Update for LD (2017):

My background in primarily in Policy Debate, but competed in LD in the past. I enjoy faster debates that are well warranted and impacted. 

This resolution (Police Misconduct) seems to have a lot of good policy and philosophical ground and performance argumentation. I prefer that debaters do what they do best. Personal preferences are for well impacted argumentation and good theoretical debates. 

Background:

I debated in HS (three years) and at Clarion (2008-12) and qualified to the NDT once. I am currently a social worker.

Overview:

I view debate as a competitive educational activity. Preserving competitive equity is more important than education to me, but without either of these aspects debate would cease to be what it is.

I prefer specificity to generic argumentation in all things theory, affirmative case structure, DA/CPs/Ks.

I prefer a few good well warranted cards over a few short cards that lack warrants.

Be respectful of your opponents and teammates.

Remember this is simply a list of my predispositions.

Topicality:

Specificity is key. On both sides provide a clear interpretation of what cases and other arguments are allowed and not allowed and then impact why this is better for debate than the other team’s interpretation.

Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

Affirmative case structure:

I prefer well developed advantages to three card wonders.

Counterplans:

Conditionality is generally good. Some types of it are not such as Consultation. Multiple conditional advocacies can be problematic.  Specific solvency can help a lot to justify otherwise shady arguments. Object fiat is never legit.

Critiques:

I am well versed in some critical literature, but do not assume that I know your argument. I view myself as a policymaker unless explicitly asked to view myself in another role (informed citizen ect.). Framing is crucial when debating a team that engages in a different style of debate than you. I prefer to intervene the least amount possible in deciding rounds.

No Value to Life arguments will not get you anywhere, just not perquasive.

C-X:

I flow cross-examination and feel that it is the most underutilized portion of the debate. Good debaters use it to set up arguments.

Other:
If you are not clear, I will let you know.

My speaker points may be a bit lower than the exploding community norm.

30 – Blew my Mind.

29.5 – Amazing

29 – Top speaker award worthy

28.5 – Deep Elim round worthy

28 – Elim round worthy

27.5 – Might Break, might not

27 – Not Elim quality yet, but making progress

26.5 – Hard to understand / major technical issues

26 or lower – There are mistakes that we’ll talk about after the round.

Other speaker point notes –

Be respectful and friendly towards your opponents, I may have a lower tolerance for rudeness than other judges and will not hesitate to preserve the safe atmosphere of debate rounds. Swearing is unprofessional and will be reflected in speaker points.

Email- mmdoggett@gmail.com

Background:

My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.

General:

First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.

Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.

Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.

Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.

Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.

Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.

Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.

Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.

In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if I’m given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I don’t like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I don’t like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

Paradigm: I consider myself to be a policy judge. If you want me to vote for a kritik then you should have a policy alternative that I can vote for, or at least run it is a turn to the case. I think the most important aspect of debate is that both teams are able to compete on a level playing field. 



Topicality: I think topicality is the most important issue in the round, and it will be a very hard sell for the affirmative to convince me that they win the round despite losing T (I don't think it will ever happen). That being said I think that the Neg needs to do a good deal of work on T, and the easiest way is obviously to show in round abuse. However, I will vote on T even with no abuse, if the Neg shows me good reasons why the AFF is not topical. Please realize that when blasting through T shells that it is not always possible to keep up at the same speed that you read your DAs. 



Arguments: My favorite arguments to hear are DA's, however I am not necessarily a big fan of Politics DAs. I believe that the interpretation of fiat is open for debate, so that might be an easy way to get out of Politics DAs. However, if that argument is not brought up, or is answered sufficiently by the Neg, I will always evaluate Politics just like any other DA. I also love to hear case arguments. I think that my ideal round would be a round with a great case debate and a couple of DAs. Make sure that you evaluate why your DAs or case outweigh what the other team is saying. Too many teams make the mistake of just talking about their DA and not saying how that outweighs the case. Don't leave it up to my interpretation! If it is a close round and only one team tells me how they outweigh, that team is always going to win! I don't mind counterplans, in fact they can be very beneficial, just make sure that they're competitive. I am willing to listen to theory debates on counterplans as well. 



Style: I am perfectly fine with speed, however people have a tendency to blow through T shells and theory shells (see above) and I think if they are short arguments that they might be better to slow down. I won't warn you about it, but if it's not on my flow then it was never said. Please don't be a jerk in the round. If you are trying to be funny, but it seems to me that you are being a jerk you will lose speaker points. I think there is way to little emphasis on Cross-ex and I love to see teams use cross-ex to set up arguments for the rest of the round. 



