GSU National College Debate Tournament

2012 — GA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Michael Antonucci Georgetown 4 rounds

David Arnett Kentucky 3 rounds

Jarrod Atchison Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 4:02 AM EDT

Revised: 3/20/14

My first year judging at the NDT I had an important conversation with Dallas Perkins that still impacts my thinking about judging today. I expressed to him a bit of my anxiety about judging and the possibility of ending someone’s career. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said something to the effect of “People should ask two things when determining who the good judges are: 1- Do they try their hardest? 2- Are they willing to vote for the team that won no matter who they are?” Over the years I have found that these characteristics are simple in theory and sometimes difficult in practice. If I have the honor of judging you then I will most assuredly make a mistake somewhere, but I will strive to try my hardest and vote for the team that won no matter who they are.

How do I determine who won?

Rather than prescribing a set of argument preferences, I think it may be more productive to articulate my decision-making process because I think that we are at a moment where my preferences are not as important to me as helping debaters understand how I evaluate debates. Here is how I generally try to decide a debate:

1- I start by isolating the central questions of the debate: The second the debate is over I write a list of questions that I need to resolve. Sometimes I can do this without actually looking at my flows, but after I write the questions down I go back and check my flows to make sure I am not missing any major controversies. The key part of this stage is forcing myself to determine the issues that are essential to my decision versus things that *may* become relevant assuming certain teams win certain things.

2- Specific questions I tend to ask myself after almost every debate:

-Assuming both teams won all their arguments, who would win the debate?

-Is there a major execution error?

-Is there a team lacking offense on any given position?

-Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence?

-Is there significant argument interaction?

3- I determine which questions require reading evidence. Ross Smith taught me that starting with the evidence first can result in decisions that de-emphasize the important argument interactions that the debaters work hard at establishing during their speeches. There are lots of questions, however, where the quality of the evidence is an essential component of resolving a key question of the debate.

4- Dueling Banjos: After I figure out the issues that need evidence I create little duals on my flow between the relevant arguments in the mini-debate. It is helpful when I read the evidence or examine the arguments to think of it in terms of a mini-debate so that I don't get caught up thinking about the potential implications of the evidence or argument for issues beyond the part that I am trying to resolve. If I don’t do this then I can get lost down the rabbit hole.

5- Devil’s Advocate: After I answer all the questions I have come up with right after the debate, I play devil's advocate with myself two times. This is something that I learned from David Heidt. Basically, I write a mini-ballot for the team I think has won the debate. Something super short like "I vote AFF because I think the case impacts happen faster than the DA." Then, I pretend I am the other team and cross ex myself on the "what abouts?" I often end up determining that the "What abouts?" are good arguments that are just not in the debate. Sometimes, however, the "What abouts" force me to look at something I may have overlooked. I would say that 85-90 percent of the time I vote the way I wrote the RFD but sometimes I realize I was overlooking something important.

6- I isolate issues in the debate that "test my judge philosophy" so that I can tell the debaters after the debate that other judges may vote on X but my personal philosophy is Y because _____. Here is an example: at our district tournament a couple of years back I was on the bottom of a 2-1 when the 2ar forgot to go to a sheet of paper where the Neg had extended an argument that the status quo solved all the aff so vote neg on presumption. The other two judges thought it was bad and didn't vote on it. I am still at the stage of my judging career where bad arguments need to be called bad arguments. So, I voted neg and explained that the aff was winning the rest of the debate, but that in my view of the debate was decided on something technical. Inevitably, this happens about once a tournament.

7- Preventing the RFD that never ends: After I make my decision, I sit down and write the first 45-60 seconds of my decision out so that I can read aloud the short synopsis of how I voted. This is something I learned from Will Repko. For panel debates, I tend to write out a good chunk of my RFD just in case someone takes longer to decide and to ensure that I keep my comments concise. I have found that often times the debaters want to focus on the central question(s) of the debate and my ramblings about other things turns out to be less interesting to them.

8- The Triad: Sometimes it varies on the situation, but I try to give exactly three pieces of advice for both teams. Numbering the advice and limiting it to 3 helps me not wander around my RFD with random pieces of advice. I have found that the thing that really makes debaters angry is when I have voted against them and then flippantly say something like "you could have done X better" and the debaters freak out and say "Dude, this is my overview where I said X exactly like you just did!" The key to avoiding those interactions is for me not to venture into random musings on the fly.

9) Personal judging idiosyncrasies:

I usually decide any theory debate as an "option of last resort" for the team that needs it to win.

I usually decide a link debate first before worrying about uniqueness because of my belief that uniqueness is often a question of the direction of the link.

I usually wear head phones to try to minimize being influenced by other judges.

I usually go up to the debaters to call for cards and hand them a sheet of paper with list of cards I want so as to not influence the other judges. This isn’t as relevant if there is an email chain going.

I usually ask to go last (or later) if I am on the bottom of a big split (4-1) so I can get a sense of where I split with the majority of judges.

I usually go for a walk around the hall once before I come back and look at my whole list of questions and my thought process to make sure I am comfortable with it before I sign my ballot.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

Jarrod

Shree Awsare James Madison University 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 8:59 AM EDT

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Dan Bagwell Wake Forest University 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:39 AM CDT

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Andrew Baker Dartmouth College 3 rounds None

Brendon Bankey Wake Forest University 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 11:00 AM CDT

Director of Debate at the University of Texas

brendonbankey@gmail.com - please add me to your email chain

***Nukes Topic - NDT Update***

-Apology not accepted. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

-Don't pref me if you spent your NDT prep taking screenshots of your opponents' wikis or social media instead of cutting cards. The ad-homs have continued unabated all season and its pathetic that the community has created a competitive incentive for character attacks. To the coaches, what purpose are you serving convincing young adults that their path to success should include tactics that would be grounds for civil litigation in any other context? Aren't we all supposed to be educators?

-Students who abuse the subject line of the email chain to insinuate that their opponents are members of hate groups are committing harassment and I will vote against them if it occurs in front of me. Touch grass. No-one competing at this tournament is in the klan. Anyone who devotes themselves to winning the Larmon has forfeited their claim to be holier than thou. Get over yourselves.

***Nukes Topic***

General

I would like to see more evidence spin and storytelling. I think impact interaction matters on this topic. Narrate the trip wires that cause your impact to occur. Timeframe/probability matter a lot more to me than magnitude (it all seems pretty bad). I care whether the disad turns the case or vice versa.

Please engage and indict your opponents' evidence. Evidence quality matters. Several of the major topic authors on this topic were also the major topic authors on the 09-10 topic. I will reward debaters who can articulate the distinct warrants and disagreements between the policy wonks. I think this is especially important for kritik debating. Several topic authors are known quantities and fodder for epistemology links.

I think evidence matters when evaluating topicality and counterplan competition. In addition to reading evidence for interps/violations/textual competition, debaters should explain why their definitions should be preferred. I will defer to the negative on T or counterplan competition until the aff counter-defines the words. If the aff covers the definitions, the neg must also explain why its definitions are better for a year's worth of debates. I think "does this definition produce better debates?" is a more important question than "is this the most precise interpretation?".

K Stuff

-The oldies are goodies. Although the content of the nukes policy v k debate has changed over the past forty years, several of the warrants/justifications/conventional thinking continue to be applied on both sides. I am comfortable using old evidence to establish the thesis for a K as long as the 2N is capable at applying the oldies to give a convincing narrative that makes sense in 2023/4. I think framework/impact comparison becomes more convincing when 2Ns can put the aff's claims in context of the evolution in the academic debates that have occurred over the years. The same is true of 2As that can leverage old evidence that answers the K.

-I struggle with the competition for the abolition/nuclearism alts that include all of the plan. If the 2NR includes an alt that includes all of the plan I see myself voting aff even if the link debating is persuasive. I also think links that argue "the aff described the world problematically" are vulnerable to strategic perm debating. I think Ks are more persuasive that indict fiat and question the pedagogical benefit of reinvesting in gaming the ideal nuclear posture.

-This is the 5th topic in 14 years (Nukes 1, War Powers, Exec Authority, Military Presence, Nukes 2) with a viable version of the NFU aff. Affs should have a take in the 2AC (hopefully several) about why it is pedagogically valuable to debate about the nuclear posture.

-I am unlikely to disregard the nukes K because its unfair unless the block or 2NR drop fairness. I am more likely to disregard the K because the alt doesn't solve and the aff convinces me that the links are not unique to the aff.

-Fiat double bind is not a thing. It's never going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.

Debating Non-USFG Affs

-Will vote for T-US but will be bored if the aff claims to lead to disarm. No solvency/presumption + disad seems more viable/entertaining. I think the aff can win that T-US = FG is overlimiting and produces a stale topic.

-I think that competing interpretation debates are fun and will reward teams who invest in the interpretation debating. I don't think the aff's interps have to be the most predictable as long as they can describe what limits the counter-interps impose on the topic and why they provide a desirable division of ground.

-Affs should vet their authors to make sure they don't advocate the TVA. I think "your author says the US should actually do it" requires 1AR pen time. I don't think that the TVA is a counterplan but I do think that the TVA raises a necessary/sufficiency standard for whether shifting the point of stasis away from the resolution is required to solve the Ks of T. I think if the neg wins a TVA is compatible with the 1AC author's claims it substantially deflates the aff's "topic design bad" offense versus T/framework. If the aff introduces Acheson evidence in the 1AC I expect the 2AC/1AR to be able to explain the method comparison between US disarm and Acheson's vision of disarm.

Arguments Regarding Community Norms

-I think that teams are entitled to make non-resolutional procedural arguments related to argument style or the content that a ballot should endorse. Teams can present an interpretation and argue why that interpretation should be preferred. If I vote for those strategies my ballot just means that a team did the better arguing for the purpose of that debate.

-Ad-homs are not arguments. I do not flow ad-homs or use them to evaluate debates. I am an employee of the state of Texas and will never cast my ballot to assign positive or negative value to an undergraduate student's character. It is wholly outside of my jurisdiction to judge any individual's conduct outside of the words they say in a debate after the 1AC has started and before the 2AR has ended. If you believe the conduct of a member of the community is so reprehensible that it must come before evaluating arguments that occur in a debate, I strongly encourage you to pursue a resolution with the relevant NDT/CEDA/ADA committee prior to the start of a NDT/CEDA/ADA sanctioned competition. Those decision-making bodies are designed to evaluate complaints in a professional manner that protects the confidentiality of all parties. As a tournament director, I can attest to the usefulness of these decision-making bodies to carefully navigate sensitive issues concerning interpersonal conflicts between members of the community. I do not see any value in offering competitive incentives for tactically deploying reputation-damaging claims as procedurals.

***March 2022***

I am a clash judge set out to pasture. I am generally in a state of judging ennui because debates are often copies of copies of debates I've seen before. With that said, here's some advice:

1) All debate is role playing. You're lying to yourself if you think it's not. Make it entertaining, don't break character, and refrain from lobbing fallacies at your opponent.

2) I generally vote for the team that A) has a clear narrative throughout the debate and B) does the most to complicate their opponent's narrative. Be convincing. "Extinction outweighs" is an incomplete narrative. Talk about internal links more and use them to make more turns the case/da/k arguments.

A) Cross-examination is my favorite part of the debate. Don't waste the opportunity. If you can't defend your narrative in cx don't expect me to let you make up for it in rebuttals.

B) The 2NR and 2AR should collapse the debate to the most important questions. Boo to final rebuttals that race through the speech without communicating to me the ballot you would like me to write in your favor.

3) I hate your 2NR/2AR blocks. I don't want them. Just answer the previous speech instead and identify what the errors are of the previous speech. If you read them anyway don't be obvious. I flow on a laptop and will know/become irritated if you are rereading a block from a previous speech instead of developing arguments in response to opponent's arguments.

4) I like evidence-based arguments. Debate should be academically rigorous. The 2AC and the 2NC should read cards. Well-evidence arguments are important because they connect students' creative ideas to academic communities pursuing similar questions. Connecting arguments to academic literature is also important because no individual has a complete understanding of the world. If your strategy does not rely on evidence I expect you to be excellent at cross-examination.

A) If your style is not evidence-centered, I still expect students to connect important ideas to a clearly identifiable literature base. A failure to connect your arguments to a clear literature base feels to me like an effort to deprive opponents of link ground and implicitly an expectation that the opponent is responsible for refuting the un-published ideas of student debaters. I don't want to decide those debates.

B) I am very much over students referencing the history of cross-examination debate without reference to evidence. The rush for originality dismisses the rich history of academic work documenting the examples often invoked in competition.

C) Caveat: I don't read a ton of evidence to decide debates. The best debaters will deploy the claims/warrants of their evidence convincingly such that I feel like they know what they're talking about. I flow on the computer. If I have to read your cards during the debate to figure out what you're talking about I'm having a bad time.

D) If you introduce and convincingly deploy an evidence-based argument (tangential to the new topic) that I've never seen before I will likely tune in and reward you with higher points.

5) Debates over competing interpretations (definitional argument) is, without question, the most important skill that cross-examination debates provide. Interpretations/counter-interpretations provide instruction to the judge for how to interpret whether the teams have met their burdens. I'm agnostic about the content of your theory arguments but I'm unlikely to vote for them if there is not enough information to explain to your opponent what I am voting for when providing my reasons for decision.

6) There is some recent grumbling from my fellow old-heads about neg conditionality and judge kick getting out of control. I cosign those concerns. If the aff breathes a claim and warrant about judge kick in each speech starting in the 2AC I will disregard it. 2N's are entitled to their hustle but shouldn't expect my sympathy if the 1AR answers judge kick and the 2AR extends it. For the aff to win on conditionality the 1AR has to be airtight covering the 2NC/1NR.

***Old Paradigm***

Square up. Friday night lights. Fight night. Any given Sunday. Start your engines and may the best debater win.

My bias is that debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision. My bias is that I will only flow one speaker in each rebuttal unless it is clearly and compellingly established in the constructives why I should flow both speakers in the same speech.

For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate.

I think about permutations in a very precise way. I do not think it's the only way to think about them but I am unlikely to be persuaded to think otherwise. I think that a plan specifies a desired outcome. There are a set number of means to achieve the desired outcome. I also think that a counterplan or alternative specifies a desired outcome with a set number of means to achieve that outcome. A permutation asserts that it is theoretically possible for there to be a means of action that satisfies both the outcome of the plan and the counterplan or alternative. A permutation could be expressed as where the set numbers of the aff's and the neg's strategies overlap. Permutations are defense. Rarely do they "solve all their offense." It would behoove affs to know what offense they are "no linking" with the perm and what offense the perm does not resolve. This discussion should ideally begin in the 2AC and it must take place in the 1AR.

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition that justifies such a perm AND 2) an explanation for where the aff and the cp/alt overlap

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose, just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

***Older Paradigm (Still True)***

I judge debates based on execution. My decisions rarely come down to just 2NR v 2AR. They are strongly influenced by how ideas develop in CX, the block, and the 1AR.

The best rebuttals will isolate a unique impact and explain why their opponent's impact is either less important or impossible to resolve. The most persuasive rebuttals, to me, are those that explain how I should evaluate the debate given the available information. This is especially true in debates about debate where neither side agrees on a normative method for evaluation.

I can't stress how irritated I am by students that make sweeping claims about argument styles that they don't usually engage in. Debate is hard and everyone puts in an incredible amount of work. Oftentimes, people don't get credit for their effort. That stinks. That does not mean, however, that other folks' contributions are less valuable than yours because they approach the game differently.

I think there is an important role for philosophical arguments in debate, with caveats. Ks should disprove solvency. I think creatively interpreting the resolution is interesting. Affirmative teams that decide the resolution doesn't matter in advance of the debate and only impact turn their opponent's positions bore me. I would rather affs be deliberately extra-topical than anti-topical. Link arguments should be consistent with framework arguments. The terms used in speeches and tags should reflect the language of the literature base they are meant to represent. Not all Ks of humanism are the same. Not all Ks are Ks of humanism.

I think there is an important role for policy arguments in debate, with caveats. Vague plan writing does not equal strategic plan writing. Impact evidence is often outdated and/or includes multiple alt-causes. I perceive a degree of self-righteousness from debaters that have extensive experience going for T-USFG but have little experience going for T in other situations. I perceive a higher degree of self-righteousness from debaters who preach the merits of research when going for T-USFG while very obviously reading evidence they copy and pasted from other school's open-source documents.

What you should expect of me:

1) I will evaluate the debate and cast a provisional decision about which team did the better debating based on the content of the speeches and the cross-examinations.

2) I will flow your debate in an excel template and save a copy after the debate for scouting purposes.

How I think about debate:

I. The aff's burden is to prove that the 1AC is A) an example of the res and B) a positive departure from the squo. The neg should disprove the 1AC and can win by establishing that the aff is wrong about either A or B. The neg can also win by offering a counter-proposal that competes with and is net beneficial to the 1AC.

II. In order to accomplish A, the aff should be able to:

1) provide an interpretation of the resolution

2) explain how the 1AC meets their interpretation of the resolution

3) demonstrate that their vision of the resolution is superior to the neg’s

III. In the event that the aff argues they do not have to abide by the terms of the resolution, the aff should be able to:

1) provide sound reasoning for why the agreed upon point of stasis fails to address the agreed upon controversy area

2) explain the roles of the aff and the neg in their vision of debate

3) demonstrate that their vision of debate is superior to the neg’s

IV. The aff cannot win by simply flipping the burden of proof and indicting the neg’s interpretation of the resolution.* The aff must at all times defend a contestable proposition. If III (see above) occurs, the neg's burden is not to disprove the solvency and harms of the 1AC (B). Rather, all the neg should have to disprove is that abandoning A is necessary to solve/talk about B. If the neg can demonstrate that the original stasis point can accommodate the harms area then the aff has not proven that abandoning the res must occur.

*Exceptions to IV: language Ks, conditionality bad

Things I enjoy:

· When debaters express a nuanced knowledge of the resolution/controversy area

· Good jokes

· Bold choices

· Exposing specious arguments in C-X

· Solvency debates

· Links to the plan

· Supporting claims with high-quality research

· Final rebuttals that begin with a brief explanation of the key issues in the debate and why they have won given the arguments presented in earlier speeches

· When debaters prioritize answering the question, “What should debate look like?”

· Creative permutations—a perm says that there is a possible world in which both the 1AC and the counter-proposal can occur simultaneously, or that the counter-proposal is an example of how the aff’s proposition could be implemented—the aff should describe the permutation in both rebuttals and explicitly argue what elements of the neg’s strategy it mitigates/solves. Asserting the hypothetical validity of a perm and being intentionally vague until the 2AR does not an aff ballot make.

Things I don’t enjoy:

· When debaters compensate for dropping an argument by asserting that it is new

· When embedded clash becomes an excuse for not flowing

· When debaters make straw person characterizations of argument styles they do not personally engage in

· Trained incapacity

· “Death good”/ “death not real”

· Basic strats

· Recycled strats

· Recycled blocks

· K 1NC shells that I can find in my inbox from previous seasons

· “Procedural fairness”

· Teams that don’t take advantage if/when their opponent impact turns fairness

· Affs that don’t defend a substantial departure from the squo

· Affs that don’t specify the terms of the 1AC/backtrack on the terms of the 1AC for the purpose of permuting the neg’s counter-proposal

· Bad internal links

· C-X belligerence

· Hyperbolic impacts

· Counter-perms (honestly, it’s been 10 years and I still don’t get it)

· Asserting “perm do the counter-proposal” when it’s shamelessly severance

· When great CX moments don’t make it into the speeches

· Failing to capitalize on 2AC/block choices and settling for coin flip decisions

· “Point me to a line in the card where it says…” OR “I just ctrl F’ed that word in the document and it isn’t there”

Tim Barouch Northwestern University 4 rounds

Amanda Bass Liberty University 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 3, 2014 at 12:41 AM UTC

Amanda Atkins(Bass)
3 years debating (Liberty University)
4 years judging

I started as a novice at Liberty and have judged on and off for high school and college. In general, I think I am fairly open to hear whatever. Having procured a 'real' job, I now judge less frequently, so I will understand the concepts you explain well, and in the case of acronyms, I might pull evidence to figure it out if its important.

In general, however, I try not to pull much evidence as this is a communication activity - I will not pull every shell card and every extension you read to weigh against the entire 1ac.

**I much prefer to vote on the better explanation of the card than the better card I have to pull and read myself.**

No, but for real, read that now. You'll be mad at me after the round if you don't.

If, at the end of the round, I have to decide a key question on "my Johnson evidence is on fire on this point!" vs. "Extend my Miller card, it talks about that", you are doing it wrong.

Framework -
I don't often think framework gets either side anywhere. Especially when it turns into "the aff loses for walking in" or, the related aff version "The neg can't have anything but a cp" after they already took 5 minutes to read a K.
There are exceptions. If the aff doesn't do anything you can get links to, it might be your only choice. If the neg won't allow you to access your case until you give carded offensive justification for your dresscode, it might be framework time.

Performance - if you want to do a puppet show or whatever craziness you had better set up a way for me to decide the round and win your framework. However, I think if the other team finds a way to meet your crazy framework better, you might be in trouble. Could be interesting either way. I also think the other side probably has leverage on framework, expecially if it is something they can't be ready to out-crazy you on.

Ks - My last partner and I ran with a T/K strategy fairly often, so I will be fine with listening to your K.

What this does not mean:
1. You should run a K for the first/second/third time to adapt to me. Don't do it. No one will enjoy themselves.
2. I understand your K by author's name. Probably not. Even if I do, I will only use the words you use to explain it in round to make my decision. If I can't use your words to explain to the other team why their aff is bad, I'm not going to do that work for you.
3. You should act like an arrogant jerk because the other team "Just doesn't get it, Judge!". Be nice. You might not either.

What this does mean:
1. If you are a K team, do your thing. Explain in real terms what your alt or K means and you'll probably be fine.
2. If you are a policy aff against a K team, do your thing too. I was the 2a on a policy aff, I also sympathize with you. But please find out what the status of the K is before you read your giant framework block, if they're going to let you have your aff there is almost no strategic value to this and it turns into "Ks bad", use that time to answer the K.

T- The other half
The short version is that I do vote on T. I don't think many of the Ks of T are very strategic, because I think the aff probably links to most of them too. I don't think that the neg has to run DAs and prove abuse, I think that's kinda dumb and certainly not strategic, I don't think Ts are always there for abuse, I think they're usually just strategic tools. I default to competing interpretations unless reasonability is dropped or really high-tech explained. In general I don't think a small difference is enough to vote against a team, but if they say something in their plan text they have no offensive ground, fairness or educational reason to have there, I think they should be punished for it. I think in that case it probably does lead to better plan writing.

