Some tidbits to consider, no particular order:

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

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

Don’t assume I know what you are talking about

I prefer organization and development of arguments as the debate proceeds. That means: 
Details matter. Warrants matter. Cross-ex matters. History matters. 

Evidence matters when a claim is contested. "We have a card" is not a warrant for an argument. How one chooses to highlight evidence should be of relevance to you, but it is especially relevant to me.



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



I think the activity is at its best when rounds are serious and complex investigations of policy, philosophy, and politics based in literatures and discussions made relevant by and to the resolution. 

That means I am less likely to care about miniscule theory debates or certain kinds of performances until/unless their relevance is clearly explained and impacted. Then, it's awesome.

I like:

case debates

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

affirmatives that affirm things

consistent but tricky negative strategies

counter plans with solvency advocates and real net benefits

alternatives

some relation to reality, even if contested

ethos

serious theoretical objections, including topicality

Everyone is always learning - including me and you.

Will update again for Northwestern -with a longer paradigm

I think the game is best when students are comfortable and presenting arguments at a high level. I will try my best to adjudicate the debate in front of me. Here are some things to keep in mind:

1. I'm decently versed in anti-blackness literature. So if that is your thing, awesome. I'm excited to hear your particular work. Just know because of my background I have a high threshold for that argument set. If it's not, that's ok but just know I expect arguments to have a certain level of depth to them and won't just vote on arguments that I don't understand.

2. I haven't judge alot on this topic. So different topic phrasings have to be parsed out for me.

3. I'm all about the link and impact game

4. Not a fan of the overly confrontational approach

5. Slow down on analytics

6. I'm very expressive judging debates so pay attention to the non-verbals

7. FW is cool with me - has to be impacted well.

8. DA/CPs are cool if explained well.

9. Will vote on condo - not a fan of conditional planks

Hope this helps.

Affiliations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

paradigm writing is confusing bc it ultimately will not tell u much abt how i evaluate debates.

i flow and pay attention to concessions (unless told not to by debaters AND offered an alternative system of evaluation). i wouldn't call myself a flow-centric judge but the flow is important for my decisions bc coverage and the interaction of arguments dictate who gets what offense. my decisions are almost always premised on an offense/defense paradigm (tho this can become complicated in models of debate where people don't 'solve' per se).

i don't believe that judges get rid of all our preconceived assumptions (or any of them tbh) prior to entering the debate but that doesn't mean i'll refuse to listen to ur argument if it's different from how i feel abt debate or the world.

framing and argument comparison is more important than (is also the same thing as) impact calculus-- ur blocks will not tell u much abt how arguments interact but u in the round can take note of their interaction. argument interaction is crucial for both aff and neg. how much of the aff does the alt solve, and vice versa? what disads to the aff/alt are u going for and how do they interact w the offense the aff/alt is winning? if u win ur theory of power, what does that mean for the debate abt aff/alt solvency? etc...

i like good cx. it doesn't happen often, but debates can be won and lost in cx. what does happen often is that arguments can be dismissed or proven in a good cx. strategize. if redirecting or diverting the question is ur style, do it, but please do it well.

ONLINE DEBATING— clarity and slowing down are critical to deal with internet lag. ur judges no longer have the same cues bc of the limitations of the screen. plz account for this when debating in front of me. be willing to sacrifice a little speed so that i actually know wtf u are saying.

Jamie Cheek 
Weber State 

Updated for 2015-2016

I have been involved with college policy debate for over 10+ years. This is my fifth year coaching at Weber State University.

General Issues: 

1. Impact assessment and comparative analysis of the debate are necessary. I will rarely call for evidence.
2. I think one smart analytical argument can take out several warrantless cards. Also, I am not as involved with the research-side of things anymore, so extra clarification about topic-specific things might be helpful. 
3.I like to keep track of prep time, and I will get cranky about prep stealing. 
4. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing at the first beep.

Specifics: 
Theory – I have few biases about theory. I think all theory is debatable, except probably dispo bad; I will vote every time that dispo is not bad by itself. I’d prefer if you’d just say it’s conditional. If you want to go all in on a theory argument there are a couple things you need to have: 1) a link 2) an impact 3) a justification that is both a reason why you should win but also a reason why what they did is enough to cost them the round. Also, Ben Warner once told me, “Everytime I see someone go all in on theory because they think they have to, they usually didn’t.” So keep that in mind, I think it is sound advice. I also think the phrase "Status quo is always an option" doesn't actually mean anything, just saying conditional. 

Topicality – Everyone always says they love a good T debate; I also fall into that category. I will tell you my default is competing interpretations. The hardest part about T debates is that teams are unwilling to impact their interpretation. This makes it very hard to evaluate, and forces me do that work for them, which I don’t like to do. 

Framework – My whole debate career I was definitely on the side of "Policy Debate Good." However, I am willing, and have voted for, other types of frameworks. I think the most important part of this debate is that there needs to be an interpretation, but also an impact. Not just link arguments or “fairness important,” but what your framework means for my ballot. I think framework debates often boil down to a card war with no analysis as to how I’m supposed to evaluate the round based on the framework that “wins”. Make your framework offense to help you win the round. 

K’s – Here is an area that I am very unfamiliar with. I’m not saying “don’t read the K in front of me.” I’m more saying “I probably don’t know exactly what X author says.” I understand a lot of the strategy involved with this type of debate, it is the more specific nuances that I am probably the weakest at. For example, any high theory K's are going to be a struggle for me, especially if it has complicated terminology that is specific to the lit base. Also, you can read whatever aff you want in front of me, as long as you have a reason to vote affirmative. Talking about the topic is nice, but not required. I also think that impact turns to FW are a reason to vote affirmative.

CP’s – You got them, read them. I think cp’s that result in the plan no matter what are abusive. I think tricky cp’s shouldn’t be too tricky that I don’t get it. I also think at some point during the debate their needs to a be a moment where there is a clear explanation of the CP and how it solves the aff and why it is competitive. Also, for me to revert to the world of the SQ in an instance where the aff wins a permutation, this needs to be clearly set up and articulated by the 2NR.

DA’s – I think there should be more disads in debate. However, as much as I read politix in college, you should not be fooled. I will not be up on the newest scenario, so maybe a little overview in the 2nc would be nice. I also think the impact turn is a bit of a lost art, aff’s should do this more often to disads.

Ryan Cheek

Assistant Director of Forensics

Weber State University

***Updated for Wake 2015***

This is my 12th year in college debate. I would like to be included on your email chain (ryancheek@weber.edu). For me, debate is the intersection of community, paraprofessional training, and gaming. I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. I will do my best to adapt to you. That being said, after eight years of judging, I’ve come to realize some of my own quirks and limitations more fully:

1. Clarity of thought is paramount. I often find myself voting for teams that can make complex arguments sound like common sense.
2. I can sometimes be facially expressive and I don’t think my expressions are counter-intuitive. If I give you a confused look, then I’m probably confused. If I give you a skeptical look, then I’m probably skeptical of what you are saying.
3. Debaters that can maintain eye contact and deliver a compelling speech are very impressive to me.
4. On occasion, and particularly in debates with a lot of perms, I will correct you in cross-ex in regards to what the perm texts I recorded you saying are.
5. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.
6. If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it.
7. I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
8. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.
9. Well explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot, but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
10. Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
11. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
12. I’m not a fan of two-person speaking. This comes in many forms. Debaters talking over each other in CX, partners prompting each other through extended monologue, performative elements that make it difficult to tell who is giving what speech, teams prepping very loudly with side commentary while the other team’s speech is going on, etc.  Please, one person at a time.
13. I like to keep time. When your timer and my timer are in conflict, mine trumps.
14. Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and jump/email the 1AC before the round start time.
15. I don’t want to adjudicate ethical challenges. If I have to do so, then be aware that presumption is on the side of the accused.

Finally, I love debate and the community that it generates. Competition is fun, but is ultimately secondary to the communal nature of what we do. I don’t treat my job as a coach/critic much differently than I do my job as a teaching faculty member. In both spaces, pedagogy is my primary responsibility and I promise to do my best to live up to being the educator you deserve. 

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

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

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

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cultural Context

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

Post Rounding

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

"Community" Members

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

Judging Proper

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few issues that should be clarified:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

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

REFUTATION

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

EVIDENCE USE

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

ANALYSIS

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

Travis Cram

Director of Debate, Western Washington University

Years Judging: several

Email chain/contact: traviscram@gmail.com

My background is in policy debate, but I have been most involved the past 6 years through developing CARD (https://www.westerndebateunion.org/pnwdebate). I do not often judge debates these days, but every now and then I have the chance. Here are things about my approach that I think are significant:

1. I flow closely, and I think you should too.
2. I work hard to keep an open mind about the issues and arguments that are offered throughout a debate. I believe my purpose is to consider how effective you were at communicatingandarguingrather than evaluating the actual, empirical truth of a statement. At the same time, that purpose often asks me to consider how effective you were in convincing me that your argumentative content istrue or desirable. I will inevitably, as is true for everyone, have to resort to my own filters and experiences in making those assessments. However, I will always work to keep what was said or argued in a debate in focus as I decide and critique.
3. I provide post-round feedback that seeks to provide instruction and lessons for future debates, rather than reporting the (dry) details of how I decided this debate. I thus often discuss better paths taken, or ask you to think about how arguments, evidence, or perspectives interact in a larger sense. If you want more detailed explanations for how I resolved minutiae on the flow, please ask. I find my time is better spent providing future-thinking advice (my training in education tells me it is also in your interest), and so that is how I will couch my feedback.
4. Debate is about communication. It is also about research, advance preparation, and strategy. However, there is not a day I wake up where I am not going to be mostly concerned with the communicative, rhetorical, and argumentative elements of debate. The values and standards of communication may vary based on the format and participants, and I will work to meet participants (and the format) where they are at. However, I hold the expectation that the primary purpose behind debate is to learn how to communicate and argue well, particularly through oral communication.
5. The affirmative has the burden to prove a comprehensive case for change, and everyone has the burden to prove any single individual argument offered by them. The debate should focus on the topic, with the affirmative endorsing it. I do not provide a deeper theory beyond that. It is your debate; I expect you to provide those things. They are known as arguments.

There are a few things that I am increasingly not willing to compromise on. Those are important to know as well:

1. Value people.I believe you should show everyone who participates a basic level of respect even as you work through serious disagreements with them. Everyone has an obligation to promote community, or at the very least not actively undermine it.
2. Value debate, especially at the collegiate level. A considerable amount of resources are constantly expended to create the opportunity for people to debate. Seize and honor the opportunity, regardless of your goal or experience level.

I am happy to answer questions for those who ask in good faith.

Explain it so a 12 y/o could understand and you should be fine. The 12 y/o is as intelligent as you are, maybe even smarter, probably less prone to the self-sabotage of needing to be the smartest person in the room that embarrasses most debaters away from asking the stupidest, most rigorous questions (of themselves and others). There's just a knowledge gap. Would the words you choose equip an audience to effectively explain the concepts you need understood to others? You're not being evaluated as a student—even though close study is indispensable. It doesn't matter that you get it. You're being evaluated as a teacher whose job it is to teach other teachers. Good luck!

Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: lizdelacruz@me.com PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)

Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.

Note:

I am a flow judge! I will provide a Google Doc Link to use. I prefer this to an email chain because I there is a delay in getting emails sometimes. I also don't like putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence.

I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

General:

1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.

2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.

3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.

4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.

5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.

6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.

Summary/FF:

1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.

2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.

3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.

4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!

Speed:

1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.

2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!

3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.

Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)

Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University

Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!

Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?

Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.

Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy

Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.

Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.

Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.

Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.

Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.

Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.

DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.

CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

I feel that a new tabbing website calls for a new judge philosophy.  That, and my other one was about to start kindergarten, so...  

Some things have changed, some things have stayed the same.  Looking back on my old philosophy, I could tell that it was the scribbles of youth and over-exuberance.  There were many foundations that I would have liked to shake with that little document, but it is a rare occurance that anything written changes anything acted.  And such a poorly written little document at that! 

Some things you should know about me: I'm a philosophy guy.  I've done all of my formal academic training in philosophy and the history of philosophy, and debate plus a few classes on the side are all I have in communications studies training.  I tend to think that fact-value and fact-theory distinctions are bogus in practice but conceptually useful.  So, for example, against an "ontology comes first" argument, I would much rather hear a defense of your ontology rather than an argument about why ontological questioning should subside in the face of mass death.  Despite all this, I am a believer in the incommensurability of theories (paradigms?), so make your comparisons relevant--I'm a big sucker for elegance on this front.

I'm not big on offense-defense, especially on debate theory arguments.  Thus I'm not particularly happy when someone banks a debate on "any risk of a _____" impact calculi.  I'll vote on we-meets, too.  Even worse than this quirk in the way I evaluate the logos of your claims is the fact that I'll let the ethos and pathos of your speeches play into my decision.  I will let myself be "persuaded" by arguments, and though this sounds unfair, I think it is better that I am up-front about it rather than in denial.  As much as anyone tries to exclude them, these factors play a role in every decision.

I no longer default to flowing you in paragraphs in Word.  I used to do this because I thought that it would help me see through the way that the line-by-line obfuscates larger narratives and commitments in the debate round.  Not a lot of people do the line by line effectively anymore, and I feel that this obscures larger issues in a debate round in a more fundamental way (bad line by line outweighs dangers of line by line-centrism).  So now I'm out to help you figure out how to make the line by line work for you.

I will time your prep until the flash drive is out of your computer.

I will not disclose my decision until you update your wiki.

Without getting into too many specifics, I think that this pretty much covers what might make me different from the majority image of a policy debate critic.  I would much rather discuss concerns or questions you have about the way I'll evaluate debates with you in person, so please feel free to approach me or email me questions.

izak

9/17/2012

New Pet Peeve (10/14/2012)

2ac says various things about the alternative throughout their speech.  In the block, you say "Now onto the Alternative debate" and just say a bunch of stuff about the alternative.  "Embedding" clash is not an excuse to forego comparison between arguments, and not going to the line by line is not license to not talk about your opponent's arguments.  If this is your style of debate, you'd better make sure you are EXTENDING arguments (i.e., comparing them, arguing for them, deploying and employing them) as opposed to REPEATING the constructive that happened before you spoke.

If you do this in front of me, I'm going to set a very high bar for your speaker points.  If you do not actually embed clash, you will not receive more than 27 points from me.

Not all of you are ready to "do" embedded clash.  In fact, you've got to be pretty good at making discriminations about the line by line before you can decide on what does and does not count as a responsible or responive argument--in a way, it's a prerequisite to doing competent embedded clash.

Point Inflation Adjustment (11/8/2013)

After reading a lot about speaker points this year, I realize that I am way behind the times regarding point inflation.  When I was a debater, "competent and winning" was a fast way to get a 27.5, which wasn't bad (wasn't great, but wasn't bad either).  If I were "competent and losing", I usually got a 27 or a 27.5.  Speaker points describing incompetence lived around 27 and below.

