do that. Also, I can be persuaded that any differential of a link could be a possible net benefit, but if it becomes a wash, I will not be working for either side.

Conditionality- My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. As with everything, this is debatable. Along this vein, unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

Kritik - I think that debate should be a model for policy-making education. Reps and generic language Ks often run from topic specific education. Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. I appreciate well run Ks, so don't be afraid to run one in front of me if you know what you're doing.

DA - I love a good politics debate more than anything. I am less likely to vote on cheap shots (intrinsicness, vote no, fiat solves, etc.) but can be persuaded otherwise. Evidence comparisons on all levels of the disad are necessary whether you're aff or neg. If I'm left weighing impacts after the debate because no one has done any comparative work you're probably not going to like the outcome. All in all, disads are good so you should probably run them.

Speaker Points - I try to assign speaker points relative of the division I am judging (i.e. I won't be as harsh on a novice as I would a varsity debater)

L.D.

Do to my background I am definitely open to progressive L.D. debate, whether it be Kritiks, K Affs, Plans, Counterplans, anything you want. Also speed is a non-issue.

Values and Criterion/Framework- Generally I see these being underused by the end of the debate. Most debaters I see simply assert that their way of framing the round is better and the only justification they have for it is just the definition of their value and criterion. In a debate you should be telling me why your interpretation of how to frame the debate is preferable. Whether that be because your interpretation encompasses that of your opponent, the education that is garnered from debating under your interpretation is greater, portable skills impacts, etc. Also, tell me what happens to your opponents case/impacts if you win framework. It is typically far less obvious than it seems to you what I should do to your opponents case and I’m not one to try and decipher that you are implying that if you win framework that I should throw your opponents case out. If that really was something that I should automatically do, there would be no purpose of debating the substantive issues of the resolution; there would only be debates on framework and nothing else in this world. On the other side, if you are losing framework tell me why your case can still be weighed or at the very least which parts of it still can be weighed. Typically, you lose a lot less of your case then you think you would even if your opponent wins framework.

Impacts- This is the other part where I believe most LD debates are lacking: impact calculus. Tell me why your impact is more significant than your opponents. Whether it be because your impact is the root cause of your opponents, your impact has greater access to things such as intersectionality (I know that’s a weird way to phrase it, but I couldn’t think of anything better), or simply based upon a greater magnitude of an impact, whatever. Just because you’re not in policy debate you are not excused from doing impact calculus. This is especially true because there are many death based impacts in some LD resolutions. When it comes to this as well, USE YOUR FRAMEWORK, the reason you read framework is in order for you to give priority to your impacts. Be sure to tell that to me outright. Whether you tell me on the framework or impact level debates is fine, but do it somewhere.

Quick Summary: If I had to label myself as a specific paradigm, I would label myself as a picky tabs judge. I will vote on any argument as long as you analyze why that argument is a round-winner. I like to see good solid debates where there are fewer issues and more depth of argumentation. I like to see 2NR’s and 2AR’s analyze what the key argument in the round is and why they are winning that argument. I don’t like sloppy rebuttals that don’t resolve arguments clearly. In rounds like that, I am forced to intervene which is not what you or I want. I will default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative framework.

DAs: I prefer coherent DAs with solid links to the aff plan. Generic DAs are fine also. DAs are the easiest negative arguments for me to weigh in the round, but I still need some analysis in the 2NR as to why they are a round winner. Don’t just say DA turns case and move on. Tell me why the DA turns case, and it will make it easier for me to vote for you.

CPs: CPs need to be competitive. I’m open to topical CPs, but I need you to explain why it still competes. I believe that the negatives need to prove that their CP is competitive. On the other side, I need affs to really explain their perms and how they prove the CP is not competitive, Don’t just read a ton of random perms in the 2AC and extend them blindly in the 1AR. Give me analysis of why the perms prove the CP doesn’t compete. If you expect to win on a perm in the 2AR, I need to hear at least a decent explanation from the 2AC on it.

T: I am not the best judge for a T debate. Too often, T debates devolve into generic standards and voters being thrown about without any clash or analysis. I find the argument of reasonability very persuasive. Overall, don’t run T just to show off your “cool” definition; run it if you feel there is actual abuse in round. Please weigh your standards and voters especially in later rebuttals.

