Gregory Quick: ggquick@gmail.com | He/They

Round Framing:

"My ideal round is one where both teams are cordial and having fun. I think too often we attach our self-worth to the activity. My favorite thing about debate is the people I've met along the way. I hope that the trophies and placements at the end of the tournaments don't hurt our ability to appreciate the genius of ourselves and the people next to us. If any part of my paradigm limits your ability to enjoy the round, please let me know." - Melekh Akintola

My Weird Judge Things:

• Tag Team Cross Ex means you have to tag your teammate in. I think it increases camaraderie and decreases teammates fighting for speaking in CX. To not do this will subtract -.5 pts from both teammate's scores.
• Both teams can agree to do a 'Challenge Round' where I will not backfill using the documents to fill in holes in your speech and depend entirely on your clarity of communication to flow. Both teams will receive a +1 pts to their scores for doing this.
• If you ask for a marked copy of the opponent's speech before CX, and DO NOT reference it throughout the rest of the debate I will hit you with a -.2. It should be obvious when you need it, but too many debates get away with reading ~3 words that matter and
• Banter is allowed/encouraged, we are all humans (I hope), and being able to make me relate to you is a key networking skill that is underdeveloped post-Covid. When you are meeting debaters and judges from across the country, finding common ground or small jokes before speeches is a good way to build rapport. Do not be disrespectful to anyone but yourself. If you cannot have non-elicitory small talk then it would be better to focus on the round and being respectful.

Speaker Point Scale: (What does the # speaker points actually mean):

25 - I physically cringed at something you said. Not sure I've given this out.

26 - I don't want you to do something you did in the round again. IE: bad organization, giving up large amounts of speaking time, being rude to the other team.

27 - You are a decent speaker, but you can improve on your persuasiveness. You need to make The Point of your speech more apparent, and specifically highlight why you believe that I should vote for you.

28 - I think you clearly explained to me your position and were a good participant in the round. You have some areas to improve on to become the best debater you can be, such as; signposting within arguments, fully warranting out your arguments, and explaining how the the points you are winning affect the rest of the flow and round.

29 - Great debating, might have missed some of my specific requests or I believe that there are some areas that you could improve in to make your speech smoother, more efficient, or make some better arguments.

30 - Fantastic debating, hitting major points with clarity and efficiency, requires meeting best practices listed below. I attempt to limit awarding 29.7+ to 1 debater/team in a tournament.

Best Practices:

• Explain the warrants behind the tag when you extend them.
• Use prep time until you have sent the email.
• Look at the judge during your speech, and face them during CX.
• Say "Next!" between cards.
• Also, number your arguments and use your opponents' argument's number when replying in Line-By-Line.
• Send analytics to the other team in your doc. If it is typed it for your speech and you are reading it then you should give it to the opposing team. Also means you should probably fill in the "[Insert Specific]" portions of your varsity's block.

Why? See the conclusion in https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1044670.pdf.

• De-escalating CX when it gets very heated, but still pushing the opponent on key points of the debate. It is key to use CX to develop common ground assumptions that your evidence makes different conclusions on and REFERENCING those answers in the next speech.
• Be a good person outside of the competitive debate round, don't be a gremlin.

I will use these best practices as benchmarks for evaluating your speech and your speaker points. This is a non-inclusive list obviously, but these are areas that I think most of the debaters can specifically improve on when I judge.

Debater Experience:

I debated policy debate for 4 years at Eagan High School in Minnesota and also debated 4 years in NFA-LD at UNL, and dabbled in NDT-CEDA. I was mostly a CP+DA debater, a functional limit of parts of the NFA-LD circuit, but I've gone for plenty of K's and ran a K Aff with some success.

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate?

I think that my role as a judge is to evaluate the round. In the history of judging I find evaluator/policymaker/educator/games playing to be some of the best philosophical roles of the judge. Most teams don't explain how the Judge's perspective affects which impacts, which would be good analysis to make.

