Judge for Dallastown

Etiquette stuff:

1 .I time debate and my time is the official time but you are welcome to time yourself. Flex prep is fine as long as your opponent(s) agree.

2. Aggressive is fine as is shouting but if you are a racist or sexist then I will probably deduct points.

3. I don't care if you spread as long as you are articulate -you are at a debate not an auction.

In Debate
I really like empirically-supported arguments. Framework debate is also good...don't assume that I know the philosophy to which you are referring...it's part of YOUR job to explain it.

All that being said, I do like a good solid traditional debate with lots of evidence.

Please do your best to state your definitions for the resolution. I've had it happen a couple of times where definitions weren't clear and it became messy. While I am okay with definition based debates, when it becomes exceedingly nit picky it can be a bit frustrating for everyone.

I'm okay with speaking fast/spreading to an extent. Just be sure you are speaking clearly and loudly enough that we can hear you. Please do your best not to mumble.

Ensure you are citing your evidence correctly in your speeches.

Notes on etiquette:

I will, without any hesitation, give you low points and drop your case if you are rude during and immediately following the debate.

A short list of some things I find rude:

Packing your things up before the last speaker is done

Laughing/talking while the other speaker is giving his speech

Throwing things at a competitor

Just generally being a bully and unprofessional.

*If you make it to finals and want your team members/friends to come watch and support you I'm okay with that. However, you will be penalized if your friends/team mates are disruptive and rude as well. This shouldn't need to be said but for some reason this has happened more than once.

Debate experience:

• 2014 - 2018: national circuit PF at Strath Haven
• 2018 summer: teaching at ISD, VBI
• 2018 - 2019: private coaching
• 2023: some judging and private coaching
• I will evaluate K's, theory, etc. but with limited familiarity

Currently working in economics research

Please ask questions and enjoy

Tabula rasa and flow-oriented. I probably won't go out of my way to brief myself on a resolution. Civility is expected. Incivility damages your speaker points. Bullying will cost you the round and will be reported.

The Aff must present and defend some type of topical plan. How the Neg wants to argue against that is really up to them, but it has to relate to the resolution for the year and the aff plan. I will not reject the resolution.

Speed is fine as long as I can actually hear and comprehend what you are saying. I have not had to let someone know that I cannot understand them, but will if need be.

Please have fun.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I vote how I see the round. Solely based on the arguments made in the round, but in accordance with my understanding based off the debater's explanations.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Schmidt%2C+Joshua

I debated policy 4 years for Lake City High School in Coeur d'Alene Idaho (ok, technically I debated 3 years for CdA and then 1 year for Lake City which was a brand new school). I did this in the 90s. Policy debate was different back then.

I did not debate in college and have coached for many years now (PF and LD).

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution. I believe Aff has a burden to show the resolution is, generally speaking, a true statement. Neg has the burden to show it is a false statement.

The method by which we typically answer the question of the resolution is the criterion (value-criterion or standard). I should note that I am completely open to other methods of answering the question of the resolution. What most people mis-understand is that these methods must actually address the question and not some other question that you wish we were debating.

When it comes time to decide the round I will do the following: First - I will try and decide which criterion to use as a method for deciding the round. This means that you are extremely well advised to compare and contrast your criterion with your opponents. If both criterions are shown to be not worth using then I will just weigh generic “impacts” broadly defined and largely up to my own personal biases. You don’t want this to happen.

If I happen to choose your opponents criterion then you want to link into it and show how you also win the round under your opponents method of deciding the victor. This is a very good idea and I encourage you to do it.

Second - I will use the best criterion to decide the round. This is where I look at your contentions and impact level arguments and decide how they interact with the criterion I am using. Make sure your impacts are clearly applicable under your criterion.

General Notes: Speed - I can handle some amount of moderate speed that is getting less and less as I get older. I will generally not say “clear” because my main problem with speed is that your argument stops making sense to me, I can understand all the words just not the overall meaning. I wouldn’t say “clear” if you made a poor argument and I won’t say “clear” if you make a poor argument quickly.

Warrants - I highly value warrants that are explained well by the actual debater in rebuttals. Thus, you should extend the reasoning behind each piece of evidence in addition to just mentioning its name and assuming I will do the hard work of applying its logic to the round.

Author names - Refer to arguments themselves and not just “author name and #” and expect that to convince me of anything. I am generally unconvinced that something is true just because somebody got it published somewhere. (see point above about actually understanding and explaining your warrants, especially in rebuttals and especially in how those warrants interact with the argument).

