Kevin Cummings

Background:  I debated policy in high school and CEDA from 1990 to 1993.  I have coached programs with policy and parli at Regis University (1999-2003) and Mercer University (2003-2009). 

Framework –   I am willing to listen to debates about how I should judge and how I evaluate specific issues.  Be clear about what criteria I should use and if you want to transform our activity be sure to explain how a vote for you will be meaningful.  If you want me to be a policymaker, then offer reasons for why that approach is best.  I am pretty open to considering widely differing judging paradigms and I’ll try to adjust my approach to judging to whichever criteria or framework wins. 

Procedural issues and T – On T, good explanations are substantially better than a dozen blips.  Aff, offer a counter-interpretation or be sure you are meeting their definition.  Neg, I’m kind of old school and I like a violation and standards and voters.  I have a pretty high threshold for voting on non-T procedurals such as A spec. I generally only vote there if there is really serious in round abuse happening or if it is grossly mishandled by the Aff. I’d rather you run the c/plan to prove the abuse than say how hypothetically they might have tried to avoid it. That noted, I do think running non-T procedurals is a fantastic way to leverage link ground.  They also work quite well as a time suck. Independent voting issues are a sore spot for me. I don’t like rounds where there are six or eight ivis on both sides and none have been explained beyond a tag or unpacked in any way.  If you go for an ivi, you should be spending a good chunk of time explaining in the final rebuttal why the ivi should decide the round. Does debate become more fair, educational etc. as an activity in a universe where you win the ivi?  I tend to prefer throwing out the argument over punishing the team so keep that in mind before you go all in on a multiple perms are evil strategy.  

Counter plans – I expect that by the last rebuttal the negative strategy is cohesive. I am not particularly fond of having to do evaluation work when both sides extend theory blocks without ever engaging the other teams’ arguments. I have judged too many rounds when both sides are extending dropped arguments by the other side on PICs, Conditionality,etc. I am left in the position of comparing drops by both teams and that sucks for me. Engage the arguments made by the other team and if you expect me to pull the trigger on theory you better be ahead. I think cplan + disad is tried and true. If you capture most of case and avoid the disad you are probably going to win. Aff teams – generate some offense – explain solvency deficits – and if your Aff is critical I’d spend a lot of time explaining if the cplan does not get the K part very well.

Kritiks – I evaluate them based on how they are developed in the round. If the K is really just a solvency mitigator or linear disad then I would obviously not weigh it as a framework question. If you explain how the kritik functions outside of policy questions, then I will evaluate it prior to substantive issues such as solvency and disads. I usually take Aff perms to a K as advocacy unless they are flagged as tests of competition.

Case Debate – I could care less if there is a robust on case debate or not.  If you want the 1NC to have 8 minutes off case that’s cool.  If you have twenty solvency turns that’s fine too.  Whatever works for you. 

Style – I really dislike teams that string together eight or ten blips without any explanation after them. It makes it impossible for me to get everything.  Speed is fine, but give me a little pen time.  As long as each tag has a sentence after, it should be fine.  But if you spew out ten tags with zero analysis don’t expect fantastic speaks.

Procedurals:

 T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.

 Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There

      should be more thought on the alt.

 Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style

  from 01-present

  Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate

  Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them

 Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.

Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)

She/her/hers. Currently a K-12 social studies curriculum writer, formerly a middle school and college debate coach. I returned to assistant coach for Mercer University from 2021-2022 having previously competed as our program was making its transition from small, Southern tournaments to large NPDA tournaments. I have been out of college debate for about nine years - my background is in K-12 education, and I have coached some middle and high school programs, mostly public forum debate and a little policy. My teams have won the middle school Urban Debate League national championships in public forum (2020) and the NPDA championships in novice NPDA debate (2022). I am now happily retired from coaching, but still occasionally enjoy judging.

I am not super technical, but I enjoy hearing all kinds of arguments and I like it when I can learn something new in-round. I am good with most kinds of arguments, strategies, and approaches to debate. I like good organization, lots of signposting, and rebuttals that group and collapse arguments intelligently so that I can discern exactly where you want me to vote. Overall I believe the debate space is yours. I want you to be able to debate about the things you like to debate about, in the way that you like to debate about them, but I think there are a few things that are fair for you to know about me, so here they are.