Overall Practices:

- Don't take excessive time to email the documents, if emails are taking forever just make it obvious you aren't stealing prep.

- I will say clear a few times during your speech if I am not able to understand your words, but I don't want to keep interrupting you. That means it is up to you to make sure that I'm flowing your arguments, especially in the rebuttals. I will put my pen in the air to communicate that I am not following your speech, so you should take a step back and re-evaluate what you are saying.

- I will read important evidence the debaters point out to read after the round, but I will read the article as a whole and not just read your highlighting of it. I will not use the unhighlighted portions for your benefit, only to your detriment. If you want parts of the card to be evaluated, you should read them. When specifying that I should read a card of the opponent's, you explain what I'm specifically looking for if you want me to understand the request.

Predispositions:

Topicality:

Topical affirmatives are probably good, but see more details on untopical affs below. I like a good T flow but most debates don't access the level of depth to fully explain their interpretation of affirmative/negative ground. Compare standards, and analyze which interpretation/definition has the best access to the standards that both teams put forward.

You need to explain what im voting for, most people are shallow with their explanations. I will reward unique & comprehensible standards/criteria with +.5 pts. (Non-unique: Ground, Limits, etc.)

I default to competing interpretations, but that can be changed based on the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I do like non-abusive theoretical arguments that actually explain what debate practices should, or should not, exist. Being specific on your interpretation, violation, how you are measuring 'good' practices, and explain how meeting your 'good practice' would make debate better.

Increasing the amount of different theories perceptually decreases the persuasiveness of each theory.

Untopical Affirmative Rounds:

I find that this can be some of the most interesting rounds as it immediately gets to underlying reasons that debate is good. This is winnable by both sides, but you must outline the specific reasons that you think I should vote for you (Aff or Neg) at the end of the debate. I will be voting for teams that paint the best vision of what my vote does or what I'm voting for.

I ran Anthropocene Horror at a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments I went to, and have even voted for a violin K aff that was beautiful. I will not be the preferred judge for K affs, as I will not be as well versed in the specific literature, but am open to new education and perspectives brought into this key space.

In these rounds, I will default to as tabula rosa as I can be, but unless teams fill in the entire line of reasoning from coming into the round to receiving the ballot, judge intervention is inevitable. My tabula rosa means that I am an empty computer that speaks English poorly, has access to Google to fact-check general knowledge and statistics, and may have a heart.

CP's:

I was mainly a CP+DA debater myself, so I have gone for quite a lot of different CPs.

In most CP rounds, it is crucial to compare your solvency vs the risk of the link. It is also beneficial to explain even if statements and explain the internal links to solving each impact.

Competition Theory is underutilized by the affirmative. Explaining your vision of what competition means and why certain actions are not a trade-off with the affirmative is an interesting argument that I have not heard much.

I find multiple plank counter plans ugly, especially when they are massive (literally >3 planks). I have not seen theory on this, but I imagine a well-run theory on conditional planks in a CP bad would probably be pretty persuasive in front of me.

DA's:

Fully explaining the story of the DA should happen in every negative speech it is extended. Re-reading tags and author names is not "explaining the story".

Reading cards straight down on the DA without including them in your explanation is gross.

Both teams should deal with the timeframe of the impacts of the DA versus the timeframe of the Aff. Lots of affirmatives solve the impacts of the DA even without a link turn. This analysis is mostly analytics but deals with the realities from cards both teams.

Other Random Thoughts (as if this isn't long enough):

Even if statements are your friend.

If you cannot defend underlying assumptions about debate. Like; why is debate good or what is debate for, don't expect to win theory or topicality arguments. Put real thought into your arguments.

I don’t consider myself an interventionist, but I won’t support your 5-minute 2NR from a 1-card 1NC Offcase when it's barely extended and forgotten in the 1NR. Applies to Ks, CPs, DAs, and Theory. Affirmatives get the same treatment when the 2AR goes for the 1-sentence 2AC arg, or the 2AR goes hard on the :10s condo bad.