My scale to date has pegged "competent and winning" at a 28.  This, of course, is just a baseline--I've definitely given points higher than a 28 to all four debaters in a round.  But, as long as you aren't vomiting on yourself during your speeches and are making good enough strategic decisions to win the debate, I'll give you a 28.  

It seems like I need to bump my points about half a point overall considering 5-3 teams are averaging about a 28.5.  I'm going to try and give "competent and winning" a 28.5 starting at Wake, if only to prevent teams from preffing me in all of my educational glory from being unfairly penalized by my miserly nature.

Point Inflation Update (11/12/2013)

Two edits: (1) For Wake, I'll use their speaker point scale.  It already seems pretty close to my inflation adjustment.  (2) After Wake, I'm going to try and give "competent and winning" a 28.3.  Seems to capture what teams that are winning just over half of their debates are averaging in 2013.  Also, I used to have to work hard for my 28.5's and am besieged on all sides by a burning and childish need to feel better than all of you.

Kyle Eriksen

Green Valley High School (NV) 2006-2010.

UNLV 2010-2014. 1x NDT Qualifier.

I haven't been actively involved in coaching debate since the 2016-2017 season. I don’t believe much has changed, but something to keep in mind.

I have zero investment in terms of what debate should look like. I used to almost exclusively judge clash debates. With that said, it’s been a decade since I’ve done genuine topic research/politics DA etc. I think the foundational elements of what wins a debate hold true no matter the argument. Something else to keep in mind.

Speaking very broadly: the aff has to win that they are better than the squo or competing alternatives, and the neg needs unique link arguments to the aff to win the position.

If you are reading something exceptionally dense, please do the work to explain your position and clearly identify unique links to the aff. If you are aff, please explain why what’s happening is happening.

I like: impact turns, bold strategies, disad and case debates, crafty counter plans, technical topic and case specific K debates.

I’m cool with: debates about debate, “non-traditional” approaches, theory debates, backfile checks.

I don’t like (but will vote on): framework without direct refutation to the K aff, conditionality bad, SPEC args, convoluted topicality debates.

I’m not keeping time. You got this. Not interested in email chain or reading evidence unless there is a factual dispute.

Treat people like they are people and respect the tournament host and its facilities. Automatic loss for flagrant disrespect. This isn’t Twitter. Clean up after the debate.

I’ll leave you with this: I’ve always believed debate is merely a game we play to refine skills we will take with us to the outside world. Nothing more, nothing less. Enjoy your time in this activity!

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

Matthew Jallits

Debated 3 years @ Puyallup High School (08-11),

Debated 4 years @ University of Nevada Las Vegas (11-15)

Coached 2 years @ University of Nevada Las Vegas (15-17).

CEDA 2019 Update:

CEDA will be the first full college tournament I will have judged at this year, meaning I will have minimal knowledge about the topic.

I'm down for any form of argumentation as long as there's a reason to vote for it. Direct refutation of arguments is best over implied argumentation. This means I prefer technical, flow-centric line by line debate. I don't think every argument needs a card, but it certainly helps.

Other things:

-I flow on paper

-I don't have my laptop open and will not read any cards until after the debate (if the warrants of a card are in question). I want to be focused on what is being said in the speeches.

-I don't want to preside over accusations about what has or hasn't happened outside of the round I'm currently judging.

-If there's an email chain, I'll be on it: mmjallits[at]gmail[dot]com

DOF - Cal State Northridge 

Competed: 8 years. Critic: 14 years 

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

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

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

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

Role of the Judge/My Preferences

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

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

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

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

Framework/Performance/The Res:  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

General in-round/deciding issues:

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

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

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

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

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

Interactions between debaters, and between debaters and their arguments:

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

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

Speaker Points:

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

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

Was in debate for a disgustingly long time, dropped out, now here for whatever reason. I've seen and done it all.

Just do you. I'm confident that if you're smart and good we'll make a connection. If you're bad you'll get real advice.

Updated for 2014-2015 debate season.

I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. However, I still strongly believe that if you care about the environment, racism, or injustice that you should register at tournaments vegetarian or vegan. Tournaments will provide for your nutiritional needs and you will have abstained from using your registration fees paying for the slaughter of sentient creatures whose death requires abhorent working conditions for people of color, massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the death of individuals. 

What people decide to consume is a political act, not a personal one. Deciding to consume flesh at debate tournaments continues the pattern of accepting violence and discrimination. This happens for workers, for people living in food deserts, people living in countries across the world, and for the non/human animals sent to slaughter. Tournaments are not food deserts. Your choice to consume differently can make a tangible impact on debate as a community and beyond. Your choice has global and local ramifications. I urge you to make the correct choice in registering your dietary choice even if it has no impact on your speaker points. Several people said that they didn't want to be coerced into making the decision to go vegetarian or vegan at tournaments for speaker points. Now is your chance to make that choice without the impact of speaker points.

All that being said, how you choose to debate is a political choice as well. You can debate however you like but you should realize that the methodology and the content you put forth are not neutral choices. Whatever choices you make you should be ready to defend them in round. “As Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen emphasize in Channels of Desire: The politics of consumption must be understood as something more than what to buy, or even what to boycott. Consumption is a social relationship, the dominant relation-ship in our society – one that makes it harder and harder for people to hold together, to create community. At a time when for many of us the possibility of meaningful change seems to elude our grasp, it is a question of immense social and political proportions.” (hooks 376).

If it is not already clear, I will say it outright: I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. This does not mean I won't vote on framework or counterplans. What it does mean is that the arguments that I will find most appealing are those arguments that speak to how traditional approaches to debate are beneficial to us as individuals to create a better world. It is not that fairness is irrelevant, but that fairness is relevant only to that extent. Fairness plays a part in constructing meaninful education and activism but is not the sole standard to enable good debate. Concepts of fairness are not value-neutral but it is a debate that can be defend and won in front of me since I do not think fairness is irrelevant either. For teams breaking down such structures, you still must win the debate that your approach to debate is better for advacing causes of social justice. If you like policymaking and are running counterplans you merely need to win that your counterplan is a better approach. The same applies for theory violations. I will vote on them if you win that the impact to the violation is important enough for me to pull the trigger. The same is also true for kritiks and other styles of debate. Win that your approach and your argument deserves to win because of the impact that it has.

Again, to be clear, this does not mean that I intend to abandon the flow or vote based upon my personal beliefs. My belief is that debate is more than a game and that the things we say and do in it are not neutral-choices. This does not necessarily mean that so-called traditional policy debate is bad but that the way it should be approached by those teams should not be assumed to be neutral.

Whether it is what you eat, or what you debate, your choice is political. Our world can change. It is up to all of us to make it happen. Movements are already happening all around us. Don't let the norms dictate what you debate or what you consume. Debate should be at the forefront of these initiatives. Use the education you gain in debate to say something and to do something meaningful both in round and beyond.

Boring biographical information: Debated at UMKC & ESU (RIP to each) 2002-2005 & 2008-2010. Assistant director at Emporia State 2012-2014, director of debate at Emporia state 2016-2023, current director at Johnson County Community College.

Clarity note:

It has become extremely apparent to me as my hearing loss has worsened that I benefit immensely from slower debates both in-person and online. However, this is especially true of online debates. I have discovered that I have a very hard time following extremely fast debates online. I'm not looking for conversational speed, but I do need a good 15-20% reduction in rate of delivery. If you can't or don't want to slow down, I would really prefer you don't pref me. I cannot stress enough how important for me it is for you to slow down.

I have tinnitus and hearing loss and both have gotten worse over the past few years. What this means for you is that I have a hard time getting tags and transitions when everything is the same volume and tone, so please try to make those portions of the debate clear. I also have an extremely hard time hearing the speech when people talk over it. If you're worried about this stuff, please just slow down and you'll be fine.

Here's the stuff I'm guessing you want to know about the most:

1. Please add me to the chain: dontputmeontheemailchain@gmail.com

2. I follow along with speech docs to help me make faster decisions. If you think clipping has occurred, bring it up because I'm not watching for that.

3. Yes, I will vote on framework. Yes, I will vote on impact turns to framework. Along these lines, Affs can have plans or not.

4. I love CP/DA debates. I'm generally open to most CPs too, except for conditions CPs. I really hate conditions CPs. I vote on them, but it's usually because no one knows what artificial competition is anymore. But, yes, please CPs. Veto cheato, con-con, national ref, consult, unilat, etc. But beware of...

5. Read more theory. Go for theory more. No one expects it. You win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.

6. Impact turns > Link turns

7. I think there's such thing as "no risk of a link."

8. I try really hard to vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know. I am generally very expressive, so you can often tell if I understand a thing or not. Along these lines, though, I often need help in the form of you explaining to me how to read a piece of evidence or what an argument means for other arguments in the debate.

9. All that said, please just do what you're good at and we'll all be fine.

Note about points: Unless I tell you in the post-round that you did something worth getting bad points for, my points aren't actually an attempt to punish you or send a message or anything like that. Historically I've given high points and I want to make sure I keep up with the community because points are arbitrary and silly so I don't want anyone to miss because I'm just out of touch or whatever.

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

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

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

In evaluating rounds, I will assess them as follows:

I am willing to listen to any argument as long as it is presented in a clear and understandable fashion. You can be fast as long as you are clear. The most important thing to remember is that the idea of debate is to persuade. Given that, organization matters and details matter. 

My mind works in a logical manner if using an abstract argument you will need to make sure to explian it well in the constructive speaches.

Evaluating narrative AFF's is hard to do if the solvency is not clear. My mind is geared more towards policy. This doesn't mean I discount narrative AFF's, but rather they need to be clear on the harms and the solution that my ballot would bring.

K’s-  I always find them creative and interesting. They will carry as much weight as you put into them. Any “K” will need to be explained and applied to the debate. If you just read cards with no specific application, you might as well not read one at all.

Impact calc never hurts… Harms need to be evaluated and compared.

Disads- If they are current events (i.e. politics) they need to be explained, don’t assume that I am up on a current election or legislation.

The way to win my ballot is simple Organization, Presentation and Communication.

If you have any questions just ask.

What is the difference between the two arguments and why is that important?

The method you use to do this does not matter.  The key word is argument.

I do value research and evidence in debate.  I also value clash and on point refutation.

Good Luck!

Experience:

• University of Wyoming policy debater & coach
• UC Berkeley policy coach
• Judging CARD for 3+ years (critic of the year in 2022)

CARD is not policy debate by design. I want to be moved and persuaded by your arguments, which you can't do if you are reading or speaking fast and using a bunch of technical jargon. Keep this activity accessible.

Read any style of arguments you want (kritical, policy, lived experience), but relate them to the topic. If you want to read an untopical affirmative then get ready to impact-turn and tell me why your arguments are important for this specific activity.

The 2NR and 2AR are for telling me exactly why you won the debate. A dropped argument is a true argument, but you need to tell me why that argument being true is important for your overall case (i.e. compare the quality of your arguments). Debate isn't just about winning individual arguments on the flow, but telling the judge a compelling story. An important part of telling the story is through impact calculus/comparison.

Flowing: I still prefer to flow CARD like a traditional policy round. I flow each argument on a separate page and I want to be able to line up the arguments to quickly compare them when rendering my decision. So, try to stay organized and answer the arguments in the order they were made.

Bottom line: Arguments need evidence and warrants. Keep it cute, don't post-round me.

Happy to answer any questions before the round begins.

I have experience judging a wide range of arguments. I have found the following qualities more important than any of the particular content of arguments: 

- completeness of argument 

- meaningul engagment with opponents arguments and questions and responses in cross-examination 

- clarity 

- creativity 

- knowledge about the issues being debated 

- organization 

Those qualities provide the major criteria for my speaker points. I also find myself rewarding/considering: 

- degree of difficulty 

- general affect

I consider myself an active participant in the debates. I listen and flow intently and think thoroughly about whats happening in the debate. I take post rounds pretty seriously and view my role as a temporary coach, so please don't be hesitant with questions (whether you agree or disagree with the decision) I only ask that I am given time to fully explain my decision before interjecting. 

Andrew Myers a.k.a. "Big" or "Big Mead"

Current Assistant Director of Debate for Gonzaga University and Former Assistant Head Coach at Mead HS.

BA- Phil/Poli-Sci GU '12, MA- Phil SUNY Buffalo '14

4 Years Debating for Mead HS, 3 Years for Gonzaga. 5 Years Assistant Coach Mead HS, 5 Years ADOD at GU.

Email: andrewrossmyers@gmail.com

Final NDT Update – Minnesota NDT 19 (3-19-19)

To paraphrase Ryan Wash, this 'stuff' here is like a novel – it’s long and a lot to read. Fair, so I stole the “philosophy for the Twitter generation” idea from Adam Symonds for those that don't want to read it all:

TLDR: I have voted for and against Framework, Antiblackness, ESR + Flex, Nuclear Deterrence, Storytelling, and the State. Boo untopical policy Affs and abusive ESR CPs. Hater's Guide: Strict about highlighting, thinks Logic is real, votes for caring about people, Education > Fairness, thinks Debate isn’t just a game, hates agenda politics disads, votes for identity arguments.

My Decision Making Process:

My Vote means I think Team A wins and Team B loses. The final rebuttals most likely to win my ballot are clear on why my vote should declare their Team the winner, but the final rebuttal isn’t the only thing I will consider.

The Process of deciding which Team wins

1. General Impression – What is my first intuition about which team won the debate and why?

2. Check the Record – Did I miss something? Did I undervalue an Argument? Is there a critical concession?

3. Casting a Vote –

A. What are the “voting” issues?

B. Which, if any, arguments were decisively won or lost?

C. How do those arguments relate to the voting issues raised?

4. Determination and Decision – How will I explain the decision? Why Do I accept one of Team A’s or Team B’s voting issues over the other, i.e. Why not vote the opposite way?

This, quite simply, is how I make a decision. For why I make my decision, the rest of my judging philosophy is committed to continued debates where the voting issues are familiar. Debate is more exciting when the ground is unfamiliar, but that doesn’t mean classic debates are not interesting. Note that what constitutes a “classic” debate has more to do with intensity than ideology.

I cannot express anymore so clearly than this: Debate should not be a violent exercise, but it should be competitive, performative, and reasoned activity.

Arguments I will not likely ever vote for

Either,

A. Make debate a violent activity

Or,

B. Refuse Competition, Performance, or Reasoning.

(See below: Ethos, Pathos, Logos)

Examples of Arguments I will likely not like voting for:

1. No K’s ever judge, philosophy is too hard! If making sure when we act we do the right thing is hard for you, I have no sympathy.

2. Debate is Bad because it’s competitive! If your argument is right that winning is bad, why should you win? Clearly debate can take the competitive spirit too far and into the realm of toxicity (see: Either, A.). That violence forgets that part of playing a game is that you play with others.

3. The Circular Logic of Intrinsicness – There is a difference between what I think is intrinsic to the activity, a.k.a. what is to be done while judging, and the assertion of something being intrinsically good. The remnants of theory debates recirculating invoke too fondly paramount truths that are evidently not so self-evident.

4. The Argument as You experienced it/know it – My role here is to consider how we experience you making that argument in relation to others.