(1) I am convinced that spreading can be problematic for the activity, and is potentially ill-suited to an NPDA debate format where the topic changes from round to round and there are no text files we can share to help people follow along. To be honest top speeds and lack of clarity trigger a migraine for me nine times out of ten and I want to listen to debates at conversational to slightly faster than conversational rates. On your end, it is probably important to you that I can hear and follow all of your arguments.

(2) My threshold for voting on topicality is pretty high. If their interpretation is actually abusive and causing ground loss/education loss/etc, run it, but I don't necessarily enjoy t debates that are introduced just because you can. I won't drop folks if they run a topicality arg that I don't like of course, I just think your time might be better spent on something else with me in the back of the room. If you love T and you run it every round and it doesn't feel like debating for you without it, then please carry on.

(3) I am interested in critical debates, but I have been out of the debate world for a minute, teaching middle school social studies and being a mom, so you are going to want to explain your argument in pretty fine detail. Unlike some of your judges, I am usually not devoting a bunch of my free time to reading and cutting literature exclusively for debate. I think you should always be detailed as a rule, but I just want to be clear that I am probably not the best judge for blippy and/or very generic kritiks. Explaining your story on the link level is very important, I want to hear explicitly how you're jumping from point A to point B.

(4) I don't think that debate is just a game. I don't necessarily mind judging traditional policy-oriented rounds, but it's always important to keep in mind that the statistics and literature and news headlines that are just a means to a ballot for some are real life for many others, both within and without the debate space. Be thoughtful. Be measured. Be kind.

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

General comments about my judging:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final Comment:

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

I am a Mercer grad who debated for two years. I also studied poli sci, so if you play it straight with me play it well. I know what you're talking about, I know policy, and if you choose to play it straight, I will judge you based on reality.

I judge mainly off argument. Convince me. I am less interested in your T debate than I am in your impacts and terminal impacts. Make a good argument, tell me why it is better than your opponents, tell me why theirs is not as convincing, and I'm sold. I care much more about what you are saying than how you are saying it. You will not impress me with debate terminology because, frankly, I don't care. If you rely on that more than you do on defending your side of the argument, it will be hard to win with me. To reiterate, make a convincing arguments with enough impacts to prove your case.

Additionally, if I cannot hear it, I cannot flow it. Speak clearly. I do not mind spreading if you are clear. If it isn't clear, and your argument or impacts don't make it on the page, that is a problem for you.

I like performance, but it still needs to convince me. I would like for it to connect to the res somehow, but if it doesn't and is still convincing, I could buy it.

I like Ks. Ks were my fave kind of debate. That being said, you need to do it well.

Thank yous are annoying. We get it. We're all in the round. We have to be here. Let's just get own with it, shall we?

Debated at Georgia Tech for 3 years (Mostly Parlimentary debate, and one or two policy tournaments)

Debated at Marquette High School for 4 years (2 years policy, 2 years LD, with PF sprinkled in)

TL;DR You do you fam.

2L;DR I'm not going to pretend like I know everything about policy, but I'm always willing to listen to new arguments that are well presented and convincing.

At the end of the day, I'm looking for the team that can present the most compelling narrative. The use of the word 'narrative' doesn't necessarily have anything to do with personal narrative (which I will of course listen to), but the cohesive story you are able to create at every level with your arguments. Make the clear connections that sell your position from the ground up. How does your evidence support your argument? How does your argument uphold your framework? Why is your framework the best answer to the question asked by the resolution?

Some things you can do to help me help you:

1. Speed - I might be a little out of practice going into this tournament, so please be mindful of the fact that I might not be able to understand you if you're going to fast. 90% of the time, this shouldn't be a problem. For the rest 10% of the time, I will let you know by lowering my laptop cover or putting down my pen (This depends on how environmentally friendly I'm feeling at the moment).

2. Explain your arguments - I'd like to think I know all the jargon of debate, but the truth is that it's been a while. Explain your arguments, and do so in the context of the round. Saying something is an 'a priori' argument does you no good if you can't explain why.

3. Make the connections for me - I'm pretty lazy when it comes to interpreting arguements. I'm not going to make that double turn for you if you don't point it out. Sure, I might not think that you link into that disad, but I'm definitely going to go ahead and weigh it against you if you don't answer. Make the connections, do the work on the flow, and stay organized. I'm a pretty simple guy.