K: Ks need framework. Preferably in the 1NC, but I will also accept 2NC framework as well. Tell me why the K comes before the case otherwise I default to a policy maker framework. For a team to win on a K in front of me I need a solid analysis of what the framework is, how the K links to the plan, what is the impact/implication of the K, and what is the alt/role of the ballot. I will accept a reject the aff alt, but I really like alts that allow me to embrace something with my ballot. A cohesive, well analyzed alt that explains what a ballot for the K means is much more likely to be a round winner for me. I am not familiar with a lot of K lit, so I’d prefer any Ks run to be well explained. Again, make sure your 2NR explains the K link, implication, alt and framework. For the aff, earlier comments on perms apply here as well.

Theory: I am not the best judge for a theory debate. I would only vote a team down on theory if they were doing something truly abusive in round. Other than that, I usually at worst will reject the argument if the team drops the theory violation on it. On questions of CP status, I usually err neg, but if the affs present a convincing violations I could vote on it. The same goes for “cheater” CPs. If you are going for a theory violation, ultimately, I need good analysis in the final rebuttals as to why it is a major issue in the round.

Performance Debate/K Affs: I need convincing solvency and framework arguments from the aff team. I find arguments about clash and portable skills very convincing, so if you are running a K aff in front of me you need to have good answers. I will vote for performance/K affs, but to win it in front of me you need a clear, convincing answer to why you chose not to talk about the topic. I am not the best judge for this type of debate.

I debated for SPASH until 2012 and I studied English and Philosophy during Undergrad. My academic background and my experiences make me pretty open to all types of arguments including Topicality, the K, and theory. I'm a tabs judge and I'll vote on almost anything as long as you're actually making and supporting an argument. Don't assume I'm making any connections for you within your arguments (or between speeches...). While I will vote on Topicality of theory, be careful if you decide to commit to these arguments.

Judging policy debate since 2012

-I am a tabs judge

-I am evaluating the flow and logic of your arguments

-Help me to follow your arguments by providing signposts

-OK with speed if you provide a synopsis of each card

-Prove abuse on topicality

-Explain how your DA links to the plan

-Tell me how your CPs advantages and how it is unique

-If you run framework, please explain how your argument fits into it

-Provide me with impact and reasons to vote at the end of the round.

Background: In college I debated on the national circuit for parliamentary debate. I formerly coached collegiate parliamentary and policy debate. I currently serve as the assistant coach for Marquette University High School. I have previously served as the head coach for Ronald Reagan College Prep and an assistant coach for Solorio Academy High School.

E-Mail Chain: Yes. Send to bjs.debate@gmail.com. (Note: asking me if I want to be on the e-mail chain is usually a sign that you didn't read my paradigm before the round. It is right here at the top...)

Quick Philosophy: I strongly favor a policy making philosophy. Ideally the AFF should advocate a policy topical to the resolution, and the NEG should explain why I should reject the specific policy case made by AFF.

Quick Tips:

1. Speak clearly. If I can't understand you, I can't flow you.
2. Do not argue a tagline. Argue the logic and evidence.
3. Maintain clash. Line by line is good.
4. Identify voting issues.
5. Take advantage of the cross examination to force concessions and formulate your arguments.
6. Do not be rude. Be witty. (Wit = speaker point bumps)
7. Have fun.

Longer Philosophy:

- Planless Aff: If the AFF isn't affirming any specific plan, advocacy or course of action, then the status quo doesn't change. Assuming NEG makes that argument, NEG wins on presumption.

- Tech v Truth: I try to prefer tech to truth. Like all judges I attempt to avoid intervention, and a dropped argument is a true argument.

- Links: I do not think enough scrutiny is usually given to link arguments or link chains. I am a big fan of strategies that attack internal links or the link of a disadvantage/K/etc.

- Advantages and Disadvantages: You need to perform an impact calculus. Significance arguments should have fleshed out impact assessments with relative risk analysis supported by evidence. Politics DAs are great.

- Speed: Keep your speed reasonable. While I can handle a speedy round, I think teams who slow down perform better - they understand their round better, and I understand the arguments better. Clarity in the round matters. Make sure you articulate and enunciate your words. Speaking exceptionally quickly to try to read more cards or have more, and less developed arguments, isn't effective (and will hurt your speaks). I will let you know if I have a problem keeping up with (or understanding) you, and I'll give two warnings before I stop flowing. I will not use your cards to fill in what I miss because you are going too quickly (or if I stop flowing because I warned you twice).