Theory-
Just like everyone else, I don't want to hear your 15 point 10 second block. Read three standards and actually make the arguements instead and I can be convinced. I am not so sure about spec arguments, but I think I can be won on them if the other team entirely blows them off or you really convince me you need this ground. I think a single conditional CP or K is probably legit. I also think some multiple conditionality is alright as long as the strat doesn't link to itself. I can, however, be convinced if you are winning it. I'm not a big fan of obscure consult or conditions CPs, and I might be suspect of a wildly abusive shifting K alt. The later I would even be ok with being in the 1ar, as the K has not had the time to wildly shift until the block. If the abusive position is kicked, I think often reject the arguement not the team is fairly legit.

Read this: I will probably not vote on RVIs. Maybe even if they are dropped. I think this is the cheap shot version of debate. Theory is one thing. Three words and a voter is another.

DAs -
The other two years of my college career were very straight up. When I was a 2n we ran t/cp/da/case. Every time. So I understand your DAs too, and I will be very happy if you can get some fun specific link. I think you are in trouble when the aff's link turn is so far beyond the specificity of your evidence that they don't talk about the same thing. Other than that, I like DAs. The only disclaimer is politics, I am not a huge fan of your 3 minute Obama PC link wall or generic debate. I will listen and vote, but I'm not a huge fan.

CPs-
I like cps, I think they have an important part of negs winning against well-played giant affs. I really like PICs out of important parts of the plan action/plan text, because I think if you do something you can't defend you should probably not do it. I do not think a crazy PIC like out of helping one random drug lord is predictable or fair. Consult or crazy conditions cps are a bit suspect, agent, actor, or different action CPs are usually legit. But again, I can be pursuaded otherwise.

Case-
Oh the wonderful case debate. I think this is one of the hardest and most techy debates of all and I will like you if you are able to pull it off. If you win a substantial chance of case defense and chance of a case turn I think this is the same thing as winning case/da and I will vote on it. I think, in general, the aff that is able to pull specifics out of their cards to answer your evidence is in a good place or read new evidence that applies. But, if their cards do not address your attacks, I don't think the aff gets to "clarify" out of what you say their plan action does if their evidence doesn't support it and yours does

Ryan Bass Liberty University 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 2, 2017 at 7:42 PM EDT

Ryan Bass
Years Debated: 4 (Middle East to Immigration)

Years Coached: 2 (Democracy Assistance and Energy)

School Affiliation: Formerly Liberty University, Hired Judge

I have judged substantially more "clash" debates than I expected to and I, given my individual proclivities, do not expect that to change soon. (Note: I still view myself as a somewhat left-of-center "clash" judge if that helps you in your prefs)

First, I have voted for framework over affirmatives without plans/topical action a substantial number of times (with only a few notable exceptions). This is not necessarily a reason I am no longer good for those teams; instead, it means that affirmatives have not been answering a couple of questions that I ask myself at the end of the debate (below). Please note that these questions apply most to affirmatives that do not orient themselves around the topic AT ALL instead of using the res as a starting point.
1) Policy debate gives me a (somewhat) objective way for me to evaluate the debate- what is my agency in this round as the judge? For example, if you describe the world in a way that I disagree with, why should I still vote for you? How does my ballot mean anything for me if I use it to join a movement/agree with an idea that I believe is not an ethical (or simply incorrect) way to view the world? I understand that not all affs make these claims, but the ones that do should make sure to explain to me how this is possible.
2) Is the negative's interpretation limiting enough to justify your offense? For instance, a framework interpretation that says "take a stance on energy policy" is not the same as an interpretation that says "roleplay the USFG". Some pieces of offense are not intuitive for the former that are definitely applicable to the latter.

Second, I almost universally prefer substance over theory (even in relation to critical/performance affs). Here are a few important elements to keep in mind. (Note the qualifier "almost"- there are exceptions to all of these rules as I try to be a relatively debate-centric judge)
1) I will vote on topicality/framework, but I care more about critical thinking and grammar than predictability and ground. Practically, this means that as long as the affirmative makes a compelling case that their aff can be logically extrapolated from the resolution then they have met the burden of reading a topical aff. If it's a tricky aff, suck it up. Aff creativity should be rewarded in a world where conditionality is queen.
2) Aff theory- I have found myself voting frequently for conditionality bad. The problem mostly comes either from an unwillingness of the negative to have a defense of their contradictions (or not having a good cx on the aff ground lost/neg ground gained by a contradiction) or to answer counter-interpretations. I think conditionality is good for the most part (but that the aff should either impact/link turn net benefits or make smarter arguments to make up for it). Smart neg strategies should be rewarded too. This does not mean that you can't win on a theory debate in front of me- theoretical line-by-line is very important.
3) Performance affs (or others without plan texts) SHOULD forfeit the right to the permutation- they have changed the framework for the debate and should not get the ability to take the only ground that the negative has. The negative should be rewarded for creative strategies that are different methodologies than the affirmative. This also means that PICs/PIKs vs. these teams are competitive in my mind. As long as you have a method to solve the performativity of the 1AC you should be fine. Affirmatives should expect to answer these arguments substantively.

Finally, I am becoming increasingly concerned with gendered and discriminatory language in our community. These words are frequently used innocently- as such this does NOT mean that the first time you say "guys" (a word that I believe carries distinct gendered connotations) you lose the debate. However, the way you handle the introduction of these arguments into the debate matters. If it is with an apology and genuine effort to respect the feelings of the other team then you will be fine (and will probably be rewarded for positive interactions). If you choose a path that is escalatory and more offensive (saying their perceptions don't matter, increasing their use) then you will receive a significant speaker point decrease and it will make me want to not vote for you. On the other hand, if you react to gendered language with yelling and a disrespectful attitude (as the offended team), you will also lose speaker points. This is a communication-based community and we should treat each other with respect. Please just be conscious of the other people in the room.

Most of the other things are still the same (listed below for your benefit)
GENERIC:
Slow down on theory and tags (something you should be doing anyway). I will make it very clear if I'm not tracking with you, but I won't interrupt the speech to do it. That's your job, not mine.

Kritiks-
I am well read on Queer Theory, Capitalism, and Whiteness studies. I understand Feminism (most waves), Security Ks, Heidegger, Orientalism, and Nietzsche. I do know more about Baudrillard than I even did. I still have no idea what Spanos says.

I like K debates a lot, especially k debates that are the focus of the strategy (as opposed to a throwaway advocacy). On the negative, I went for Queer Theory about 70% of the debates I was in my senior year. Link analysis is essential. Impacts should be treated like DA impacts- at the top of the flow and turning the case. If more people explained Ks like DA + CP they would pick up more middle of the road judges.

Affirmatives are better off defending their methodology than saying "permutation- do the alt in all other instances". For example, the link that the aff uses the state can be answered with two arguments: the state is good and the state can be reformed- this makes a permutation competitive and makes all the difference to me. Too many judges let permutations rule the day without making affirmatives answer the link level of the debate. Impact turn if you bite the link, but answer the alt. Everybody has to answer the alt.

Counteplans-
I love CPs with internal net benefits. Smart CPs + DAs are awesome. On the other hand, CPs that compete off of the agent, immediacy, or "should" are probably cheating and probably discourage good aff creativity. Most PICs are good. Advantage CPs are almost always good. Uniqueness CPs feel like cheating to me but I don't really know why (nor do I care enough to contemplate their legitimacy).

DAs-
Like them. Elections DAs are the best, (some) politics DAs are the worst. A well-explained DA and case will get my ballot more easily than a K.

Joe Bellon Hire

Pre-Districts Update 2015

Plans: I judge the debate in front of me, but I find this trend toward policy teams reading a plan that is nothing but the very generic terms of the resolution disturbing. In particular, if your multiple solvency advocates disagree about the particulars of how something should be legalized and the negative makes that into an argument and they explain how that disadvantages them in an effective way, I'm unlikely to be persuaded by you saying something like "well, that's just the way debate goes these days." That's especially true if you think you get to pick and choose among different advocates to specify how the plan gets done in the 2AC, 1AR, etc. (assuming the negative makes that into an argument too). If you do what I've just described, can you still win the debate? Of course you can. Negatives are bad at running procedural arguments, you could be just better than they are debating, and I'm entirely open to being persuaded that I'm wrong. I will still vote on the flow first. I'm just saying that I will know you're cheating. I'm equally skeptical about the argument that normal means should be interpreted to mean that both sides read cards as to which legislation would be most likely to pass if the general concept of the aff was implemented. I don't think those cards exist, and if they did, would you really be inherent?

November 2013

WHO?: I’m the Director of Debate at Georgia State University.

SUMMARY: I try to let the debaters decide what the round is about, and what debate should be like. I will vote on whatever arguments win -- Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan, Affs with a plan, framework, what people refer to as "performance," etc. The worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is fail to explain your arguments. The second worst thing is to fail to respond to the other team’s arguments. The third worst is to assume you know what arguments I like and make strategic decisions based on your guesswork. The best thing you can do is to make arguments that seem smart to you, and to make them in the best way you can.

THINGS I WOULD LIKE:

1) Engaging debate. That's a broad imperative, but there's too much debate these days that's mechanical and boring. Too many people talking to their laptops instead of the judge or their opponents. Be clever, be passionate, be funny, be original, be effective, be whatever it is that you can be that's not just another bloodless read-through. Ask interesting or effective cross-ex questions. Deliver your speeches as though they matter. This is not an exhaustive list. You're smart and creative. I'm easy to please.

2) Debaters that fight hard but respect themselves, their partners, their opponents, the process, and the community. I will give you my respect as a person, as a judge, and as a fellow member of the community. Intolerance and pointless hostility are both awful.

CURRENT PET PEEVES:

1) When I say "clearer" and you ignore me. If that happens, I will deduct speaker points. If that happens, I am very likely to stop flowing you. I am even more likely to assign arguments that I can't understand less weight. I am yet more likely to let a clever opponent persuade me that I should completely disregard arguments that were made in an incomprehensible fashion after I had requested greater clarity. All this can be avoided by responding to my simple request with greater clarity.

2) Failure to label off case positions in the 1NC when there is more than one of them. Label all of them. Even the first one. ESPECIALLY the first one. Don’t make me hurt you.

3) I will dock your speaker points by .2 every time you say "thumper." You're better than that.

THE SPECIFICS:

I try to have no substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. Basically, this means you get to argue why you should win. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you convince me that the other team should lose because they have no fashion sense, I'll pull the trigger. This puts a huge onus on all of you to explain why you should win. If you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you to make things up. No, seriously -- explain your arguments or I may simply not understand them.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE STUPID ARGUMENTS. It means that I want to let debaters debate, and I have some humility about my own ability to decide ahead of time what arguments are good or educational or whatever. In this vein, let me say that debaters often do not explain things like how the counterplan wins/loses the round, how the kritik relates to the counterplan, whether topicality trumps the kritik, and so on. Don't be like those debaters. Explain the hierarchy of decisions in the round.

TOPICALITY: If you’re good at it, I am a lot better for you than some of these jokers who seem to think T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it (and you win it's a voting issue), I will vote for you even if all the cool kids think the aff is topical. However, I have also voted on arguments like T is genocidal and whatnot. The point is not that I'm eager, but that I'm willing.

READING EVIDENCE: Debates where I have to read a lot of cards are either really good or really bad. If the debaters in the round don't do their job to resolve major issues for me, I am not about to read 50 cards to overcome their ineptitude and/or replay the round in my head. Instead, I'll try to identify a few key cards and read those instead. If you want me to read a piece of evidence after the debate, you should cite it by author name and explain why it's important. In fact, if you do this really well and the other team doesn't respond, then I may just take your word for what the card says and not call for it at all. The bottom line is that, if you want an argument to influence my decision, you should say it out loud during a debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I love me some tricky counterplans. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. In my experience, most of those kind of theory debates get unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve. Every once in a while, though, I do like to see someone get decapitated on CP theory.

KRITIKS: I know them, I write them, I have read a lot of so-called postmodern stuff. This means that if you are a team that relies on the judge being mystified by big words, you don’t want me. However, some of y’all read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like fast debate, but if you read the overview to your torturously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, feel free to punch it. For those of you that hate the K, don’t worry. I will vote on framework or the perm or your turns too, as long as you win them.

PERFORMANCE: I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. I also want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say. Is that too much to ask? If it is, you don’t want me. If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me. If you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine for you. If you answer performance arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you want me, too.

CARD CLIPPING: It's cheating. I'm going to start recording debates that I judge. If a recording of a speech where a clipping accusation is made is available, I'll stop the debate, review the recording, and make a determination. If there was clipping, the offending team loses. If I feel that clipping occurred, I reserve the right to make that determination without an accusation from the other team, again using recorded evidence.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE. For the time being, here's how I'm assigning points:

30: I can't imagine how you could have been better. I haven't given one in years.

29.0-29.9: Damn, you're good. Overall, you were great and there was at least one "wow" moment in your speeches.

28.0-28.9: Nice job. Particularly solid work.

27.5-27.9: Meh. You did well, but your execution was lacking and there was nothing special for me.

27.0-27.4: Not up to par. There were some *major* flaws in your performance.

26.0-26.9: Really poor. Either I didn't think you were trying hard or you were annoying.

Below 26: You did something to really piss me off, and after my critique you will have no question as to what it was.

Francisco Bencosme George Washington University 3 rounds

A couple of meta-things

I value hard work and I will probably be more inclined to work for you in a debate round if that hard work is evident.

Claim. Warrant. Impact constitutes a full argument.

Non-verbals: Once I had a debater stop doing impact calculus in the 2ar because I chuckled at something else that I had remembered during his speech. I don't give good non-verbals, in fact I probably give unhelpful verbals. So do as you will.

Flowing: Assume I am awful at it. Because I am.

Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applies to everything.

Prep Time: Don't steal it and minimize dead time. The more you use it the more I feel like taking it out of your speaker points.

Specifics

Counterplans: I like well thought out counterplans that are based on a body of literature in the topic. I think Uniform states CP is strategic on this topic but can be persuaded it's theoretically illegitimate. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. I lean aff on certain theoretical questions like consult cp and most condition cps. I will default strongly to rejecting the argument and not the team. I will default strongly to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. I probably somewhat lean negative on PICs but am willing to evaluate a well thought coherent aff permutation story. None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Philosophical Arguments: I think debaters who have the flexibility to read both policy and critical arguments will learn more and have more strategic flexibility; however, I’m no expert in critical literature. I probably have no idea what your K author is saying. Often times K debaters just extend K authors as if it's an argument in and of itself or I know what it means. That usually bugs me. If you make sure that your K debating has clear explanations and is not dependent on jargon / concepts used exclusively in esoteric philosophy literature you should do fine. Often times kritik debates lose in front of me because the aff provides more coherent impact calculus and the negative doesn't impact and flesh out the link's interaction with the case or impact their framework arguments. Probably won't be persuaded floating pics are good.

On not reading a plan: My default will be to evaluate whether a topical policy presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo or a competitive policy. If you explicitly change that rubric and prove that another model/method is more desirable, I’ll use it. I have voted for teams that changed the rubric on the aff completely and have enjoyed it. If voting you down will force you to have to work harder to become an advocate of a form of debate then so be it.

Topicality: I have no problem voting for a team that is winning T, whether that be at GSU or the NDT. Debaters should be better at impact calculus on T. Usually default to predictable limits and err against arbitrary limits not grounded on exclusive definitions. Don’t think topicality has to be about winning offense but think competing interpretations is useful as well.

Cole Bender Liberty University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 9:14 AM EDT

Cole Bender

Debate Experience:

Assistant Debate Coach, Liberty University (2011-Present)

Years Judging: 2008-present

Former varsity debater at Liberty University

-----------------------

ADDITIONS FOR SPRING 2015 (This section supersedes any subsequent, older part of my philosophy.)

The cliff notes version is: I'd prefer you speak conversational speed, my default assumption is that you have to have a reasonable chance of solving in order to have "presumption" on your side (not just .1%), stop powertagging / overclaiming / making arguments that violate all rules of reasoning and logic, and follow the rules of the sanctioning bodies of the tournaments you attend (which includes but is not limited to having a topical plan at ADA tournaments and addressing the resolution at CEDA tournaments.

I have substantial modifications to my judging philosophy that will radically change how teams pref me. I have listed the changes below.

CHANGES:

1. I will continue to flow, but I would like to hear debates at a conversational pace. I still believe in the existence of common sense and that most people have a sense of how fast “conversation pace” is, but in case you need more specific guidelines, the average conversation speed of speakers using the English language is 150-200wpm. A person not trained in college debate should have no difficulty hearing and processing each individual word being said during your speech. If you’re going too fast, I’ll ask you to slow down. If both teams refuse and go fast, I’ll still prompt you to slow down, but I’ll flow the debate as normal. If the neg intends to go slow, they need to inform the aff before the 1ac begins. If the one team goes slow and the other team goes fast, I’ll default to the slower teams’ arguments and evaluate the debate largely in truth over tech terms. Speaking too fast will impact speaker points because speaker points indicate the level of clarity, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of your communication, but it is not an automatic reason for me to vote against you.

2. I see the role of the judge as being a critic of argument. My threshold for what constitutes “making an argument” was already fairly high relative to the average judge. In addition to this, I think it’s the burden of the team making the argument to produce an argument that is minimally coherent, demonstrates some level of rational consistency, and avoids obvious logical fallacies. The net effect of this is that the rational strength of the argument matters, even if the argument is dropped. Tech still matters, but my calculus for argument is shifting some toward the direction of truth. For example, your advantages in your policy affs are not deductive arguments that yield logical certainty. Doing your plan is not the one and only policy that can stop the 3-4 guaranteed extinctions that will happen in the status quo. Likewise, for non-policy arguments, ‘X’ philosophical system is not the root cause of all violence, nor is a given resistance strategy the one thing that will lead us to utopia. Evidence quality, reasonable extrapolations from evidence, and warrants matter much more in front of me. I’d vastly prefer if teams who intend to debate in front of me would re-structure their arguments to avoid overclaiming / powertagging / general disregard of rationality. I’d also appreciate if you read the qualifications of your authors. Teams that make reasonable, smart arguments will be rewarded with speaker points, and, if their tech is close to as good as their truth, they will be rewarded with ballots.

3. My default position is that I do not think 1% risk is high enough to keep / shift presumption in your favor. You can argue otherwise, but absent an argument in the debate, this is my position. For example, in a policy debate, the affirmative has an obligation to read a plan that has a reasonable chance of solving before they have proven the resolution true (my default assumption is that reasonable means 5-10%). Similarly, if the neg reads a CP, then the risk of the net benefit has to be reasonable (5-10%) in order for presumption to shift in favor of the CP instead of the plan. For non-policy debates, it’s increasingly unclear what presumption does mean or even what it should mean. I tend to be easily convinced that the affirmative ought to at least defend that that something material be done to change the status quo.

4. I will be following the rules of the sanctioning bodies of any tournament I attend, and I will expect those who debate in front of me to do the same. All the remaining tournaments I’m attending are either CEDA or ADA sanctioned tournaments. You can see a tournament’s sanctioning on Tabroom. The CEDA rules are available here (http://www.cedadebate.org/) if you log in, and the most recent copy of the ADA rules is located here (http://www.liberty.edu/academics/communications/debate/index.cfm?PID=22660). I encourage all participants to familiarize themselves with the rules of the various tournaments they agree to attend.

A short summary of how this impacts non-topical affs:

For CEDA tournaments: the CEDA documents only indicate that the debate should be about the resolution. The minimum affirmative burden is therefore to discuss the resolution in some capacity and to affirm something in relation to the resolution. Obviously I can be convinced through a process of debate that the affirmative ought to do much more than this (standard topicality and framework is still a viable strategy). But I cannot be convinced by arguments in the debate that the affirmative can do less than this.

For ADA tournaments: the ADA documents indicate among other things that the affirmative must present a topical plan of action and that topicality is a voting issue. (I’d encourage negative teams to look at the section on critiques as well.)

I will not intervene to make an arbitrary decision that the aff has not met these burdens. The responsibility is still on the negative team to present an argument for their interpretation of the resolution and how the affirmative has not sufficiently addressed the resolution (CEDA) or fallen within it (ADA).

To be very clear, you can and should have a debate about what these rules mean and what their proper interpretation is. But for the purposes of the ballot I won’t evaluate arguments that the rules should not be applied.

----------------------------------

Addition for Decrim and Subsequent Topics:

I do not wish to see or hear any sexually explicit speech acts or performances, nor do I wish to see debaters in any state of undress. To clarify, speech acts that discuss sex, sexuality, and corresponding topics are fine in front of me. Speech acts or performances that simulate or vividly describe sex acts are not fine in front of me. If that statement isn't clear, either ask, or, when in doubt, presume in favor of caution. If you choose to speak or perform in such a way in front of me, I will ask you to stop and adopt a differnet strategy. If you refuse to honor that request, I will excuse myself from the debate for at least the duration of that portion of your speech but possibly the debate as a whole. If I have to leave the debate, I will attempt to get the tabroom to replace me. If this is impossible and I am required to sign the ballot, then the situation will likely result in a ballot for the opposition. This is a personal conviction about the types of acts I want to be exposed to as a judge and as a member of this community, and I ask that you respect it. This is not intended as a statement about how debate should look in general.

As a judge, I will try to balance the importance of allowing debates that might make persons intellectually uncomfortable with also allowing debaters to protect themselves from emotionally damaging situations. I believe that in some circumstances the competitors have the right to let everyone know if they are uncomfortable and they may take appropriate action to avoid witnessing/hearing things they find to be emotionally damaging.

Tara Bender Liberty University 8 rounds

There are a few things you should probably know about me first. I am a senior pursuing a degree in English and History along with a minor in philosophy. I love reading and have taken the time to become familiar with aspects of this year’s topic. I debated the last two years for Liberty University (novice and JV).

As for debate itself, although I will go into specific types of arguments further down, the overarching themes are as follows: I think debate is a game centered on strategy and argumentation. I also think clarity is one of the most important things in a round. First is clarity of speech. If I cannot understand your plan text or the counterplan text I will not have a frame of reference in which to evaluate your argument. I will not yell “clearer” at you unless absolutely necessary, as a debater you should be aware of your voice and whether you are mumbling or not. Second is clarity of your argument. In the last two speeches, especially the 2nr, it should be clear which argument you are going for. Take the six minutes of the last two speeches to tell me a story, do comparisons, explain links and impacts, let me know why I should vote for you with arguments, not just asserting “because we are better.”

Specific types of arguments below:

CPs- I think CPs are key to negative ground, but I am also sympathetic to the affirmative when it comes to cheater CPs. Preferably CPs should have an external net benefit rather than just “we solve the aff better.” Other than that I am willing to listen to debates with pretty much any CP.

DAs- Although I do not follow the news 24/7, I do know what is going on in the world. I am not overly persuaded by politics disads, but am willing to vote on it. Pretty much any DA is fine to read in front of me.