Finally, Debating about a Topic is language gaming. There are various language games we play, but we do so competitively at the intersection of thought and performance.

The 2018-2019 CEDA-NDT Topic headache:

I’ll evaluate the debate in front of me. I don’t think this resolution makes sense, and worse, is the bad kind of language game. I miss resolutions that were a statement, not a matrix.

If y’all are intent on having an ESR/Flex debate, that’s fine. Aff’s should be able to answer those core generics, some CPs are more abusive than others. I just don’t find that debate interesting.

I don’t get why Framework teams read not-topical Affs and not-topical TVAs, but especially on this topic (where the floodgates are clearly open). Aim Higher! K teams should not be afraid to read T in front of me against policy Affs. Policy Negs should be ready to defend the topic if your Framework argument is that the topic is good.

No Exec Authority to First Use Nuclear Strike =/= No First Use

Affs should specify the restriction(s)

I don’t think the Act of students debating simultaneously does anything about Trump in the moment. I do think I have seen debating by students on this topic that could effectuate change out of the round. I don’t know if this means anything in regards to presidential power.

I’m really not cool with War Criminals or Fascists.

NDT 16 Judge Philosophy Update 3-25-16

This will by my second year judging and coaching at the NDT for Gonzaga, and I feel compelled to comment on my continually developing disposition(s) as a judge.

I’ve had 52 rounds on this topic, varying in all styles.

I implore you to read what I’ve written here. I take this part of my job seriously and want to demonstrate how my thinking (philosophy) changes and stays the same.

If you don’t read it, ask Michigan KM how that went.

I prefer my role as a judge to be a primarily nonverbal communicative partner – including me in the round, making eye contact (when appropriate), reacting to how I am understanding you, is not merely a narcissistic request: it’s a recognition of a preference for active learning and teaching, for all of us.

I have previously written here that I prefer to be an educator, but frankly that won’t be the case for certain content or experiences. I can, however, offer some academic advice on the structure of your arguments, rhetoric and speaking style. Thus, being an educator is a preference based on comfort, but my comfort isn’t my preference with exception to the following uncomfortable (enough to vote you down) scenarios:

• Making jokes about rape, or responding to issues of sexual violence with jokes. It’s not funny to me. You know who you are.
• Sex, Gender, Orientation, Race or Ability discrimination
• Being willfully ignorant about Race. Racial naiveté isn’t always a reason to lose a round, but being unwilling to admit fault, mistake or responsibility for certain behaviors is not, at the very least, a persuasive way to get my ballot.

As a quick aside on education, the question of what a university should be for often causes me consternation. After all, for someone who valued education as an excuse not to go home, my growing pessimism in the academy (whether from the expected bitterness of graduate school or from the contemporary conversations of the occupy and black lives matter generation) makes me receptive to some cynical positions. I’ve seen some pretty indefensible things condoned in the University. That said…I still believe this activity can be good for students and as such my responsibility is primarily to them. The second I don’t believe that, I won’t be here. Without students we coaches don’t have a job. See Below: Commitment to Educational Debate.

And so I return to my reason for posting: I felt compelled because of my position to comment on some topics pervading the debate community right now:

- If I’m on a panel and someone wants to replace me, I won’t be offended as long as I can cover the rounds I am obliged to so my students can debate.

- If there is a recording, I don’t really want to be on it… So I understand the concern with being recorded against your will. I know states differ on their local laws and the NDT Committee has put forth polices on it. If both teams have to be on video, then I will also have to be on video for the space to be fair(er). I think there are interesting privacy arguments in support of extending protections against being recorded in debates, but I also think accountability is important. In the end I just want to judge the debate.

- I think speech times have to be rigid. I am fine with flex prep, and am honestly lax about prep in general, but at some point fairness and timeliness is a concern.

- I once judged a debate where a Bifo team hit a Buddhist team and they deconstructed the round, reconstructed it, and gave final speeches after dialogue. It was different but not uncomfortable, on time, mutually agreed upon, and productive.

- The only things I will say about civility concerns: a) Before the debate starts I don’t expect much other than if I’m asked I’ll answer questions. b) When the timer starts for the 1AC it’s all performance – that’s a necessary space to express some seriously challenging thoughts c)When the timer stops I prefer some quiet to make a decision, but I often will go smoke or put my headphones in anyway d) At no point should you physically harass anyone. Consent for me applies equally well to unwanted intentional physical touching e) Other issues are probably not my fight and I don’t poke around in them unless beckoned to – either by the ballot or as a community member and academic employee.

As a child Hip Hop made me read books,

And Hip Hop made me wanna be a crook

And Hip Hop gave me the way and something to say

And all I took in return is a second look

- Slug, Party for the Fight to Write

An Admission of Hubris –

“I probably have read the primary sources your authors are talking about.”

Turns out I don’t know much about many contemporary primary source debate authors, even if many of them I do (Given my previous disclosures of my education, expected authors would include stuff like Foucault and Fanon, but exclude stuff like Berlant and Bifo). Either way, you could plausibly predict what I’ve read merely given the MA and BAs in Political Science and Philosophy from a Jesuit Liberal Arts School. Ah how the tables have turned!

To Finish, another nod to Z-Lowe..

Ten Things I Like and Dislike

1. Terrible highlighting -

Honestly a lot of the “evidence” students are reading into the round has become unrecognizable by academic standards of clarity and integrity. Examples of things that irk me: sentence fragments, highlighting parts of a word as a word (i.e., deforestation becomes “defo,” proliferation becomes “prolif,” nuclear weapons becomes "nucs" ). A good way to understand my expectation: highlight your evidence as if you were quoting your sources in an academic paper. Anything else is the privileging debate norms over educational standards of scholarship.

2. Reading a Pile ‘O’ Cards -

In almost every entry here I bring this up. I still will read a bunch of evidence after the round given certain circumstances, but it’s my least favorite thing to do. Given the complexity of debate and the relative short times to make decisions, I don’t want to spend my time adjucating reading evidence I should have heard as part of your “speech.” Making a decision after re-reading read evidence in a debate distances judges from the performance of the speech and increases the likelihood of interpretive hubris. I don’t think either of those things are desirable characteristics of a decision. My novel idea for debate would be for judges to hear evidence read, the first time its read. I also think this is possibly a reason why I often find affective modes of communication persuasive – what they lack in depth they make up in clarity. I don’t think debate is a research competition.

A minor quip on the subject of speech documents: sending a speech doc for your opponents and judges that is 100 pages is both annoying and unrealistic. It makes it hard for everyone and borders on obfuscation. For my philosophy on obfuscation, See: Baudrillard.

3. Affs That Do Things –

I was more often a 2A than a 2N throughout my career. I loved the challenge of changing the status quo. Debate is one of the few spaces you can advocate things we would otherwise be shutdown for: ideas being politically unlikely, socially difficult or subject to academic inertia. If you aff decides to do nothing, I am very likely to buy presumption/pessimism arguments in response. If your aff does something, I am more likely to filter the debate through that proposed change. On a somewhat related note, my proclivity for opacity arguments is almost always as a neg strategy. I do think there are instances in which an opacity Aff makes sense, but given my biases here, it may be best to explain opacity as somehow a strategy to change the SQ, instead of merely retreat from it.

4. Violence, Nebulas… not Stirred

Too many debates I’ve seen have debaters using violence as an ultimate impact, without explaining intricacies or giving frameworks for understanding what violence means. How am I supposed to adjudicate different claims of violence against each other? Or what about violence against some tangible traditional impact (War, Environment, Disease)? Ethics can’t function if everything is axiologically leveled to “violence,” and thus questions of what I should vote for is very likely to be arbitrary in the minds of participants, even if inevitable given the level of analysis in the debate.

5. Demarcating Points of Contestation

Similar to my respect for taking on the challenge of the SQ, I reward debaters who clearly demarcate points of contestation in the round and focus on those matters of debate. Too often debaters run away from arguments rather than engage them. In the college policy debate community this can be discouraging, because we are supposedly a model for deliberation and dialogue. Those latter realities only exist if you’re willing to admit where the debate is, admit that you may not necessarily be right, but debate out the issues.

6. Lost Art of the Case Debate

I am by no means a stock issues judge, but I do think that every argument, every aff should be responsible for these questions. A lot of the time case debate devolves into alt causes and impact defense. While those are good arguments to have, especially in the 2nr, not debating the case is almost always an important forgone opportunity. This is particularly true for K affs – put up a fit and you will be in a much better position than simply ignoring the case. Because of my expectations of an affirmative, I can be persuaded to not vote for an aff based on solvency alone.

7. Joshua Greene on Deontology and Util –

I feel it’s important to disclose this bias, and I have to a few teams. Here’s the thing, when you spend a year on a masters thesis and one of the opponents of your thesis becomes a large focus of effort, time and intellectual investment…it’s nearly impossible to remove that bias. Joshua Greene’s arguments in favor of a moral realist/essentialist account of utilitarianism and deontology invariably raises my blood pressure and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Read a different defense of utilitarianism in front of me – I’m not persuaded FMRI’s prove how people think morally.

8. Flex Time –

I think there is enough to be gained in cross-examination, the most lively and engaging part of debate, that using prep time to ask and answer questions has almost no downside for me. That said, I think the other team has the right to not consent to questions of content (instead of clarification questions: theory, technical or flow) after the normal 3-minute cx period has expired.

9. Conflating Topicality and Framework –

The more persuasive arguments for me center on the content/object of the resolution (military presence) rather than on implementation/actor questions. For one, I think a resolution without “federal government” makes traditional Topicality arguments that turn into framework arguments very duplicitous. Framework should be the debate about what that Aff and Neg should have to do to meet a good interpretation of debate. If an aff makes an ethical statement that US Military Presence is bad, you have the grounds to say its good. You don’t need USFG action to do that. An Aff that doesn’t engage in the question of military presence, or some interpretation of that, isn’t being topical and I can find it a reason to vote Neg. I have voted on different conflations of Framework and T, but I increasingly find it important to delineate the two.

10. Being Big

I am still working on my pronoun usage and am myself unclear about my thoughts on many issues of identity, but I do think my persona in debate, while always authentic, is somewhat reserved. I am not particularly motivated to be extroverted in an activity that often reminds me how stuck up academics can be, and how they think that just because of my appearance they can crack jokes I find distasteful. As a result, I want to be known by who I am when I’m in the debate community. Calling me Andrew is a sign you haven’t given me the courtesy of reading this. Big is always the best way to refer to me.

2015-16 (Military Presence) Preseason Update:

I still endorse my philosophy as written below. Just a few quick updates as we begin this year:

- I am probably not the best judge for Baudrillard debates. Sue me. (Or Forget Baudrillard)

- I still like watching CPs and DAs, much to the dismay and/or shock of my fellow judges and coaches.

- I have a fairly low threshold for what is reasonably topical, but I prefer a reasonability argument on T to make an interpretation of the topic and give me a claim as to why the Aff (and other Affs) could engage the topic under that interpretation.

- Teams that escape jargonism, fashionable witticisms, and oversimplified argument explanation will do well in front of me. I like creative and unique debaters (which can be accomplished in any style - it's usually a matter of dedication, effort and presentation).

- Please explain Acronyms early in the year. Not everyone is going to get what your particular subdivision affirmative is on first hearing it.

- If you didn't read my judging philosophy before round, expect no pity for ignoring my preferences and/or committing offenses I find particularly blameworthy.

- If you can't debate technically, debate thuroughly. I am just flowing in excel columns anyway.

- Random but non-negligble pet peeve: students who start lists and never finish them (e.g., Debater says "There are Three Impacts to the K" then explains only two impacts).

- I value Cross-Examination like a speech. You can win and lose a round in one of those 3 min segments.

- Finally, I proscribe to this ridiculous notion that Debate is a Communicative Activity where Debaters try and Persuade me to Vote for them. See below for what persuades me and what doesn't.

2015 NDT Update:

I decided to post an update to my judging philosophy for the upcoming NDT (2015). Hopefully this is with enough time (a couple of weeks) for everyone to review it.

By far the most important thing: While I've judged 40-45 rounds on this topic, I have done so primary here out west. I don't think that disqualifies any of the debates I've watched - there were some terrific debates I had the privilege to judge this year. Still, full disclosure: I am more familiar with some teams than others, in the sense I've judged them debate before. Then again, with mutual pref judging, this seems like an inevitable outcome - you will always have seen certain parts of the debate community, hardly ever the whole field.

I decided to update what I've written so far for my judging philosophy primarily because I know the preceding to be compelling case for further disclosure of how I adjudicate debates. I stand by much of what I've already written. To expand, I decided to give a "Top Ten Things I Like and Don't like" (primarily an influence of reading Zach Lowe/Simmons Inc... also playing liberally with "Like" and "Don't Like," substitute "find persuasive" and "don't find persuasive" if you wish) in debate rounds.

Top Ten Things I Don't Like (In no particular Order):

1. Clipping

My First round back in debate came down to a clipping call out. Where I come from this is a "no-brainer" ethics question, but I do feel strongly that some rules in debate are necessary. One of those is you must read what you submit as evidence in speeches, particularly when in the form of cards. You will lose if you clip in front of me, but I need video/audio evidence and speech docs to determine this. Please, for everyone involved, do a better job of digitally "marking" your cards - don't leave things to chance.

Because I view clipping this way, it's important to note that while I'm not willing to vote for a team that clipped evidence, not all infractions are alike. I will not always simultaneously reduce speaker points to zero, or some other tanking number, and vote a team down. I believe mistakes can be made, but I also believe people can be malevolent.

Just don't do it, slow down and you'll probably sound better anyway.

2. Automization

I mean this somewhat sarcastically, but nothing about you reading into a computer screen is persuasive to me. I will always believe in the value of files, evidence and research, but those are neither absolute ideals nor the only means to win a debate round. Arguments, for instance, are not something I'm willing to vote on because it was written somewhere - explanation of evidence is key. I feel the prevalence of paperless debating is a evil necessity, primarily because debaters lose something of their ability to speak otherwise. Look up at me occasionally?

3. Avoidance

Call this my inverse justification for Clash being a thing I like. Debaters who avoid issues in debate/debate rounds are usually being: (1)selfish, (2)cowardly, (3)strategic or (4) unknowing/naive/unwilling. Only two of those states become problematic for a debate round, for two produce clash and argumentation, and the other two make the debate messy and needlessly complicated. Don't avoid a point of contestation with me, but also don't feel like I have a preferred set of points from which all arguments should begin.

4. Reading Evidence After the Round

I still dislike this practice, and I wrote about it previously below. However, I should make something clear: I really, really dislike debates where reading a pile of cards is the way to come to a decision. This, I understand, can be the natural outcomes of both good and bad debates. However, I want to stand by my statement:

"I will check evidence for accuracy/truth in representation if another team claims it doesn't support its intended use (i.e. your card that says the sky is purple actually claims the sky is blue). If an argument wasn't clear to me, and you were supposed to win a round on it, you probably should have made it clearer than a mumbled 15 seconds."