If you are doing more than 7 off case arguments, you're not giving enough attention or time to all of the arguments, and you're likely relying on speed. I would far rather have fewer arguments with a deeper dive into the issues than more arguments and cursory explanations with an attempt to win simply by having the other team drop an argument that hasn't been developed much at all. I will weigh how well developed and impacted an argument is that the other team dropped when 8+ off-case are run.

- Cross Examination: I flow CX. Cross examination is an extremely important and undervalued tool in current policy debate. I recommend flowing those developments into your speeches. Do not be elusive in response to questions. A simple "I don't know" is an acceptable response if you do not know the answer. I award higher speaker points for individuals who do not rely on verbal assistance from a partner in asking or answering questions or making speeches.

- Topicality: I will vote on topicality, but my threshold for topicality is rather high. Topicality arguments that are well developed and given time during the 1NC/2NC are more likely to be successful, and the NEG should explain either how the AFF violated a reasonable and fair framework or why NEG's interpretation is better (I enjoy debates about what the proper meaning of a word should be and how that impacts the plan or the debate). If you are going to argue topicality and the AFF asks what a topical plan would look like under your framework for topicality, you need to be able to give an answer. If you cannot provide an example of topicality under your own framework, you have a problem, and your argument is very unlikely to persuade.

- Performance or Meta-Debate: I am not your judge, and you should strike me. My threshold for theory / topicality arguments against performance debate is low.

- Counterplans: I am a huge fan of counterplans, and I strongly look to functional competition. I enjoy a well run process counterplan. Process does matter in the real world and has real policy implications. I am not a fan of consult counterplans, but I have and will vote for them.

- Theory: I am fine with theory arguments and debates. For conditionality, I am fine with multiple CPs and kritiks, but keep your conditionality within reasonable constraints (i.e. six or more worlds is not very reasonable). I default to reject the argument not the team. If I am to reject the team, not the argument, have a very good explanation as to why.

- Kritiks: I am not opposed to a K, but I am only well versed in K literature that is based in law and economics. For almost any other K you're going to need to SLOW DOWN and explain your buzzwords / jargon / concepts. If you don't explain the buzzword / jargon, I'm not searching your cards for what a term means.

I strongly dislike K taglines that are paragraphs. That is not a tagline - it's a mini-speech.

The K needs to link to the specific policy case made and engage with the substance of the Aff's plan. If there is no link to the specific policy or no engagement with the substance of the plan, then there is no reason for me to vote for the K. A successful K will (1) link to the specific policy being argued; and (2) have an alt that (A) is a conditional policy option; (B) competes with the Aff's plan; and (C) you have explained how it functions in the real world. If, at the end of the debate, I am left thinking "So what?" I am going to vote for the Aff if the Aff actually results in change in the status quo that solves for something, when the K does not.

For a K-Aff, the alt in the K-Aff needs to meet the same standards as the alt for any other K - the alt still needs to be topical, create change and solve for some harm.

- Off-Limits Arguments: No argument is out of bounds or off-limits in the debate round. Your team can make any argument it wants. If a team thinks an argument is objectionable or morally wrong, then the burden is on that team to explain why and why I should not vote for it. Merely claiming that something is offensive, immoral or "-ist" isn't enough. Why is it immoral or "-ist"? Why is it unfair or wrong? If your team can't explain why, I won't intervene to do the work for you. Run whatever argument(s) you want.

Note: The above should not be interpreted as carte blanche to engage in ad hominem attacks or other personal attacks in the round. You must be respectful to each other.

- Court or Legal Plans/Arguments: I am a UChicago law grad and a corporate attorney when not judging. I really enjoy listening to plans/counterplans/etc that involve the courts or a legal strategy. That said, I will know if you do not understand how the judicial branch functions, and I will know if your plan/CP actually functions or solves the way that you claim. I will not intervene to vote on these issues if the other team does not call you on it, but my threshold for them to call you on solvency deficits is low.