Framework- Like I said above, I think debate is a game. However, I also think that debate should have rules; why debate is good, switch-side, all of those are important to understanding the structure of the game and the effect it has had. I am willing to listen to both sides of the framework debate. I am not necessarily biased in either direction. Like all other arguments, persuade me about why it is important to either follow the rules or change them.

Ks- I love Kritiks. I think the literature is interesting and at times complicated, but fun to debate. I think it is important to spend time on the K if that is what you are going to go for. I have read a wide range of philosophers, but there are some nuances that I may not understand unless you explain them to me. It is rare that a no link argument from the Aff is going to be true, that does not mean leave out the link argument, but in the long run you should be spending more time on the impact and alternative level. Much like a disad, I need to know why the impact of the K outweighs the aff, if you give me that I will be able to make a better evaluation. Finally, while I know most of the K jargon, saying big words over and over again without explanation does not help you or make you sound smart. Remember that I am only listening to what you are saying, I have not necessarily read the specific argument as in depth as you have, help me to understand what you are arguing.

Theory- I love theory. I think it can be very strategic in round. I do not necessarily want to vote for cheap shots like, “fiat solves the link” on politics disads, but theory does protect both sides of debate from abuse. If theory is what you are going for, make sure to explain why it is a voting issue; if it is “in round abuse” make sure to actually show how that is true.

Any questions you may have about very specific types of arguments feel free to ask me about it before the round.

Jordan Blumenthal Harvard 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 5:02 PM UTC

Note (this was written when I only coached/judged policy)

Debaters Debate

Coaches Coach

Judges Judge

If you can’t beat a “bad” argument then you are a bad advocate for your cause (and you should lose).

Don't expect me to understand or apply the necessary context to certain words or catch phrases that you might use.

I will try to be fair in evaluating whatever you run. Impact calculus is important.

I think there are a number of ways debate can be done really well (my favorite thing about debate).

I prefer you do what you are best at instead of what you think is best for me. Make me adapt to you.

Tell me why your interpretation is better for debate. Do comparative impact calculus. What impacts are most important (what framework should the judge utilize when evaluating T impacts).

The more specific the links the happier I'll be. I think perms should tend towards utilizing the language of the alternative text and away from the generic "do both" or "plan and every other instance". I find a lot of my decisions usually revolve around a framework argument.

K Affs

I think topical k affs with advantages that are intrinsic to a simulation of plan action are the best.

The more of the aff it includes the more skeptical I am of the CP’s legitimacy. Competition/Theory arguments are best when based on evidence (especially topic ev). I'm definitely in the "neg conditionality has gotten out of control" camp--1cp 1k probably ok, 1 CP that does the aff, 1 k with an alt that could do the aff and a word PIC definitely absolutely not legit (affs need to learn how to go for theory). Theory requires development and impact calculus.

Other

I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Email: jblumie@gmail.com

Adrienne Brovero Mary Washington 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 27, 2024 at 4:53 PM EDT

Adrienne F. Brovero, University of Kentucky

Closing in on 30 years coaching
adri.debate@gmail.com

Please label your email chain subject line with Team names, tourney, round.

Your prep time does not end until you have hit send on the email.

❗Updated 3-27-24 - I am REAL serious about the highlighting thing below - many cards are literally unreadable as highlighted and if I find myself struggling to read your evidence, I will cease to do so.

❗This is a communication activity.❗

Clarity - Cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is, whether online or in-person.

Highlighting - Highlighting has become a disgrace. Highlighting should not result in anti-grammatical shards of arguments. Highlighting should not result in misrepresentation of the author's intent/ideas. Quite frankly, some highlighting is so bad, you would have been better served not reading the evidence. When highlighting, please put yourself in the judge's shoes for a moment and ask yourself if you would feel comfortable deciding a debate based on how you've highlighted that card. If the answer is no, reconsider your highlighting.

SERIOUSLY - LINE-BY-LINE. NUMBER.

If you like to say "I will do the link debate here" - I am probably not the best judge for you. I would prefer you clash with link arguments in each instance they happen, as opposed to all in one place. Same is true for every other component of an argument.

Qualifications - read them. Debate them.
Line-by-line involves directly referencing the other team's argument ("Off 2AC #3 - Winners Win, group"), then answering it. "Embedded" clash fails if you bury the clash part so deep I can't find the arg you are answering.
Overviews - overrated. Kinda hate them. Think they are a poor substitute for debating the arguments where they belong on the line-by-line.

Things that are prep time:

Any time after the official start time that is not a constructive (9 mins), CX (3 mins), rebuttal (6 mins), or a brief roadmap. Everything else is prep time.
Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
Asking for cards outside of CX time. ("Oh can you send the card before CX?" - that is either CX or prep time - there is not un-clocked time).
Setting up your podium/stand.
Putting your flows in order.
Finding pens, flows, timers.

Debate like this: http://vimeo.com/5464508

MACRO-ISSUES
Communication: I like it. I appreciate teams that recognize communication failures and try to correct them. If I am not flowing, it usually means communication is breaking down. If I am confused or have missed an argument, I will frequently look up and give you a confused look – you should read this as an indication that the argument, at minimum, needs to be repeated, and may need to be re-explained. I am more than willing to discount a team’s arguments if I didn’t understand or get their arguments on my flow.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I have grown uncomfortable with the amount of profanity used during debates – do not expect high points if you use profanity.

Paperless/Prep Time: Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your un-clocked time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• Unless both teams instruct me otherwise, I will flow both teams.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX. I carefully check the 2AR for new arguments, and will not hold the 2NR accountable for unpredictable explanations or cross applications.
• I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. This doesn’t mean I always do. I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date, so do not expect me to always know what you’re talking about when you solely refer to your “Henry 19” evidence.
• I reward those who make flowing easier by reading in a flowable fashion (road-mapping & signposting, direct refutation/clash, clarity, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.). If you are fond of saying things like "Now the link debate" or "Group the perm debate" during the constructives, and you do not very transparently embed the clash that follows, do not expect me to follow your arguments or connect dots for you. Nor should you expect spectacular points.

Evidence:
• I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I pay attention to quals and prefer they are actually read in the debate. I am extremely dismayed by the decline in quality of evidence (thank you, Internets) and the lack of teams’ capitalization on questionable sources.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument it makes has been communicated to me (e.g. the card was mumbled in the 2AC, or only extended by cite, or accompanied by a warrantless explanation, etc.).
• I also don’t like reading the un-highlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team.
• I should not have to read the un-highlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument and a coherent thought. If you only read a claim, you only have a claim – you don’t get credit for portions of the evidence you don’t reference or read. If you only read a non-grammatical fragment, you are running the risk of me deciding I can’t coherently interpret that as an arg.
• I don’t like anonymous pronouns or referents in evidence like “she says” without an identification of who “she” is – identify “she” in your speech or “she” won’t get much weight in my decision.
• If you hand me evidence to read, please make clear which portions were actually read.

Decision calculus: Procedural determinations usually precede substantive determinations. First, I evaluate fairness questions to determine if actions by either team fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the aff or neg. Then, I evaluate substantive questions. Typically, the aff must prove their plan is net beneficial over the status quo and/or a counterplan in order to win.

MICRO-ISSUES
Topicality & plan-related issues:
• The aff needs to have a written plan text.
• It should be topical.
• T is a voter. Criticisms of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing.
• Anti-topical actions are neg ground.
• Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how nontraditional advocacies or demands are meaningfully different from plans, other than they are usually either vague and/or non-topical.
• On a related note, I don’t get why calling one’s advocacy a performance or demand renders a team immune from being held responsible for the consequences of their advocacy.
• In relation to plans and permutations, I value specificity over vagueness – specificity is necessary for meaningful debate about policies. However, please do not consider this an invitation to run dumb spec arguments as voting issues – absent a glaring evasiveness/lack of specificity, these are typically more strategic as solvency args.

Critiques/Performance:

Adjudicating critique or performance debates is not my strong suit. Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read very much in the advanced political philosophy or performance studies areas. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the critique turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff many years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the critique means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the critique to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the critique indict, with what impact on those harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the critique turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

I strongly urge you to re-read my thoughts above on “Communication” before debating these arguments in front of me.

Counterplans:

I generally lean negative on CP theory: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional, international fiat, agent, etc. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels – if the negative has to fend off multiple reasons the CP is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. “Do both” is typically meaningless to me – specify how. The status quo could remain a logical option, but growing convinced this should be debated. [NOTE THAT IS A FALL '18 CHANGE - DEBATE IT OUT] Additionally, another shout-out for communication - many theory debates are shallow and blippy - don't be that team. I like theory, but those type of debates give theory a bad name.

Other:

I like DAs. I’m willing to vote on stock issue arguments like inherency or “zero risk of solvency”.

Jeff Buntin Northwestern University 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 26, 2024 at 5:33 AM CDT

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Judy Butler West Georgia 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 12:14 PM UTC

Judy Butler: Hired Gun

Affiliations: Too numerous to list

Experience: High School: 29 years; College: 27 years

I will not attempt to characterize what the purpose or value of debate is in this missive; merely how I tend to evaluate the debates I get to judge. I think of myself as a teacher and the debaters as students and strive to treat them with the respect that relationship deserves. I thoroughly enjoy judging debates from almost any theoretical perspective. I also strive to support new ideas, sources of evidence, academic fields and literature entering debate that have traditionally been undervalued.

I like judging debates where the debaters directly address each other's arguments from the jump as opposed to waiting until rebuttals to compare arguments.

I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve in relation to one another as opposed to simply in vacuums - I will totally listen to debates about conditionality and don't have attitude about multiple advocacies.

I like judging debates when the debaters show respect for each other, including their partners - contempt for an argument or position is different than contempt for a person.

I like judging theory debates that have depth as opposed to breadth - five or seven words are really not arguments, nor are they flowable. I ten to shy away from voting on theory arguments that require that I "punish" debaters. I prefer theory arguments that are grounded in the effect on the debate process and the value of including or excluding certain argumentative perspectives and practices.

I like judging debaters that focus on comparison and argument evolution rather than repetition and tend to reward both content and style when apportioning speaker points. Specifically, winning your argument is different than answering theirs: saying why you are right AND why they are wrong is the minimum necessary to answer/extend an argument and put yourself in a position to win that argument in the last rebuttals. Ideally, this level of extension could begin in the 1NC and could continue throughout the debate by all the following speeches.

I promise to be riveted to your speeches, your cross-exes, and my flow. I flow what the evidence says, not just your label. I hope that softens the blow when I say that I don't want to be on the email chain - the debate I'm judging is the one I heard and flowed, not the one I read. If I need/want to see something I will ask - but I need you to be clear in the first place. If you want to understand and comprehend the quality extensions I am asking for in real time, clarity when you originally read your evidence is critical.

PS: Your prep time stops running when you have sent the speech - not before

Happy Debating!

Neil Butt Vanderbilt University 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 1:15 AM CDT

Neil Butt -- Vanderbilt University

District: 6

CEDA Region: Southeast

I have judged ADA/CEDA/NDT since: 1992

I have judged policy debate since: 1988

Background:

I debated for George Mason University 1988-1992.

I coached for George Mason University 1992-2000.

I coached for John Carroll University 2000-2005.

I coached for Wayne State University 2005-2008.

I was Director of Debate for Vanderbilt University (2010-2019).

My email is: neilsbutt@gmail.com. I would like to be included on email chains.

***Updates for October 2018***

The recent ADA rule change to further limit decision time may be too much for me. There were good reasons to put caps on decision times (in fact I probably WAS one of those reasons), but this further cut leaves me concerned that I will not have enough time to make a thorough decision and generate useful feedback. I will probably be limiting my judging even further this year, and intend to limit myself to Novice and/or JV debate, to mitigate the impact of the lack of time.

Framework (Modified again)

The affirmative should advocate a topical course of action. How we determine what is topical is still up for debate.

This document has a concise list at the top for pre-round scans, and more detail below. Right before the round you probably just want to know what to avoid, and are probably not interested in my rationale for why you should avoid it. If you are figuring out long-term prefs, the nuances may be more relevant.

Short Version: Be Nice. Be Clear.

Basic Stuff

Judging time

In the past, I have tended to take a while. Recent community moves to reduce decision time have sometimes made me feel rushed. If this is a concern for you, read more on this below.

I am also likely to just call for speech documents, rather than individual cards, after the round. I am not going to read everything, reconstruct the round, or steal your cards (though I might get cites)—I just want to save some time by eliminating the need to find specific cards and create new documents.

Prep time

I run prep until the other team (not your partner) has the flash drive. For more specific prep scenarios, see below.

Arguments

1. If the negative counterplans, presumption shifts affirmative. The negative must win a clear net-benefit (more than a "direction arrow") to win the debate. This shouldn't really change how you debate, but it helps me resolve “ties.”

2. Absent specific arguments otherwise, if the 2NR extends a conditional CP, I will not consider the SQ as an option, i.e., I won’t make that decision for the negative. If the 2NR kicks the CP and goes for case, that’s fine.

3. I’m OK with most Kritiks, so don’t panic because you saw my position on Framework above. Most of the Kritiks I have judged recently haven’t relied on winning a framework debate anyway. If you are negative and running a Kritik with an alternative that operates outside of a policy framework: I would like to consider myself agnostic in Framework debates, but my voting record in close framework debates seems to favor “traditional” frameworks lately (more below). I am definitely happiest judging a case debate, maybe with an advantage counterplan and disadvantages, but I have voted for a lot of other stuff.

4. If you win “Fairness Bad,” you lose (for reasons that should be self-evident). You can obviously feel free to make arguments that contextualize fairness, as long as you aren’t making a totalizing claim.

5. Don’t ask me to assess individual debater emotions or sincerity. Do not make the claim that you are sincere and they are not. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt unless there’s evidence to the contrary.

6. I probably have a lower threshold for voting on theory than most judges, but I do have a threshold, that threshold has actually gone up a little. I am not going to vote for something that I couldn’t initially flow. The key is starting clear. Most 2AC blocks I hear on theory are unflowable.

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

You should be clear and should not rely on me to intervene to make you clear.

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t get every cite initially when I flow, but I listen carefully for references to specific cites, especially in the rebuttals. That said, I don’t think “Jones ’98 answers this” is an argument. “Jones ’98 says fertility is high now so the turns aren’t unique” is much better.

Tags that are a paragraph long totally defeat my ability to flow them. It generally results in me writing down random words that are somewhere in the tag, which may or may not enable me to get references to them later in the debate.

You need to identify what you are answering—don’t assume I know.

If you think there is a new argument in the 1AR or 1NR, you need to point it out. If I hear them in the 2NR/2AR I will try to find and disallow them myself.

The Rest

I take ethical issues very seriously. If you argue your opponents are taking evidence out of context, then that will become the only issue in the round, and you better be able to prove it.

I pay attention to CX. I don’t flow it, per se, but if you say something in CX I will hold you to it unless there was an obvious misunderstanding or something. It’s OK if there are more than two participants in CX, but not at the same time, and please don’t marginalize your partner.

I like debates about evidence qualifications and bias, and don’t see enough of them.

I like clear debates (fast or slow)—though maybe you should slow down a little for analytical/theory/critical arguments as those can be harder to flow.

Be nice (to EVERYONE). That includes, and is especially true of, your partner. I don’t care if your partner IS a tool—they’re putting up with you too and you’d be nowhere without them.

ADA Rules

If (and only if) I am judging you at an ADA tournament: ADA Rules. I am a firm believer in the ADA. I don’t like all the rules, but I regard that as a reason to try to amend them, not to selectively enforce them. I will self-impose rules that apply to me, but I leave most infractions to the debaters to point out (e.g.: full cites, counterplan theory, etc.). Don’t bother arguing that I shouldn’t follow the rules. Feel free to debate about how the rules should be enforced, and whether certain “punishments” fit certain “crimes.” I will vote on these issues (I have done so in the past).

More Detail

Judging time

I’m a slow judge (deciding—not flowing). Left to my own devices, I take a while to decide. The recent community moves to reduce decision time have impacted my judging. While it has been great to finish before all the restaurants close and to get a little more sleep, it has definitely affected how I decide rounds. It is no longer “the best decision I can make,” it is “the best decision I can make in 40 minutes” (or 30 or whatever the specific tournament calls for). I have to take shortcuts and don’t get to double-check things. The most difficult part has been generating feedback. In novice and most JV rounds, I still have time to generate a lot of suggestions and talk to the debaters after the debate. In many varsity rounds, I generally have to focus exclusively on the decision, and find it is more difficult to answer questions like: “What should I have done differently in the 1AR?” (though I will, of course, still try).

Prep time

Given that I have less time to decide, and your stealing prep comes out of my decision time, I am getting more strict about prep time. Yelling “Stop prep!” annoys me. “I'm ready,” or something similar serves the same purpose without grating on me. Either way, if you are paperless, I am going to keep running prep until the other team gets the flash drive. If you give it to your partner first, I am still running prep time. If you didn’t already set up your collapsible lectern, that’s prep time. When your partner asks you a question about the 1NR after you have given the 2NC roadmap, that’s prep time. When you are out of prep time and aren’t moving fast enough to start the 2NR/2AR, I’m starting speech time. I hate to be a curmudgeon about such things, but fair is fair (and I want time for my decision—see above).

Frameworks, Projects, Performance, etc.

*My philosophy evolves when I grow uncomfortable with how my decisions work out. I have been increasingly uncomfortable with my decisions in Framework debates (and just judging them in general). I have had to explain to teams that they lost to an approach they could not have been reasonably expected to be prepared for, and I have had to vote against teams that, given their framing of the debate, saw my decision as a rejection of them as individuals (which is obviously not how I saw it, but I don’t get to decide how they see it). I have reluctantly decided that I need to narrow the focus of the rounds I judge. Please do NOT read my change in philosophy as an endorsement of one approach over another. I realize that it functionally plays out that way if I’m judging you, but that begs the question of whether I should be judging you. In a world of ubiquitous MPJ, I see it more like registering for one class instead of another, and/or like picking a section based on how well that instructor matches what you want to get out of the class. I realize I could resolve this in the other direction (e.g., I won’t accept any framework arguments, so anything goes), but I also have to be realistic about my preferences and expertise. Traditional and non-traditional approaches are both potentially educationally valuable, just like different classes are. “Women, Rhetoric, and Social Change” and “Argumentation and Debate” could both be good classes, but while I could teach the former, given that I’ve done graduate work in Feminist criticism, why would I when Bonnie Dow can do a much, much better job? [This section is really just a brief synopsis of my decision—there’s more I could say, and am happy to discuss it if you would like.]

Since I might be judging a negative team with a Kritik that assumes a non-policy framework, I’ll include elements from my previous philosophy: My recent record on framework debates has been about 50-50. As indicated above, I’d like to think I can be completely open on these issues, but I’m not sure I am, and my shift regarding Topical affirmatives certainly highlights this. My Dissertation was about how we teach argumentation and debate, so I like the issues involved in Framework debates (“traditional” and “non-traditional”), but don’t like how many of the framework debates I’ve judged play out. The arguments I’ve seen tend to mutually indict each other’s assumptions, making resolution very difficult, absent some work by the debaters to clear things up. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile my desire not to intervene with what I feel is my responsibility as an educator. At any rate, just make sure it’s clear. I won’t vote on anything I can’t understand, but if you can get me to understand, I will listen.

Theory

I think teams let their opponents get away with far too much. Some Affirmatives succeed with cases that there is no way a Negative could be prepared for. Some Negatives succeed with counterplans that don’t leave the Affirmative a shred of ground. I’ll buy that just about anything is legitimate, but I’ll also buy that just about anything is illegitimate (by the way, Affs DO NOT win 70% of the time). Absent the imposition of rules (like what the ADA used to do), the only way to check unfair or anti-educational practices is with theory debates.

I default to policymaking and/or stock issues if that seems to be the assumption the teams I’m watching are making (and I prefer to view the debate as a policymaker), but it is easy to change my default perspective by making some arguments that I should view the round a different way.

Other than ethical issues or fairness issues, I don’t like punishing people much. For example, I think it would be very difficult to persuade me to vote against someone because they used the wrong pronoun a couple of times during a speech (and yet, I have done just that in at least one round—so much for preferences and predispositions…).

It kind of blows my mind that current community norms seem to be that people have to “mark” cards during their speech, but that negative teams don’t have to identify the nature of the counterplan until CX…

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

Clarity is your responsibility. It used to throw me off when judges interrupted my speeches, so I’m reluctant to intervene in yours. I’m also not sure what the threshold for intervention should be. If I just missed a non-critical word or two, we are probably both better off if I don’t interrupt. If I can’t understand you for several seconds in a row, I’m likely to yell, “Clear!” I’ll do that a couple of times and then give up. If I can flow the words but don’t understand the argument, I’ll just hope it gets clarified in CX and ensuing speeches. I am even more reluctant to intervene when I am on a panel, because if the other judges are getting it, I don’t want to throw you off (of course they may be thinking the same thing, and you may be digging yourself a hole and not know it…).

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t like to make applications or cross-applications for debaters. It begs the question of whether they knew about the application in the first place. So if you assume something “obviously” answers something else, you might be disappointed.

Speech docs seem to be undermining some folks’ ability to flow and follow a flow. Since I rely on my flow, this can be a problem. You still have to answer analytical arguments that are not in the speech doc. You shouldn’t answer arguments they didn’t make. While teams should not be giving you a messed-up speech doc, you also should not be up in arms because the 1NR gave you some solvency cards they didn’t get to at the bottom of the document.

So…

My philosophy seems more grumpy than it used to. I think it is just a matter of having to spell things out that I didn’t have to before, given trends in what debaters do. I wouldn’t read too much into it. I’m not actually especially grumpy, and I’m happy to answer your questions.

I totally love debate. I wish I could still debate. Good Luck folks!

Seungwon Chung Georgia 1 rounds

Seungwon Chung - University of Georgia

This philosophy is organized in the following way. I have listed changes in my philosophy since I last wrote it a few years ago at the top. Beneath that, I have included my old philosophy that used to be on Debate Results. If you think you are familiar enough with me to know my old philosophy, just read the first section.

Section I: Changes

Evidence:

My personal standards for quality of evidence has gone up in two ways –

A) I have found that I am more willing than my colleagues to provide significant credit to arguments that exploit holes in evidence. For example, in debating a relations DA, the argument that none of their evidence says the plan collapses relations, just that it hurts it and that the impact evidence only assumes an absence of relations will get traction with me.

B) Highlighting is beginning to trend toward atrocious. You are not fast because you read shorter cards. You do not get credit for unhighlighted parts of your evidence even if they are underlined. This may seem intuitive, but I find that most teams would not be happy with this standard given their highlighting practices. This is easily fixable --- just read more… it will help you I promise.