Feel free to ask me any questions otherwise!*

*Do NOT ask me: "Do you have any specific preferences?" or some other variant of that question. 1) That's what this paradigm thing is for. b) I'll always respond with "Do you have any specific questions?"

I come from a policy debate background so I try to judge the debate from the flow. I was mainly a critical debater, but i enjoy all arguments and will vote for t.  Theory debates are cool with me, as is the CP.  Tell me why you win. That being said, I have very little experience with parliamentary debate and have been out of the activity for a while. Don't expect me to follow all the jargon.  Usually when I'm making a decision I weigh procedurals first, framework, then the substance.  For the impact debate, I want you to weigh it for me.  If you don't I will usually weigh probability first, then magnitude, then timeframe.

Mercer University '15 (4 Years - NPDA)

Tift County High School '11 (3 Years - Policy)

I believe that the debate space is best shaped by the participants involved, so I try to remain as impartial as possible. I'm okay with whatever you want to do with the round, as long as you properly warrant and defend it.

Case: Please make sure that your case is organized and coherent. The best rounds for me to adjudicate are those in which the debaters on both sides are able to make sense of the arguments that are being presented. I am fine with however the debaters choose to frame the round. This is your responsibility. If there is alternative framework through which I am supposed to evaluate the proposition, other than policy, I expect that to be explained and defended properly.

Off-case: I am fine with whatever type of off-case arguments you would like to present. For T, please have this argument properly laid out in the correct format. Kritiks should have a clear alternative and some means of weighing this argument against the affirmative.

My judging paradigm is critic of argument. I believe that tabula rasa is a myth as I cannot separate myself from my life experiences, my culture, and my debate training. However, I will listen to any argument that is made, and do my very best to judge it on its merit based on logic, reasoning, evidence, and grounding in a philosophy. You need not make major adjustments to me as I have no idea where you are in your training, your coach's goals, your goals, etc. In all, don't make any major changes just because I am sitting in the back of the room, or in cyberspace, with my trusty computer.

Some points of my paradigm refer to all formats of debate; some are format and circuit specific. I strive specify when a part of my judging approach refers to a particular format and the educational objects I perceive most of that format to emphasize.

Here are some facts you need to know about me:

1) BIO-- I started debating in my native town of Winston-Salem, NC, at Paisley High School (9th and 10th grade) during the first Nixon administration (1972). Policy debate (I was taught at Wake Forest camps) was the only form of debate then, and cards were actually literal cards. I did policy debate in senior high school (R.J.Reynolds); individual events in college (competed for UNC 1977-1979), and was a graduate assistant student in individual events at Nebraska in 1983-1984, but never during that time quit judging policy debate. I was director of forensics at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, where I was the director a comprehensive tournament (we offered everything) from 1984-2001, and learned NDT and CEDA coaching because of a high student demand. My second life as a coach (technically a volunteer adviser for a student run program) started at the University of North Georgia where, as we like to say in the Southeast, a group of students "up and formed a club" and asked me to be there adviser in 2006, with club recognition coming in 2007. UNG currently has debaters and speakers from all of its campuses, and we sponsor a Pi Kappa Delta chapter.. We host end of the semester free novice tournaments, host a state IE tournament run by Berry College each spring, and are actively involved in service learning activities with the Atlanta Urban Debate League. Courses related to debate and speech that I developed and teach at UNG include Public Speaking (forensics version), Argumentation and Debate, Persuasion and Argumentation, first and second year Practicum in Debate and Speech; and third and fourth year Practicum in Debate and Speech. All courses ultimately arose from a student initiative.

In short, I am as old as the hills am still enjoying debate and speech as I enter my 50th year in the activity in 2021-2022. Nevertheless, and importantly, I am not an "argument type or style bigot" and celebrate all forms of debating and approaches to argumentation in this world.

2) Topicality--I view this as a serious ethical charge against another team. To win it, you must win the following steps of this argument hands down: 1) establish and win a clear standard for Topicality (such as reasonability (skewed affirmative); best definition (skewed negatively) or better definition (more even but even neutrality being a good thing is debatable); 2) establish clearly and virtually undeniably that the affirmative has violated a key term, or terms, of the resolution; 3 [importantly] offer a synergistic model of what a topical position would be; and 4) why topicality is a voting issue for the negative.

In extreme cases, I will even consider T as a reverse voter, if affirmative shows that a negative topicality argument is frivolous.