Emphasize key arguments, and do good evidence comparison throughout the debate. Qualifications are important and you should back up your author's claims.

Argument Structure (For Extensions):

When extending your arguments, make sure that you fully explain:

Topicality: Definition (Interpretation of Topicality), Violation, Standards, Voters.

The A2 K Aff version of Framework/Gamework should be similar but more robust.

Disadvantages: Uniqueness (Inherency in MN Novice Packet????), Link, Internal Link, and Impact

Aff's Advantages: Status quo, Impact, Solvency

Kritik's: Link, Impact, Alt

Counter-Plan's: Your Counter Plan text, Solvency for Aff's impacts.

Debate is an intellectual, procedural, rigorous, and educational game with unfixed win conditions. Almost everything in a debate -- including what 'a debate' is or what 'the topic' is -- is up for grabs. That said ...

My biography is unimportant, but I debated from 2014 to 2018. I debated in each event for about a year. I was primarily a K debater but I enjoyed debating philosophy (LD), for a wide audience (PF/Congress), and idiosyncratically (CX). I was a decent debater and probably performed better than I deserved. I call myself a 'policy judge' since it's the event I most enjoyed and spent the most time with, but that term carries a lot of baggage.

For several reasons, I object to the existence ofspeaker points. However I no longer think my previous method of handing out speaks is particularly workable, especially when I'm the only person using it. So: 28 is average, 28.5 is good, 29 is great, and 30 is awesome. (And I do believe in giving out 30s; none of this "there's always room for improvement".)

I usually read most of my decision directly, word-for-word from my ballot. My ballot will be more coherent than my spoken RFD, in part because I don't have a loud voice, and in part because trying to reinterpret what I wrote on the fly is difficult.

I like critical affirmatives and traditional affirmatives about equally. All affirmatives -- including 'traditional' ones -- carry the same burdens, but 'critical' affirmatives should especially be able to defend: Jurisdiction (whether I have the right to vote for your position), venue (why this advocacy should be happening in debate and not elsewhere), form (why this particular kind of structure / speech is better than alternatives), methodology (why the kind of advocacy you're taking is better than others), and evaluation (what are the parameters of an affirmative/negative win).

I am fine for the kritik. I don't view Ks as cheating (in any event), much like I don't view counterplans as cheating.* I preferred the K as a competitor and I generally find K debate more enjoyable to watch as a judge, but it doesn't boost your chances of winning or losing. I have deep familiarity with some K literature, passing familiarity with other lit, and no familiarity with yet other lit; I'm keeping this vague so you explain even what I might be familiar with.

* To explain this point. There is a special issue of a debate journal in 1989 which discusses the counterplan, and the introduction describes the problem like this: "The counterplan has never been more popular nor more controversial. [...] Virtually every tenet of traditional counterplan theory is now an object of serious challenge. [...] [T]hese essays employ the flash and fury of the conflict at hand to provoke thoughtful reflection on [...] fundamental questions facing competitive debate." [Robert Branham (1989), "Editor's Introduction: The State of the Counterplan", The Journal of the American Forensic Association, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 117-120.] This is silly. I think objections to 'the K' are just as silly, and the problems addressed in that issue are eerily similar to ones we contest in K debate today.

Presumption goes negative, unless they have an advocacy in the last speech, in which case it goes affirmative. I find myself voting on presumption much more than I'd like ...

Theory only requires that the violating argument be dropped. If you argue that conditionality is bad, that only automatically applies to the conditional arguments. For theory against arguments to result in dropping the debater, you have to argue that. Note that, in some cases, theory is not responding to an argument, but a speech act or ethical issue; in those cases, drop the debater probably automatically applies.

Certain types of theory make more sense in LD than in policy, like speed and conditionality. Some make less sense (though not zero), like disclosure.