Race/Project teams:

--I have a suggestion for you this year. Try me. This is not to say that I am easily persuaded by your claims. In fact, I am certainly the critic that you probably strike. But hear me out, if you really want to change debate and the culture, you are going to have to convince judges like myself rather than your ordinally ranked top 25. If it is solely about the win, then I understand if you do not want me. However, I do think I can be persuaded. I do think I have a lot to learn and develop on these issues. I cannot guarantee that I will move away from my beliefs, but at least we will have a dialogue. If you have any questions about my predispositions on these issues, feel free to ask me at a tournament or email me at seungwon DOT chung AT gmail DOT com. The door is open: now it’s your move.

--Some quick notes for you: I do not like what seems to be a prevalent theme which is “as a minority in debate you are either with us, you are doing violence to your identity.” To paint the minorities in debate as a monolithic entity is simply put insulting. There are minorities that want to strive to compete in policy debate in the traditional style and there is nothing wrong with that. It is a choice. If you want me to respect your choice, I ask that you respect the choices of other minorities in debate who choose to participate in a particular manner even if you disagree.

Paperless:

--This is for close-sourced paperless teams (i.e. teams that refuse to jump evidence to a computer not owned by their school). Enough is enough. Being CSP is a choice --- with that choice comes consequences that do not need to be accommodated for. By this I mean, the expectation that a team that is willing to jump your evidence be required to jump that evidence to anything other than their viewing computer so that you may have two copies is ridiculous. Forcing the opposing team to share one computer to look at evidence while expecting a competitive advantage of two copies is something that I might intervene and stop. Unless you are doing something similar to MSU’s new model, you should not expect greater access than what you are willing to provide.

--In the past I have been apathetic about the lost time from jumping, however, I have come to realize this has resulted in lazy habits and less decision time. The only way for me to change this is to be more draconian with prep time and jumping. Prep ends when the jump drive is ready to transfer the file. Please be diligent at both naming your files and deleting extra files off the jump drive so the new file is evident.

Counterplans:

--I am becoming more convinced/persuaded by the following: CPs that ultimately result in the plan being done do not disprove that the desirability of the affirmative. This tends to apply to CPs that compete off either time-frame/immediacy or certainty. Whether the plan should be done now is a useful testing tool for disadvantages, but changing when the plan should be done is not exclusive with the affirmative plan. In terms of certainty, CPs that compete off certainty usually are only desirable in the world in which the plan is done. Because of this, I find that I have been persuaded that they are not good tests of the plan.

Kritiks:

--I am not as hard to persuade on these as I used to be. Probably because my childish impulse to vote against the K no matter what the other team said has gone away. This does not, however, mean that I am good for the kritik --- it just means that you should not be deterred from going for it if the K is your best option in the 2NR.

--As a piece of strategic advice, if you want a good K judge, you should really try Doowon. But then again, you probably already have him in your top ten.

Section II: Old School

How I judge debates

I will judge the debates based on my default views of debate unless one team wins another paradigm should be used. All of my default beliefs are open to be changed based on the debate that occurs in the debate.

Default

1. The direction of presumption is less change from the status quo. Presumption usually flips with the introduction of an alternative policy option by the negative.

2. If the best policy option at the end of the debate includes the entirety of the affirmative plan – the aff generally wins.

3. The aff has to prove that the plan is better than the status quo or a competitive policy option.

4. It is not logical to vote for the affirmative solely because the neg introduced a faulty counterplan. An extension of that logic is that if the CP is worse than the plan, the status quo always remains as an object of consideration and comparison.

5. The debate is judged from the viewpoint of a logical policymaker who is in a position to do the affirmative plan.

6. Theoretical objections such as fifty state fiat, international fiat, consultation etc. challenge the extent of negative fiat.

7. Permutations should include the entirety of the plan. They are tests of competition unless explicitly advocated by the aff.

8. An argument is made up of claims and warrants. If the warrant is missing from the extension of piece of evidence it is not an argument.

9. The aff has to only provide a reasonable interpretation of the topic in order to be topical.

10. Link direction is more important than uniqueness direction. Uniqueness is not absolute and it is not logical to vote for an aff that increases the probability of a disadvantage just because there is a probable chance that disadvantage will happen anyways. The aff still increases the probability of the disadvantage.

Evidence

1. Evidence quality is an underused by the majority of debaters. Who wrote the piece of evidence that you are extending is as important if not more important than the words they use. If correctly debated, one good card will beat twenty bad ones.

2. I will try not to read evidence if the argument (including the warrant) has not successfully been conveyed in the debate.

3. I will try to limit the amount of unread parts of the evidence. What I read of those parts will usually be to check or provide context.

Thoughts on the criticism/projects

1. I do not know the critical literature as well as I should. Given that knowledge, be aware that there is a high level of explanation that is expected when you go for the K. If I do not understand your argument, I will not vote for you.

2. The link story needs to be developed further than “You use the state judge.” Picking out specific quotes from their evidence or cross-ex will go a long way towards building the story of your K.

3. Alternative fiat. It will be hard to win that a kritik alternative should be more expansive than my individual endorsement of it.

4. My thoughts on projects/Towson style debate are the following

-You should be prepared to debate about debate to some extent.

-The best approach to negating against these affirmatives is to point out how they could have integrated their approach with an orientation towards the topic.

-The permutation seems like the best course of action on the affirmative.

Other random thoughts

1. It seems to me that the best plan of attack against a condition or consultation counterplan is the permutation. Especially on a topic about nuclear weapons policy, it seems that winning the theoretical challenge against consult or reciprocal cut CPs is an uphill battle.

2. You should specify your agent if asked in cross-x. I think it is reasonable question for the negative to ask. This expectation is also true of many other questions about the affirmative plan. Don’t dodge specification questions to avoid counterplans.

3. Be funny. Debates are best when people are comfortable and having fun. On that same line of thought, try not to get so worked up over other people’s humor. This is by no means a blank check to be an asshole – some level of decorum is expected.

Erin Collins Emory University 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon July 24, 2017 at 5:23 PM EDT

Erin Collins

Background: Debated four years in high school and four years at Emory. I am not a full time coach anywhere - this means I do not spend all day cutting cards; however, I have a decent level of familiarity with the topic.

Read whatever argument that you feel you deploy the best. I am here to evaluate your debate not your ability to adapt to whatever I find most interesting. I'll do my best to come into the round with an open mind; however, that being said, I firmly believe it is impossible for anyone to truly be a blank slate.

Topicality:

Comparing definitions, setting standards etc. should come early in order to impact topicality later in the debate. Be specific and provide examples of what affs the affirmative's interpretation would allow. Keep in mind that I am not coaching on this year's topic so many of the acronyms or assumptions that you take for granted to be known I am not necessarily familiar with. Feel free to go for t, you just may need to put in a bit more explanation.

Theory:

Theory - like any other argument - should have an identifiable impact. I don't like cheap shots and two second theory extensions. Vote against the arg not team is often a persuasive argument to me absent a clear articulation of why that's not sufficient to resolve the abuse claims being made.

Conditionality's fine to a point - I really don't see the need to use the "lets through out a grab bag of strategies and see what sticks" method. It seems to simply detract from debates.

Critiques:

Despite being from Emory this is probably the literature base that I am the most familiar with; however, that doesn't mean that I will necessarily know the phrases you choose to describe your critique by. It also means that I will expect you do the research to make your critique as specific to the affirmative case as possible. A well crafted aff specific critique strategy will make me MUCH happier than a generic one off where you throw in random K's of X impact throughout. Alternatives need attention and explanation - what is the alt trying to accomplish? does it solve the aff? does it create new parameters of educational fields? you tell me. K Affs - these are fine but much like K's on the neg I prefer that they are topic specific and engage the literature being presented. This doesn't mean you have to have a particular plan advocacy but you best be ready to debate topicality with more that "t's genocidal/abusive/racist etc". The aff should work towards "doing something the topic outlines" and if you think you can accomplish that without a plan text I need clear explanation of how.

Disads:

Disads are fine - case specifics Disads are better. Make impact comparisons, turns case, etc. Tell me how to view the debate through the lens of uniqueness vs link.

Counterplans:

I find arguments like "perm do the counterplan" to make a lot of sense against consult/condition/etc. counterplans; however, if the counterplan arises out of solvency evidence from the topic literature base I will be much more willing to listen to them, but I need to understand what the net benefit is and what distinctions can be drawn between the plan and cp that are more than just semantic distinctions. Aff specific counterplan strategies are ideal.

Other things:

1. Be nice. This means to the team your debating as much as it does to you partner

2. Stealing prep makes me sad

3. The topics chosen for a reason. Talk about it. Be creative if you want, but there is no reason to ignore the topic specific literature that's available to you.

Abraham Corrigan Kentucky 4 rounds

David Cram Helwich Minnesota 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:07 AM CDT

David Cram Helwich
University of Minnesota
28 years judging, 20-ish rounds each year

Quick version: Do what you do best and I will try to check my dispositions at the door.

Topic Thoughts: We picked the wrong one (too narrow, needed at least sole purpose). Aff innovation is going to require NFU-subsets affs, but I have yet to see a good argument for a reasonable limit to such an interpretation. "Disarming" creates an unanticipated loophole. Process counterplans that are not directly related to nuclear policymaking seem superfluous given the strength of the negative side of the topic literature.

Online Debate: It is "not great," better than I feared. I have judged quite a few online debates over the past 3 years. Debaters will benefit by slowing down a bit if that enhances their clarity, avoiding cross-talk, and actively embracing norms that minimize the amount of "null time" in debates--watch for speechdocs and download them right away, pay attention to the next speaker as they give the order, be efficient in getting your speechdoc attached and sent, etc.

Evidence: I believe that engaged research is one of the strongest benefits of policy debate, and that judging practices should incentivize such research. I am a bad judge for you if your evidence quality is marginal—sources, recency, and warrants/data offered. I reward teams who debate their opponent’s evidence, including source qualifications.

Delivery: I will provide prompts (if not on a panel) if I am having trouble flowing. I will not evaluate arguments that I could not originally flow.

Topicality: I vote on well-developed procedurals. I rarely vote on T cheap shots. T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. Debaters that focus interpretation debating on caselists (content and size), division of ground, and the types of literature we read, analyzed through fairness/education lenses, are more likely to get my ballot. I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as a “definition”—intent to define is important, whereas proximity-count “definitions” seem more valuable in setting the parameters of potential caselists than in grounding an interpretation of the topic.

Critical Arguments: I have read quite a bit of critical theory, and will not dismiss your argument just because it does not conform to ‘traditional’ notions of debate. However, you should not assume that I am necessarily familiar with your particular literature base. I value debating that applies theory to the ‘artifact’ of the 1AC (or 1NC, or topic, etc). The more specific and insightful the application of said theory, the more likely I am to vote for you. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is vitally important, for both “policy” and “K” teams. Absent contrary guidance, I view ‘framework’ debates in the same frame as T—caselist size/content, division of ground, research focus.

Disadvantages/Risk: I typically assess the ‘intrinsic probability’ of the plan triggering a particular DA (or advantage) before assessing uniqueness questions. This means that link work is very important—uniqueness obviously implicates probability, but “risk of uniqueness” generally means “we have no link.” Impact assessments beyond shallow assertions (“ours is faster because I just said so”) are an easy pathway to my ballot, especially if you have strong evidentiary support

Theory: I will not evaluate theoretical objections that do not rise to the level of an argument (claim, data, warrant). Good theory debating focuses on how the operationalization of competing interpretations impacts what we debate/research and side balance. Thought experiments (what would debate look like if the neg could read an unlimited number of contradictory, conditional counterplans?) are valuable in drawing such comparisons. I tend to find “arg not team” to be persuasive in most cases. This means you need a good reason why “loss” is an appropriate remedy for a theory violation—I am persuadable on this question, but it takes more than an assertion. If it is a close call in your mind about whether to go for “substance” or “theory,” you are probably better off going for “substance.”

Counterplans: The gold standard for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I am more suspicious of multi-conditionality, and international fiat than most judges. I am probably more open to condition counterplans than many critics. PICs/PECs that focus debate on substantive parts of the aff seem important to me. Functional competition seems to make more sense than does textual competition. That being said, I coach my teams to run many counterplans that I do not think are legitimate, and vote for such arguments all the time. The status quo seems to be a legitimate voting option unless I am instructed otherwise. My assumption is that I am trying to determine the "best policy option," which can include the status quo unless directed otherwise.

Argument Resolution: Rebuttalists that simply extend a bunch of cards/claims and hope that I decide things in their favor do poorly in front of me. I reward debaters that resolve arguments, meaning they provide reasons why their warrants, data, analysis, sources etc. are stronger (more persuasive) than those of their opponents on critical pressure points. I defer to uncontested argument and impact comparisons. I read evidence on questions that are contested, if I want the cite, or if I think your argument is interesting.

Decorum: I believe that exclusionary practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner (intentionally engaging in hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist etc. acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.”

Use an email chain--establish one before the round, and please include me on it (cramhelwich@gmail.com) . Prep time ends once the speechdoc is saved and sent. Most tournaments have policies on how to deal with "tech time"--please know what those policies are. I do not have a strong opinion on the acceptability of mid-speech prep for other purposes.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Kristie Cramer George Mason University 4 rounds

Kristie Cramer

Affiliation = George Mason University

I’ve been with George Mason University since 2010. Before that; I debated in high school and coached in Ohio, for CCC and Perry High Schools for 14 years and spent several years coaching Case Western Reserve University. In the summers I have worked at the Dartmouth Debate Workshop, the Dartmouth Debate Institute, Georgetown Debate Seminar and George Mason Patriot Classic Institute.

I try to judge the round off the flow and avoid judge intervention as much as possible (flowing can be very different based upon the round, some rounds are highly technical line-by-lines, other debates are done in a more global fashion – the bottom line is I’ll write down all that you say & base my decision based upon what was said) That means a few things to you.

1. Impact comparison is vital to you.

2. Don’t just assume certain things are a voter; you need to say why they are.

3. Cheap shots, if unanswered, can get my ballot. I hate it when it happens but I will vote on small things if they are effectively extended and the other team drops them.

I have judged highly technical debates as well performance debates. I don’t feel strongly that one sort of debate is better than the other; each form has its value. I do feel that any performance should have something to do with the topic, have an impact, and should still discuss all of an opponent’s argument in some fashion.

I try to protect the last two speakers, arguments in the 2ar or 2nr need to have their roots in the earlier speeches.

I am not a big evidence reader; don’t assume I will or tell me to read your evidence. I think there is far too much evidence reading happening in debate these days; the point of debate is for the debaters to communicate their evidence to me. I see little purpose in pulling every card read by a debater, reading them & reconstructing the debate myself. I rarely ask for evidence if I do….Typically I’ll call for evidence if that piece(s) of evidence has been contested as not saying what someone claims or if it’s out of context or if the debate done on the evidence has been done equally well on both sides and so I need to read them myself to determine to resolve that debate.

Don't clip cards! I can handle a quick round, but a quick round DOES NOT mean a debater should card clip, cross-read, etc... I listen to evidence & often flow texts of cards - if a card doesn't make sense I'll know it & if you get through a ton of cards sooner than is reasonable I'll pay attention & make sure you are reading the evidence properly. If you do card clip, I'll drop your speaker points & most likely ignore large parts of your evidence because it was read improperly which will probably mean you'll lose the round. DO NOT DO IT.

Prep time use – I don’t like prep stealing – my time is valuable. When you say you are ready then be ready. Prep ends when the timer is pulled out of the computer of the person prepping. Jumping of files should be done expeditiously!

In terms of specific arguments...any argument is fine with me. I will and have voted on just about any argument out there. I believe I can handle just about any argument. Topicality, counterplans, critiques, conditionality, dispositionality, fiat arguments, topicality permutations, counter critiques, the whole list of theory arguments are all fine with me and I could be typing all day to list them all so suffice it to say run anything because I will evaluate anything you tell me to. I firmly believe the debate belongs to the debaters so run the arguments you want, just make sure your strategy makes sense and that you can support it.

While I say run what you want I should offer a disclaimer: that doesn't mean I want to hear offensive strategies or words. Also beware I am very sensitive to gendered language.

When it comes to voting on theory arguments (including T or Aspec, etc...), you will have an easier time getting my ballot if you can demonstrate in round abuse or prove why voting on your particular argument will make for a better debate. On T in particular I like hearing a topical case list and topical version of the Aff for fair limits.

Framework arguments - I don't really buy critiques don't have a place in debate, there are plenty of reasons they do. I think alot of framework arguments end in the same conclusion: let the Aff weigh their case, as such recognize if that's true with that round's particular criticism and don't sit on fw on the flow too long if you don't have to. There are other criticisms where the framework debate is much more important, ie Security/Threat Con debates, ethics questions, language critiques, reality critiques I'm impressed by debaters who realize the very specific role framework can take & the generic role framework can take.

I’ve heard lots of critiques, read lots of critiques, coached many critiques - that said I don't claim to know about every critique personally. You can run any criticism you'd like just make sure if it's something new or deeply developed you spend some time simplifying it so that I'm on the same page as you. Alternatives can be great & useful to have, but plenty of teams have won in front of me without winning the Alt, critiques can still function & win just as case turns or offense independent of the alt.

Finally, a note about delivery in a debate round. I believe in sticking to the flow; I’ve judged somre really quick teams and some not so quick teams. However good flowing requires good speaking! Be clear, speak up, and always slow down on analytics. I'm a decently fast flower but there are plenty of faster flowers out there than me. I value signposting, smooth transitions from one page to another, and slight pauses from one argument or piece of evidence to another. Flowing is an art dependent, in part, upon a well delivered speech.

Stephen Davis Towson University 4 rounds

i will sit attentively listening to your cocauphony, it is only fair that you should first listen to mine:

And on this beautiful ceremonial morning I want to talk to you about talking, that commonest of all our intended activities, for talking is our public link with one another; it is a need; it is an art; it is the chief instrument of all instruction; it is the most personal aspect of our private life. To those who have sponsored our appearance in the world, the first memorable moment to follow our inaugural bawl is the birth of our first word. It is that noise, a sound that is no longer a simple signal, like the greedy squalling of a gull, but a declaration of the incipient presence of mind, that delivers us into the human realm. Before, there was only an organ of energy, intake, and excretion, but now a person has begun. And in no idle, ordinary, or jesting sense, words are what that being will become. It is language which most shows a man, Ben Jonson said: “Speake that I may see thee.” And Emerson certainly supports him: “Man is only half himself,” he said, “the other half is his expression.” Truths like this have been the long companions of our life, and so we often overlook them, as we miss the familiar mole upon our chin, even while powdering the blemish, or running over it with a razor.

Silence is the soul’s invisibility. We can, of course, conceal ourselves behind lies and sophistries, but when we speak, we are present, however careful our disguise. The monster we choose to be on Halloween says something about the monster we are. I have often gone to masquerades as myself, and in that guise no one knew I was there.

Plato thought of the soul as an ardent debating society in which our various interests pled their causes; and there were honest speeches and dishonest ones; there was reason, lucid and open and lovely like the nakedness of the gods,
where truth found its youngest friend and nobility its ancient eloquence; and there was also pin-eyed fanaticism, deceit and meanness, a coarseness like sand in cold grease; there was bribery and seduction, flattery, brow-beating and bombast. Little has changed, in that regard, either in our souls or in society since; for the great Greeks were correct: life must be lived according to the right word–the logos they loved–and so the search for it, the mastery of it, the fullest and finest and truest expression of it, the defense of it, became the heart of the educational enterprise.

To an almost measureless degree, to know is to possess words, and all of us know how much words concern us here, at the university, in this context of texts. Adam created the animals and birds by naming them, and we name incessantly, conserving achievements and customs, and countries that no longer exist, in the museum of human memory. But it is not only the books which we pile about us like a building, or the papers we painfully compose, the exams we write, the calculations we come to by means of mystic diagrams, mathematical symbols, astrological charts or other ill- or well-drawn maps of the mind; it is not alone the languages we learn to mispronounce, the lists, the arguments and rhymes, we get by heart; it is not even our tendency to turn what is unwritten into writing with a mere look, so that rocks will suddenly say their age and origin and activity, or what is numb flesh and exposed bone will cry out that cotton candy killed it, or cancer, or canoodling, the letter C like a cut across an artery, the flow of meaning like blood; no, it is not the undeniable importance of these things which leads me to lay such weight upon the word; it is rather our interior self I’m concerned with, and therefore with the language which springs out of the most retiring and inmost parts of us, and is the image of its parent like a child: the words we use to convey our love to another, or to cope with anxiety, for instance; the words which will convince, persuade, which will show us clearly, or make the many one; the words I listen to when I wait out a speech at a dinner party; words which can comfort and assuage, damage and delight, amuse and dismay; but above all, the words which one burns like beacons against the darkness, and which together comprise the society of the silently speaking self; because all these words are but humble echoes of the words the poet uses when she speaks of passion, or the historian when he drives his nails through time, or when the psychoanalyst divines our desires as through tea leaves left at the bottom of our dreams.

Even if the world becomes so visual that words must grow faces to save themselves, and put on smiles made of fragrant paste, and even if we all hunker down in front of films like savages before a divinity, have experience explained to us in terms of experiences which need to be explained, still, we shall not trade portraits of our love affairs, only of ourselves; there is no Polaroid that will develop in moments the state of our soul, or cassette to record our pangs of conscience; so we shall never talk in doodles over dinner, or call up our spirit to its struggle with a little private sit-com or a dreary soap. Even if the world falls silent and we shrink in fear within ourselves; even if words are banished to the Balkans or otherwise driven altogether out of hearing, as though every syllable were subversive (as indeed each is); all the same, when we have withdrawn from any companionship with things and people, when we have collapsed in terror behind our talcumed skins, and we peer suspiciously through the keyholes of our eyes, when we have reached the limit of our dwindle – the last dry seed of the self – then we shall see how greatly correct is the work of Samuel Beckett, because we shall find there, inside that seed, nothing but his featureless cell, nothing but voice, nothing but darkness and talk.

How desperately, then, we need to learn it – to talk to ourselves – because we are babies about it. Oh, we have excellent languages for the secrets of nature. Wave packets, black holes, and skeins of genes: we can write precisely and consequentially of these, as well as other extraordinary phenomena; but can we talk even of trifles: for instance, of the way a look sometimes crosses a face like the leap of a frog, so little does it live there, or how the habit of anger raisins the heart, or wet leaves paper a street? Our anatomy texts can skin us without our pain, the cellular urges of trees are no surprise, the skies are driven by winds we cannot see; yet science has passed daily life by like the last bus, and left it to poetry.

It is terribly important to know how a breast is made: how to touch it to make a tingle, or discover a hidden cyst (we find these things written of in books); but isn’t it just as important to be able to put the beauty of a body in words, words we give like a gift to its bearer; to communicate the self to another, and in that way form a community of feeling, of thought about feeling, of belief about thought: an exchange of warmth like breathing, of simple tastes and the touch of the eye, and other sensations shortly to be sought, since there is no place for the utopia of the flesh outside the utopia of talk.