3) Kritiks--love them. The best debates are link wars.

4) Kritiks involving performance--love them, but be careful you way you run them if you choose to do so. The art is rapidly evolving in all circuits of debate. If your performance (or any form of argument) is generic (run round after round regardless of topic),be sure that the link to the round is tight.

5) Speed--I will ask you to be clear if I'm having difficulty keeping up with your arguments. Keep in mind that unlike policy debating with fixed resolution, I cannot look at the cards after the round as I do in policy debate or fixed topic LD, if the format involves a topic which varies each round.

6) I like the stock issues approach when the wording is policy; but am open top hypo testing, counterfactuals, anything as long as you explain your positions and defend them successfully. Again, I try not to be an argument or style "bigot" but see the above on being a critic of argument (taught to me by the UNC debate coach Bill Balthrop) years ago. Look up his writings on it--IMHO they still apply today even though debate has changed much over the past five decades of my involvement in it prior to the 2020s.

7) Structure, evidence, logic, emotional appeal, the story dimension of debating--as Martha Stewart would say, good things.

8) "Generic" arguments and turns are okay, but play the link game effectively and you will more likely come out on top. We all like novel approaches.

9) Trichot) (for NPDA debating in college)--again not a bigot against trichot arguments, although the best debates IMHO are in policy oriented debates where we go the extra step in proving what works, or what is best philosophically justified (as in who bites and does not bite a kritik).

If this is a world format round, please adhere to the commonly practiced norms in that format. Ask if any details you like to before the round in cases where I'm indicated as the chief judge.

Regardless of the format, clear claims, evidence and examples to back the claims; and impacts are the fundamental key to winning arguments and debates; the the four-step refutation process: 1) let me know which argument you are on; 2) give me a counter-argument; 3) give me reasons and evidence to prefer your counter argument; and 4) give the impact--all four steps--are the keys to neutralizing or turning arguments, IMHO, regardless of debating format or type.

Clear, numbered voting issues, labeled such, in the last rebuttals (or last three min of negative rebuttal in any form of LD), are also good and a students ability to do this often makes a difference between winning and losing a ballot when the round is close.

Don't underestimate the ability of an old man to hear your arguments.

Above all, have fun and keep it all into perspective although we are all here to compete as a vehicle for learning.

Ricardo Saenz
Debated at Georgia Tech (Parli & Policy) for ~2 years
Debated at Alpharetta High School - 4 years

STEM background (studied Engineering in College)

Currently configure Leak Detection software for a Pipeline Company for a living.

risaenz(at)gmail

last updated 1/2/2020

TLDR: Debate what you're good at and debate well. I'll do my best to vote for the team that did the better debating.

General notes for everyone:

1. I vote for the team that did the better debating. What the "better debating" means is up to the debaters. If no one defines what it means to win the round, I usually default to weighing offense and defense. I also tend to be quick to decide rounds. It's not you... it's me!

2. Debate what you're comfortable with and debate it well. I don't really have many biases anymore and will hear you out on practically anything. There are a few arguments that will make me unhappy and affect your speaker points, but if you win the sheet of paper, you win the debate.

3. Add me to the email chain and please add your coaches, too. I will reply all with my comments and flow to the thread so y'all can have my record for redos.

4. I will try to keep with community norms in terms of speaker points. Just make sure I can understand you. You've seen me flow on the live stream so that should give you a good idea of my capabilities and limitations in that department.

4. It's very important that I can understand everything in your speech as I don't tend to read cards as much as most judges. I also try to write down key warrants on my flows and decide the round based on that.

5. I have been out of the activity for a while now and don't know much about the topic. Please keep that in mind and adjust accordingly.

6. Get the little stuff right - if it's clear that you have the paperless stuff down (no delays emailing, using flash drives etc...) you're likely to get on my good side and earn higher speaker points.

6. Let's all try to be friends here.

Argument Specific:

Performative Method - I am less persuaded by arguments that the ballot means something. That being said, I think arguments that focus on the scholarship of afro-pessimism and black feminism can be very persuasive. I am not very well read in the literature but did pick up a bunch from watching Kansas BR a bajillion times last year. Just be clear about what my role as a judge is and what the ballot means.

Kritiks - I don't really get Baudrillard but I think that's the point. If you want me to vote on one of your tricks, debate it well and impact it. Don't assume your job is done after the 1AR forgets the floating PIK. I debated many topic Ks back in the day, but make you explain stuff and... debate well...