Most importantly, always remember: 

Rudeness is never a virtue.

Jim Lyle 
Director - Clarion University 

Constraints: UMW

Shirley 2013: I intend to follow the suggested speaker point guide posted by WFU as best I can. 

General Statement 

1. I see debate as first a competitive activity, and second as an educational activity. Allow me to clarify. I love the educational aspects of debate, but the thing I love the most is that we get to use education in the context of a game. I find myself most interested in the preservation of debate as a fair, competitive activity for both the affirmative and negative teams. If protecting the competitive dimension of the game isn’t our priority in considerations about how debate should operate, then we should all stay back at our respective schools on weekends and discuss these issues on Saturdays in college libraries with other interested people and save the expenses associated with traveling to debate tournaments. 
2. I also love that the game allows us to play with a lot of arguments that might remain out of reach of institutional policymakers. Debate is an activity that allows us to play with more controversial positions, and advocate ideas that can not be articulated elsewhere. This teaches people how to argue on a host of fronts, and develops/enhances critical thinking skills. 
3. I think I am in the same place as a number of judges regarding evidence quality. This is never an issue in the round and the consequence is that teams get away with a slew of claims being advanced by unqualified authors. Additionally, there are a number of instances where a smart argument can beat a card but teams don't bother. 

Topicality 
1. It’s a voting issue. 
2. The key to debating topicality for me is the ability of both teams to concretize their arguments with examples of affs/arguments that allowed and/or disallowed by a particular interpretation. The team that does a better job demonstrating the effect of an interpretation on the game generally probably is gonna win the argument. 
3. Competing Interpretations vs Reasonability. I’d guess I’d say I’m a fan of reasonability. I say that because I generally see all T debates as a question of what is the most reasonable interpretation, and between the aff and the neg we have two…which compete. “Do vs. justify” just doesn’t make much sense if both sides are willing to allow the specific aff in question to be topical. 

Theory/CPs 
1. Most of these debates tend to go for the team seeking to not lose on theory simply because the debates are too fast and too jargon-laden. 
2. The number of debates where fairness is the end-all-be-all on Theory Issue A and education is the end-all-be-all on B is bewildering. What may be worse is that this is never called out. 
3. I think affirmative teams are cowardly lions on theory. 
4. I think conditionality is good and presume the counterplan is conditional. Logic says stick with the status quo if both the cp and plan are bad ideas. Does this mean all conditionality is off the argument table? No. Multiple conditional advocacies may have issues. Certain types of counterplans run conditionally may be problematic (i.e., a conditional consultation counterplan)… Advocating the perm also seems logical. 
5. Think some PICs legitimate, some ask key questions about the desirability of the affirmative plan. Think agent CPs are legitimate, however, I think affirmatives tend to let the negative get away with a lot more in fiating things for counterplans. If we are gonna use fiat, it needs to be reciprocal and predictable/real world for both sides. For instance, if it can be proven that acting on “x” is out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then perhaps the negative (or affirmative) doesn’t have right to that action (unless the opposition is given an equal use of fiat). Think we are asked to evaluate things from the perspective of the federal government. Not a fan of multiple-agent counterplans (i.e., CP has states and federal government act). Don’t like object fiat. Don’t care for international fiat. Specific solvency evidence does wonders in helping justify a particular counterplan, and if it’s from an affirmative solvency author then you get what you deserve. 
6. “This justifies severance perms”….then do it. Reciprocity is good. 

Cross-Examination 
1. Still flowing it. 
2. I “check-out” during the prep time and although I hear things, and may remember them, I will not go back and add to the “flow.” So, use CX strategically. 
3. I generally hate flowing the CX because debaters undervalue it. 

Critiques and so forth 
1. I view myself as a policymaker. I view the question for the debate to be whether or not the plan is a desirable policy option given the status quo and competitive alternatives. 
2. Does this mean I exclude the K? Maybe. Maybe not. I would argue that it doesn’t exclude the K, but rather shapes how I understand the K and how you need to frame the argument. 
3. You can argue that I shouldn’t evaluate as a policymaker, but I will evaluate the consequences of the non-policymaker mode versus the policymaker mode of evaluation. 
4. I “understand” the argument that the K is a “gateway argument” that has some if/then-thing going on when it is run with a bunch of DAs and CPs but am not sure why the AFF doesn’t get to access impact turns to the K when the K is kicked. I guess I am saying that I find it a bit confusing that the K operates somewhere in between DA world and CP world and that this creates potentially interesting, but generally unexplored, lines of argumentation. 
5. Performance. See above. Odds are that if you are a performer, I’m not the judge you want. 