It can’t be helped. We are made of layers of language like a Viennese torte. We are a Freudian dessert. My dinner companion, the lady who lent me her smile, has raised her goblet in a quiet toast. It is as though its rim had touched me, and I try to find words for the feeling, and for the wine which glows like molten rubies in her glass; because if I can do that, I can take away more than a memory which will fade faster than a winter footprint; I can take away an intense and interpreted description, a record as tough to erase as a relief, since without words what can be well and richly remembered? Yesterdays are gone like drying mist. Without our histories, without the conservation which concepts nearly alone make possible, we could not preserve our lives as were the bodies of the pharaohs, the present would soon be as clear of the past as a bright day, and we would be innocent arboreals again.

Of course we could redream the occasion, or pretend to film our feeling, but we’ll need words to label and index our images anyway, and can the photograph contain the rush of color to my face, the warmth which reminds me I also am a glass and have become wine?

I remember because I talk. I talk from morning to night, and then I talk on in my sleep. Our talk is so precious to us, we think we punish others when we stop. So I stay at peace because I talk. Tete-a-tetes are talk. Shop is talk. Parties are parades of anecdotes, gossip, opinion, raillery, and reportage. There is sometimes a band and we have to shout. Out of an incredibly complex gabble, how wonderfully clever of me to hear so immediately my own name; yet at my quiet breakfast table, I may be unwilling, and thus unable, to hear a thing my wife says. When wives complain that romance has fled from their marriage, they mean their husbands have grown quiet and unresponsive as moss. Taciturnity – long, lovely word – it is a famous tactic. As soon as two people decide they have nothing more to talk about, everything should be talked out. Silence shields no passion. Only the mechanical flame is sputterless and silent.

Like a good husband, then, I tell my wife what went on through the day – in the car, on the courts, at the office. Well, perhaps I do not tell her allthat went on, perhaps I give her a slightly sanitized account. I tell my friends how I fared in New York, and of the impatient taxi which honked me through the streets. I tell my students the substance of what they should have read. I tell my children how it used to be (it was better), and how I was a hero (of a modest sort, of course) in the Great War, moving from fact to fiction within the space of a single word. I tell my neighbors pleasant lies about the beauty of their lawns and dogs and vandalizing tykes, and in my head I tell the whole world where to get off.

Those who have reputations as great conversationalists are careful never to let anyone else open a mouth. Like Napoleons, they first conquer, then rule, the entire space of speech around them. Jesus preached. Samuel Johnson bullied. Carlyle fulminated. Bucky Fuller drones. Wittgenstein thought painfully aloud. But Socrates talked … hazardously, gayly, amorously, eloquently, religiously … he talked with wit, with passion, with honesty; he asked; he answered; he considered; he debated; he entertained; he made of his mind a boulevard before there was even a France.

I remember – I contain a past – partly because my friends and family allow me to repeat and polish my tales, tall as they sometimes are, like the stalk Jack climbed to encounter the giant. Shouldn’t I be able to learn from history how to chronicle my self? “Every man should be so much an artist,” again Emerson said, “that he could report in conversation what had befallen him.” Words befell Emerson often. He made speeches on occasions like this one, and until his mind changed, he always meant what he said. Frequently his mind changed before he reached any conclusion. In his head his heart turned to look about and saw the other side.

Talk, of course, is not always communication. It is often just a buzz, the hum the husband makes when he’s still lit, but the station’s gone off. We can be bores as catastrophic as quakes, causing even the earth to yawn. Talk can be cruel and injurious to a degree which is frightening; the right word wrongly used can strike a man down like a club, turn a heart dark forever, freeze the feelings; nevertheless, while the thief is threatening to take our money or our life, he has yet to do either; and while Sadat and Carter and Begin talk, while talk mediates a strike, or weighs an allegation in the press or in committee, or considers a law in congress or argues a crime in court; while a spouse gripes, or the con man cons, while ideas are explained to a point beyond opacity by the prof; then it’s not yet the dreadful day of the exam, no one has lost their nest egg or filed for divorce, sentence has not been passed, the crime has not yet occurred, the walkout, or the war. It may sound like a balk, a hitch in the motion, a failure to follow through, but many things recommend talk, not least its rich and wandering rhymes.

Our thoughts tend to travel like our shadow in the morning walking west, casting their outline just ahead of us so that we can see and approve, or amend and cancel, what we are about to say. It is the only rehearsal our conversation usually gets; but that is one reason we fall upon cliche as if it were a sofa and not a sword; for we have rehearsed “good morning,” and “how are you?” and “have a nice day,” to the place where the tongue is like a stale bun in the mouth; and we have talked of Tommy’s teeth and our cold car’s stalling treachery, of our slobby dog’s affection and Alice’s asthma and Hazel’s latest honeybunny, who, thank god, is only black and not gay like her last one; we have emptied our empty jars over one another like slapstick comics through so many baggy-panted performances we can now dream of Cannes and complain of Canada with the same breath we use to spit an olive in a napkin, since one can easily do several thoughtless things at once – in fact, one ought; and indeed it is true that prefab conversation frees the mind, yet rarely does the mind have a mind left after these interconnected cliches have conquered it; better to rent rooms to hooligans who will only draw on the walls and break the furniture; for our Gerberized phrases touch nothing; they keep the head hollow by crowding out thought; they fill all the chairs with buttocks like balloons; they are neither fed nor feed; they drift like dust; they refuse to breathe.

We forget sometimes that we do live with ourselves – worse luck most likely – as well as within. The head we inhabit is a haunted house. Nevertheless, we often ignore our own voice when it speaks to us: “Remember me,” the spirit says, “I am your holy ghost.” But we are bored by our own baloney. Why otherwise would we fall in love if not to hear that same sweet hokum from another? Still, we should remember that we comprise true Siamese twins, fastened by language and feeling, wed better than any bed; because when we talk to ourselves we divide into the self which is all ear and the self which is all mouth. Yet which one of us is which? Does the same self do most of the talking while a second self soaks it up, or is there a real conversation?

Frequently we put on plays like a producer: one voice belongs to sister, shrill and intrepidly stupid; a nephew has another (he wants a cookie); the boss is next – we’ve cast him as a barnyard bully; and then there is a servant or a spouse, crabby and recalcitrant. All speak as they are spoken through; each runs around in its role like a caged squirrel, while an audience we also invent (patient, visible, too easily pleased) applauds the heroine or the hero because of the way they’ve righted wrongs like an avenging angel, answered every challenge like a Lancelot, every question like Ann Landers, and met every opportunity like a perfect Romeo, every romance like a living doll. If we really love the little comedy we’ve constructed, it’s likely to have a long run.

Does it really matter how richly and honestly and well we speak? What is our attitude toward ourselves; what tone do we tend to take? Consider Hamlet, a character who escapes his circumstances and achieves greatness despite the fact his will wavers or he can’t remember his father’s ghost. He certainly doesn’t bring it off because he has an Oedipus complex (we are all supposed to have that); but because he talks to himself more beautifully than anyone else ever has. Consider his passion, his eloquence, his style, his range: “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” he exclaims; “now could I drink hot blood,” he brags; “to be or not to be,” he wonders; “O,” he hopes, “that this too too solid flesh would melt,” and he complains that all occasions do inform against him. For our part, what do we do? do we lick our own hand and play the spaniel? do we whine and wheedle or natter like a ninny? Can we formulate our anger in a righteous phrase, or will we be reduced to swearing like a soldier? All of us are dramatists, but how will we receive our training? Where can we improve upon the puerile theatricals of our parents, if not here among the plays and perils of Pirandello and the dialogues of Plato (among the many glories of the letter “P” – “peachtree” and “pulchritude,” “philosophy” and “friendship”), the operas of Puccini and the follies of the faculty?

If we think awareness is like water purling gaily in its stream, we have been listening to the wrong James, for our consciousness is largely composed of slogans and signs, of language of one kind or other: we wake to an alarm; we read the weather by the brightness of a streak on the ceiling, the mood of our lover by the night’s cramp still clenched in her morning body; our trembling tells us we’re hung over; we wipe ourselves with a symbol of softness, push an ad around over our face; the scale rolls up a number which means “overweight,” and the innersoles of our shoes say “hush!” Thus, even if we haven’t uttered a word, we’ve so far spent the morning reading. Signs don’t stream. They may straggle, but they mostly march. Language allies itself with order. Even its fragments suggest syntax, wholeness, regularity, though many of us are ashamed to address ourselves in complete sentences. Rhetorically structured paragraphs seem pretentious to us, as if, to gaze at our image in a mirror, we had first to put on a tux; and this means that everything of real importance, every decision which requires care, thoughtful analysis, emotional distance, and mature judgment, must be talked out with someone else – a consequence we can’t always face, with its attendant arguments, embarrassments, counterclaims, and lies. To think for yourself – not narrowly, but rather as a mind – you must be able to talk to yourself: well, openly, and at length. You must come in from the rain of requests and responses. You must take and employ your time as if it were your life. And that side of you which speaks must be prepared to say anything so long as it is so – is seen so, felt so, thought so – and that side of you which listens must be ready to hear horrors, for much of what is so is horrible – horrible to see, horrible to feel, horrible to consider. But at length, and honestly – that is not enough. To speak well to oneself … to speak well we must go down as far as the bucket can be lowered. Every thought must be thought through from its ultimate cost back to its cheap beginnings; every perception, however profound and distant, must be as clear and easy as the moon; every desire must be recognized as a relative and named as fearlessly as Satan named his angels; finally, every feeling must be felt to its bottom where the bucket rests in the silt and water rises like a tower around it. To talk to ourselves well requires, then, endless rehearsals – rehearsals in which we revise, and the revision of the inner life strikes many people as hypocritical; but to think how to express some passion properly is the only way to be possessed by it, for unformed feelings lack impact, just as unfelt ideas lose weight. So walk around unrewritten, if you like. Live on broken phrases and syllable gristle, telegraphese and film reviews. No one will suspect … until you speak.

There are kinds and forms of this inner speech. Many years ago, when my eldest son was about fourteen, I was gardening alongside the house one midday in mid-May, hidden as it happened between two bushes I was pruning, when Richard came out of the house in a hurry to return to school following lunch, and like a character in a French farce, skulking there, I overheard him talking to himself. “Well, racing fans, it looks … it looks like the question we’ve all been asking is about to be answered, because HERE COMES RICHARD GASS OUT OF THE PITS NOW! He doesn’t appear to be limping from that bad crash he had at the raceway yesterday – what a crash that was! – and he is certainly going straight for his car … what courage! … yes, he is getting into his car … not a hesitation … yes, he is going to be off in a moment for the track … yes –” and then he went, peddling out of my hearing, busily broadcasting his life.

My son’s consciousness, in that moment, was not only thoroughly verbal (although its subject was the Indy 500, then not too many days away, and although he could still see the street he would ride on), it had a form: that given to his language and its referents by the radio sportscaster. Richard’s body was, in effect, on the air; his mind was in the booth “upstairs,” while his feelings were doubtless mixed in with his audience, both at home and in the stands. He was being seen, and heard, and spoken of, at the same time.

Later this led me to wonder whether we all didn’t have fashions and forms in which we talked to ourselves; whether some of these might be habits of the most indelible sort, the spelling out of our secret personality; and, finally, whether they might not vitally influence the way we spoke to others, especially in our less formal moments – in bed, at breakfast, at the thirteenth tee. I recognized at once that this was certainly true of me; that although I employed many modes, there was one verbal form which had me completely in its grip the way Baron Munchhausen was held in his own tall tales, or the Piers Plowman poet in his lovely alliteration. If Richard’s was that of the radio broadcast, mine was that of the lecture. I realized that when I woke in the morning, I rose from bed only to ask the world if it had any questions. I was, almost from birth, and so I suppose by “bottom nature,” what Gertrude Stein called Ezra Pound – a village explainer – which, she said, was all right if you were a village, but if not, not; and sooner than sunrise I would be launched on an unvoiced speechification on the art of internal discourse, a lecture I have given many times, though rarely aloud.

I have since asked a number of people, some from very different backgrounds, what shape their internal talk took, and found, first of all, that they agreed to the important presence of these forms, and that one type did tend to dominate the others: it was often broadcasting – never the lecture – though I once encountered a sermon and several prayers; it frequently took place in the courtroom where one was conducting a fearless prosecution or a triumphant defense; it was regularly the repetition of some pattern of parental exchange, a rut full of relatives and preconditioned response; the drama appeared to be popular, as well as works of pornography, though, in this regard, there were more movies shown than words said – a pity, both modes need such improvement; monologues such as Browning might have penned: the vaunt, the threat, the keen, the kvetch, the eulogy for yourself when dead; there was even the bedtime story, the diary, the chronicle, and, of course, the novel, gothic in character, or at least full of intrigue and suspense: Little did William Gass realize when he rose that gentle May morning to thump his chest and touch his toes that he would soon be embarked on an adventure whose endless ramifications would utterly alter his life; otherwise he might not have set out for the supermarket without a list; otherwise he might not have done that extra push-up; he might better have stayed in bed with the bedclothes pulled thickly over his stupidly chattering head.

Yet I should like to suggest (despite the undeniable sappiness of it) that the center of the self, itself, is this secret, obsessive, often silly, nearly continuous voice – the voice that is the surest sign we are alive; and that one fundamental function of language is the communication with this self which it makes feasible; and that, if the university has done its work, you are a bit nearer than you were before to being one of the few fortunates who have made rich and beautiful the great conversation which constitutes our life.

Everywhere here in this Quad, everywhere along the long lines of listening chairs – like a choir before bursting into song – there is the silent murmur of us all, our glad, our scrappy, rude, grand, small talk to ourselves, the unheard hum of our humanity; without which – think of it! – we might not be awake; without which – imagine it! – we might not be alive; since while we speak we live up there above our bodies in the mind, and there is hope as long as we continue to talk; so long as we continue to speak, to search for eloquence even over happiness or sympathy in sorrow, even if all that is left to us is the omitted outcry, Christ’s query, the silent shout: “My God, my God, why have you left me alone?”

Leander Decristofaro Appalachian State 3 rounds

Jay Derby James Madison University 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 18, 2014 at 7:32 AM EDT

I think debate is at its best when the debaters are making arguments they like to make. In that vein I try to be pretty open to whatever arguments you want to make. However, there are of course some things that are easier for me to check in for. Ill give some of the things that first come to mind. If there is a specific issue you feel like you want to know more about please feel free to ask.

First, I tend to have a fairly high threshold for topicality, and other theory arguments that require me to punish the other team for being abusive. This is not say that I wont vote on those arguments but you will have to do some heavy lifting to get me to believe that the opposition was so dastardly that there was nothing you could have done to win the debate. This does not mean that if the neg runs multiple conditional/dispositinal counterpalns that the aff should just take that with out objection. Nor does it mean that the neg should let the aff sever out of their plan in the 2ac. Having debated as the 2N I tend to be rather protective of the 2Nr, just a heads up.

Second: some words about plans. Plans are cool but by no means necessary. If you are not into reading a plan dont but just remember you will have to spend a few seconds telling me how I should approach the ballot. In that vein, I use to be a predominatly K debater so feel free to deploy this positions. While I am familar with some of the arguments it will behoove you to explain the more complex arguments.

Third: Overviews. You should give them. Overviews are a great way to crystalize the big picture for me. 30-45 seconds at the top of the 2NR/AR will be very useful when you are trying to do in depth impact calculus. This is especially true since I have been out of debate for a few years and I am not familar with the intimate details of your favorite set of arguments.

Fourth: Some notes on evidence. I will not spend much time reconstructing the debate and the only time I will call for evidence is if the contents of a card are
seriously disputed. Statments like "this card is great you should read it after the round" will not get you far. I want to hear you tell me what the warrants from the card are

Finally, As I noted above, I have been out for a while so I am not as familar with the intracies of alot of the positions that are being deployed these days. If you want my ballot slow down a little and spend time explaining to me link story. Becuase I have not been in debate for some time speakers who read at 400+wpm will find that I get only about half of what they say. While I appreciate the techne of speaking fast I think there can be serious strategic advanteges to slowing down just a little. This is especially true in theory debates where debaters are prone to rapid fire through their blocks. Just spit firing all of your arguments out will result in me getting about half of your arguments on the flow.

I want y'all to do with the debate what you want, have fun. Debaters who make the environment more lively will be rewarded in their speaker points. Again if you have specific questions I am happy to answer them.

Lauren Donnenfeld Vanderbilt University 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 6:49 AM EDT

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Cat Duffy Wake Forest University 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 12, 2017 at 12:16 PM EDT

Cat Duffy

Michigan State/Niles North

Meta-Level: It's been several years since I've judged extensively so make sure you're clear. Explain your arguments/acronyms/short hand. I err towards offense/defense pretty heavily. The older I get the more persuaded by truth I am but technical debating still matters. Evidence quality is important, how you spin a piece of evidence is also important. Be nice. Prep time ends when the jump drive leaves the computer/you hit send on the email.

Topicality: Not my favorite debates. Please slow down -- if you go a million miles a minute I'm going to miss stuff. When extending T, contextualize your vision of the resolution through case lists of affirmatives that your interpretation justifies and those it excludes and impact why that division is important. Affs should read a counter interpretation or you’ll probably lose. Impact the standard you're going for and do comparative impact work.

Counterplans: I lean negative on most theory questions. The states counterplan is OBVIOUSLY theoretically legitimate. As is international fiat. Theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument except in the instance of conditionality. If you want theory to be an option please stop reading your pre-scripted blocks and actually do the line by line. I think the judge can kick the counterplan unless the aff tells me not to. I’m better for the aff on permutation/competition questions against counterplans that compete off of certainty/immediacy. If you're aff you need to quantify an impact to your solvency deficit.

Disads: Evidence comparisons are incredibly important. Comparative impact work is a must – don’t make me decide after the debate if the disad turns the case or the case turns the disad, odds are you won’t be happy with the result. Disads are the spot where 1AR sand-bagging bothers me the worst. If you call a thumper by any other name you’ll lose speaker points. Read uniqueness for your link stories. The politics disad is obviously overwhelmingly intrinsic. Vote no could probably be dropped twice by the negative and I still would not consider it a real argument. Other intrinsicness arguments require an answer, although not much of one.

The K: Really not great for the K. When the aff wins vs. the K it’s typically on the permutation (the double bind gets me every time) and that at least some portion of the aff is true and has an impact. The negative wins going for the K by actually explaining why the link compromises affirmative solvency. Winning a link doesn't make the aff go away - you need to explain why the thesis of your K makes the affs impacts not true, or proves they can't solve them, etc. Explain the impact of winning the framework debate. An affirmative must read a topical plan and defend it.

Speaker Points: The following is largely taken from Carly Wunderlich and Ed Lee who said it better than I ever could.

Things that increase speaker points

1. Connections on central questions- slowing down and effectively communicating about guiding issues

2. Evidence comparisons – tell me why all the evidence you read actually matters. Otherwise I’ll decide after the round and we might not agree on what a piece of evidence says.

3. Clarity – I will call clear if you’re not. After that the points go down. I have no poker face – if I can’t understand you, you’ll be able to tell. Look up from the laptop and find out!

4. Strategic cross-x’s – make arguments instead of asking for the fourth time “where does your card actually say that?”

5. Technical proficiency - answering clearly all necessary arguments. Line by line is a lost art - particularly in the 2AC on case.

Things that decrease speaker points

1. Cross-reading, clipping- if there is an ethics challenge made I will stop the debate and evaluate it. If the person in question is found to be doing it they will lose the debate and receive zero speaker points

2. Tech fails- please be prompt and quick with tech things. In a world of decision times this is increasingly terrible.

3. (also borrowed from Ed Lee) Creating a hostile environment – Respect is a non-negotiable for me. It always has been. It is the primary reason I go out of my way to be civil and cordial to everyone I interact with. I know that there is no chance that we will have a productive conversation unless you are willing to speak to me in a way that acknowledges my humanity. I not only have that expectation for the way you communicate with me but the way you communicate with each other. It is not healthy for me or anyone else in the room to watch you verbally assaulting your opponent. If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors or the president of your university then you should not do it in front of me. I am more than willing to have a conversation with anyone about the where this line should be drawn. That conversation is long overdue.

James Durkee Georgia 5 rounds

Rob Eback Hire 8 rounds

Jack Ewing George Washington University 3 rounds

Do whatever you do best.

I hate paperless. Do not waste time playing with each other’s flash drives, I will not be happy. Try to look up every once and while. It will help your speaker points. Prep stops when the other team has the jump drive.

I do think rules exist in debate: speech times etc. These rules do not set restrictions on content or curriculum. All of these things are up to the debaters.

Framework: If circular claims about predictability and fairness are how you roll, I am probably not the judge for you. If framework is based on comparative claims which construct the importance of differing roles for the judge/debate/space, I am fine for you. One caveat, I generally think the negative, when going for framework, is responsable for responding the content of the 1AC. That is to say, you should probably have some answers to the affirmative jive from the case which will be used to respond to your framework argument.

Disads: They are good; even better if they are intrinsic.

Critiques: These are the arguments I know the most about. I am familiar with most critical literature. I will do my best to exclude my background knowledge from affecting my decision. Just because I know a lot about criticisms does not mean you should go for the argument. DO NOT ADAPT TO ME. In many cases, your inability to properly articulate X author will only frustrate me. The more specific the link to the affirmative the better your argument will be. This also applies to affirmative answers to the author the negative is using. I do not think the aff has a right to a permutation on a criticism. This does not mean the aff cannot justify one, but that is where I start.

Counterplans: I really like case specific PIC’s. If the counterplan results in the entire plan it is probably unfair.

Please be comprehensible. I will not tell you to be clear, but I will be staring at you with a puzzled look.

I honestly do not know how much I give off in body language while you are speaking. As a general rule, you should pay attention to what your judge is doing.

I am not the best flow. I have a very good verbal memory. If I am not constantly writing things down this does not (necessarily) mean I don’t dig what you are saying. It may also mean I am thinking about what you are saying.

Please try to be interesting and funny. This will greatly enhance your speaker points and chances of winning.

Argument: claim (17) + warrant (50) + impact (2)

There is such a thing as zero risk of a link.

Debaters argue. Evidence does not. If you just list 25 authors, I will not read your cards. I do not want to read your cards. Persuade me.

I will probably not take too long to decide the debate; it’s not you, it’s me.

People I would like to emulate while judging: Dallas Perkins, Steve Pointer, Dan Fitzmier, Calum Matheson, Izak, McBride, Odekirk, Hester, Repko and your father.

Email me with questions: jewing4@lion.lmu.edu

Matt Fisher Northwestern University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 14, 2020 at 2:28 AM UTC

Matt Fisher - Northwestern University, Glenbrook North HS
Updated: November 2020

Background

I debated for four years in high school and then four years in college. After that, I coached both high school and college debate for three years. I have not been involved in the activity since 2015, but I'm looking forward to judging rounds at 2020-2021 Chicago Debates tournaments.