Disads - Love DA/Case debates. This was one of my favorite strategies. Not much to say here.

Politics/Elections - sure

CPs - Make sure it competes. If it doesn't make sure you're good at theory.

Conditionality - I'm closer to 50/50 on this than most. Counterinterpetations are silly and self serving in these debates. The debate should be about conditionality being good or bad if it comes down to this.

Questions? Just ask!

Short Version: I have coached policy and NPDA parli debate at the college level, but I have not participated in debate in the last few years. If you see me around, I know debate terms, but you will want to define topic specific jargon and acronyms. I try to not intervene, and I suggest your best bet at winning my ballot is to do what you already do best. But everyone says that, so here are more specific thoughts. 

Debate Theory (frameworks, topicality, abuse stories, etc.): Debate is a game space in which part of the game itself is generating it's own rules. This is weird, and cool. When I was younger I tried to let the most kinds of arguments possible enter the game space by being unwilling to usually pull the trigger on theory arguments. However, I came to believe that thinking intentionally about the game space we want, what sort of arguments and people that gets included and excluded is very valuable. So I am here for a theory debate if you want one. If not, cool too. I tend to view these arguments holistically, which is my way of saying I am not likely to drop a team for dropping a minor subpoint of an argument. But I am totally willing to drop a team for a seriously made theory argument. 

Kritiks: I still read and write a lot within the world of what you might call critical theory. I've published on thinkers like Butler, Foucault, Agamben, Ranciere, Deleuze, Stengers, etc. I will do my best to not let me knowledge of critical theory sway me one way or another, but obviously that is impossible. 

Counterplans and DAs: I don't think I have any real special thoughts here. Super specific PICs and DAs can be a great round. As far as the theory of different couterplans, see above on debate theory. 

Performance: Unless I am viewing in round harms to people (which is rare) I will try to judge this as much as within the game space as anything else. Which isn't a knock against performance debate, just an indication about how I will judge it. 

Any questions, just ask. Mostly, be nice to everyone, have fun, do what you do. 

1. Sure debate is game. But who said that games don't matter?

2. You are always you. You can say your roleplaying, but how do you roleplay out of your own ethics or responsibilities? Is that even possible?

3. Black lives matter. Black debaters matter.

4. The world is--literally--on fire. Right now, perhaps even our games should matter.

I am Mario Stephens, assistant coach of the Morehouse College Debate Team. My judging philosophy is influenced by my background in English as well as my experience in oratory. Currently, I teach an English composition course that features argumentation. In this course, I teach students that logos, carefully-measured pathos, and an engaging delivery technique are essential to a good case.

I maintain that logic should undergird the argument and provide a roadmap for how the debater arrives at a conclusion. Similarly, the emotional appeal to shared values is essential to persuasion. If logic provides the “how” on the argument’s roadmap, I expect the emotional appeal to address the “how” as it relates to shared values and the overall human experience.

The delivery, in my view, is the embodiment of the argument. The speaker’s hand gestures, posture, and overall presence should work to support the argument. While oratorical prowess is no substitution for sound logic, I hold that the speaker’s voice, gestures, and oratorical style can add equally to the argument.

I look for the affirmative side to build a case based on the resolution. This burden on the affirmative side draws a line in the sand for the negative side and gives focus to the round. I am unimpressed by debate jargon and rapid-fire delivery; persuasive accessible cases win rounds with me.

I try to be Tabula Rasa, but hyper offensive things will either sink your speaks or drop the ballot. I judge on dropped arguments, and I will weigh arguments more or less than others. It is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are more valuable or a priori. Make my job as easy as possible, and you will win. I like K. Run T when needed, but I will know if it is a time suck. 

Disads should only be run if they are about the Biedermeier period of Europe. Knock-knock jokes are acceptable. Semi-mythical non-human animals should be talked about. Kritiks should only impact to some sort of nuke or dismantling the status quo. Also, speaks will be dropped if you eat individuals, human or non-human, in front of me. I also like French impressionism of art and music, so you could play some Debussy.  

 I expect you to flash your whole evidence file to me. I don't feel like cutting my own cards. Your contribution is welcomed and thanked. 

I am ok with speed, but if I cannot understand you, I will not flow it. It is your responsibility to be understandable, not mine. 

Make my job easy.