I am a student at UW-Madison in the middle of my sophomore year. I graduated from Reagan High School, where I competed with the debate program for all 4 years. I consider myself a tabs judge. Any presented arguments must be relevant to the case at hand, especially regarding K's and T. I am not a fan of speed and will be looking for clear and concise impact calculus, particularly regarding link chains, throughout the round.

Jerrod L. Walker

POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Varsity Switch Sides

jerrodwalker3@gmail.com

Tabula Rosa w/ Emphasis on Policy

===============THIS IS THE PART YOU NEED TO READ===============

I will listen to any argument, but I need you to weigh the round for me with real world impacts. Seriously, if you want to run a peanut butter and jelly plan that leads to the death of superman, I will listen to you as long as you explain what the impact of this fictional character’s death has on the world and why it is important. I expect everyone to make full use of logic during debate rounds and do the internal link work for impacts. Do not just read the card and expect that to be enough. You need to analyze these cards and give me their warrants. I do not like speed because most people are not clear when doing it. I will tell you once to be clear during the round. From that point forward, I simply will not flow you. I will try to listen, but you are risking me forgetting an argument. To be explicit: I do not like speed, but I’m okay if you do it AND YOU ARE CLEAR; do not go at a snail’s pace because then I become bored.

==================================================================

What is your ideal Debate Round?

I look for excellent direct line-by-line; tell me what they argued, and what your counter-argument is. I need good analysis of cards presented by both sides; do not just read the cards at me and expect me to make the connection. Speed through the card, yes, but slow down just a bit for your analysis if it’s important enough to you. I like to see a variety of arguments run, but tied into a strategy. In each rebuttal speech, you need to weigh the round for me. I also like it if debaters do not sound as if they’re about to die (the gasping thing…don’t do it.)

What are your thoughts on Topicality?

Topicality is about what the plan actually does – what does the plan mandate must happen? Topicality has little to do with advantages that are claimed, the effects of doing the plan, or anything conditional. In other words, your plan text must be topical. Therefore, being effectually topical is a problem because it explodes the topic – a negative simply cannot prepare to debate every single case that is tangentially related to the resolution. However, being effectually topical can be legitimate under some resolutions and it is up to the affirmative to defend their effectual topicality if this is where they fall. By the same token, if negatives argue that the affirmatives are effectually topical, they must tell me why that’s a bad thing both for debate AND they should provide examples of topical plans. The same applies for extra topicality – when an affirmative team is extra-topical, they are including mandates within the plan that are not topical with the resolution. Whether that means the advantages attached to that mandate are illegitimate or the entire plan is illegitimate is up to the negatives to prove. Topicality is also a gateway issue – if the affirmative is not topical and we cannot debate the actual resolution, then nothing else in the round matters and the affirmative loses automatically. It’s out of my hands.

Negatives can use topicality as a part of their strategy – it’s a legitimate argument. Yes, I agree that in most cases it is just a time-suck, but it’s also a very predictable strategy (so I don’t buy that topicality is an abusive argument). Affirmatives should also understand that I’m a writer and I have a degree in English and Legal Studies; in other words, I believe that debating about words and what they mean can be very educational. Not to mention that if policy debate is meant to simulate a courtroom, definitions of words become incredibly important at the appellate level. So affirmatives should know that standards or voters that say, “no one wants to debate about words” are not convincing. However, if topicality IS part of your negative strategy and you run a topicality argument, you should know that I’m going to look very strangely at my flow if I see lots of on-case turns or takeouts or case-specific DA’s. Even still, the burden is on the affirmative to point this out for me and tell me why this is abusive for the round or harmful for debate. Don’t you dare expect me to make arguments or connect the dots for you. That’s your job.

What are your thoughts on Solvency, Advantages and Impacts?

It’s a very simple concept, right? If you cannot solve for your harms or your advantages, then your plan doesn’t matter. Your cards need to actually prove your solvency; if you do not have a card that explicitly says that your plan will solve for the harms/contentions/advantages, you need to do the internal link work to show me how you will solve. Now, because I am a tabs judge with an emphasis on policy, you are probably going to want to run a plan that has advantages that solve real-world problems. Frankly, I don’t believe a nuclear war is ever going to happen. Maybe there will be some nuclear strikes that lead to a war, but the war itself won’t be nuclear. Now, if you can give me legitimate reasoning why nuclear war is likely in a specific scenario (rather than some convoluted systemic postulating that ends with everyone dying), I’ll give it to you. But just as I expect teams to prove topicality, I also expect teams to prove to me through logical internal links backed by evidence that the Nuclear War (or Extinction) is going to happen. But if a team tells me in a speech with pure analytics and empirics that extinction and nuclear war are unlikely, I’m going to be very inclined to believe them. And let’s be honest here – there are impacts beyond these highly unrealistic end-game scenarios. What about genocide? Economic collapse? Human rights violations? Territorial or civil war? Perpetuation of –isms (sexism, racism, elitism) that lead to oppression and dehumanization? At least all of these have actually happened, right? Come on, be creative!