Paradigm

I wrote the following list back in 2011:

- Clarity is underrated/undervalued

- Talking fast is not the same as true speed; true speed is measured by the number of arguments that the judge thinks the opponent has to answer.

- Debaters should combine technical proficiency with big-picture argumentation

- Extension of evidence/arguments must include an extension of the warrants - not just the taglines

- Specificity of arguments matter - no matter what the argument (links for a K, topicality violations/standards, theory interpretations, etc.)

- Impact comparison is essential - especially in the final rebuttals

- Evidence quality matters - a lot. Logical, intelligent analytics can beat bad, unwarranted evidence. Evidence comparison is a must.

- I'm not a good judge for 'cheap-shot' theory arguments or specification arguments because I think they detract from the educational merit of this activity

- I like well-researched, case specific strategies (who doesn't?)

Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. I think both sides should strive to prove why their interpretation could sustain a yearlong debate topic - more than a self-serving/tricky violation (or counter-interpretation). Teams should back-up their interpretations and standards with evidence.

Critiques:

- the viability of the alt seems to frequently be under-debated

- 'no value to life,' 'extinction inevitable,' 'ethical d-rule,' etc. are all meaningless phrases by themselves --- they must be explained/compared to the other side's impact framing

- specificity of link matters

- historical comparisons are useful (*please* don't take this to mean that I want to hear how every aff replicates the logic of the Holocaust or Vietnam)

- specificity of the impact matters

Framework:

Affs should probably have plans; those plans should probably be related to the topic/USFG action. I could (obviously) be persuaded otherwise, but that is certainly my default. I'm not an 'auto-win' for 'policy' teams vs. 'non-policy' teams --- if you (policy team) cannot persuasively argue why the (non-policy) aff should engage in policy debate, you will probably lose my ballot.

When debating critiques...make sure that the resolution of the framework debate - if it's in your favor - actually helps you win the debate. Far too often, framework debates seem like useless distractions that don't really advance the ball for either side (that is, if you win FW, how does that affect the other side's arguments?).

If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

Jordan Foley Michigan 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM EDT

Background

4 years of policy debate in high school at Little Rock Central

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

Currently, I am a first-year graduate teaching assistant in Wake Forest's communication department.

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

I have very few preferences for how you go about making the argument that you would like to make in the debate. I truly do love the process of argumentation itself more than the ins and outs of any particular argument. Although there are some obvious ones I may be more familiar with I think the general principle that Link + Impact = Argument is true and that your argument will work better if it is tied to a broader strategy you plan to deploy against the argument you are facing. That being said, there can be a level

In my time as a debater, I could pretty squarely be considered in the ‘traditional policy’ camp. I read (and often went for) topicality and framework arguments against teams that did not defend governmental action on the aff. I still find many of the arguments surrounding these positions to be very persuasive, but my voting record does illustrate my openness to alternative styles of argumentation as well.

In my short time as a judge in college policy debate, I have continued to find myself in new ‘judging dilemmas’ that I had never previously considered. A lot of the fault lines that come up in rfds have rested on a few issues that I will mention before getting into some of the other aspects of my judging philosophy

Basically, I have a small set of data to work with but I do think that there are two notable patterns in many of the decisions I have given so far. These areas of argument encompass a lot of the difficulty I have when resolving debates during rfd time and will help you understand where I am coming from when evaluating some arguments. Not all encompassing, for sure, but absolutely things to keep in mind.

1. 1. Clarity of interpretation

This is a pretty blanket category, but I think it helps articulate a major frustration I have when. Whether it is a topicality/framework interpretation or an analytical argument about how a judge should evaluate or weigh certain impact claims, I often find myself wishing one team would provide a more vivid description their interpretations of how certain arguments should function within debate rounds.

In framework debates, the clarity of your ‘interpretation’ of what debate and/or the ballot is/does is just as important as making sure I understand your counterplan text. If the other team controls this interpretation via a lack of clarification of adequate elaboration then the other team essentially controls what your counterplan does. If they control my understanding of what your counterplan does, they will make it link to their DAs and win. Control what your evidence means to me and how I should read it in light of broader link/impact claims.

This is as true for topicality as it is for any attempt at a theoretical discussion of a how people/groups/nations/states act in a particular context in relation to a topic disad or sociological criticism. Debates often hinge on these questions and when they are poorly fleshed out, many other issues that have time invested in them become far less relevant and much more of the debate’s deciding factors will be up to my interpretation of the interaction of arguments and not yours which is a dangerous place to be in a verbal argument about very complex complex and interwoven concepts

2. 2. Articulation of comparative significance –

This is related to the first, but I find myself in a lot of debates where I give the following rfd: “ultimately, I had a lot of reasons to vote against the other team, but not a lot of reasons I should be voting for you”

Whether it’s a 2ar without enough impact calculus or a 2nr who doesn’t do justice to the alternative/cp solvency evidence they are extending, many of my decisions seem like they fall in this category. Debaters from both teams do a moderate to excellent job of executing their core argument but fail to rhetorically distinguish and compare their core arguments from the other team’s position.

I try reward debaters not only engaging with the argument they are debating on their own terms (our ‘x’ evidence answers this by saying ‘y’) but also engaging with the language used by their opponents and the evidence they read to make comparative claims. Controlling my interpretation of a piece of evidence from the other team will usually get you further than perfectly explaining your own.

As a judge, I view my role to be an educator, not a competitor. I have argument preferences and professional academic interests that certainly expose me to different literature bases in both debate and non-debate research, but I try to maintain as open of a mind as possible to arguments outside my comfort zone. It is unavoidable that certain vernaculars (critical and policy alike) that I am too unfamiliar with to make the judgment calls that are required when one of the above two things are done poorly.

Odds and Ends

I will likely be flowing on my laptop – I do this for a few reasons. First, I type faster than I write so I genuinely believe that my flow is more accurate and more importantly, readable. Secondly, I do it because I do not like to have my head down looking at my flow during your speech for extended period of times. I like to watch speeches because I think that aesthetics of giving a speech are important. Timely gestures to emphasize main points are just as relevant as the white foam you've developed on your mouth 4 minutes into your speech and I like to be able to get a more full picture of your speaking style. At times, this tendency can cause you to think I am awkardly staring at you too much - please do not read too much into this because I am honestly trying to soak up the full force of the way you make your argument in additions to technical, content related questions.

There is a decent chance that I request speech documents prior to speeches using electronic evidence. I am still experimenting a bit with this, so its application will not be entirely consistent but I think it is useful for two main reasons. First, it helps deter and catch card clipping – which I will discuss in more detail below. Secondly, it drastically reduces the amount of decision time dedicated to transferring evidence at the end of a debate. I do not ever intend, however, to have a debater feel like the choice to call for speech docs was in any way motivated by the debaters as individuals or the perceived reputation of a squad in general. I am honestly a young judge trying to find my norm, so please bear with me on this issue.

I very much value my decision time after debates are over. If there are flashing issues between teams or extended bathroom breaks before speeches, I will become frustrated if the time delay starts approaching the 10-15 minute range. More judging time = better decisions = better debaters.

Conditionality – fwiw, I have not had many decisions that come down to this argument but I will say that the gulf between the 1ar and the 2ar explanation of their position is usually the pivot point in the debates I have had come down to this issue.

Card clipping – I take this matter pretty seriously and will not hesitate to assign a loss and zero speaker points for verified violations. I am very hesitant about unilaterally halting a debate where neither team has brought the issue up, although I have never faced an egregious case that I have had such a visceral reaction (or any reaction so far, really) that would make me do that. But, if someone does make a challenge, an audio/video recording is essential.

Do not speak into your laptop – lower whatever you are speaking from in order to make eye contact and let me see your mouth move. For some reason, this has become a massive pet peeve of mine. In the past, I have prompted speakers to change where their podiums are situated, but I don’t think that should be my prerogative during a debate so please be mindful of what you look like to me when you are speaking.

Speaker Points – I have consistently given between a range of 27.5 and 29. I have given very few 29+ but quite a lot of 28.2-28.6’s. Here is a rough rubric based on my perception of what I have given out so far.

Below 27.5 – major mishaps likely occurred, these can be things like offensive language or disrespectful behavior but certainly glaring strategic miscues and/or speech delivery issues that substantially affected the content of my decision will put you in this camp as well.

27.5-27.9 – Excessively mediocre. Speech delivery issues were likely a component, but these scores I find myself giving more to people that seem are far too underprepared with the evidence and arguments they are deploying. Debaters who normally receive these speaks from me have received a lot of advice about reaching beyond buzzwords and taglines as well as evolving their arguments more generally as the debate progresses.

28-28.4 – This category, for me, has encompassed many of the teams that are on the ‘bubble’ and some of the lower-middle teams that exhibit a fairly coherent grasp of their argument strategically, there is normally some delivery issue associated with the lower end of this spectrum.

28.5-28.7 – This is about what you should expect if I find you to have a solid speaking style and a strong grasp of the arguments you are forwarding. There is usually a point in these debates where this debater does something notably awesome rhetorically or strategically but that lacks a sustained follow-through the rest of the debate. There are flashes of brilliance, but consistency is a key distinction between this category and the next one.

28.8-29.2 – If you get these speaks, you are likely a debater who excelled in not only their grasp of their own arguments but demonstrated a consistent ability throughout the debate of making smart strategic and rhetorical decisions. You were likely incredibly clear as a speaker and are debating at a very high level in terms of balancing word choice, time management, and quality evidence choice in addition to sustained comparative evaluation of key arguments in the debate.

29.3+ - Not going to lie, the likelihood you receive this or higher is exceedingly low. It takes not only what was mentioned in the above category but also requires a level of sophisticated argumentation that makes me feel like you were a top 5 speaker in that debate and/or that I could reasonably see you in quarters or better based on that performance.

For all of these categories of speaker points: landing solid jokes, being colloquial and respectful of your opponents, and the perception that you are truly enjoying yourself all have the potential to place a light, but impactful finger on the scale when I am assigning these points along this rubric.

If you every have any questions about any of this philosophy or a specific question about a debate I judged/watched (even if you did not participate), feel free to shoot me an email: folejm13 AT wfu DOT edu

Ryan Galloway Samford University 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue May 14, 2024 at 8:40 PM EDT

Ryan Galloway

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances.”I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

I prefer if you number your arguments.
Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leaving me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
I still believe in a place called Hope.

Seth Gannon Georgetown 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 13, 2015 at 4:30 AM PDT

With this update, I hope to better match my theory of judging to my habits in practice.

I have found myself nearly obsessed with specific, substantive engagement between the two teams — and increasingly frustrated when one team sidesteps opportunities for well-evidenced clash between arguments in favor of generic, all-purpose positions or supposed trump cards that set aside the majority of the debate. The team at fault — given its responsibility to respond — is often the negative, and on some topics I vote aff at a dizzying clip.

Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have â€‹canceled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debateâ€‹ and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum.

Of course, many of the best strategies answer the ultimate question in your favor even while conceding great quantities of your opponents’ arguments. Elegant debating — specific, substantive engagement at the level of what matters — will be rewarded. For instance, a counterplan that solves the aff advantages (relieving you of the responsibility to disprove them), if it competes with the specifics of what the aff is advocating, is an ideal example of substantive engagement.

Unsurprisingly, questions of â€‹link and â€‹competitionâ€‹ interest me greatly. This is our vocabulary for measuring clash. Before determining what’s most important, I determine what’s relevant.

A final note: You will do far better on theory arguments if they inform my decision rather than making it for me. Maybe that means “rejecting the argument.” Maybe that means getting a ruling from me along the way: I am happy to pause the CX for a 30-second intervention on agent specification or conditionality, and we can use the remaining 90 minutes for an entertaining and educational debate.

Adam Garen Cornell 4 rounds None

James Garrett Louisville 8 rounds

Lincoln Garrett Liberty University 3 rounds

Josh Grace Hire 8 rounds

Background – I debated at Chattahoochee high school for four years, where I qualified for the TOC, and at Georgia State for four years, where I qualified twice for, and cleared at, the NDT. I was primarily a policy debater in both high school and college, although I have been known to read and go for no-plan affs, nonsense K’s, etc. Just because I debated a certain way doesn’t mean I judge a certain way. If an argument is properly explained and well warranted, I will likely vote for it.

Forewarning – I am in law school. I don’t do research on the topic. Don’t assume I know anything about the topic. If you plan on using acronyms, please tell me what those mean.

Specific stuff:

Topicality

· I defer to reasonability, although the presumption can be rebutted

· I’d prefer if T debates were debated slow. Please don’t read T arguments fast. They are hard to flow as it is.

· Pet peaves

o Lack of a case list both ways – our interp allows the following cases, their interp allows the following cases

o Lack of specific ground loss – If I don’t know what specific ground you loss (and why that ground is good for the neg), then it’s hard to win your ground arguments in front of me.

· Spec arguments – read them if you want. I’ll listen to them.

Theory

· Slower debates better than fast debaters

· Conceded theory arguments may be a reason to reject the team, if extended properly

· Conditionality is probably good, to an extent. More than three worlds, plus the status quo, is pushing it and makes it more likely to vote on conditionality bad.

· Consult / Condition / Delay are probably reasons to reject the argument, unless otherwise specified.

· Teams going for theory need a specific story of abuse (what exactly did they do that screwed you over?) and specific arguments about limits, ground, etc. Generic stories are probably a reason to reject the argument.

Disadvantages

· Yes, please.

· Specific links are good. Generic DA’s are not.

· Links and internal links are, for me, the most important part of the disadvantage.

· Politics

o Your links need to be super specific.

o Clearly impacted internal link story about how the plan pushes X off the docket, etc.

o Intrinsicness is stupid, but I’ll vote for it if conceded.

o Don't say thumper. I will dock .1 speaker point for every instance said.

Counterplans

· More specific the better

· Probably should have evidence specific to aff, not just generic evidence about the topic.

· I’ll assume permutations are just a test of competition unless I am told otherwise.

· Consult CP’s are stupid. I won’t ignore the CP like some judges, but your speaker points won’t likely be high.

· Severence, intrinsic arguments are probably just a reason to reject the argument, unless a specific story of abuse is generated.

· Multiple perms bad is probably just a reason to reject the argument. Like conditionality, the more you have, the more effective multiple perms bad becomes.

The K and K affs

· Don’t assume I know your K. Your job is to explain to me what your K means. If you do a bad job at explanation, I reserve the right to vote against the K for lack of understanding.

· Most of my K knowledge comes from various Zak Schaller rantings and through debate.

· Specific link analysis good. Do not read generic links to the topic. I would prefer if you have links about the advantages and the plan.

· Use historical examples to demonstrate link and impact claims.

· Explain your alternative and what a world of the alternative looks like. The alternative should “propose a method that could attain something worth voting for.” You should also provide me reasons to reject / disprove the necessity for the PLAN

· For the aff, plan texts aren’t necessary. If you don’t read a plan, you must clearly explain your advocacy statement and what it means to vote aff.

Framework

· Presumption that the aff gets to weigh their impacts, can be rebutted.

· These debates are boring. I would prefer if you engage the other team’s arguments.

· Just because I think they are boring doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it. Like Consult CP’s, your points won’t be extremely high if you go for framework.

Performance / Project / Whatever term you identify with

· I have little experience judging these debates.

· Explain your position and why I should vote for it.

· Explain why the topic is not necessary (if that is your argument) and, if necessary, the importance of your argument in lieu of the resolution.

· I’d prefer if you engage the topic in some way, whether it be having a plan of some sort or using narratives from, for example, drone victims or just a discussion of the topic in relation to your argument / the debate community.

· As above, framework debates are boring and I would prefer if you engaged the other team’s arguments. You can go for framework if you want, but your points won’t be ery good.

· Please prove why it is necessary to engage in this discussion. It’s not enough to say the debate community is messed up. How does your aff/neg argument change debate? What’s the terminal impact?

Other things

· Good evidence outweighs analytic arguments. Analytic arguments outweigh bad evidence

· **PLEASE** make jokes. No one makes jokes anymore. Good jokes increase your speaker points, especially in boring debates. If you choose to make jokes, stay away from the overused ones.

· Clipping cards is bad. If an ethics challenge is posed, the debate will stop and I will review the issue. If a team is caught clipping cards, the clipper will receive zero speaker points and the clipping team will receive a loss. I will also talk to the clipping team’s coach about the incident. If no clipping occurs, the debate will resume.

· Be nice to your partner. Be nice to me. Be nice to the other team.

· Cross-ex is good. Good cross-ex leads to higher speaker points.

· Extinction is bad.

· Read my expressions – I tend to show signs of agreement or disagreement during the debate.

· Paperless debate – I hate it, teams are not effective at jumping and it wastes ton of time.

o BE EFFICIENT.

o Email chain > Jumping. I understand that some can’t access the internet at tournaments, which is fine.

o Prep finishes when the jump drive is out of the computer or the email has been sent. If a team makes a mistake and jumps the wrong file or the other team doesn’t get the email, then prep starts until the problem is resolved

o Bad paperless results in lower speaker points.

Speaker point scale

· 30: You are the best speaker I have ever heard. You deserve all the awards.

· 29.5-29.9: You are a fantastic speaker and deserve a top five speaker award

· 29-29.4: You are a really great speaker, made lots of smart arguments, didn’t make any blunders, and deserve a speaker award

· 28.5-28.9: You are a good speaker. You made smart arguments and made only small errors, whether technical or argumentative.

· 28-28.4: You made good arguments, but also made technical/argumentative errors

· 27.5-27.9: You made errors in the debate. Your arguments were not explained as well as they could have been.

· 27-27.4: You made lots of errors and resulted in a weakening of your argument. Your arguments were not well explained or impacted.

· 26-26.9: You made lots of big errors. You conceded arguments that lost you the round. You probably conceded at least one off case argument.

· Lower than a 26: You were rude to me, the other team, or your partner. Reserved for egregious errors.

Logan Gramzinski Wake Forest University 4 rounds

I debated for Samford University and am currently a graduate assistant coach at the University of Georgia.

Be clear.

The quick checklist:

1) I consider myself a “policy judge” who privileges the importance of the link over the impact

2) I love good theory debates and am willing and ready to vote against what most call “negative flexibility”

3) Debate is a game (truth is important, but tech first) and my ballot will only determine who wins the debate, not which political stance or movement I am aligned with.

My “biases” are not harsh rules for debate. You are certainly best off doing what you usually do in front of me – I will work hard to understand your arguments, flow, and evaluate the round with as little intervention as possible.

T: Reasonability. In order to prove the aff/neg is being unreasonable – talk about what the world of debate would look like if I endorse their interpretation. Caselists and in depth impact calculus will go a long way here.

Theory: I am more than ready to curtail the community norm of unlimited negative flexibility. I do not think a team has to win the debate has become “impossible” in order to win an abuse claim. Topic education is paramount.

CPs: I love counterplans that test the intrinsicness of the plan to the advantages of the aff. PICs are great. Word PICs are not. I am more than ready to reject the following CPs : consult, agent Cps, international fiat, process CPs, CPs that compete off the certainty or immediacy of the plan.

Ks: What can I say? Grad school changes a person. After years of judging, coaching, and familiarizing myself with critical arguments, I feel like I am in place to better adjudicate these debates. Still, specific links to the aff are crucial. Generic criticisms, like generic policy strategies, are boring to watch and will get you bad speaker points (and a loss).

Performance: While my experience is in policy debates, I am more than willing to listen and evaluate arguments here just as I do in those policy debates. I generally think the role of the ballot is decide who won or lost a debate (did the best debating, made the best arguments), so asking me to use my ballot to send a signal or align with a particular movement will need a strong defense.

DAs: I will vote on zero risk of the link – you don’t need offense to beat the DA to zero. Talk about how your impact interacts with the opponent’s.

Speaker Points: I will reward debaters for specific strategies, (good) jokes, and not stealing prep.

Speaker point scale:

27-27.5: Did some good things, but needs a lot of improvement. Typically includes a lot of technical drops. Will not clear at a national tournament, will probably go 2-6 or worse if you debate like this every round.

27:5-28: Answered all the important arguments, but didn't do evidence comparison, sufficient impact calculus, or give me a clear way to vote for you. Will likely go 3-5.

28-28.5: Did a lot of things right, but didn't wow me. 4-4 debating.

28.5-29:Excelled in the cross-ex, has a positive ethos throughout the round, did evidence comparison, impact calculus, and made smart arguments and connections. You should be 5-3 or better.

29-29.5: Outstanding debating all around. You belong in the elims. No missing on points for you!

29.5-30: Rare. Reserved for the best speeches i've seen all year.

Misc: Be aggressive. Have fun. Learn something.

Paperless: I’m lenient. Don’t take advantage of it.

Lawrence Grandpre Towson University 7 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 4, 2024 at 9:34 AM EDT

2017 Update

Overview- I'm old-ish (is 31 old?). I've been around 15 yearsand seen/coached most styles of debate (K/Perforrmance/Traditional/HS/College etc). I flow. I'll read (the warrents of) your cards and they matter to me.I do policy advacocy in real lifeso if you tell stuff I know isn't true in the real world you better defend it really well.Do what you do best. Use logic andtry to use truth over tech. I belive in education and try to give good feedback.

Been out the game for 2 years. Don't assuming I know anything about the topic specific acronyms or reference to specific teams since 2014. I'm up to date on basic news on China and trade but wouldn't know whichspecific parts of that discussion are hot in the debate work.What is below is still true just more detail from older philosophies all of it is still true. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2012 Update

I'll speak mostly to the K on K debates that I seems to almost exclusively judge. I'm really over any sort of infatuation with ethereal po mo stuff some people might have thought I had in days gone by. I still try to judges these debates on the flow, but I do have biases that I can only check to a degree. I think bodies matter, probably a lot, and theories that seek to get beyond them or to find some way to say they don't really matter that much are subject to a bs tests that I find teams advancing these arguments have a hard time passing when they debate teams that talk about identity.

One good way to deal with this would be to stress a more traditional terminal impact like explination of why your K matters. Much of the frustration I have with the etherial pomo stuff is the lack of connecting to actual peoples lives, which you can do with a robust explanation of how your K effects peoples in direct, meaningful ways.

Also, frameworks matter...probably a lot. Don't drop someones framework text and you should probably have one of your own. I guess I'm saying I view implicit clash having less of an impact in these K on K (and I guess all) framework debates, because for me the frame determines how I view said clash, so please be explicit in your clash or else I'll end up using trying to use the other teams framework to try to evaluate your arguments. Neither you nor I want this.