Flashing, emailing, and uploading speech docs, and asking or reading evidence, all count as prep time. Any time you are typing, reading, conferring with a partner, or preparing, there needs to be a clock running.

I don't care about tag-team cross orsitting vs. standing. I spoke sitting for almost my entire debate career.

Extensions are arguments, not pro forma statements. "Extend the dropped arg" or "extend the evidence" are somewhat bizarre things to say, since if you only extend a claim but not its warrants, there's no reason to believe it's true. "Extend the arg that X because Y" or "extend this evidence which says X" are better.

For an argument to survive by the last speech, it should be present in earlier speeches and extended. If you have awesome solvency evidence in the 1AC but it's not in the 1AR, I'm not sure how it's even possible for you to 'extend' solvency into the 2AR. It's like preserving an issue for appeal.

I can't handle incredibly fast speed, but I've been able to keep up with all of the policy rounds I've judged so far. I don't believe in yelling 'speed' or 'clear'. Obviously slow down on analytics, taglines, etc., where specific wording needs to be on my flow.

I have no inherent problem with tricks or RVIs or other arguments that seem to get a ton of attention in paradigms but nobody seems to actually ever run. Make your case as to why they're cheating and why cheating is bad.

I have zero moral obligation to enforce the 'NSDA rules' or any other rules unless the tournament instructs and requires me to. Just because it's declared a 'rule' somewhere doesn't actually mean anything. When I'm not required to enforce the rules, doing things like running a counterplan in PF doesn't necessarily result in an automatic disqualification of the argument, nor is it enough to just say 'the rules prohibit counterplans'. You should be making an argument.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think plans are particularly vulnerable to topicality and don't fit the overall structure and purpose of the event, but they (like K's) are OK in my book. Running a counterplan in response to a whole-resolution, philosophical affirmative is winnable but not strategic for several reasons. If someone can explain what their actual problem is with single standards orroles of the ballot or what have you (versus a value and criterion), I might explain why they don't bother me, but I've yet to see an explanation ...

Public Forum is a confusing event. Treat me like another out-of-touch policy judge since I'm unfamiliar with the norms and expectations of this style of debate. Because of the structure and purpose of PF, though, I don't think the second rebuttal needs to respond to the first; it's probably strategic to do so anyway. Arguments that are in final focus need to be properly extended in summary.

Congress is more confusing. It is a somewhat theatrical, speech-like form of debate, which has lower burdens of proof. I think past the first two speeches, debaters should be responding in some form to one another, and as debate on legislation continues, more and more of our speeches need to present direct refutation or support of others. Because Congress is theatrical, I don't think 'true' or particularly 'strong' arguments need to be presented; many members of real legislatures have idiosyncratic (or outright false) beliefs which are poorly defended. You just need to make a plausible defense of whatever stance you are taking and directly engage in the debate that's happening before you. The presiding officer has special duties: They are obligated to preserve the interests of the body. This means that, in addition to accurately assessing who speaks and when, they must support the orderly flow of debate, and they must encourage active debate.

Phrases I dislike: "As a brief off-time roadmap" (it's never brief), "independent voter" (it's never independent), "at the leisure of my opponents and judge" (we're not here for leisure), "star/circle/highlight this" (I'd really rather not draw), "judge" (is this all I am?).

Dean Ziegelman

Last Edited 9/1/2019

Blue Valley Southwest 2017

University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2021

This should give you a general guideline for how I think about debate. Everything is subject to some change. If you have any questions, please ask.

1) Tech determines truth. A complete argument must have a claim and a warrant.

2) Clarity determines speed. Debate is first and foremost a speaking activity. Clarity means me being able to understand every word in your evidence, not just the tag.

3) I am not ideologically neutral. As much as I try to distance my predispositions about certain arguments in debate, I should say that I believe that certain arguments are more compelling than others. I.e. Fairness good > fairness bad; death bad > death good.

4) Be nice.