Additionally, because of my emphasis on policy, I am looking for real-world impacts and impact analysis throughout the round. It’s not enough that you simply have impacts, however real they may be. What’s more important is that the impact calculus is done, especially in rebuttals since I do not consider impact calculus a new argument. Talk to me about probability – which is more likely to happen? Just as I was saying above, I’m probably more inclined to believe in a dehumanization/ human rights impact than a mass extinction impact. Why? Because one of those things has happened to the human race before – empirics can be convincing. Tell me about the timeframe of the impacts. If someone has a bunch of internal links that leads to this huge impact (i.e. global warming = climate change = melting of polar ice caps = flooding of the world = loss of life, crops, etc. = extinction) and the opponent have the same impact with a timeframe that happens sooner (i.e. biological warfare = outbreak of uncontrollable disease = extinction), I might be inclined to go with the extinction that happens sooner. You know, if you’ve convinced me that extinction is going to happen in the first place. Talk to me about magnitude – if both sides are arguing about people dying, then which impact has more people dying. If we’re debating dehumanization and one has an impact that dehumanizes a larger group of people (i.e. racism), then I have to go with the impact that saves the most people.

That’s basic impact calculus that I expect to happen, even at a novice level. Now, for advanced Varsity debaters, I’m expecting you guys to be a bit more sophisticated with your arguments. If your opponents are arguing that sexism causes human rights violations but you are arguing an impact of terrorism and national security, sure they might have a larger magnitude, but we can reverse human rights violations eventually. We can’t reverse death. This is called arguing reversibility of an impact – if your impact is irreversible and the opponents can be corrected, you could legitimately argue that for the time being, your impact is more important. You could also take out their internal links with your impact – urban sprawl and industrial development destroys biodiversity and the environment, so the former outweighs the latter impact/advantage. You could also take out their impact by inserting your impact as an internal link that causes their impact – in other words, dehumanization leads to genocide, so stopping dehumanization is more important. You could also include their impact or advantage along with yours; for example, a third world war is inclusive of a civil war (and has a larger magnitude), so the world war outweighs the civil war. Whatever you decide, just be sure not to be lazy during the speeches and forget to do impact analysis.

What are your thoughts on Disadvantages?

Let’s start with the basics. Regardless of how you structure your Disadvantage, there absolutely must be uniqueness, external links, internal links, and impacts. If you want to combine the uniqueness and external link to be a “Unique Link” card, hey, that’s your prerogative (and a time-saver).

However you handle it, I need the negative team to explain to me why the impacts you’re going to claim have not happened yet and how the plan presented by the opposing side will uniquely cause those impacts. For example, if the negative team were going for an economic collapse scenario, then their uniqueness would show that either the economy is doing well now or that we are improving/seeking to improve the economy. I expect uniqueness cards to be current, meaning you should keep those updated throughout the debate season. There are a few scenarios where uniqueness may not require the most up-to-date cards, but that is a rarity.

When giving me a link, please avoid generic links. If every single possible case links, then I have to agree that it’s an abusive argument. Unless of course you tell me why generic disadvantages are good for debate. In fact, when it comes to generic disadvantages, the only time I really approve of them is when a team is running them along with a topicality argument and I’m told “this is all we can run because of how non-topical their plan is.” That is called good strategy. Otherwise, if your DA is important to you, make sure the link is specific to the plan you are debating against. Whatever the case, it is the presenter’s burden to prove to me that the plan causes the disadvantage you are claiming. Following your link, you should probably have an internal link if the connection between the external link and the impact is unclear. You could leave it out, but running a DA in the 2NC with no internal link and then trying to provide them in rebuttals is abusive. It’s simply good practice to ensure that you have done the work to show me how this change that the plan causes leads directly (or systemically) to the impact you provide. Refer to the above section for my thoughts on impacts.