I guess I'll say that as I grow older, I just tend even more toward truth over tech. I can appreciate a good, logical strat (I appreciate the logic of some of Northwestern's AT Towson strats for example) and I'll vote for things like this if either these strats don't have basic meta level logical flaws or if the other team fails to point those flaws out. But if the common sense answers are advanced forcefull , even a well executed, well evidence strategy would be in serious jeopardy. Mostly it seems to be counter advocates that spin some random obfuscatory story about how they solve a K/performance aff when it seems a few common sense arguments would seems to indicate that they don't are what make me write this. For example when someone runs an identity K of debate Aff and the 1nc is 4 off including framework and a word PIC and the neg claims the Word PIC solves the entire aff despite obviously linking to the K of debate norms. The only thing that drive more insane than a 1NC making these statements is a 2AC that fails to point out the contradictions in these statemetns.

Remember I do a lot of work thinking about everyday issues of activism and local politics in addition to all the theoretical critical theory stuff. That means I'm just not going to be as less likely to enjoy going deep into a theoretical discussion of psychoanalysis or Bataille unless that discussion can be communicated as being in relation in some way to the conditions of oppression which can't not be always already in my mind given the city I live in and the things I see there. Yes, the person is political, but the political is not ONLY personal, it's also historical and structural. Take that as you will.

Last things I'll say that people don't seem to get about me is that, in many ways, I'm really an old school debater. I did CFLs, I did extemp and student congress in high school and feel every debater should too, I read more of The Economist than Adbusters, and I still feel the true test of any debater is how they would handle a public debate. I like logical, intelligent debate no matter what the content is and I dislike hyper strategic, jargon filled, avoidance debate no matter what the content is.

Old Philosophy (Circa 2009)

Overview: I guess the best place for the to start this is by saying I have both debated for Whitman College and debated for and now am helping to coach Towson University. I have literally been deep in the trenches on both sides of this communities stylistic wars have both the knowledge and scars that come with that. First, I’ll say that despite being raised to view debate as a game, I with age have come to see the pedagogical values of the activity as more important. Performance, framework, T and theory arguments should be made with this in mind. Second, let me say that while I definitely do not see myself as unbiased on the question of performative/critical/ “straight up” debate (I tend to lean more critical/performative) I have extensive experience with traditional arguments and can be persuaded to vote for framework against performance teams. You have the best chance of winning in front of me if you do what you do best. I try to be tabula rasa, but I do so knowing it is imposable.

Performance: Never actually debated it in a competitive round, but have extensive experience researching it and teaching it. I feel that strong performance arguments take a clear stance on the resolution (why not to debate it, why its bad, do they affirm through metaphor, if so what is that metaphor, etc). They should also clearly articulate what debate looks like in a world where their performative framework is adopted and what ground the other team has to interact with their performance. The less the performance teams articulates clearly what stance they take the more persuasive traditional framework arguments become.

On the traditional side, I feel the fatal flaw of most framework strategies is failing to generate any offense in the Performative team’s framework. YES. you probably will not win in this ALONE, but if your solving SOME of their offense you can more easily win a residual risk of your offense. The key thing is to show how your framework arguments interact with the telos of their performance. If they wanna solve oppression, make specific arguments that traditional debate solves the type of oppression they isolate; don’t just read shivley. Also, if they say politics is funked up, don’t JUST say traditional policy debate key to policy making, say it’s key to a new, none funked up form of politics and thus recenter the debate on whether traditional policy debate feeds traditional politics or changes it. Problem is many framework debates don’t get deep enough on these kinds of questions. I have a predisposition to not vote performance down on fairness grounds, this does NOT mean I will check in on it if a traditional teams do a good job debating the substance of the performance, be it with a kritik or a well executed framework argument.

Kritiks- I have the most intellectual foundation in this area. I have read a decent amount of literature on many of the most common K areas/authors (a lot of CRT, afrocentric stuff, a lot Foucault, a lot of D and G, some zizek, some security K stuff, not as much straight Marxist stuff but some, not as much Fem but some,). I generally feel most at home judging these debates. Negs should isolate specific links to the aff, failure to do some means I am much more likely to check in for the perm. Like on performance I tend not to be very persuaded by theory args on the K (lack of specific alts text bad, PIKs bad, framework means discourse doesn’t matter, etc). Aff’s should be cautious when banking on their advantage scenarios, not because I’ll check in on fiat is illusory, but because I feel many affs mishandle the arg many k teams make the K indicts the methodology behind your impact scenario. Aff’s should be able to defend the ethics behind their advocacy and their discourse. This does not mean they can’t win case outweighs, just they don’t get t say ”we win framework their for K is essentially a non Unique disad”. I can be persuaded to vote for no value to life arguments if executed well, 90% are not in my opinion.

Theory /T-
I tend to like functional over textual compeition, but it seems like aff teams are too scared to go for theory so i end up voting on cps i hate a lot. This includes consult, process, etc. I also tend to believe that the aff should get the resolution as a bases to generate their solvency deficits and offense against the CP, so if your CP is non topical that will help in terms of theoretical legitimacy, even if its international fiat. This does NOT mean you can not win consult, agent or other cps are legit, its just you better have some good topic specific reasons its key on the resolution. Multiple conditional advocacies are questionable in my book, but again it seems to be inevtbale so i've found i've cared alot less about this than i thought i would. That said there is diffrence between one conditional k and one cp and 3 conditional cps + CAP. You can defend all of these things, I just tend to believe that if your gonna play the debate game, in 2010 negs have enough strategic options not to need some of the stuff I am seeing.That said, theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and i generally dislike hearing big theory debates unless it's clear the aff has nothing else to go for.

On T I guess I believe reasonability is a powerful argument To win T for me on the neg against a performance team you’d have to make your T impacts interact with your larger framework arguments about the pedagogical value of the activity. Against a straight up team you’d have to articulate

a. specifically examples of ground abuse
b. why that ground is “good” ground in terms of debate quality and research base
and
c. why you have a resolution right to that ground.
Again, I have lots of experience with traditional competing interps views; I did a lot of T as a 1nr, but you have to win the impacts to T, not just the link.

DAs/CPs proper- Actually most of my debating was pretty straight up. A lot of politics in H.S., a lot of case, da, cp in college. Specific DA links to the aff are good, in depth case hits are even better. Impact calc is always key. Don’t just say your impact is big, say its bigER, fastER, MORE probable than your opponents and give evidence based reasons for this. As part of my maturation/indoctrination depending on who you talk to I am probably far more amenable that many in the community to vote on systemic impacts over nuclear war scenarios as long as the team running systemic impacts makes good defense claims (interdependence solves war, conventional war doesn’t escalate, etc). I general I give a LOT of weight to smart evidence or even analytical impact take outs to contrived advantages or disads, make these argument and GO FOR THEM as key parts of your impact calculus. I can imagine that I could be persuaded there is 0 risk of an advantage or da, but i never have been , probably because the teams good enough to do that are also good enough to never let themselves get put in the position where they had to go for this argument.

Evidence- Ev quality is a big thing for me, as is evidence utilization. I’ll read cards, but I’ll attempt to flow in a way that makes reading evidence (almost) unnecessary, and I will default to the team that does the better ev. comparison in round. Considering I flow warrants, I will be looking for teams to be doing the warrant comparison. Your 2ar/2nr should isolate the warrants in your evidence for me, otherwise I might/probably will be force to read cards and piece together the warrant comparison for myself which may lead me places you don’t want me to go. Also, it never cease to amaze me how many great cards are underhighlit and I see many debates where teams lose because they didn’t read enough of their good card. Also, I tend to take the best argument over the best source; just because something is peer reviewed or someone has a Phd does not mean that joe blogger goes away if joe blogger’s argument is better, epically in K debates where the intellectual framework of the status quo is being indicted. It is always good of course to have evidence that makes the better argument AND comes from a qualified source, so be sure to point out both.

TECH- I never debated paperless at Whitman but I’m very cool with it. Reading cards off laptop is cool just jump the other team the cards or give them the laptop so they can prep.

Blatent Contradictions- This is a pet peive of mine, but whatever. Tread lightly. YES, this means you, MR/MS I wanna run Cap K and Ptix DA with a econ impact...I AM talking to you. I do believe in some modicum, some VESTIGE of argumentative responsibility, and if the other teams concedes the double turn, you will almost certainly lose. Neg flex only goes so far...

Finally, I see civility as a key part of why I stay in the community. PLEASE, even if it’s a heated clash of civs debate, try to be civil to your opponent. I see K teams just as guilty of this as traditional teams, hell I probably help coach some, but still I feel this is key.

Justin Green Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 9:07 AM EDT

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

I plan to clap when the round is done; your effort is appreciated!

Argument Defaults

Preference - The good ones about the topic. Most of my research is on the policy side, but lucky to interact with great debaters and coaches across a wide spectrum of approaches for many years.

Topicality - Yes offense first; defense is essential. Impact turning or going just with reasonability without a quality counter-interp rarely wins.

Policy Aff v the K - Specificity is crucial for both sides. It's rare that I don't consider both the effects of the plan and the scholastic/rhetorical choices including the interactions between the two. Aff's should be prepared to defend the claims made in the 1ac. Winning the world is ordered by an oppressive structure is not enough.

CP Theory - Legitimacy of process CP's increases with more specific advocates. Some conditionality most likely OK - go beyond 2 or 3 or 2nc CP out of impact turns to do the opposite of the 1nc impact; less likely to be ok.

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

- Articulate when reading! There has been an increasing trend in debates I watch where syllables are consistently muddled or skipped. I'll yell clearer. If I yell it twice know that you are in the danger zone.

- Cross Ex Matters! and it has a time limit – I listen, flow, and those who reference answers from the CX are likely to get higher points. When the timer goes off, it's judge prep even if the two teams decide to continue the CX during prep time. If the two side agree on something when a judge is not there "ex. neg agreed they could kick planks or part of the alt"...please fill me in.

- Smart Analytics exposing flaws can go a long way. Internal link chains and neg K alt solvency are two of many places where this can potentially be effective.

- Quality of Evidence+Quality of Explanation+Quality of comparison=weight of argument

- 2 Tips for last rebuttals beyond impact calculation - Give your partners credit explicitly. Acknowledge where the other side might be correct, but why that is not enough.

Just in case it happens, some strong defaults....

- No shenanigans policy - I expect a 2v2 debate. No three person teams, no one person taking all the speech time, please don't ask for something besides a debate to determine a winner, etc. Two people speaking in the same speech, ok if part of a pre-scripted performance early in the debate. In subsequent speeches, only one person's words count.

- If you ask for a 30. Your speaker points will likely have a 3 in it; 3 will most likely not be the first number. If both you and your partner are asking for a 30, you are playing a dangerous game given the previous sentence.

- Hard to imagine myself voting on elements not related directly to an argument made in the debate (coin flips, previous debates, what their coach did, how someone interacted outside the debate, initials at the end of the card, month of the year). Verified blatant false disclosure of more than a card or two and could be a voting issue.

- Evidence ethics. Yes, follow AFA, ADA and CEDA guidelines. And also, not really trying to vote on: whether the citation includes date accessed, initials of the card cutter (or who cut the card), if there were accidental exclusions of the text that had no material effect.

ENJOY!

LaToya Green Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM UTC

3 years in the Debate-Kansas City Urban Debate League

5 years at Emporia State University

3 time NDT qualifier (1 first-round bid)

NDT octofinalist

CEDA semifinalist

Currently- Director of Debate at Cal State Fullerton

I engaged exclusively in what most people called “performance debate.” As a debater, I made similar arguments on both sides of the debate and interrogated what was perceived to be a “topical” discussion from year to year. The arguments consisted of a criticism of “policy debate”, how it functioned, how it impacted particular people, and the implications it had for the people involved in the debate itself. The crux of our arguments investigated performance and methodology, especially in regards to the relevance of those things inside of the debate space. I want to know why what you do is good for debate, as well as for the people/policies impacted by your plan. I say this to let you know the extent and limitations of my technical debate skills and to give you an idea of the debate(s) I am familiar with and the debate(s) I’m not.

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained.

Theory: I’ll vote for it. HOWEVER, I don’t like theory debates that are just blocks or are just spew downs. I like the line by line debate on theory and for the debaters to slow down. I WILL vote on dropped theory arguments- so you better answer them (even if the perm is a test you still need to answer severance).

Disadvantages: I’ll vote for it. Just like the kritik explain your scenario and how it links to the affirmative and we are good.

Topicality: I believe that topicality is about competing interpretations. However, I can be persuaded that topicality is not a voting issue and that normative reasons to vote do outweigh. But in order to win these issues there has to be considerable time spent on these arguments not just blips. I do not necessarily believe all affirmatives have to have a plan text, however, I do believe that you should be able to defend the lack thereof. Again, it is not what you do or do not say, it is what you justify. Affirmatives, if you don’t have a plan or don’t defend the consequences you should have reasons why you shouldn’t have to defend those issues.

A few pieces of advice:
1) Slow down. My ears are not calibrated to the rapid delivery of policy debaters.

2) Read less cards. I think much of what gets read in debates is unnecessary and is usually never even analyzed. I will read cards at the end of the debate only in order to be helpful in my post-round discussion. I prefer to watch and evaluate close readings of evidence rather than the fly-by argumentation that passes itself off as debate. Furthermore, debate for me is about more than empty words, gestures, and actions. It is not only what you say/do. It is also what you justify. That matters more to me than a bunch of random cards you read to fill time.

3) Don’t rely on being tricky or attempting to “out-tech” the other team. In doing so, you will likely out-tech me and your tricks will go unnoticed. I take notes, detailed notes, on every speech but I don’t flow in the conventional manner of lining up argument-for-argument in columns. There is obviously a minimum of technical skills one needs to compete in debate. If a team does not address an entire position or an important nuance emphasized by their opponents then it is unlikely that they will win. For the most part, however, nobody will be “out-teched” in the debates I judge. I will evaluate the debate where it happened rather than where it didn’t happen. This is not merely a personal preference but is, more importantly, a pedagogical intervention on my part designed to force debaters to strive for narrative coherence in grasping and articulating the holistic flow of the debate.

4) I am here to be persuaded. This is a communicative activity. I am not computer, I am a living, breathing person. Pathos+Logos+Ethos=speaker points. I am NOT a point fairy however, I CAN make it rain.

I feel that everyone should know, or at least have an idea of, what their epistemological presuppositions are and be prepared to defend them. Everyone should be prepared to articulate their vision of what debate is and what it could and should be. Also, I think everyone should have a theory of the relationship of debate to the wider institutional landscape. If you feel prepared to deal with these questions in a thoughtful way then you should take me on.

Ben Hagwood Liberty University 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:12 AM PDT

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
Be rude (-.5 point)
Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

Heather Hall Liberty University 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:19 AM EDT

Heather Holter Hall

Hallheather8@gmail.com

Salem and Tallwood High School Debater 1990-93

Liberty University Debater 1993-96

Liberty University Assistant Debate Coach 20+ years

I love this activity and I look forward to meeting you.

For novices:

Congratulations on being at a debate tournament! I like debates with a few pieces of quality research that you can explain well plus some smart logical arguments. You should focus on good explanation of arguments and on getting better at flowing. Putting lots of extra pieces of research that you have never read before into your speech is a waste of your time. I would much rather hear you explain research that you understand, compare that research to your opponent’s research and arguments, and tell me why the plan is either a good or bad idea. The most important comparison in the debate you can make is to tell me whose impacts are bigger, come first, or are more likely.

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, not the speech document. You should highlight and read complete sentences. I do not count sentence fragments as arguments.

If it is an online debate, please make sure you SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech. Please say out loud when you are done with prep time and post how much you have left in the chat. When you say prep time is done, you should be ready to email the speech document immediately.

For everyone else:

I have spent the majority of the last 20 years coaching novice debate. I also judge a lot of novice and jv debates. This means that I am not deep into the lit base for most arguments. My days are full of explaining and re-explaining basic debate theory. You should view me as someone who loves learning something new and the debate as your opportunity to teach me. If you want me to assess arguments based upon previous in-depth knowledge of a particular lit base, you will probably be very disappointed. I love the strategic use of each student’s scholarship but get me on the same page first.

Likewise, the theory debates I am used to judging are pretty basic. I would love to hear a well-developed theory debate at a high level, but you will need to slow down, give full warrants, and not assume that “lit checks” means the same to me as it does to you.

About preferred types of arguments—smart strategy with good support that is clearly communicated usually wins. I prefer consistent, thoughtful strategies with a few well developed arguments, but, sadly, I have voted for negatives who won simply by overwhelming the 2AC with skimpy highlighting of 7 off case positions.

I have voted for everything, but I do not judge alternate formats of debates often so you will probably want to slow down, make well developed arguments, and assume I do not know. As long as I am judging and there is a win to assign, my main assumption is that every team is playing the game, maybe in different ways, but still just playing the game. I can only make decisions based on words or actions in a particular debate. I will not begin to speculate about another person’s motive or intentions--that is a job for someone else.

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, including cx. I will reference the speech doc, BUT if I can’t understand your words or if the words you say do not make grammatically complete sentences, they won’t make it on my flow and only my flow counts. Likewise, if you are hedging the debate on a warrant buried three sentences deep in the fourth card by Smith, you will need to say more than “extend Smith here.” The more concrete and specific your warrants are, the more likely you are to persuade me.

If it is an online debate, you need to SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech. Yes, this has happened more than once lol. Don’t steal prep—it is obvious and annoying.

Feel free to strike me. I am not offended at all if you think I am not a good judge for you. Hopefully, I still get a chance to meet you at a tournament and chat.

Finally, I hope you all have a great tournament, learn new things, think deeply, speak well, meet fascinating people, and win lots of debates (unless you are debating my teams)! Have fun and please say hi in between debates!

Michael Hall Liberty University 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:35 AM EDT

Michael Hall - Updated 9/15/22

Liberty University

28 Years coaching

Upfront, you should know that I've only judged a handful of debates over the last two years and those were intrasquad practice debates Second, I've developed slight hearing loss that makes it harder for me to pick out voices when there's background noise.

For the email chain: mprestonhall@gmail.com

The comments below reflect how I'm likely to things left to my own devices, but I do my best to evaluate the debate on the arguments made in the round.

Theory: I am not tabula-rosa. Minimally, each argument should contain a claim, some support (evidentiary or otherwise), and an impact. That said, I do my best to minimize my substantive preferences and therefore find myself voting for positions I don’t particularly like. I attempt to use the decision calculus most persuasively advocated by the debaters.

Topicality: I tend to see topicality as a contest of competing interpretations. I probably vote on T more often than most judges and have no problem voting against "core affirmatives" when the negative has a superior interpretation of the topic. I'm most easily persuaded to vote on T when the negative team develop arguments based on a comparison of ground offered under each interpretation of the resolution. I tend to find in-round abuse arguments less persuasive as its hard to determine whether the negative should have a right to those arguments without first establishing a coherent division of aff/neg ground. I am usually more persuaded by arguments about the quantity and quality of affs allowed by each interpretation and the negative's ability to access a core set of negative arguments. Topicality is by nature exclusionary.

Counterplans: I enjoy debates with creative counterplans tailored to specific affirmatives. The affirmative should be prepared to defend the entirety of the plan, and plan inclusive counterplans are one way of making them do so.

I’ve found myself voting against conditional counterplans a little more often in recent years, which I attribute to the quality of the negative’s defense of conditionality rather than a change in my CP leanings. If the negative justifies the conditional nature of the counterplan, other theory arguments are reasons to reject the counterplan not the team.

The text of the counterplan and all permutations should be written out. Trying to win a perm that doesn’t include all of the plan or that contains action not contained in the plan or counterplan is nearly impossible.

Kritikal Debate: I've found myself becoming much less dogmatic about the need for affirmatives to have topical plan texts. I don't know if I can pinpoint why, but I think it's partially due to conversations with various Liberty coaches and debaters and partially due to my own reading interests gravitating more toward critiques of the enlightenment and religious critiques of capitalism. I can certainly be persuaded to vote negative on framework but debaters should no longer assume it’s a hard default.

I don't think much has changed about the way I evaluate negative K strategies. Like any other part of the negative strategy, the more you tailor your link arguments to the affirmative in question, the more likely I am to find your arguments persuasive. Likewise, an overview that details how the kritik turns the affirmative’s solvency, outweighs the case, etc. would be more helpful than several more impact cards.

Style: Given what I wrote in the first two sentences, this is section of my philosophy almost certainly the most important for you remember during the debate. Things you should know in descending order of importance: (1) I am a better critic for those who collapse the debate in the block and 2NR than for those who go for most of their 1NC arguments into the 2NR. (2) I am a better critic for debaters who emphasize clarity over speed. I’ve found this to be especially true in paperless rounds where everyone in the debate except for the judge is reading along with the speech doc. Again, my hearing isn't what it used to be making the need for clarity even more important. I’ll give you verbal and nonverbal signals if I can’t understand you. (3) I have come to the conclusion that the more evidence I read, the less my decisions have reflected the arguments made by the debaters. As a result, I try to read fewer cards after a debate and am more easily persuaded to see a debate through the lens that allows me to do so. (4) If you think an argument is important, find a way to set it apart from the rest of the debate.

Prep time: Prep time stops when the speech doc is emailed.

Sherry Hall Harvard 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 4:15 PM UTC

Sherry Hall, Harvard, Judging Philosophy, East Region
Judged multiple College rounds this year.

Please add me to the doc chain: hallsherry2@gmail.com

I view my role as a debate judge as a "critic of argument." This means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is to act as an educator grading a class presentation. But Collegiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting as a "referee" or official who keeps time, and resolves disputes over the "rules". In resolving debates that focus on the "rules" - is topicality a voting issue, are PICs legitimate, must the negative provide an alternative - I tend to evaluate those questions based on the impact that they have on education and competitive equity.

I consider clash against the opponent’s ideas as one of the most important standards by which to evaluate whether or not a particular argument or practice is “good” or “bad” for debate. I do think that for the activity to continue to progress, creativity in arguments and debating styles is a good thing that should be encouraged. I also think that teams which are employing innovations, such as a “performance is all that matters” strategy, will do better with me if the debaters can isolate what standards I should use to evaluate rounds in this new way, and/or what ground is left to the other team. A strategy or performance that leaves nothing for the other team to respond to undermines the goal of competitive equity.