I have read multiple pieces of evidence in the post-round this year. I will admit that evil necessity paperless debate has this charm, and having the evidence in an email chain seems like not only good academics, but also a modicum of professionalism. I can't say I haven't been more compelled to read because I can get entire speech docs. This is a particularly helpful part of adjudicating that I won't ignore. However, if I can't get what you want me to get out of evidence in the post round (particularly if it's under-highlighted, which happens too frequently and is frankly discouraging) you will likely have dissuaded me more than had I not, and that matters for close NDT Debates.

The easy way to avoid all of this is to read evidence clearly, and draw the necessary warrants out of it. I think it's lazy to collapse an evidenced argument into a Authors last name (excluding titling a flow). Yes, technically there could be a "line" there, but is a bad practice of rhetoric and I find it unpersuasive. I also am always willing to check on factuality rather than persuasion. If you provide reasons why the other team's evidence is misread/doesn't support their argument, I value that style of argumentation equally as much as I dislike having to interpret evidence for/against speeches. I do not have a problem reading evidence, especially at the NDT, on the basis of these arguments. Ultimately, I am not going to read every piece of evidence submitted for review like that was all you did in the debate round - submitting evidence for review. I have other portions of the debate to think about.

5. Victim Blaming

I have no desire to vote for any argument that implies this ethos. This is both an ethos and a logos question. For example, Psychoanalysis K's can run dangerously close to blaming rape victims. I am not cool with that frame of mind and will flush your expensive euro-trash with a L.

6. Rude Partners

This is the sneaky dark-horse for my ideal in debate: the best debate occurs when partners work together, not individually.

Crazy right? Those who chose 2 person CX debate at some point chose to work with others. I reward debaters who embrace that aspect more than the sound of their own voice. A smart team is almost always two individuals working hard for each other, rather than two smart debaters working for themselves.

Don't be destructive to each other. Agonistic partnerships can be very successful, but they can also hurt your chances at winning. By far the best indictment of your argument, in any round, comes from your partner. Don't belittle, unnecessarily interrupt, or look upset/uninterested during your partner's speech. I ultimately give my ballot to a team, not an individual.

There is also a way to be kind/authentic in criticizing the arguments of your opponents (if you need a primer, see Dennett's "How to compose a successful critical commentary" in Intuition Pumps. I am by no means a fan of Dennett, but that process is one every debater should think about). Make sure, as much as one can, to do this as a team.

7. Tagless Taglines

A bit of 4 and 2 in this one, but I am also old school in how evidence is tagged. I am fine with short tags for evidence that requires no explanation. "Extinction," however, is neither a claim nor statement of fact. In fact, many cards read and tagged in such a manner frequently have little to make me believe the argument is even that strong. On the opposite end of the spectrum are K teams who read 3-4 paragraphs and don't introduce the evidence, or make it clear what part of their argument is supported by some fragment of analysis. Taglines in K debates I have a higher threshold on, but those issues irk me as much as badly tagged evidence that is then read unclearly anyway. Make claims, support them with evidence (or as I told many of my students in the past: evidence is a tool, not an argument).

8. Speaker Point Inflation

Mostly because I couldn't avoid it and my judging philosophy no longer represents my scale well. For the NDT:

26 and Below - You were punishably rude.

26.5. Incomplete, your speech ended with large gaps, whole flows dropped, no persuasiveness

27. Poor, you made a crucial error, were completely disorganized or had gaps in your speeches

27.5 Below Average, you provided no momentum for the ballot

28 - Average, you proved you should be here

28.5 - Above Average, you have the power to win some more ballots here

29.0 - Excellent, you should break at the NDT.

29.5 - Elite, you will be debating on Monday.

30 - Asymptotic, per my experience, these are so infrequent you can't predict them happening.

9. Debaters who don't Check Themselves

It's important to know when you're crossing a line from competitive to exclusionary, confident to obtuse. It's also important to act in a manner that produces a meaningful debate experience (whatever that may be). If that becomes impossible because you're not willing to discuss things like privilege, it seems you've failed at a basic test of self-skepticism that makes arguing possible. When debaters know they can lose on things like "Your evidence doesn't say Econ declines" and don't agree with decisions made through that framing, that to me is on par with refusing to answer the claim that "Your experience should be recognized as privileged in this analysis" and losing because they weren't open to how experience can be interepreted. We can't have debates if we don't purport to have some level of skepticism, arguing would cease to function educationally. That said, these are questions that implicate arguments, and almost completely arguments, rather than individual debaters.

10. Coaches that Degrade, not Support, their Students

I can deal with coaches making fun of each other, but how you treat the students in debate tells me more about you than how you treat the your fellow coaches. I am very intolerant of this in all forms - the students are paying to do this, not us. Treating any student in a defamatory or rude manner, that's a major turn off and I would prefer we don't speak.

Top Ten Things I Like (In no particular Order):

1. Analytic Arguments

I don't know if this a function of my experience with speech and debate growing up, but debaters who can't make arguments without evidence almost certainly are at a disadvantage in front of me. I will not simply dismiss a logical argument because you have a piece of evidence that argues, rather than proves/demonstrates, the opposite. Analytic arguments quality check the cohesiveness of the debate, bring issues to light in the block often foregone, and demonstrate a level of understanding and willingness to argue. Analytic arguments in debate almost always function on an a-posteriori basis and rarely a-prior unless that "K-Word" comes back into play. You should be able to argue, for instance, about connections between evidence, without needing another piece of evidence. This demonstrates a higher level of skill in debate that I reward. I do this not only selfishly as a lover of argumentative analysis, but also as someone who knows this skill can be, and often is, rewarded by graduate school, job opportunities and other sectors of life.

2. Proof by Example(s)

Though I like analytic arguments, and find a-priori claims persuasive, most often the fruitful discussions in debate occur when teams give concrete examples to explain, (sometimes seemingly) abstract concepts, connections or arguments. This process of concretion demonstrates to me a level of sophistication and understanding, and also a tangible hook to hang my hat on during post-round decisions. Obviously metaphors, poems, scripted-performances, etc. could all be examples of proof by example, not just history. Consider my preference here to be a testing question:

Basic Argument Necessities:

1. Do you have a Claim?

2. How is that Claim supported?

3. Proof by example: how does your argument operrationalize in different parts of the debate? How might it explain other questions in the debate?

4. Impact in/for the Round

3. Confidence/Willingness to Make Mistakes

I believe the qualities we associate with great debaters usually include fearlessness, confidence, complete attention, etc. These can manifest in different ways, and those ways in different people. The confidence that impresses me is the willingness to try, and be willing to fail to win a debate round. I think sometimes debaters are too worried about losing to focus on winning. As long as that focus doesn't result in other harmful mannerisms, attitudes and actions, I reward debaters for trying to win the round with with a cool confidence.

4. Round Awareness

Somewhat piggybacking of of 3, Debaters who are aware of details during a debate round can always make more strategic persuasive connections. There is a difference, for instance, in debating in the out rounds of the NDT and the Prelims. The way you construct your speech should be wary of that. The composition(s) of the people in the round is not ignorable, the audience included. There is also an awareness of how arguments function, when to stop belaboring, and when to reword and reclarify those arguments. These skills develop with time, but they should be easier to excersise with me because I am a fairly expressive judge. I am no Dallas, alas, but I do nod my head, smile, frown, laugh...you know, those things that make most of us feel human. I find this to be the most honest practice. Mostly, however, I am just very bad at Poker...so I will not try to be a stone-faced judge.

Debaters should also be aware of time. I don't reward teams with more than completing a sentence when the timer ends. I don't reward desperate shadow extensions in the last few seconds. I do reward speeches that end on or before time, or speeches that properly allocate time. I do reward good use of prep and CX time. Speaking time is the most valuable aspect of debate you can somewhat control, and everyone has the same access to the same time. Utilizing time well is a very good indicator of in round awareness.

5. Commitment to Educational Debate

This is an academic community (it includes mostly people employed and/or enrolled in the academy) that should primarily be focused on the Students. As such, students who understand where the pedagogical value of their arguments lie have a greater chance of winning in front of me. This is partly a question of logos (what have you learned, how did you learn it, what are we to learn?) and commitment your fellow students. Granted: not all students are alike, nor do they have the same experience. These two facts should be treated as advantageous: because you all are not alike and share different experiences, a commitment to learning together is probably the best possible praxis for debate. How does the debate round, per your framework or role of the ballot, promote learning? If learning is not all that important to you, that's fine. But understand I value this part of debate more than fairness or love of the game. I refuse to believe that debate doesn't help students - if that's your explicit goal I will likely be dissuaded. If you don't think debate is important, don't be in debate.

6. Humor

Judging very stressful debates can build up a lot of pressure. Humor is a great release valve. That being said, it's not in everyone's repertoire. Do what makes you comfortable, self-depreciation is almost always humbling but also potentially lighthearted.

7. Clash

Debate can be frustrating when neither team argues about the other teams arguments. The worst debates to judge, for me, have been ones where the Aff only talks about aff evidence, the Neg about the neg evidence. I think this is primarily a function of three practices:

A. Horizontal proliferation of arguments. I am persuaded by claims about 4-5 conditional options as weighing heavily against in depth clash from the 2AC. Part of me believes that this is inevitable in a competitive activity, part of me believes that it is also a defensible tactic. That said, if a team is "pushing pieces" but not arguing well, I do value theoretical objections on the basis of what positons move away from clash and what positions move toward it.

B. Fear of Impact Turning arguments. Too many times arguments become needlessly unwound without a point of disagreement. Your solvency/framework/kritik cards may poke many a whole, but the best evidence takes a stance in the opposite direction. Do I believe all impact turns are the same, ethically speaking? No: see Victim Blaming, above. That being said, in front of me, you can "Impact Turn" a methodology as much as you can a value claim. Why teams don't do this more often is strategically puzzling. They said Science was Bad? Maybe there are arguments that Science can be Good, or Useful? "Impact Turn" strategies make an obvious point of contestation that makes creative clash possible. However, Impact turning is merely a sufficient but not necessary means achieve that clash.

C. Debaters hate being wrong. Probably for good reason - most have been trained not to argue wrong things. Still, without trying out different arguments that produce a response from your opponent, debate kind of becomes oratory research reports, rather than engaging discussion.

8. ROTB's that Both Teams can Access

I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think its dishonest and transparently one sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation. Strictly speaking I think the role of my ballot is always to vote for the team that did the best debating, but if you have an argument otherwise, I would be more persuaded by a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. Otherwise its a meaningless piece of debate jargon substituting comfortable rhetoric for good impact framing.

9. Balance of Pathos, Ethos, Logos

Old-School Comm in this sense. Good public speaking requires a balancing all three. Excelling in one or more is ideal, but an above average accounting for each aspect is more valuable than any one on its own.

Examples:

You could be completely correct on a knowledge question, but did not impact that access to truth, nor argue for it with any passion. That is less persuasive than someone who may have lost a few questions of truth, but can still access impacts and passionately argue for them.

You could be full of passion, emotion and making an ethical case without an explanation of how your argument functions or why it should be believed (reasoning, logos).

Put another way:

If you are right on a question, that means you can win that part of the debate (Logos). You do not win for being right in places.

If you are passionate on a question, that means you can string together good arguments persuasively. Without arguments, you won't be persuasive, just passionate.

If you win an ethics question, that means you can frame the debate and win it. You could be right that violence is bad, but not provide a means to resolve it, analyze it or persuade me that its a reason to vote for you.

10. Round Framing in Final Rebuttals

Almost universally, this is what separates elite from above average debaters. Many of the Coachs and People Who Teach Labs I've talked to aree this is one of, if not the most important skill thats difficult to polish. The difficulty of the 1AR/2NR/2AR notwithstanding, the best speeches, and thus the easiest to vote for, frame how to make a decision regarding particular arguments and strategies as a whole. Not doing this puts it in my hands, which is not a bad thing per say, but it's always more strategic to tie together your arguments and show how they win the round. Old-school Voting Issues are important to me. What is most important, what could you do without? Even/if statements in the last rebuttals are supremely helpful.

Fall 2014 Judging Philosophy**

First, I should mention: I left College Debate before my senior year at Gonzaga. This did not play well with many in the community, after all I was abandoning an activity I had previously spent so much time on.

After graduating from Gonzaga, I enrolled SUNY at Buffalo's PhD in Philosophy program. I recently received my Masters and left UB to pursue other things in life.

I mention these things only to say, if I appear bitter, I really am not. But I do believe there are more important things than debate, and all of what I have been reading - on various media and social media platforms - about debate rings true about academia as a whole.

All of that said, I still think debate is an important activity, especially for students. As a judge, I have always preferred to act as an educator. This can include simply listening and giving the reflections of an average citizen - any debate is still ultimately a two-way street of communication for me. Thus, the primary importance of debate, for me, is that it is a speech activity emphasizing persuasion skills. I have no stylistic preferences, but I have been out of the game for about 3 years so I might be a bit rusty with speed, and might need some expanding of abbreviations, jargon and/or acronyms. Clarity and rhythm are crucial either way, and I'll announce "clear" several times before giving up flowing. Frankly, speed reading ultimately trades off with clarity, and I'd rather hear your argument than guess. Because I know I'm rusty I figured I should be clear with that warning - I'm not going to flow theory real well at 400wpm, let alone cards.

The other ultimate difference between myself and my peers: I detest reading a pile of evidence after a round. With few exceptions, most debates come down to a decision about a few issues. If this were quarters at the NDT, I would definitely join this practice insofar as my due diligence for the activity is concerned. If you think a piece of evidence is important, remember that I heard you read it once, and you have multiple opportunities to explain why the evidence is crucial. The obvious caveat to all of this is that I will check evidence for accuracy/truth in representation if another team claims it doesn't support its intended use (i.e. your card that says the sky is purple actually claims the sky is blue). If an argument wasn't clear to me, and you were supposed to win a round on it, you probably should have made it clearer than a mumbled 15 seconds.

I suppose in many ways my academic traits mirror that of my debate tastes. I tend to be a generalist - arguments of many shapes and varieties can peak my interest. In terms of my degree, my AOS is in metaphysics, and my AOCs are in Ethics, Ancient Philosophy and Continental/Social Philosophy. That being said, I spent the last few years being too weird for both the analytic and continental schools of philosophy - I find Baudrillard and Dennett equally intolerable. I probably have read the primary sources your authors are talking about. Just because you think repeating "Dasein" or some other term over and over is going to get a win, the reality of things often disagrees. Be clear and concise and don't rely on jargon to win your criticisms, make them apparent with evidence comparisons and concise link work. I love a good kritik debate, but despise a bad one. I debated all kinds of arguments in my career, and found many of those debates enjoyable for different reasons. I am comfortable with most anything, but don't tolerate any physical or mental abuse, discrimination or hate. Those are the easiest paths to make my ballot simple.

I'll accept any framework if it's argued for well. Performance, Identity etc. are all important elements in thinking about arguments. As I said, I like debate rounds that are aware of the activity as a communicative one. When I make expressions during your speeches, they usually are done intentionally. It's nice to be talked to as more than a transcriber.