As far as how I like to see teams defeat Disadvantages, there are a few ways that I think work very well. The easiest is usually going to be demonstrating that you do not link to the disadvantage (No Link arg). You could also argue that your plan doesn’t cause the internal link that causes the impact. And then, of course, you can argue that there is no uniqueness – demonstrating that the link has happened in the past and the impact has not happened. Then there is the no threshold argument, arguing that the link does not make it clear when the impact will happen, which is mildly convincing. Now, these are all defensive arguments and while easier to make, are not the best for a good debate round. An offensive argument that works very well with me is a link turn, which I think should always happen in two ways: 1) Show me that the impact is already going to happen in the status quo (Non-Unique) and 2) Show me that you actually do the opposite of what the opponent’s link says (turn). This is a great strategy because now you can include their impact scenario as an advantage to your plan! Now, if you want to make things really interesting for me, do impact turns where you try to convince me that the impacts of the disadvantage are actually a good thing. Again, I am a tabs judge, so I’ll consider any argument fairly. Put the opponent into a position where they must respond to your arguments or risk them becoming advantages to your plan. Just be careful not to double turn the disadvantage by doing a link turn and an impact turn (because then, you’re telling me that the status quo is doing something that you stop, but that thing you stop is actually a good thing…meaning I shouldn’t do your plan). I’ll also accept severance permutations if you can convince me they are legitimate.

As far as how I like to see disadvantages run, I only have a few things. First, please clearly say which cards apply to which arguments: Uniqueness/Unique Link, Link, Internal Link, Impact, etc. (same for responding: No uniqueness, No Link, Link Turn, Impact Turn, No Internal Link, etc.) Second, disads are fair during any constructive, even during the 2NC – still, it’s sporting to ensure that you do most of your off-case in the 1NC. Oh, and side-note: I’m going to be very impressed by an affirmative team that effectively uses a disadvantage against a counterplan.

What are your thoughts on Counterplans?

While in traditional, old school debate, the negative’s job was to negate the resolution (argue against it), today, we realize that sometimes, a resolution is such an obvious societal good that counterplans have become common. And you know what? I love it when negatives run counterplans! I am of the philosophy that once an affirmative gives us a topical plan text, they abandon all other grounds within the resolution to the negative because you are saying that your plan is the best method for answering the resolution, or at the very least the only plan you’ll be advocating this round. As a tabs judge, I don’t care whether the plan is topical or non-topical. A smart affirmative that runs into a non-topical CP would be smart to argue how abusive it is to allow a negative to run non-topical plans. But ensure that you understand the debate theory behind such an argument.

Unless you convince me otherwise (which, again, is more than possible), a negative team must offer a counterplan that is competitive. This means that the CP should be fundamentally better and different to the affirmative plan and any combination of the plan and counterplan; in other words, they should be mutually exclusive, meaning unable to exist simultaneously.

One final thing on counterplans: You MUST present a counterplan in the 1NC and if you continue to advocate for the counterplan in the negative block, I expect you to continue it throughout the round. If you’re going to make us debate a counterplan at all, it had better not be a time-suck. Hypothesis testing is fine, but you can determine after you’ve heard the 2AC if you want to continue that route or not. If you do, then stick to it. If you’ve run a bunch of other arguments along with a CP during the negative block, then kick the CP in the 2NR, I will totally side with the affirmatives if they claim abuse.

What are your thoughts on Framework, Theory & Kritiks?

When dealing with a tabs judge like me, providing a framework is one way to take control of the debate. In most cases, judges will default to “calculative framework,” which doesn’t necessarily consider which course of action is the best, but which course of action causes the least damage (or saves the most lives/resources/etc.). Now, for many teams, this is perfectly fine. But depending on what type of arguments you run, you might decide that you need me to consider things differently. Perhaps you need me to think about morality over anything else. Perhaps you need me to consider future advantages over immediate disadvantages. Again, when you run a framework, you’re telling me how to evaluate the round in the end (and for a tabs judge, that works out really well). Here’s the thing – if a team runs a framework argument, you MUST respond to it or you’re telling me that you agree with them, which probably isn’t in your best interests. And I get rather excited when I have two competing frameworks – it makes the debate more interesting.