Paperless 
1. I think prep time ends when the debater pulls the flash-drive out of the computer and says they are ready to jump it to the other team. I understand there are some tech issues to still be worked out but this is one issue that shouldn’t be a problem (especially since Whitman 3.0, I and I believe Synergy, have functions that allow for speeches to be saved automatically to the jump drive). 
2. I think paperless teams need to have a viewing computer available for the other team. I have no problem if the other team doesn’t wish to use the viewing computer but think it needs to be available. That said, I personally don’t get the “can we jump it on our own computer” phenomena. Why create a risk of being exposed to a virus? 
3. What if a paperless team reads additional cards in a speech that are not in the initial document? At the end of the speech, the paperless additions should be immediately jumped over. The paperless team should have to use prep for this. 
4. What if a paperless team jumps a file with 100 cards and basically forces the other team to find the evidence read? Not acceptable. 

Presumption 
I’m sure this is a little odd to see in here for most of you but I must admit that I am historically a bit of a neg hack and a large part of this is based on my willingness to vote on presumption. If there’s no clear advantage to doing the plan a tiny risk of a DA seems to be enough to say “don’t chance it.” I guess my point is that I prefer a well-developed advantage over 3 under-developed advantage. 

Delivery 
1. Be clear. 
2. I tend to let people know if they are being unclear, unless I can’t see your face. If you can’t look at me, I can’t let you know when you’ve lost me. 

Got questions? Ask. 

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

I am a game theorist and policy-maker judge. I will accept any arguments so long as you can prove that they are sound, relevant, and entail resolution-unique impacts. My background is in logic, rhetoric, and philosophy so I expect arguments to be well constructed with sound reasoning and appropriate warranting. I like to see progressive clash in crossfire rather than questions aimed at clarification or exposition. It is my belief that a debate simply cannot be won on content alone so I place equal weight on framework (theoretical) arguments and case (empirical/evidential) arguments. My win condition for debate is not only how well versed and dominant you are on a particular topic but also how well you can debate objectively; some criteria for this evaluation include but are not exclusive to effective use of turns and blocks, effective construction of counterexamples, effective elucidation of advantages and disadvantages of argument acceptance, and effective elucidation of fallacious argumentative methodology. In more empirical formats such as PF I see it as essential that debaters understand the respective fact-finding and research methods involved in their warrants; in other words, debaters should be able to quickly and accurately explain exactly how a conclusion was reached in an academic study, meta-analysis, etc. and furthermore how that conclusion uniquely addresses the claim or claims it is being employed to support. Overall I believe that the purpose of debate is to encourage more comprehensive and diverse education, thus abusive strategies (policy debaters I'm mostly looking at you) rarely win on my ballots.

I debated for 3 years at Clarion.   This is my 2nd year judging.

I will default to viewing the round as a policymaker. This means I am asking if the plan is better than the status quo or a competitive policy alternative. I do enjoy hearing a good framework debate and am open toother ways of viewing the round. I’m okay with speed, but remember to be clear. I think that people should use their evidence and extract the necessary warrants. 

Debate is a game, but I think that the education that one gains from it is even more important. 

CP-I think that counterplans should be competitive. I am not a fan of agent counterplans. 

DA- I am a big fan of case/DA debate. I think that case turns and link turns can be very effective. 

T- Topicality is always a voter. 

Theory- I think that theory debates are just like a CP/DA debate. I think that there should be a clear link and impact in the round. A clear, specific theoretical objection will do more for you than 3 generic arguments. I will vote on potential abuse, but it has to be clearly explained. 

K- I am not experienced with the K. I ran a few K’s as adebater, but I think that a good kritik has to be explained well in order for it to function in a round. I think the alt should be written out and debaters should discuss how a world with the alt would look. I am not familiar with alot of familiar with kritik literature. 

Performance/Non traditional debate-I think that you should be clear with framework and be willing to engage the other team. 

C-X- Cross ex is binding. I think that debaters should be thoughtful and respectful during c-x. C-x is a good place to earn speakerpoints and make smart arguments. 

Other: Remember to treat others with respect. Also remember to have fun! If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Years involved in collegiate debate: 35

Debated: NDT policy debate

Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP

I like NFA LD style debate because it relies on evidence and emphasizes the stock issues. I default to policy making but will adjust my paradigm if directed to do so by the debaters.

I will seriously consider nearly every argument - CP's are ok, procedural arguments (T, Vagueness, K's) need to be very clearly explained. I have voted for K's but don't find them super compelling - I think they are frequently vulnerable to perms.

Please be clear, number your arguments, explain why you are winning issues.