If you have questions about typical jargon stuff, ask before the round. Frankly you should be able to convince me of something regardless of my biases - though I admit that my worst bias is openness to arguments. So I'm probably not going to reject a team for reading a K. Sorry.

Other housecleaning: I'm always a fan of being included in the debate if I'm judging, thus if you are paperless and are emailing, include me (andrewrossmyers [at] gmail [dot] com). I'll time prep as finished when the email is sent or flash drive is ejected. My main mentors, though I have had many, were Steve Pointer and Izak Dunn.

Speaker Points - My speaker points for an "average" debater is a 27.5. If I ever give someone a 30, it's probably going to be the last time I do.

Rewarded:

Crafty-ness and Tactics

Persuasion and Interpersonal Speaking

Clarity, Calmness, Confidence

Effective and Engaging CX's

Humor

Awareness

Punished:

Unintelligibility/Marble Mouths

Disorganization

Unbearable/boring CX's

Tunnel Vision

Defeatism

Why you gott be so rude? Don't you know they're humans too? Actually, being a little bit rude is what makes the activity fun, but there's a difference between joking/confidence/pressure and being distracting/harmful/obtuse. Please respect the thin line.

** Weber Update: I will vote teams down for clipping. This includes skipping words. I will only do so with video evidence in combination with the speech doc. I don't think this is always malicious, so my reduced speaker points will vary with the severity of the offense. (For instance, if you skip entire lines, I will give you a zero).

About me:

Director of Debate at George Mason University.

Please add me to chain: japoapst@gmail.com

11/26/2023 Speaker Point Update:

I will be utilizing the Regnier speaker point scale

5+ Random Things that Annoy me:

1. Hostility - I am too old, too cranky, and too tired to hear undergraduate students treating opponents, partners, or me like trash. I literally can't handle the levels of aggression some rounds have anymore. Please just stop. Be community minded. You are debating another person with feelings, remember that. Opponents are friends on the intellectual journey you are having in debate, not enemy combatants. Give people the benefit of the doubt and try to practice grace in rounds.

2. Debaters who act like they don't care in debates. If being a troll or giving some performance of apathy about debate is your shtick I am absolutely not the judge for you. Debate is a privilege that many individuals do not have the ability to participate in due to lack of collegiate access or financial well being, and I think we should treat the opportunity we have to be in this activity with respect.

3. Multiple cards in the body of the email.

4. Yelling over each other in cx - everyone will lose speaks.

5. Interrupting your partner in cx - I am seriously close to saying I want closed cx, I am so annoyed at how egregious this is becoming. I will deduct speaks from both partners.

6. Extending Cross ex past 3 minutes. I will actively stop listening in protest/leave the room. Anything past the 3 minutes should be for clarification purposes only.

7. Wipeout, Baudrillard, Malthus, Con Con CPs, Strike 'x' country CPs, trivializing the holocaust, reading re-prints of books from 1995 but citing it as the reprint date, fiating mindset shifts.

Topicality:

The nukes topic is great for the negative and I do not think I will be persuaded on sub-sets arguments against NFU. This topic is too small give the aff a break.

If cross ex actually checked for specification questions (i.e. "who is the actor" - and they tell you "Congress") - that is the only argument the 2ac needs to make against a 1NC spec argument.

NOVICE NOTE: I think it is ridiculous when novices read no plan affs - do whatever you want in other divisions, but these kids are just learning how to debate, so providing some structure and predictability is something I think is necessary. I err heavily on framework in those debates for the negative in the first semester.

Theory:

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. I genuinely do not know how I lean in condo debates. Some rounds I feel like the amount of conditional positions we are encouraging in debates is ridiculous, others I wish there were more. Open to being convinced in either direction.

Counterplans:

Are awesome. The trickier, the better. I’m okay with most of them, but believe that the action of the CP must be clearly explained at least in the 2NC. I don’t vote on something if I don’t know what my ballot would be advocating. I shouldn’t have to pull the CP text at the end of the round to determine what it does. I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff (if you can defend theory though, this doesn’t mean don’t read them). Also, I think that perm do the cp on CPs that result in the plan can be rather persuasive, and a more robust textual/functional cp debate is probably necessary on the negative's part.

**Delay and consultation cp’s are illegit unless you have a specific solvency advocate for them. Agenda DA Uniqueness cp’s are too – I’m sorry that the political climate means you can’t read your politics strat on the negative, but that doesn’t mean you should be able to screw the aff’s strategy like that. Have other options.

Important CP Judge Kick Note: I always judge kick if the negative would win the debate on the net benefit alone. However, I will not judge kick to vote on presumption. Going for a CP forfeits the negative's right to presumption.

Disadvantages:

Wonderful. Disadvantages versus case debates are probably my favorite debates (pretty much every 2NR my partner and I had). I love politics disads, however, I can be very persuaded by no backlash/spillover answers on the internal link – in so many situations the internal link just makes NO sense. I think there is such a thing as 100% no link and love thumper strategies. Like elections DA's - not a huge fan of impact scenarios relying on a certain party/candidate doing something once they get in office. Think shorter term impact scenarios are necessary.

Kritiks:

2023 update: For the past several years my work with Mason Debate has primarily focused on research and coaching of our varsity policy teams and novices. I am not keeping up with the K lit as I was a few years ago. Please keep this in mind. Everything below is from a few years ago.

I wrote my thesis on queer rage and my research now focuses on a Derridian/Althusserian analysis of Supreme Court rhetoric - but that does not mean I will automatically get whatever random critical theory you are using. Due to who I coach and what I research for academics, I am most familiar with identity theories, biopower, Marxism, any other cultural studies scholarship, Baudrillard, Derrida, and Deleuze. If your K isn't one of those - hold my hand. I think the most persuasive kritik debaters are those who read less cards and make more analysis. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line/tied into the case debate. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it structured. Unless your kritik concerns form/content - be organized.

Note for policy v K regarding the "weigh the affirmative or nah" framework question - basically no matter how much debating occurs on this question, unless the affirmative or negative completely drops the oppositions' arguments, I find myself normally deciding that the affirmative gets to weigh their aff but is responsible for defending their rhetoric/epistemology. I think that is a happy middle ground.

Critical Affirmatives:

Nukes note: I think the affirmative should *at least* defend that the US' reliance on nuclear weapons for military policy is bad. Some type of critique in the direction of the resolution. Inserting the word "nuclear" or "weapons" into your aff is not enough of a topic relevant claim imo. In general, I believe affirmatives should defend some universalized praxis/method and that deferral is not a debatable strategy.

Overall Framework update: Procedural fairness IS an impact, but I prefer clash key to education. I find it difficult to vote for impacts that preserve the game when the affirmative is going for an impact turn of how that game operates.

Generic Case Update: I find myself voting neg on presumption often when this is a large portion of the 2nr strategy. I recommend affirmatives take this into account to ensure they are explaining the mechanism of the aff.

I find judging non-black teams reading afro-pessimism affirmatives against black debaters an uncomfortable debate to decide, and my threshold for a ballot commodification style argument low.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable). I enjoy critical methods debates that attempt to develop a praxis for a certain theory that can be broadly operationalized. For example, if you are debating "fem rage" - you should have to defend writ large adoption of that process to give the negative something to debate. It is pretty difficult for a negative to engage in a debate over what is "good for you" without sounding incredibly paternalistic.

Overall Sound:

I am partially deaf in my left ear. It makes it difficult to decipher multiple sounds happening at the same time (i.e. people talking at the same time/music being played loudly in the background when you are speaking). I would recommend reducing the sound level of background music to make sure I can still hear you. Also means you just have to be a smidge louder. I'll let you know if sound level is an issue in the debate, so unless I say something don't let it worry you.

Flowing:

I love flowing. I do my best to transcribe verbatim what you say in your speech so I can quote portions in my RFD. I do NOT flow straight down, I match arguments. I most definitely WILL be grumpy if speeches are disorganized/don't follow order of prior speeches. If you ask me not to flow, the amount I pay attention in the debate probably goes down to 20% and I will have mild anxiety during the round.

Your Decorum:

Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent. This includes anything from ad homs like calling your opponent stupid to super aggressive behavior to your opponents or partner. Speaker points are a thing, and I love using them to punish jerks.

My Decorum:

I am extremely expressive during round and you should use this to your advantage. I nod my head when I agree and I get a weird/confused/annoyed face when I disagree.

<3 Jackie

Hello Friends,

I debated approximately 4 years of college policy debate, with my career spanning fresh doe-eyed novice to nationally travelling open. During that time I ran a medley of argument: Polx DA's, Counter Plans, K, performance args, and others.

Although near the end of my career I definitely veered left of debate and have ideological leanings towards the many literature bases comprised therein, my emphasis as an undergrad was argumentation and persuasion. So I am much more concerned with your ability to connect, analyze, and extrapolate evidence and arguments.

Don't feel inclined to change your strategy on my account, I am at least willing to entertain any and all arguments given well-reasoned justification. Ultimately I say: follow your heart.

In college, my debate style was left of center, but I was trained at Emory which means as much as I lean toward critiques and performance debates as my personal preference, I am equally as qualified to judge straight up policy debates. In debates where the policy framework meets the critical framework I vote for the team with the better argument even if I find the opposing teams position more interesting or entertaining, I can reward that with speaker points.
I don’t have any preconceived ideas about debate theory, so I tend to vote directly on the flow. If you win the theory argument and it has implications that you explain, I’m more than willing to vote there.
I am open to and willing to engage alternative stylistic practices and choices for debates.
I hate reading evidence after a debate because it means that the debaters have been sloppy and inefficient in explaining and defending their arguments. Thus, I only read cards if you have not done your job. That being said, if there is evidence you would like to be a part of my consideration because if I need to read evidence, I will only call for what has been directly referenced by you.
Important things to know about debating in front of me. I like smart asses, in general, but I think too many people cross the line in debate. So be forceful and aggressive, but watch the rudeness factor with the other team. I can be very supportive and will offer suggestions both for improving debate skills, but also in improving arguments, and pointing to interesting directions for more evidence.

---I strive to be as fair as possible. Meaning, I take this (my job as a judge to assign a win/loss) seriously and I pay attention.

---Arguments get as much attention from me as the debaters gave them in the debate. Explain, give warrants, read high-quality evidence.

---There's nothing I won't vote on or listen to. Convince me what's important, what's of value, what my ballot means, and why I'm voting the way I'm voting. Do the work.

---I like to be entertained by persuasive speakers, smart arguments, creativity, humor, etc. etc. (doesn't everybody?) and those things are usually rewarded.

---Don't be a sore loser or a smug winner.

Steven Sanchez

4 Years/Weber State University, 3rd year out.

Overall Philosophy:

• Run whatever you like. I am open to all arguments just as long as you execute them well - I'll provide exact criteria to what that means to me:
• A. You have been able to explain your argument at a basic audience comprehensive level.
• B. You have developed your arguments throughout the debate to adapt and provide the best application to the learning or outcome of the activity and have shown why your argument carries greater significance to what that outcome is.
• C. You have demonstrated a strong understanding of your opponents strengths and weaknesses and have identified why you win and why they lose this debate. I have no problem adapting to your style/preferred strategy. I prefer to evaluate the debate based on what information I am given from you instead of having to assert my own understanding, so please note that my decision rests heavily on the information provided by you on paper.
• Significance is key - this helps me understand what the meaning or outcome of this momentary learning experience at a tournament is about and what the intended purposes of your arguments are. I find that impact comparison oftentimes streamlines a lot of the information provided and helps me understand what the significance of your argument is.
• Bonus points if you have specific links with a strong evidence - I think it shows that you care to research your opponents and demonstrates hard work outside of the round, which enhances your credibility in front of me.
• CX is very important to me. Pressing on the hard questions and using this time wisely to demonstrate your knowledge (or lack of theirs) will earn you additional speaker points. I flow this too.
• I have rarely voted on potential abuse, and I don't find those arguments compelling unless you can prove why the potential margins of error will result in poor debatability/education. Specifically tailored theory arguments are always preferred.
• I always found that technical strategic moves are good - I think that it shows you have game knowledge to finesse on your opponents, so use their non-responsiveness or mishandlings to make the different sheets of paper come together in cohesion and it will be rewarded.
• Make me believe in your argument just as much as you do. Your speaking has a lot of power, so be sure to speak as clearly, assertively, and as passionately as you can. Being an effective speaker will always help you stay ahead/catch up in the debate.

you can always include me on the email distro and/or reach out with any questions- stevengsanchez1@gmail.com

Competed: University of Minnesota
Coach (Present): Emporia State University; College Prep
Coached (Past): Augsburg College; Highland Park Senior High (MN)

PUBLIC FORUM

Although my primary background is in policy, I am familiar with the procedures of public forum and spent a season of my high school career competing in the format. Below are my answers to the suggested PF philosophy questions provided by the TOC.

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round: Speed of Delivery: Speed is fine so long as clarify doesn't suffer.

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?):Both effective line by line and big picture storytelling are important to my ballot.

Role of the Final Focus: Providing a rubric/judge instruction for my ballot

Topicality: Generally these debates are done poorly, it's important to have a comparative metric for evaluating interpretations and a robust discussion of the various impacts to the violation. I do not view topicality in a purely "jurisdictional" way - offense/defense is important.

Plans: Not needed but not automatically disallowed.

Kritiks: Sure although just like any argument, it must be explained, applied, and impacted thoroughly.

Flowing/note-taking: I will flow the entirety of the debate.

Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally? Quality and depth of argument is the primary thing I will evaluate, but style is not unimportant by any means.

If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? Yes.

POLICY

"I view my role in the debate not as arbiter of truth, but critic of argument, as such I attempt to divorce myself from relative "truth" values of arguments." - Chris Loghry

I like to see debaters deploying arguments that motivate and interest them.

I don’t call for many cards. This does not mean evidence quality does not matter, or that I don’t call cards often. What it does mean is: the debaters make the arguments, not the cards. I will not view them as placeholders for warranted explanation. Not every argument requires a card to answer.

Framing matters: provide me a macro-level filter through which to view the micro-components of the debate. The debates I find myself most frustrated with are the ones in which the 2NR and the 2AR have respectively delivered me 2NC #2 and 2AC #2 and left me to sort through the pieces. Rebuttalists that present a clear story while closing the right doors will be rewarded.

The more explicit you are with me in terms of my ballot, the better. This mostly goes for presumption and judge conditionality, but also for competing Frameworks/Role of the Ballots. If debaters are not explicit, there becomes no objective standard for me to use as a reference for when and where I infer these arguments.

Have a plan for Cross-X.

Things I like to see in cross-x: Asking precise, critical questions. Giving succinct, impactful answers. Writing down all concessions for utilization in the next speech.

Things I hate to see in cross-x: Ad-homs. Open-ended softballs. Questions that blatantly indicate a lack of flowing. Refusal to answer reasonable questions. Repetition of questions to avoid giving answers. Poorly-timed invocations of false ethos. 4-person shouting matches.