When it comes to debate theory and kritikal arguments, I absolutely LOVE them. When it comes down to it, we are debating about ideas. If I vote for your plan, in the real world, nothing actually happens. But a kritik allows us to examine how we are thinking, which can have a very real impact in our lives. In my humble opinion, kritiks tend to be some of the most important debates in the round. Indeed, it’s important enough that it’s considered an a priori argument, meaning that I will consider a kritik before I consider any other argument(indeed, I’ll place it directly after topicality during evaluation). But as much as I love kritiks, I love coherent debate more. That is, if you do not understand a kritik well enough to make what you’re arguments are explicitly clear to your opponents, you shouldn’t use it. I don’t want to see someone struggling to make an argument they don’t understand… or, worse, running arguments that bite into their own kritik.

If you do decide to run a kritik, you must have all 3 parts of the kritik and you should clearly sign-post them  (unless, of course, your kritik is against linear thinking…). First, you must provide me with a link. Because a kritik is usually a philosophical argument, there’s no need to prove that it is not happening in the status quo (in other words, I don’t expect a kritik to have uniqueness to the opponent’s arguments/plan), but you have to show me how the affirmatives actually bite into the kritik. You must explain to me how the affirmative or negative’s entire mindset is wrong. When giving me the link, you should clearly explain what the opponent’s mindset is as well as explaining the fundamental ideals behind that mindset. Next, you’re going to want to give me an implication. Here, you will explain to me what impact that mindset has on the world or society. What is the moral/ethical/real world impact? Finally, a kritik must have an alternative; it’s all well and good that we understand how harmful a certain mindset is, but what is our alternative? Give me an option that is better than what the opponent is doing.

Defeating kritiks can be done in a number of ways, but there are a few that I’m partial to. Among the easiest ways to defeat them with me is to attack the alternative. I am not a fan of the “reject the affirmative” or “reject the mindset” alternative and, should the opponent be so foolish as to not read this and use that sort of alternative, feel free to point out that they’ve provided no “real” alternative. You’d also want to point out that the mindset also exists in the status quo while doing so. For me, that’s enough. Now if they actually went ahead and provided a real alternative, it becomes a bit stickier for you.

You could also go for more logical refutation. Maybe the opponent doesn’t actually end up making an argument for something that is objectionable, so then you shouldn’t be required to respond to it. After all, they have an entire speech to make a clear argument and shouldn’t be allowed to expand on an a priori topic so late in a debate when they’ve already had the opportunity. You could concede that what the opponents claim as a bad mindset is bad, but that it doesn’t actually link to your case. You could argue that after re-thinking everything through, that the kritik actually still doesn’t matter that much (all the easier if you’ve provided a framework for the debate already). If the negatives have run any other arguments that bite into their kritik, you could argue that the kritik should be thrown out for pure reasons of inconsistency. Sure, I’ll buy that (but here, you run into the risk of the negs kicking that argument; you can try to still point out that the kritik is invalid since, regardless of whether they kicked the argument or not, they’ve already demonstrated the exact same mindset, so they are no better and don’t deserve to win the round).

More interesting still, you could decide to argue against the kritik itself! Prove, through reasoning and evidence, that the kritik simply isn’t true. Or, you could argue that the assumptions being made are justified because it’s the best option we have (again, easier with a framework). For those most comfortable with traditional policy debate, it’s probably your best bet.

The most interesting of answers involves kritiking the kritik. You could kritik the assumptions that the kritik is making using your own evidence and analysis (so yeah, make blocks against common kritiks). You could argue that kritiks are, by their nature, self-contradictory; if kritiks are saying we must question all assumptions, then you can probably convince me that negatives have the burden of proving that there are no hidden assumptions in their kritik and that before we consider any part of their kritik, they must provide evidence that they are not vulnerable to hidden assumptions (almost like a T argument). Finally, you could lean on the fact that I place emphasis on policy and argue that kritiks are not valid because of their nihilistic nature – if we have to question everything, then we are left with never-ending skepticism with no solution, which just isn’t acceptable for the world. If we are to get on with life and solve problems, then we have to reject kritiks as a concept because they stop us from living. I may love kritiks, but I concede that this might be a problem with kritikal arguments. You just have to argue it.