Off Topic Arguments - these are generally a bad idea. I only consider the hypothetical world in which we enact the resolution (for the Aff) or negate the resolution (for the Neg). I do not consider “real world” impacts. That being said, if you have a particular argument that actually addresses the resolution then go for it, just be very sure that it actually answers the hypothetical question of the resolution and doesn’t do something else.

Circular arguments - most value debates come down to circular arguments where somebody will say without value X then value Y is meaningless and then the response will be, but value Y is necessary in order to fully realize value X. Understand that you should respond to these arguments if your opponent makes them because a dropped argument is a true argument. But these are unlikely to actually advance the debate in your favor. On the other hand, very specific arguments about values grounded in the resolution can be extremely convincing to me and are often very strategically wise to make.

Policy Debate

Basically, everything I said above about Lincoln Douglas is still true with a couple of relatively minor exceptions. First - Neg has presumption in policy debate and I will vote Neg if no Aff impacts carry through the round.

Second - I want to reemphasize that I view my role as the judge to compare the hypothetical world in which the Aff implements their plan to the Neg world (SQ or CP). The role of the ballot is to endorse the team that best does that and to explain my thinking about that question. I do not listen to any arguments about other ideas you might have about what the role of the ballot or the judge is in the round. Utilitarianism is not the only method for making this hypothetical comparison and I will listen to moral arguments (and indeed welcome them), but they must be grounded in the hypothetical debate world and not the “real” world.





Old Philosophy (basically the same as above, but I felt that I must have been unclear about a few things so I tried to explain better above).
I feel that debate is a game. Games have goals. The Aff's goal is to show that the resolution is generally a true statement. The Neg's goal is to show that the resolution is generally not true. My job is to evaluate who has accomplished their goal better.

The traditional value/value-criterion is a very efficient way of acheiving your goal; I understand what you are doing and therefore you do not need to spend much time clarifying how this causes you to meet your goal. I am open to other ways of meeting your goal, but make sure you are clearly explaining how your argument impacts the resolution. Also, you are probably being much less clear than you think you are, so explain your argument as clearly as you can and then clarify it more.

Speaking of clarity, talking fast really only works if the idea is simple to explain. For complicated ideas you should slow down (and almost *all* of philosophy is pretty complicated). Remember to explain your criterion particularly well as this is where I look to see exactly how you want me to evaluate the round. You want me to understand this very, very well so don't speed through it.

How I decide between two competing arguments. A good argument does the following: it is clearly explained (yes, this is a theme), it is relevant (i.e. it addresses your goal or it actually addresses the argument you are attacking), it is properly explained why your argument might be true (i.e. it has a warrant). It is important to note that bald assertions are not warrants and that quoting an "expert" who then makes a bald assertion is not particularly persuasive to me and can easily be overturned by your opponent's original analysis.

Arguments that the game of debate is fundamentally unfair are not persuasive to me (nothing in life is fair and much of what is perceived to be unfair in one way is actually tilted the other way).

Finally, I love crystallization. At the end of the debate I like a nice tidy list of things I should vote for you on and clear reasons why you are winning that list (it is also very helpful to weigh the arguments you are winning vs. the arguments your opponent might have won).

I do pf at strath haven. I'm a flow judge.

I did forensics in HS but I don't do it in college. I am lowkey and okay with anything but I have not done debate in a few years so I may not be a good judge for anyone wanting to run complex theory or spread super fast. Be courteous to each other or I will deduct speaker points. 30 speaker points for whoever is competing from home and shows their pet. If I show off my cats first, the debate round ends and I go home with all the speaker points.

Debated 4 years in high school, graduated 2016. Experience at several NCFL national tournaments. Been consistently judging every year since graduating, including national tournaments.

Experience in CX, LD, PFD, Parli, some speech events

Flow judge, love to see clash, framework debate, and legitimate voters in final speeches. Debaters should do warrant analysis and weighing.

I see speech and debate as a scholarship event. I will take evidence quality into account. Research papers are more credible than politicians or news sources that are notoriously biased.

Will listen to any argument. Competitors must validly prove abuse if present. Don't wait until the 2AR to make a spreading unfair argument. If you think you’re winning on T, feel free to go for T

Extensions should be carried through the round. Extensions do not mean new carded evidence.

Email: czurmuhl@gmail.com

Feel free to email me about questions regarding the RFD or for general advice