If you are reading critical literature, whether on the Affirmative or Negative, please explain and utilize your method. Make the links turn the case. Have a robust explanation of the alternative. Strive for internal, philosophical consistency. Your authors have particular theories of subjectivity, violence, etc., and I want to thear them; just remember that they all can and SHOULD be ACTIVELY applied broadly to frame many portions of the technical debate.

A speech doc is not a flow substitute.

Debate matters just as much to your opponents as it does to you, even if for different reasons. Be mindful of this and respect your competitors.

*Include me in the e-mail chain: dhruvsehgal@utexas.edu*

Hey, I'm Dhruv. I have been out of the activity for two years, and live very much outside the bubble of traditional academia. I run a global merchandising company and teach English in Asia (currently living and working out of China).

experience: 4 years debating at Binghamton (2012-2016), 2 years coaching at UT Austin (2016-2018), competed in the NDT 3x in college (2014, 2015, 2016). I graduated with a BA in English. I coached and debated mostly K arguments during my time in the activity, but I am open to policy-oriented arguments as well.

On Flowing:

- I will be flowing on paper since it helps me feel more actively involved in the debate and ensures I retain more information throughout the round.

- I promise you that you will have my full attention and engagement throughout the round. I will flow on paper during the speeches, write notes during CX and offer a detailed RFD after the round with my thoughts on how each team can improve.

Rules (updated for online debates):

- "I stopped prep at" versus "stop prep." I want to hear the latter, not the former. The former requires me to take your word about how much prep you used and I don't want to do that. This is especially true since I will be keeping track of prep time during the debate so I need to know when you stop prep (rule adopted from Matt Liu).

- Zero-tolerance policy when it comes to ad-hominem attacks or personal insults either at the opposing debaters or your partner. I will severely lower your speaker points and contact your coaches after the round if I hear this happening.

- Given this *new* online format, please slow down and pause between different arguments. I will tell you to slow down in the first few speeches if I can't understand you, but if speed continues to be an issue I will no longer remind you after the first few constructive speeches.

- I tend to be very verbally expressive during rounds, so be sure to look out for that throughout the round.

Preferences (updated for online debates):

- EFFICIENCY/EFFECTIVENESS: Being efficient and effective in your argumentation throughout the debate highlights to me a degree of professionalism and confidence in what you are saying and your understanding of the round. Focusing on clarity and the development of your arguments in the context of what the opposing team is saying (i.e clash) is something I care a lot about and increases the likelihood of both high speaker points and my vote. Be clear about your arguments from the outset, focus on being as efficient and effective with your flow (as possible) and we will all have a much better time in the debate.

- IMPACTS THAT MATTER: 'Why does what you are saying really matter?' is a question I will pose to myself throughout the debate (i.e what is the impact?). When you raise the stakes of the debate not only does it make you a better advocate for what you are discussing, it also helps me as a judge figure out what to prioritize when deciding my ballot. Doing this type of Impact Framing / Calculus really matters, especially in close debates.

- CASE DEBATE: This applies more if you are negative in front of me. Having a specific and well-thought-out debate about the contents of the Affirmative's case is always better and more persuasive than having a generic link story you could have read against any Affirmative on the topic.

If you have any questions either before or after the round, please e-mail me and I will get back to you in a timely manner. We are still learning the set of best practices during this time of transition to online debating, and as such I will update my paradigm as the year progresses based on new information. If you have any suggestions or would like to see anything else included in my paradigm, please do not hesitate to reach out.

a. Be thoughtful, intentional, and responsive with your arguments. When you use debate jargon explain what it means in the context of debate.

b. Do you and do it well.

c. I get that you have a lot of things to say, but try and say them as clearly as possible. If you are speaking so fast that I can’t catch your argument, how can I evaluate it? (If your speech sounds like the side effects part of a pharmaceutical commercial, you probably going a little too fast for me)

d. Send the doc @ aliyahshaheed@gmail.com

Things that aren’t requirements but always appreciated:

Make that personality pop, beyond your ability to read a document out loud.

The more creativity, the better.

Try to have fun and make it fun. If not for me, for yourself.

Experience:
- 11 Years Policy Debate
- Weber State and University of West Georgia
- Coach at Juan Diego Catholic High

1. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence of interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.

2. I often vote for the team that can make complex arguments sound like common sense. Clarity of thought is paramount

3. If there is an “easy” way to vote, that's warranted, I’m likely to take it.

4. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.

5. The earlier in debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more likely I am to latch on to what is going on and make a decent decision.

6. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will be ahead in my mind.

I'm an assistant coach at The Harker School where I coach primarily Speech and Congress. I have been a head coach of a full service high school program, currently I'm a law student and mom. I did Policy in high school and college. If you've got specific questions for me that this paradigm doesn't cover, I'm happy to answer any and all of them before the round.

POLICY:

Counterplans- Do your thing with counterplans. So long as there's a net benefit they're all fine with me. I do prefer creative/specific counterplans to generic ones, but I would rather see a well-developed generic CP debate than a shallow but aff-specific CP debate.

Disads- Be up-to-date on your uniqueness. If you're going to go for just a disad in the 2nr, make sure you win at least some case defense as well. I will vote for that kind of a 2nr.

Kritiks- I love a good K (and by "good" I mean well-explained and well-debated). Explain your alternative. I am least familiar with postmodern criticisms, so those may require a little more explanation in front of me, that being said I am comfortable judging those debates.

K-Affs- I love these a lot. Please run them in front of me. I'm open to whatever you want to run here. As far as the plan text/advocacy statement issue goes, I have no opinion. You want to run an aff without a text, go for it, I'll vote for it.

Performance- Same as K affs. Just please run it well. Affirmative or Negative, perform your heart out. Please don't be abrasive in these debates, I've seen too many performance debates go bad, I don't care to see any more. There's nothing better than a good performance debate, and there's nothing worse than a bad performance debate.

Theory/T- I don't love to vote on these, but I'll vote the way you tell me to vote. That said, in order for me to vote for theory and T, you need to win in-round abuse or that potential abuse is the absolute worst thing that has ever happened to debate.

Framework

Negative - I really enjoy K affs and identity affs and I generally think that they belong in debate (or at the very least they have a positive impact on debate) so framework may be uphill battle in front of me. However feel free to read it in front of me because despite my love for weird affs, I definitely see the strategic benefit of framework and I do think that it is a key part of neg ground.

Affirmative - I am generally more persuaded by "weigh the aff" interps as opposed to "the squo or competitive policy option" interps. I think that the K belongs in debate. It will be very hard to get me to vote for framework against a K, but that's not to say that I won't vote for it if you win it. I think that your time is better spent substantively answering the K.

Speaker Points Scale - I'll do my best to adhere to the following, unless otherwise instructed by a tournament's invite:

30-You sound as good as or better than Morgan Freeman, you have the eloquence of Shakespeare. You could convince the Pope that God doesn't exist.

29.5-This is the best speech I will hear at this tournament, and probably at the following one as well.

29-I expect you to get a speaker award.

28.5-You're clearly in the top third of the speakers at the tournament.

28-You're around the upper middle (ish area)

27.5-You need some work, but generally you're doing pretty well

27-You need some work

26.5-You don't know what you're doing at all

26 and lower-you've done something ethically wrong or obscenely offensive that is explained on the ballot.

Pet Peeves

1) starting off full speed. Unless I have judged you before, start off at around 70-80% then work your way up to however fast you want to go.

2) Being rude to your opponent. Be aggressive, be assertive, just don't be offensive or demeaning.

3) Don't argue with my decision, I'm not going to change my mind. That said, ask all the questions you want, I'm more than happy to answer them.

4) "Extinction" is not a tag.

Some other stuff

I'm fine with speed.

Impact comparison is important. "Two ships that passed in the dark" debates are extremely frustrating; good impact comparison is a way to avoid that.

I listen to cross-x, but I don't generally flow it as closely as I flow a speech, so if you want to bring up something from cross-x, reference it specifically.

I prefer excellent debating over excellent evidence; I think that cards should be used to back up an argument, not as a replacement for one. On a similar note, I'm not a fan of card-dumps, but I understand their utility.

I really dislike calling for cards, so I probably won't.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me in person or email me at hannahsodekirk@gmail.com

2023 Nukes Rewrite

He/Him

Jsmith55@binghamton.edu

Please add me to the chain, I do not usually read along during speeches but I like to able to check things during cx/prep and it makes post-round evidence collection easier. I prefer when teams send analytics (especially for online debates) because I think normalizing the practice makes debate more accessible for people who might struggle to process policy debate speed without forcing people to ask for that accommodation.

Debated at Binghamton for 2.5 years (college novice), coached at Baylor for two, and am now in my 5th year as a coach/gta for the University of Kansas.

Random logistical note:My verbatim does not do well with images, by default I can not see most images when I open a word document. If you're argument has a visual component to it that it is important for me to see remind me so I make sure to open the document in a way that lets me see the image. (I try to do this by default but I do forget sometimes so the reminder is helpful)

I love debate and promise to put my full effort into the rounds I judge.

This philosophy is very long because I would rather over explain and give more insight into how I think of my judging then less. Ultimately, you should do what you do best, everything below is a preference but I do try my hardest to adapt to the debate in front of me.

Broad Debate Thoughts

I think I'm generally in line with most of the community in the sense that I think specific debate is better than generic debate, clarity is really important but undervalued, and most rebuttal speeches could use more comparative impact calculus.

In terms of areas where I might differ a little/require stylistic adaptation, the most important is that I tend to really value/give significant weight to spin and the explanation of arguments. Part of my goal as a judge is to base a decision as much as I can on the words of the debaters in the 2NR/2AR. That means that I'm looking to the story or narrative you are creating and reading your arguments through that lens as opposed to looking at what your cards say. A lot of my decisions in close debates come down to the question of who was more explicit in constructing a story that not only framed why they won arguments substantively but also how they won the debate at a meta level. Story telling in debate is everything for me and I try to reward teams who do that work as opposed to teams hoping that I will construct a ballot or narrative for them.

Functionally, my focus on explanation and spin means that I am not a great judge for 2nr 2ar's that attempt to identify everything each team conceded and ask me to construct a ballot from those concessions. I am better for teams who explicitly identify the ballot they want me to write and then frame the remainder of the speech by explaining how various arguments support that particular ballot. As a side note, generally, I'm of the opinion that the word conceded (or their equivalents) should be used minimally in 2nr/2ars because it ends up serving as a placeholder for comparison and the narrative construction I am discussing. The over use also makes it harder to emphasize the actual important drops that teams may have made as they get lost within the 20 things you claim they never answered.

I tend give a lot of leeway in terms of how teams apply and expand on evidence which means that I think I'm certainly a better judge for the team that reads a couple of good cards and focuses on spin and narrative with those cards that I am for the team that reads a lot of cards but never really tells me what I should do with them. I am also better for teams that are explicit in applying their arguments to different parts of the flow, than I am for teams that hope I will pick the embedded clash out of an overview. If one team is doing the work to explain a piece of evidence and its implication while the other team is implicitly answering the argument in an overview I tend to side with the team doing the more explicit analysis.

None of this is to say that I do not care about evidence quality, especially if you make arguments as to why evidence quality matters in your particular debate but that I think I am more willing then a lot of judges to give credence to analytics and explanation because in my mind that leads to less intervention

This preference means that clarity is really important, I can keep up with fast debate, but the more explanation I get/words I understand the better it will be for you, so try to find a balance. I'm also not the most technical flow, even though I tend to be very tech over truth in how I evaluate rounds, so be aware of giving me time and being clear with transitions and packaging especially.

I have a substantial neg bias in my voting record, I think that this true for several reasons, some of which come down to chance/variance and some meta things about how clash debates play out. However, I do think I tend to be better for the negative because in a lot of debates, I usually find myself feeling like the neg block overwhelms the 1ar and that I am reluctant to give the 2ar much room to spin out of those concessions. I am much better for affirmative teams that are willing to go for less arguments (1/2) and explain how the rest of the debate is implicated by those arguments. However, I often feel like 2ars think they need to match every 2nr argument which makes it difficult to produce a narrative or story for my ballot.

Framework v K affs

My record in these debates has increasingly shifted towards the neg. That is less of an ideological question and more a question of how the meta of these debates has changed. I often think negative teams do a better job (it is also easier for them) of controlling a lot of framing and uniqueness issues that I find important. Affs often struggle against arguments like "debate is a game so that means fairness is the most important impact" or the "affs offense is non-unique because it is a criticism of the content of the resolution but the ci can't solve it" or "debate does not shape subjectivity at all".

At a truth level, I believe that K-affs are good for debate and lead to some of the most important/relevant discussions in our community but I do find myself feeling like K teams might be a bit behind in terms of dealing with those framing arguments.

affs

You need an argument about the purpose of debate and the question of "what we are doing here". Ideally that argument needs to be based in your 1ac and you need to leverage it against the neg claims that debate is just a game or that subject formation does not happen in these spaces. I'm very persuaded by the argument that if the activity is unethical then who cares if it is fair, but I think affs often struggle to have an explanation that actually implicates the activity/form of debate.

I wish aff teams would be more willing to challenge neg teams on questions of debates relation to subject formations. I often think, neg teams get away with an almost nihilistic depiction of debate as absolutely valueless. Aff teams should argue that even if individual rounds do not shape subjectivity, the type of activity we create and norms of research do have an impact on how we think and move throughout the world. I also frequently find myself thinking that the argument current "debate does not shape subjectivity"should be an aff argument not an neg argument because it seems like that is something k affs would say is the problem. Maybe we should attempt to construct a model of debate that does try to shape how we think and educate rather than focusing on being a pure competitive game with no regard for the types of people we produce.

I also wish affs would more push back against the internal link that just because debate is a game it means we should fully maximize fairness, (or even what it means to maximize fairness) There are a lot of great games that do not require fairness in the way debate discusses it. Games are also often more about education and learning then competitive equity but generally we've defaulted to the idea that debate is a game and the thing that matters for games is that they are fair.

I'm a good judge for arguments that draw on the utility of kvk debate and the conversations that are had there. I think fw teams often pretend those debates don't exist or devalue those arguments in ways that could generate significant offense for the affirmative but affs sometimes fail to take advantage of those arguments.

I think overall I'm better competitively for more impact turn styles of answering framework because those have been increasingly the meta and I'm more used to them. However, I do really enjoy teams that articulate alternative relationships to the resolution that are more nuanced then 'res bad/unethical" and discuss in-depth alternative models of debate .

Neg-

When I vote aff, it is frequently because the aff won the case page, which made structural claims as to how debate, contestation language, etc operate and those claims shape how I view the framework page. Thus, for me, you must engage the case, either by isolating fw from it, or with various case defense arguments.

Good fw debating is good case debating, if you are not talking about the aff, on both pages, (ie how fw relates to the affs impacts and structural claims) you are losing the debate. I think the question of how specific the fw is to the aff is what differentiates great fw debaters from good fw debaters.

That is also true for explaining impacts like fairness/clash, If you are able to describe to me how their aff/interpretation specifically makes it impossible to be neg/ruins models of debate and provide examples in round it will always go further than general rants about the necessity of limits. I can go either way on the question of fairness being an impact and it most often comes down to which team is controlling spin on what debate is/what is the goal of our activity. The more the narrative of "debate is a game, fairness matters for games, therefore fairness matters here" is clear to me, the more I am likely to think of fairness as an impact.

I understand the strategic utility of more procedural based arguments and impacts. However, I will say I enjoy fw debates where the neg defends the possibility of what plan based debate can do or why it is educationally valuable, far more then the current trend of making neg claims as small as possible. However, in the end do what you have to do.

Policy aff v K

The fw debate is incredibly important for me.

I do not like the trend of kind of deciding that the fw debate is a wash and constructing some weird compromise outside of what the interpretations/views of the debate actually were.

I think fw interps/arguments should be as explicit as possible in terms of instructing judges as to what you think the implication of winning your frame work is. I often think teams are very unclear on this question and leave it to judges to fill in blanks. I think that is particularly true for aff fw interps that often stop at "weigh the plan" with very little explanation of what that means or how the K prevents weighing the aff/the plan. Similarly you have to tell me how the neg moots the 1ac and not just assert that it occurs.

Neg teams need to recognize that winning framework is not game over, but a way of shaping how the rest of the debate plays out. As such your links and even alternative should be contextualized to the framework interpretation you are going for/winning. If your framework is about research practices, then your links better explicitly explain why the aff research practices are bad. If your framework is about competing political imaginaries your criticism of the aff should use that language.

A lot of my neg decisions start with some variation of "I thought the neg was winning a structuring (often theory of power) claim that shaped how I came down on a lot of the close issues in the debate. A lot of my aff decisions start with I thought the aff won that they should get to weigh the plan and that the aff outweighed links that were relatively non-unique.

Kvk debates

Generally, the team that is able to package their arguments into a clearer narrative/story wins the debate. That goes beyond just being right about the content of the arguments but focusing on explaining how that content converts into a ballot

I'm not great for aff teams that just try to permute everything because I tend to think more structural Ks will always find a link. You are better of challenging the neg's view of the world and defending how your aff approaches politics.

I'm pretty willing to listen to arguments about what competition should look like in kvk debates, i.e. how much of the aff should one have to disagree with to earn a ballot is often a relevant question in a lot of these debates since both teams often agree on a lot of premises. That means I'm also better than a lot of judges for arguments about whether the aff should get a perm.

In terms of K familiarity, I'm very familiar with the ableism literature used in debate. I'm also very comfortable with the cap arguments generally read in debate, though I often think teams deploy them pretty poorly, especially against K teams. I have a working knowledge of the more structural ks in debate though I'm not particularly well-read. I do not feel very confident in my knowledge of the more "high theory" arguments deployed in debate. Those require more explanation and examples with an emphasis on explaining the applicable elements of those criticisms.

Policy v Policy

I don't judge too many of these debates, and I still probably judge more than I should. The biggest thing to think about is my discussion of explanation at the top. In policy v policy debates there is a tendency to forgo that storytelling element of debate in the name of efficiency because it is assumed that judges will somewhat fill in those gaps. That ends up being difficult for me because my lack of experience with these debates makes it hard to fill in the gaps and I just generally don't like doing so. That means the team that focuses more on explicitly instructing me as to how I should understand the debate at the meta-level will do better.

That is especially true for counter plan competition debates and topicality debates because I have virtually no experience in either and can struggle to process what is going on as I attempt to keep up with the block spewing. The more work you can do to make me understand, even if you feel like you are overexplaining the better you will do.

Random side notes

I think I'm a decent judge for arguments that challenge the form of debate (think spades, coloring etc) as long as you are being explicit in explaining why you are doing what you are doing, you have an actual argumentative backing for what you are doing and you are trying to win the round.

I don't really know where I fall on most theory issues because I judge them so rarely, I would say that I'm fairly agnostic on conditionality in general, but I do think there is an increasing prevalence of a style of run and gun argumentation that I really dislike. In my mind, the style of reading like 8 bad arguments, going for the least covered one in the block (or just kicking all of them in the 1nr and talking about t for 9 minutes against k teams) creates shallow antieducational debates. I don't think that practice is intrinsically tied to conditional argumentation but that it does seem to go hand in hand and I could probably be convinced condo is bad because it promotes this model. Read this as you are better off constructing 1ncs with arguments you will actually go for/discuss and not trying to just outspread the aff with random nonsense.

I have an absurdly awful poker face while judging debates. You will see me react to things. I will say that if push comes to shove you should always prioritize your view of an argument/the round over what you perceive my reaction to be, because I might be reacting to something totally different then what you think. Furthermore, I vote for arguments that I dislike all the time and vote against arguments I do like as well, so my reaction might not be tied at all to the competitive element of the debate.

If you are some one who finds facial expressions/reactions distracting and unhelpful feel free to let me know and I will do my best to limit them

There are very few arguments that I will refuse to consider on face, but please do remember if you are the type of team that enjoys the wipeout, spark or death good, genres of argumentation, that debate is ultimately a persuasive activity and the burden of work you will have to do to win/be persuasive for those arguments will likely be higher than normal.

Mick Souders

Director, James Madison University

20th year judging NDT/CEDA debate

micksouders@gmail.com

Updated 11/2/2022

CNTRL F "Short Version" for a summary version.

CNTRL F "Long Version" for rambling long version.

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

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

*SHORT VERSION*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*END SHORT VERSION*

LONG VERSION

Mea culpa

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

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

Philosophy

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

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

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

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

Here's that in another form.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I tend to place great weight on cross-examination.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critical Identity Teams

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

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

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

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

Overview over, here are my notes:

NEG:

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

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

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

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

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

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

AFF

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hints not related to topicality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ethics Challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***PROCEDURE NOTES.

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

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

Unaffiliated

Previously coached University of Washington, University of Puget Sound, Interlake High School, Bingham High School.

Graduated from University of Puget Sound in 2013

Short version

All approaches (policy, k and beyond) are welcome. Do some good research. Be specific with your claims. Tailor your argument to your opponents. You can cheat, but not too much. I am probably about 50/50 on T vs the K aff.

I judge sparingly these days. It is a safe assumption that my knowledge of the topic is, at best, equivalent to a decent google search. What I've written below may no longer be of any relevance, but it's an approximation of what I thought about most when I was judging more often.

Miscellaneous pet peeves

- Saying "cut the card" without marking where it's cut

- Excessive (ie longer than :30) overviews

- Ending prep before clicking "send" on the email chain/before the flash drive leaves your computer

- CXes that don't go anywhere, or that get interesting and are promptly forgotten

- Cruelty/being unnecessarily mean/disrespecting people/using hateful speech

General

When I debated, I typically read a plan and tended to defend it, and went for both Ks and policy strategies on the negative. As a coach, I've worked across the spectrum, both with traditional policy squads and one-off/no-plan teams. I've qualified teams to the NDT and the TOC, and was a CEDA elim participant and NDT qualifier myself.

I have some thoughts about content and style, but at the end of the day, I think both sides of the k/policy "divide" are interesting and worthwhile. Fundamentally, I think debate is a game of research, in one form or another. In "policy" debates, author qualification, evidence specificity, recency, and conclusiveness are all worth referencing and comparing. In "kritik" debates, explanation and application to your opponents' arguments and evidence is crucial. Either way, I like it when debates are reflective of controversies in academic fields, and not just constructed out of ideas pulled from the back pages of newspapers or sketchy timecube-esque websites. I think reading evidence in the correct context and with minimal distortion of its authors' intent is important.

I think that you should respond to your opponents' arguments. How you do that is up to you, but it's much easier for me when you proceed in an order similar to that of your opponent, and make it clear which argument you're responding to. I've judged several debates that were pretty far from this, and while I enjoyed them, I think I'm far less predictable at deciding them.

Plan-focus debate

Excellent! I think well-researched and well-executed technical policy debate is awesome.

Particularly in this context, I think defense matters, and am willing to depart from the offense/defense cult. The last time I sat on a panel was because I assessed a 0% risk of a net benefit to a PIC. I think good internal link defense against advantages/DAs is an underutilized strategic element.

The politics DA gets a lot of hate from people, but if you think you can wordsmith your way through the logical oddities of the argument, I'm probably a surprisingly good judge for you. From an educational perspective, I think it's cool that debaters expend so much energy to keep up with news about federal legislation, and I'm more than happy to reward it as a judge.

Kritiks/etc

Academically speaking, this is probably my comfort zone, but that makes me much more willing to inject my interpretation about what an argument is supposed to say into how I evaluate a debate.

I think talking about the aff (when on the negative) is crucial. This is particularly true of how you explain the alt.

I think role of the ballot args are often arbitrary and self-serving. I think you're better off defending the relative merits of your framing mechanism, but I will probably disregard one-line interpretations that needlessly stack the deck in your favor.

I am open to and interested in alternative models of competition but will default to my interpretation of traditional opportunity cost absent any direction to the contrary. I have, in a couple instances, determined that the aff didn't get a perm, but that was usually because the block out-teched the 1AR on the theory debate, and not because I think that argument is particularly compelling.

Procedurals

I like neg flex. I think, as far as "the rules" go, that the neg probably should get to read a few conditional advocacies, and indirect "contradictions" between them (like the security k and a DA impact) aren't necessarily the end of the world. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, however, for both theoretical and critical reasons. Also, I'm not too keen on the "judge kick" conditionality argument.

I would rather reject the arg and not the team on theory, but I respect the value of theory as an element of a diverse strategy.

I think T debate is a good thing. Real-world relevance or engagement with core debates in topic literature is important. I like T debates that effectively use evidence.

The less generic a framework arg feels (vs the non-traditional/K aff), the more I will like it.

Richard Ryan Stevenson

Judging Philosophy 2013

I debated at Weber State University for three years.  As a non-traditional student I came into debate a lot older than most debaters and took away from it an impression that might be a little different from traditional debate judges in a few areas.

I expect you to keep your own time but I may be watching it myself just to reinforce that prep stealing isn’t happening.  If a round needs me to keep the time I will be happy to do so should I be asked nicely.  I expect each team to treat each your team mate and opposing team with the proper respect and courtesy for this academic sport.

I understand that speed is all the rage these days but I much prefer teams using a few very good cards rather than exploding through many mediocre cards.  If I can’t understand you then I can’t flow you.  You may want to slow down and be clearer than have me miss things by being too fast. 

Cross X is binding.  If you stumble in Cross X and make a mistake you need to make sure to correct that in your next speech.  Cross X is an important part of the debate round and it should be prepared for like anything else in this sport.  It is also your job to reinforce to me the mistakes that were made by the other team in the Cross X you just had.

I don’t mind what you use.  I like both K’s and straight up teams.  I particularly find teams that go all in on one thing rather than hedging their bets on multiple strategies bold and exciting if they do it correctly.  I won’t be biased against either strategy however.

Try to make sure that your arguments clash with one another so that it becomes more apparent to me which argument is going to solve better without me having to make it more about my opinion and personal bias about what I would choose.  What I am looking for in deciding your speaker points is how professional and competent you are with your arguments and presentation. 

Anything I haven’t covered I am always happy to talk to you about before round starts.

Debate at Kansas State from Treaties (2001) – Courts (2006), Coached at Kansas State on Middle East (2007) & Agriculture (2008), Coached at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh for Weapons (2009) & Immigration (2010). I was at Johnson County Community College from Middle East (2011) to Space (2020).

I'd like to be on the e-mail chain- debatelearningdotcom@gmail.com (just copy and past that exact e-mail)

If I leave the room, please send the e-mail. It will signal I need to come back to the room. People should just not open the doc until I get back.

My litmus test for what I can vote for is solely based upon the ability to take what you said while debating and regurgitate it back to the other team as a reason why they lost.

I believe the most important part of debate is impacts. If left with no argumentation about impacts or how to evaluate them I will generally default to look for the biggest impact presented. I appreciate debate that engages in what the biggest impact means, and/or if probability and timeframe are more important. This does not simply mean “policy impacts”, it means any argument that has a link and impact. You could easily win that the language used in the round has an impact, and matters more than the impacts of plan passage. All framing questions concerning what comes first have impacts to them, and therefore need to be justified. The point is, whether you are running a Kritik, or are more policy based, there are impacts to the assumptions held, and the way you engage in politics (plan passage governmental politics, or personal politics). Those impacts need to be evaluated

I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.

Policy arguments are fine by me.

Quirks with Counterplans- I think consultation and conditions are more cheating, than not cheating, but up for debate. I think conditionality can get out of hand. When conditionality does get out of hand it should be capitalized by the affirmative as justification to do equally shady/cheating things and/or be a justification to vote against a team, again up for debate.

Kritiks- I enjoy Kritiks. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.

Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for. When aff I believe that framework is a non starter. Defending the assumptions of the affirmative is a much more persuasive argument. For the negative, a lot of the discussion will revovle around the topical version of the aff and/or why doing it on the neg is best and solves all the affirmatives offense. I don't generally feel as though framework should be THE option against critical teams.

Framework on the negative for me is also can have and act like a counter advocacy that the problems isolated by the affirmative can be helped by engaging the state. Topical version help prove how engaging the state can create better and meaningful changes in the world. There should also be historical and/or carded explanations as to why engaging the state can help with the problems of the 1ac.

One other caveat about framework. I do not believe that affirmatives must provide a counter interpretation. The affirmative has not forwarded a way to debate in the 1ac, therefore it is the burden of the negative to explain their version of debate and why it's good. This allows affs to just impact turn framework as presumption has flipped in this instance.

With that said, framework is the last pure debate. I very rarely see the better team not win. It's been too hashed out for many if any gotcha moments

debates take a long time, already. 92 minutes, optimistically. please, please dont make them last any longer than they absolutely must. if you, for any reason, must take a break or stop the clock, that's totally okay. but for the sake of us all getting off campus at a reasonable hour, and for our hosts who put together a schedule for a reason, lets all try to keep our debates to, like, 105 minutes.

--

"i don't want magic word invocation to stand in for final rebuttal work weighing and comparing potential outcomes. 'extinction' and 'nvtl' are not arguments.

GENERAL

1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die.

6. Theory: Inround abuse > potential abuse.

7. Debate is a simulation inside a bigger simulation.

NEGATIVE

TOPICALITY: As far as I am concerned, there is no resolution until the negative teams reads Topicality. The negative must win that their interpretation resolves their voters, while also proving abuse. The affirmative either has to win a no link we meet, a counterinterp followed up with a we meet, or just straight offense against the negative interpretation. I am more likely to vote on inround abuse over potential abuse. If you go for inround abuse, list out the lost potential for neg ground and why that resolves the voters. If you go for potential abuse, explain what precedents they set.

FRAMEWORK: When the negative runs framework, specify how you orient Fairness & Education. If your FW is about education, then explain why the affirmative is unable to access their own pedagogy, and why your framework resolves their pedagogy better and/or presents a better alternative pedagogy. If your FW is about fairness, explain why the affirmative method is unable to solve their own impacts absent a fair debate, and why your framework precedes Aff impacts and/or is an external impact.

DISADVANTAGES: Start with impact calculation by either outweighing and/or turning the case. Uniqueness sets up the timeframe, links set up probability, and the impact sets up the magnitude.

COUNTERPLANS: Specify how the CP solves the case, a DA, an independent net benefit, or just plain theory. Any net benefit to the CP can constitute as offense against the Permutation.

CASE: Case debate works best when there is comparative analysis of the evidence and a thorough dissection of the aff evidence. Sign post whether you are making terminal defense arguments or case turns.

KRITIKS: Framing is key since a Kritik is basically a Linear Disad with an Alt. When creating links, specify whether they are links to the Aff form and/or content. Links to the form should argue why inround discourse matters more than fiat education, and how the alternative provides a competing pedagogy. Links to the content should argue how the alternative provides the necessary material solutions to resolving the neg and aff impacts. If you’re a nihilist and Neg on Presumption is your game, then like, sure.

AFFIRMATIVES

TRADITIONAL AFFIRMATIVES

PLANS WITH EXTINCTION IMPACTS: If you successfully win your internal link story for your impact, then prioritize solvency so that you can weigh your impacts against any external impacts. Against other extinction level impacts, make sure to either win your probability and timeframe, or win sufficient amount of defense against the negs extinction level offense. Against structural violence impacts, explain why proximate cause is preferable over root cause, why extinction comes before value to life, and defend the epistemological, pedagogical, and ethical foundations of your affirmative. i might be an "extinction good" hack.

PLANS WITH STRUCTURAL IMPACTS: If you are facing extinction level disadvantages, then it is key that you win your value to life framing, probability/timeframe, and no link & impact defense to help substantiate why you outweigh. If you are facing a kritik, this will likely turn into a method debate about the ethics of engaging with dominant institutions, and why your method best pedagogically and materially effectuates social change.

KRITIKAL AFFIRMATIVES

As a 2A that ran K Affs, the main focus of my research was answering T/FW, and cutting answers to Ks. I have run Intersectionality, Postmodernism, Decolonization, & Afropessimism. Having fallen down that rabbit hole, I have become generally versed in (policy debate's version of) philosophy.

K AFF WITH A PLAN TEXT: Make sure to explain why the rhetoric of the plan is necessary to solve the impacts of the aff. Either the plan is fiated, leading a consequence that is philosophically consistent with the advantage, or the plan is only rhetorical, leading to an effective use of inround discourse (such as satire). The key question is, why was saying “United States Federal Government,” necessary, because it is likely that most kritikal teams will hone their energy into getting state links.

K BEING AFFS: Everything is bad. These affs incorporate structural analysis to diagnosis how oppression manifests metaphysically, materially, ideologically, and/or discursively, "We know the problem, and we have a solution." This includes Marxism, Settler Colonialism, & Afropessimism affs. Frame how the aff impact is a root cause to the negative impacts, generate offense against the alternative, and show how the perm necessitates the aff as a prior question.

K BECOMING AFFS: Truth is bad. These affs point to complex differences that destabilize the underlying metanarratives of truth and power, "We problematize the way we think about problems." This includes Postmodern, Intersectionality, & Performance affs. Adapt to turning the negative links into offense for the aff. Short story being, if you're just here to say truth is bad, then you're relying on your opponent to make truth claims before you can start generating offense.

Refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names.

Add me to the chain: thoma.austin@gmail.com

I've noticed that as a judge I tend to close my eyes while I'm thinking. Some debaters have assumed that I was sleeping during their speeches. I assure you that this is not the case.

Fifth year judging college debate. Director of Debate at Wyoming. Previously coached for Cornell. Judged and coached high school in the past.

Philosophy:

I do not reject any argument on its face. Everything I say here is preliminary - these ideas can be changed by arguments in-round. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I do have predispositions that will influence my decisions - as we all do. I will try to highlight critical points here, but will clarify anything at tournaments or via email - contact me at thoma.austin@gmail.com. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it in any particular order.

It takes an awful lot for me to call for cards. If you aren't explaining it, it doesn't really matter. The arguments you make about the cards are more important than the evidence itself.

One good argument is better than lots of bad arguments. I have noticed that my theory threshold is not as low as it once was, but I believe that it is still lower than average. Theory debates are my favorite, but only if teams engage instead of just reading blocks.

My presumption is neg - aff should propose a change from the status quo.

Aff should be in the direction of the topic. This is a fairly ambiguous concept, but I feel like you'll know it when it happens. Does your aff want more executive control? If so, I probably won't be predisposed to vote for it, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Engaging "the system" (political, social, whatever power structure you want to talk about) is productive (perhaps with negative consequences).

Rhetoric choices matter - and come before evaluation of plan action.

Aff severence of 1AC rhetoric / assumptions is illegitimate.

Conditionality on neg is good for debate.

Condo does not let you no link rhetoric/reps arguments.

2NR condo is illegitimate.

Fiat is good for debate.

Performative argumentation is good for debate.

Fairness is of at least as much importance as education in the context of debate.

Narratives - personal or otherwise - need to be applied to broader, more generalized arguments to make sense in the context of the round.

"100% no link" is real and possible, but difficult.

Politics DAs are pretty silly.

Debate rounds are not particularly good forums for starting social change.

"Traditional policy" framework is a legitimate strategy better served with fewer arguments that are better developed than a multitude of arguments that are less developed. To get my ballot here, I suggest focusing on skills development.

Preferences:

Try to refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names. I rarely write all of these down. This is obviously less true when attacking cites or comparing evidence, but it is certainly true in extensions. "Extend the Johnson evidence" doesn't do much for me.

Prep stops when you tell me it stops. Prep starts when speeches end. Don't prep during evidence flashing/emailing. I will punish it.

I rarely judge. I do actively coach.

Debate is a game and an educational activity. It ought to be fair, but there are other considerations as well.

CX - great place to earn speaker points. Its the time that you get to interact with the other team. Make it count.

I like quality evidence that is explained well much more than 30 cards with shallow explanation.

Theory: I tend to lean neg on theory, but can be persuaded. Most theory arguments are presumed to be a voiding of the argument about which the theory argument is run. Usually only conditionality/dispo are voters. I am not a fan of stupid theory/cheap shots. Perm do the alt is not an argument - it is a reason to vote for the alt.
I don't understand the trend to have arbitrary interpretations on theory, like conditionality. 2>3, 4>5, those seem really stupid. I can't imagine how that could solve any tangible impact. If conditionality is good, it is good.

Topicality: It should have an impact, and it should be coherent and well-explained. The interpretation should not be arbitrary. Ink does not a winning T argument make...

Impact calculus: I am not a big fan of the counterplan plus "any risk." Win a net benefit. There is "any risk" of just about everythiing. Sure, I use offense/defense, just like everyone (i suspect), but I believe that there exists a point when there is either a zero risk or a risk that is indistinguishable from randomness. In a similar vein, I tend to think that probability of the impact is weighted highly vs magnitude. Don't just read an extinction card and expect the round to be over. Not all extinctions are the same...

Lots of judges say they will listen to about everything. One time someone said they got a 3nr, then they actually stood up and gave one, and then the aff stood up and gave a 3ar. I was on a panel. I signed my ballot after the 2ar...so I won't listen to everything. (by the way, the two other judges waited until after the 3ar...be careful, its a jungle out there.)

Framework: Better on the neg than the aff.

Flowing: I try to do it.

I come from a traditional policymaking background. I have judged a wide variety of debate types including: parliamentary, policy, LD, IPDA, NPDA, and more. My experiences include high school and collegiate tournaments.

I understand and vote for critical and performative arguments.

I value debate as an educational activity.

I do think flashing should count as prep time.

I do not tend to call for cards after the round unless the two teams disagree explicitly about what the evidence says and I am unclear myself.

I think topicality is an important consideration of debate rounds and should not be subjective to a prior bias.

Mike “Shooter” Weitz

***************************Updated 2014-15********************

A guy walks into the Buddha’s bar. Plopping on the stool, his dejected look was plain for all to see. “How can I help with what’s ailing you?” the Buddha asked, sliding the man a drink.

The man said, “I did everything I was supposed to, and nothing happened. I spend hours meditating under a tree every day, and I still haven’t reached enlightenment. I do my mantras, mandalas and sutras without forgetting a word. What am I doing wrong? I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I walk perfectly along the path.”

Giggling at the seriousness of the upset man, the Buddha exclaimed, “Well, there’s your problem right there! If your path is the trampled dirt of others’ footsteps, you’ve already lost your way.”

“But without that path, how will I know where I’m going?” the man asked earnestly.

“Exactly,” the Buddha smiled.

Not satisfied with the response, the man demanded, “If I don’t know where I am going, how will I know when I get there?”

“Exactly,” the Buddha quipped.

The man’s temper got the better of him, “That tells me nothing. Why don’t you just tell me what I need to know?”

“Exactly,” the Buddha chimed with glee.

“The Silent Flute”

I wish neither to posses,

Nor to be possessed.

I no longer covet paradise,

More important, I no longer fear hell.

The medicine for my suffering,

I had within me from the very beginning,

But I did not take it.

My ailment came from within myself,

But I did not observe it

Until this moment.

Now I see that I will never find the light

Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel,

Consuming myself.

-Bruce Lee

“Once More I Hold You In My Arms”

Once more I hold you in my arms;

And once more I lost myself in

A paradise of my own.

Right now you and I are in

A golden boat drifting freely on a sunny sea

Far, far away from the human world.

I am happy as the waves dancing around us.

Too much analysis kills spontaneity,

As too much light dazzles my eyes.

Too much truct astonishes me.

Despite all obstacles,

Love still exists between us.

It is useless to try and stir the dirt

Out of the muddy water,

As it will become murkier.

But leave it alone,

And if it should be cleared

It will become clear by itself.

-Bruce Lee

“Sharing a Mountain Hut with a Cloud”

A lonely hut on the mountain-peak towering above a thousand others;

One half is occupied by an old monk and the other by a cloud:

Last night it was stormy and the cloud was blown away;

After all a cloud could not equal the old man's quiet way.

-Kuei-tsung Chih-chih,

“Being as Is”

Food and clothes sustain

Body and life;

I advise you to learn

Being as is.

When it's time,

I move my hermitage and go,

And there's nothing

To be left behind.

-P'ang Yün

Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water.

The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken.

Although its light is wide and great,

The moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide.

The whole moon and the entire sky

Are reflected in one dewdrop on the grass.

-Dogen

Look for Buddha outside your own mind,

and Buddha becomes the devil.

-Dogen

“Suchness”

The wind traverses the vast sky,

clouds emerge from the mountains;

Feelings of enlightenment and things of the world

are of no concern at all.

-Keizan Jõkin

Where beauty is, then there is ugliness;

where right is, also there is wrong.

Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent;

delusion and enlightenment condition each other.

Since olden times it has been so.

How could it be otherwise now?

Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other

is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.

Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,

how do you deal with each thing changing?

-Ryokan

“In science we have finally come back to the pre-Socratic philosopher Hercalitus, who said that everything is flow, flux, process. We in the West think of nothingness as a void, an emptiness, a nonexistence. In Eastern philosophy and modern physical science, nothingness—no-thingness—is a form of process, ever moving. In science we try to find the ultimate matter, but the more we split up matter, the more we find other matter. We find movement, and movement equals energy: movement, impact, energy, but no things.”

–Bruce Lee

************************************************************

(2013-2014)

To be honest, I am not sure what it means to have a ‘philosophy of judging.’ I can tell you what I do: I evaluate arguments in relation to other arguments. I like good argument more than I like bad arguments. I like good cards more than I like bad cards. But, other than that, I’m not sure what I am supposed to tell you. Am I, through some unknown process of self-evaluation, to disclose how I decide which arguments that I’m yet to hear, and how they will win out versus other arguments? Should I provide you a list of the arguments I like and dislike, the things I have pre-determined to be true, as avenues of persuasion to receive my ballot? Such a list doesn’t exist. However, i can tell you some things:

If it is about my personal philosophy, then I’m not sure how telling you that I am a Buddhist and like to study Eastern Philosophy explains my approach to judging debate rounds, except to say that i evaluate arguments as i understand them at their moment of utterance, i evaluate them by the interdependent relationship to other arguments in the round, and i do my best to remain present and attentive during the course of the round. I think that truth tends to be a little grey (and technically ungraspable by language and set, intellectual patterns of thinking). I very much believe in paradoxes, which means that sometimes even 'incompatable' truth claims can both be true and untrue. This can be frustrating for debaters sometimes, because it puts a higher argumentative standard on you to make sure that you not only make arguments, but make sure that your arguments answer your oppenents arguments. Finally, it's not a requirement, but i do tend to prefer the nice and humble debater, even while debating with a passion. I will also do my best to judge with humility; we are all human and all make mistakes. I definately will.

I like arguments to be clear. I don't like to have to do a bunch of extra work to read your cards after the round because I should be able to hear them when you read them if you're clear. I only like to call for cards if their meaning is contested, and arguments are made against them. This is usually a sign of a good debate, but i don't want to have to call for cards because i don't know what they say because you weren't clear the first time.

An argument is a claim and a warrant. Missing one makes an incomplete argument, especially in the warrant department. And just because you made a claim and a warrant, does not necessarily make them persuasive, which is why the more warrants the better, usually. Always answer the "why" question. Why is what you say true?

The same standard applies to evidence, if your evidence does not contain warrants, then it is a bunch of warrantless assertions, and, hence, a waste of your time. You don't have to read seven-page-long cards, but the more warrants the better. Highlight your cards down to one sentence at your own risk and peril.

You would be surprised how often teams will win portion of an argument, and lose because of their failure to properly 'impact' it in the debate round. This is a critical part of the debate that should not be skimped on just because it happens in the latter speeches. Again, answer the "why" question.

Finally, while I'm not quite ready to go "full Dallas," I do attempt to generally communicate my thoughts, feelings, how I'm receiving stuff, and might even pipe in a "that don't make sense." My point is that I'm a source for information that you should use.

As always, have fun!

This paradigm is a work in progress.  I will continue to update when I have the time.  

Me: queer, black person.  Head Policy coach at the University of Puget Sound, graduate of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.

Social justice is very important to me.  Zero tolerance for anti-blackness, transphobia, sexism, classism, ableism, racism, homophobia and the many ways our community can often make people feel excluded.  This is something that can lose you speaker points and potentially lose you the debate.

In terms of debate arguments, I'm flexible.  I've been all over the debate spectrum in my capacity as a judge, debater, and coach.  At the end of my career I gravitated towards the K but I'm not opposed to listening to a t/framework debate, disads, counterplans, whatever.  Do what you do best and I'll enjoy the debate a lot more than a failed adaptation.

I will work very hard to make good decisions and judge the substance of the debate as objectively as possible.  It is unlikely that my RFD will contain anything that wasn't said in the debate.  The debaters have the burden of giving me the round winning calculous.  This generally includes a pretty tight explanation of your internal link chains.  Every argument should be impacted.

That's really all I have for now.