I have a few theoretical preferences, though none is so strong that I cannot be convinced to set it aside despite the arguments in the round. I will list some of these preferences, but the debaters should keep in mind, that these issues still need to be argued, and the side that plays into my preferences, still needs to articulate the reasons why a particular argument should be accepted or rejected.
1. I strongly believe that if asked, the affirmative must specify who does the plan. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor, means that the affirmative gets to choose. The whole purpose of having a debate where the negative can clash meaningfully with the affirmative case is lost, if the affirmative can say what their plan does after they have heard the negative strategy.
2. Almost all negative teams these days reflexively declare that the counterplan is conditional. I have seen many rounds this year where that unthinking choice has cost the neg the round. If you have a legitimate reason for your arguments to be conditional and you are prepared to defend it, go for it, but I think it is a bad idea to say that your arguments are conditional when they don’t need to be – you just open yourself up to more ways to lose. My preference is against conditionality. For the same reason that I think the affirmative has to say what their plan does for the negative to meaningfully clash with that plan, the affirmative needs to know what their plan and case is being compared to, in order to effectively clash with the negative’s arguments. It is not enough that the negative will pick one strategy by the end of the round, because too much time has been wasted on arguments that are irrelevant. More importantly, the presence of a counterplan in the round changes how the affirmative answers disadvantages and case arguments. If the negative can drop the counterplan later in the round, the affirmative cannot go back and re-give the 2AC. I think that the debate is better if both sides clearly stake out their ground and their positions from the beginning and the rest of the debate focuses on which is better.

3. I have a mixed voting record in "race" and "identity" debates. I am open to the arguments that they deserve a place in debate. However, I am not familiar with a lot of the literature, and I can therefore feel a little lost understanding some of the vernacular. It is better to explain arguments rather than to rely on terms that I am unfamiliar with. I prefer arguments that have some nexus to the topic or the other team's arguments for the reasons I outlined above when discussing my feelings on clash.

In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round.
1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a “learning environment”. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence – loss and zero speaker points.
2. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents.

Garrett Halydier Liberty University 8 rounds

Garrett Halydier – Judging Philosophy

Experience: Four year debater with Liberty University.
Coached two years as a college judge and coach at Liberty

General Philosophy: Debate is a game and arguments are tools to win. Plans must be topical. Kritik’s are a useful debate tool when they have a policy alternative, but I am not the best judge for a performance or personal advocacy which I feel harm the “game” aspect of debate, and under my interpretation of debate, potentially trivialize the advocacy by making it simply a tool to win.

Argument Preferences: T, DA’s, CP’s, Case, and K’s
T and Theory: It must have an interpretation, and reasonability requires a counter-interpretation so I know what to be reasonable about. T is not a reverse voting issue, it is not genocidal, and ground could probably access all of the other standards.

DA’s: Run them, but please not stupid ones that don’t link.
Politics and Biz-con are well received.

CP’s: Conditional, unconditional, PIC, whatever – and as long as the CP is competitive – i.e. answer the perm – the CP is usually theoretically safe.
CP’s should be debated on their net-benefits and solvency potential.
Perms, especially clever perms, are good arguments – unless they are amorphous, unexplainable and turn out to be Do the CP.
CP and DA is a great strategy for the 2NR

Case: Case defense and case turns can be an integral part of every debate, and winning a DA and case turns can definitely be a reason to vote neg. Affs: Ans case – it is your most vital property

K’s: Critical arguments that undermine or question the assumptions of the plan are fine if they have a policy alternative that requires an action different from the plan. Much like permutations, amorphous alternatives are anathema to my view of debate. Performance debaters and personal advocates: policy debate is good, debate bad arguments are counterintuitive, fiat does not actually exist but it is an exercise of our imagination that allows us to argue intelligently about possible futures.

Other tidbits:

Organization is great: the line-by-line only helps
Analyze the cards for me: I may read them after round but I don’t believe I should have to
1AR Disco: Sometimes fun but gets old real quick, and it requires a heck of a lot of judge work,
though a fine strategy in the case of the rare emergency.

Aaron Hardy Northwestern University 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:57 AM MDT

It's been a number of years since I've been an active coach or judge, so keep that in mind if your arguments rely on super deep background knowledge about the current year's topic. That said, I've judged many, many hundreds of debates in both college and high school, including the final rounds of most major college national tournaments; I'll work my hardest to keep up.

Meta Stuff

1) I think debates should be about the topic. This sentiment applies equally to affirmatives that don't want to discuss the topic and negatives that try to avoid clashing with the affirmative.

2) I am committed to the value of switch-side debating. I do not confuse my personal ideological beliefs with the educational value of an activity where we learn argumentation on complex issues.

3) I think that your choices about debate should reflect the value of hard work, not take shortcuts to avoid research, clash, or nuanced argument.

4) Technique matters more than the truth, but the closer your arguments hew to reality, the more likely they are to be persuasive.

5) Evaluation and comparison of your research materials is an intrinsic part of my judging. It’s the only grounded and non-capricious way to adjudicate clash.

6) Offense/Defense – The debate is a math equation, and I try hard to solve it in a consistent fashion. Never underestimate the power of introducing 0 or infinity as a term in the equation – there’s a universe of difference between 99 and 100%. It’s to your benefit to guide my decision with explicit evaluation frameworks.

7) Alternate use time if debaters ask unanimously

8) Impact defense is underrated, especially against particularly silly impacts. I’m also sympathetic to arguments related to relative impact evidence quality – a 6 word Mead card doesn’t constitute an argument.

9) CP competition – As a general guideline, I think CP’s shouldn’t contain a world where the entire plan could happen. I don’t think the affirmative is bound to defend either “immediacy” or “certainty” unless spoken to explicitly by the plan.

10) Reversion – If the 2NR extends a CP, I am willing to revert to the status quo if the CP isn’t competitive or doesn’t solve – but ONLY if the 2NR explicitly flags this as an option and explains why I should do so. And, the 2AR can obviously make arguments about why I shouldn’t. It is not sufficient for the neg to only say “the CP is conditional” or “SQ is a logical option” earlier in the debate and expect me to do the reversion on my own. I have found that this would lead me to vote negative too often. Basically, I’m willing to revert – but there’s a high threshold for the 2NR to set it up.

11) In my experience, if the neg exits the block without harm-related defense to the aff, they usually lose.

Critiques

1) I prefer when they’re not used as a shortcut to avoid topic-specific education. I don’t think winning the affirmative is “flawed” means the neg wins – I think you need offense for why voting aff is bad in order for the critique to be a a reason to vote for you, and I think that offense needs to outweigh the aff.

2) In general, I am unpersuaded by the (usually analytic) argument that the existence of a net benefit for a CP means it must link to the aff’s K.

Stupid arguments

I will listen to any argument you'd like to make, but there are a limited number of arguments which I think extensive community experience has proven over time to be particularly bad for both fairness and the educative value of the activity. As such, I am extremely unlikely to vote on them, and pursuing these lines of argumentation are likely to result in poor speaker points. 2AC's should feel free to dismiss these arguments with maximum flippancy. My current list includes:

1) Aspec and all derivatives

2) Consult CP's

3) Disclosure theory

Casey Harrigan Michigan State University 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 3, 2021 at 3:54 PM EDT

Casey Harrigan

University of Kentucky; 14th year judging; Updated March 2021

Please add me to the doc chain: charrigan@gmail.com

2021 Alliance Topic Updates

1. Assurance is singular, not plural. Like Deterrence.

2. ‘Can I get a copy of the doc [with cards marked / with only the cards you read]?’ – Sure, if you use your prep time for it.

3. ‘Did you read X card?’ – this is CX, not untimed twilight zone

4. I am very lenient when it comes to making adjustments to accommodate online debating. If you need to stop your speech, pause your prep, stop your opponent’s speech because you can’t hear, etc., that is fine. We’re all just out here doing our best.

5. Solvency ‘advocates’ – it is not enough to have a harm and say that is existence implies the opposite, thus solvency. It is also not enough to have a card that says the MDT as currently designed is bad. You need a card that says the United States should do something different toward the alliance. Affs that don't have this have a hard time beating CPs….and solving.

6. My typical decision process:

a) If there are any theory / procedural / T arguments, resolve this first. That seems logical, and if I am voting on them, it saves a lot of decision time.

b) Move to whatever issue appears to be most decisive. Usually something like an advantage that one team appears to be far ahead on, a DA the neg seems to be winning, a CP that looks to solve a lot of the case, etc. This is also for decision efficiency – deciding one issue can clarify the overall debate.

c) Move page-by-page, deciding each. I actively try to check for and counteract confirmation bias – as humans, we want to find ways to resolve conflict and want to generate ‘easy’ decisions. It is natural to want to decide that the DA is small if the case is large or vice versa. I actively try to set aside arguments that I have previously decided when moving to the next.

d) Argument weighting is something like 50% debating, 50% evidence quality. I have spent a lot of time researching the alliances topic and sometimes find it hard to give much credence to arguments that appear to me to be factual incorrect or egregiously false. I do admit to being ‘truthier’ at times that I would like to ideally be; it’s a work in progress. 50/50 is the goal.

e) In very close debates, I do think it is helpful to ‘write a ballot for each team’. Not literally, of course. No one has time for that. But, instead, thinking through the series of decisions that are required to vote for each time and considering which has stronger justifications. The act of considering how an alternative ballot could be cast, why, and then for what reasons should that ballot not be chosen is helpful. For me, at least.

7. K vs Policy? I do not believe there is a difference between these, nor do I have any preference.

Older

-- I enjoy all types of debate and have spent a significant amount of time recently working on K stuff on both sides. I also have been deep in the space topic lit and feel ready to judge a technical debate on most of the core mechanics of the topic. It is said often by many, but I really think it is true for me: do your thing, don’t over adapt to me, don’t think that I have strong immutable beliefs about debate/argument based on what you know about me. I, like everyone, do have preferences and prior assumptions about lots of things. They are easily overridden by good debating. I have often voted for arguments that I personally believe are terrible because one team debated better than the other. If you lose to a bad argument, that means you should debate better, not that I should correct for you by suggesting to the other team that their argument is actually bad.

-- I like my paragraphs breaks uncondensed, font to be Times New Roman, highlighting to be blue, and dashes to be tripled. I prefer A2: over AT: out of habit, though it is probably a little too cool-kid-Y2K to be actually correct.

-- I am probably not who you think I am. I was the only person at MSU who enjoyed reading the T.A. McKinney DRG article on Intrinsicness, the only person who wanted to write 2NR blocks on the Fromm 64 Death K, and the only person who wrote ‘growth is bad because diversionary war against North Korea is good’. I am sure that I have opinions about debate that no one else at UK shares. People are more than the name of the school that follows their name and more than what debate’s 4-year-long institutional memories pigeonhole them to be.

-- I prefer to be on the doc chain during the debate and do read docs occasionally during speeches and especially during CX. Yes, I still flow (and I think I flow pretty well since transitioning to using a laptop – would be willing to have a flow-off with anyone. Flowing gauntlet thrown down). No, I don’t let the cards do debating for you even though I have read them. I can both know things are facts and simultaneously know what arguments were and were not made well in debate. I read all the cards in the debate because I want to provide feedback that is as helpful as possible and I want to see if you have good cards that I should go cut later, not because I need to see all the cards to decide who won or lost.

-- I prefer that plans contain a degree of specificity. To me, a plan that simply says ‘the USFG should cooperate with China on X’ does not convey enough information about the mechanism of action to produce a debate of the highest quality on this topic and I would prefer that the plan state how that cooperation should occur or by what means it would be induced. If teams do not choose to specify in the plan or CX, it seems reasonable to allow that matter to be determined by evidence that describes normal means, which either team can introduce. I believe this introduces a strategic cost that is real and should be exploited by more negative teams and could counteract trends toward non-specificity better than relying on Vagueness as a theory argument.

Paul Hayes George Washington University 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 17, 2014 at 11:20 PM GMT

The topic

Short story: I’m no longer a good judge for you if you don’t want to defend the topic on the affirmative, as I have come to believe the increasing tendency of teams to avoid topical debate is eroding the value proposition offered by policy debate. I am willing to try to strike myself from judging teams who deem this problematic. gwdebate.hayes@gmail.com

Longer story: I returned to debate believing that I should give a fair chance to the various approaches, styles and formats. Since my return, and over the last year in particular, I’ve come to the conclusion that although debate in all of its forms has value, the value proposition offered by research-based, extended preparation debate—as compared to other, less costly forms of debate—is severely eroded if we are unable to establish a focal point for our research that divides the available literature and arguments with some semblance of fairness. I also believe that teams can use topical affs to access most of the issues they’d like to talk about and that learning how to do this is valuable education.

If affirmatives are making an attempt to defend the topic, I am generally lenient on T, particularly if the Aff accesses important topic education that is otherwise being ignored.

Plan focus

I have a strong tendency to assume that the plan is the focus of the round. If you are on the negative, it is essential that you explain how your arguments—particularly your critical arguments—relate to and are a reason to reject plan.

The rest

Win an argument. Convince me it's the most important thing in the round.

Treat your opponents with respect.

Try to speak in complete sentences.

I like clever Affs and counterplans that demonstrate a sound grasp of policymaking.

I like debates that mirror the discussions in the literature, and that might be heard outside of the debate community.

I dislike the notion that different rules of logic and evidence apply in debate as opposed to every other professional and academic forum with which I'm familiar.

David Heidt Michigan 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:10 PM EDT

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

Avery Henry Wayne State University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 8:23 PM UTC

Debate Background: I am currently the Director of Forensics at Florida State University. My educational training is in rhetoric and my debate background is heavily influenced by policy debate. The past six years I have coached and judged BP, civic, IPDA, Lincoln-Douglass, NEDA (traditional and crossfire), NPDA, and policy debate. Prior to that, I competed, coached, and judged in policy debate. Participating in all of these formats has shaped my general views on debate.

My general view of debate:

I think that affirmatives should defend the resolution and that the negative should engage and refute the affirmatives. I am interested in arguments not argument types. I am thrilled to listen to good arguments, bring out your best research be it competing policy options, critiquing the form of debate, challenging the team's discourse, ideology, or methods, topicality, or theory. If you have me as your judge bring your best argument rather than try to adapt to what you think I might like.

Flowing info:

I flow debates with paper and pen. I only look at the speech doc during the round to clarify information for my flow or if something is being referenced in cross-ex. Additionally, I will not use the speech doc to fill in arguments that I could not clearly hear.

Things to know when debating in front of me (I'll update this as I figure out more):

Permutations need a full explanation. "Perm: Do Both" is not an argument. You do not get to say three words in one speech and then elaborate on it in a later speech. If you are trying to make a permutation then you need to develop your full argument and explain how the arguments are being done together and how they are not mutually exclusive in the speech.

I am open to form arguments on debate. For example, a negative team has 2 counterplans, 2 disads, and 2 kritiks that all contradict each other, the affirmative reads evidence about how speech acts must be viewed as a totality, conditionality does not exist, and argues that this means that judges cannot separate arguments. Then the negative can't simply say the arguments are conditional and kick out of the arguments that they want. To win the neg would have to win that speech acts are separable, conditionality does exist, and therefore they are kicking out of arguments.

James Herndon Emory University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 2:01 PM EDT

James H. Herndon - FORMER Director of Debate - Barkley Forum @ Emory University

[prefer to be called Herndon - pronouns are he/him/his. Email is jamesherndon3]

2020 update:

I left the game because I wanted to spend more time with my family. Wow, did I get that #ThanksCovid My relationship with debate was not conducive to being the father, husband, and member of my community I wanted to be. But, virtual judging is easy enough. So, why not.

What else is different - I don’t do debate research anymore, I do a lot of economic/financial research now, I do a lot of tech/zoom/Webex presentations.

In my experience I find it easier to listen/follow along when I can see people’s faces (that’s not possible for everyone, so it’s not a judgement thing) but if it can be when speaking it may aid my comprehension.

————————

everything from Jan 2019
If I am judging you and you are freaking out about it, believe there is no way I would ever vote for you, or are just generally making assumptions about my world view, then I ask you to keep in mind that the following list are things I think I think. I have been wrong more often than I have been right. I will do my best to evaluate the debate neutrally. I view myself as an adjudicator first, and do my best to neutrally evaluate the arguments as defended in front of me. I will vote for anything

Though, like all educators I have biases, those follow.

These statements are things I believe to be true about my judging. They aren't rules. But, it is better to disclose:

1. Debate is a game. I view all theory arguments through this lens.
2. If I don’t understand it at the end of the round then I am not going to vote on it.
3. The Aff should have to defend a plan or advocacy statement that they can defend is topical.
4. Topic related critical literature should be debated.
5. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
6. I will reward good cross-x with speaker points.
7.. I tend to evaluate the strength of the link in tandem with uniqueness – neither exists in a vacuum.
8. Counterplans always switch presumption to the aff.
9. I will NOT kick counterplans for the negative. The 2nr is allowed to present me with a reason to vote for them, that is where the debating ended. If the neg says to kick the cp and the aff doesn’t answer it I will kick it. Absent that, I am not kicking arguments for one team. This applies to all speeches.
10. Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applys to everything.
11. literature shapes the topic. and what you get to do with it.
14. Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of.
15. There is value to life.

16. I am not qualified to evaluate people in the round for or about things that happen outside of the round. Intentions are important & I give people the benefit of the doubt too often for my own good.

17. I feel like fiating the states + federal government might be a step too far. I haven't heard a great debate on this, but since this is for my biases, thought I'd include it. That being said, state fiat is probably okay if there are solvency cards for what you are doing.

18. limited condo is good. the neg's job is to disprove the aff or win a competitive policy option. That being said, if the aff can prove that conditionality was used in a way that undermined the value or competitive fairness of the debate, it is a voting issue.

19. topicality is under-utilized against policy teams and over-utilized vs K teams.

20. future fiat illegit.

Good luck.

Alex Hughes Liberty University 8 rounds

Craig Hughes
Years Debating: 2 years (in college)

I am currently a graduate student at Liberty University. I debated for two years and have been judging on and off since. I consider debate to be a game, but that doesn't mean you can't try to convince me otherwise. I'm open to many forms of debate, but keep in mind where my starting point is: It's a game to be won. If you want to play by different rules, convince me why yours are better. That's what they call framework. I'll vote on it when I have to. Be sure to argue your points well. Just reading blocks isn't going to be enough... after the 1AC/1NC at least.

Topicality: I'll vote on topicality if you tell me why I should, i.e. have a voter issue extended to the last speech. Remember, just because there's a question as to whether they are topical or not doesn't mean I automatically vote against them. Violations, standards, interpretations, all that jazz. Very important, so don't forget them.

Kritiks: I'm not in the literature as much as some other judges, so you'll have to do a good job explaining the story here. Don't just read your frontlines and blocks: explain the arguments here. Remember: I don't know what you're saying, necessarily. If I don't understand the argument, it's basically impossible for me to vote for you. As for Affs - don't think I forgot about you - I think weighing your case impacts against their kritikal impacts is a solid strategy, and don't forget everything else you've learned in debate - no links, link turns, and the like can be powerful, but I do understand a lot of kritiks will link to... basically everything. So keep some offense with you to the end of the round.

Counterplans: Go for it. As with most stuff, though, make sure key parts of your arguments are made clear: Net benefits, your mechanism, etc. I am sympathetic to affs when it comes to stuff like certain kinds of PICs, agent and consult CPs and the like, but that doesn't mean you can't run them. Just be prepared to defend yourself against theory. Perms can be powerful tools - but be sure to explain how they work as much as the neg has to explain their counterplan text and such. Also: tell me how you want to evaluate the perm. Test of competition? An advocacy? Tell me, or i'll just assume you're using it as a test of competition.

Disads: Not sure what there is to say here. Avoid contradicting yourself with certain kritiks and CP stuff. They're disads, unless you're running a K, you're probably running them.

Theory: Same as topicality, basically. I'm usually fine with negs having one conditional CP or K, when it gets to multiple conditional advocacies, though, I start to get aff sympathetic. Also: don't just speed-read through your blocks and expect me to weigh every last word equally. If theory is going beyond the first two blocks, you need to slow down and communicate it effectively.

Case: Affs - don't forget case is your most powerful weapon in round. Neg - if you're going to try to ignore case... be really confident in what you're going for. REALLY confident.

Don't be afraid of cheap shots and punishing the other team for bad drops, by the way. They're fun, and that's part of debate.

In the end, I like to think I will make my decision based on the flow, no matter the argument made. This is, however, my flow, so if I don't hear, if I don't understand, or if I somehow miss a key argument you're making and it's not on my flow, I can't vote based on it, can I? That also said - I don't fall asleep or goof off when I'm judging a round. If I missed an argument, you either weren't loud enough, weren't clear enough, or just didn't spend enough time reminding me of how important it is - i.e. don't mumble some aside and expect me to weigh it against their well explained, well evidenced arguments in a favorable way.

Finally - If you are going to ask me to vote based on my person - i.e. you want my vote to symbolize supporting this movement or this ideal, or something similar, I am going to vote based on my personal views on things, for the better or worse for you. So don't ask me to personally endorse racism or violence or sexism what-have-you. If you want to run an argument like Spark or Wipeout that's fine - as I said, to me, debate is a game. If you want to change the rules, though, and have me vote on my personal standpoints, then I will do just that.

Eli Jacobs Harvard 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 16, 2024 at 2:15 AM UTC

2020: The last college policy debate I judged was in 2013. I have not been following argumentative trends and know very little about the topic. If I can’t understand your argument from your speeches, I will not read your evidence to try to piece it together.

While the information below still seems reasonable to me, I have been away from the activity long enough that I suspect my preferences have probably changed in unpredictable ways. So tread carefully.

2013: I'll vote on almost anything. You should do what you feel gives you the best chance to win. But here are some things:

1) Evidence very rarely speaks for itself. Most of the time, arguments are necessary to tie a piece of evidence to the debate. As a result, I will vote based on the arguments debaters make, not the cards they read. Ideally, I would read zero cards after each debate.

2) Strategy is more important than technique. No argument is “dropped” if it is answered by an overarching meta-argument. That being said, packaging really matters. If debaters don't successfully communicate their strategic approach or its implications for other arguments, I'm not going to put things together for them.

3) I like to decide, not compromise. My decisions tend to be full of "the aff/neg won this" and not "the aff/neg won a risk of this". There are situations where risk is appropriate (when there are multiple warrants in a uniqueness debate, for example, with each side winning some warrants and losing others, there could be a risk that X bill will pass), but these are atypical. This means that there is not "always a risk" of a DA.

4) Side bias: in college debates in 2011-12, I was 22-19 for the neg. Pretty even, but I do think I have some fairly systematic tendencies, at the margins. I'm better for the aff in good debates - since the 2ar knows exactly what they need to beat to win their important positions. Conversely, I'm better for the neg in mediocre debates - since mediocre teams tend not to identify the crucial points in the debate until the final speeches, at which point important framing arguments (like impact calculus, for example) tend to be "new," and I have a pretty strong predisposition towards protecting the 2nr.

Theory

I don’t really think I have any strong side biases. However, I pretty firmly believe that the purpose of debate is education. This doesn’t mean that theory arguments about fairness are unimportant; they just need to be impacted in terms of education to be persuasive to me.

Framework

I think a lot of framework arguments are silly. The implementation of a plan is important, but the methodology, assumptions, rhetoric, etc. that underlie and justify a proposal cannot be separated from its content. The relevant question is the relative importance of each component of policy formulation. I think debaters should argue about the relative significance of all these components of an advocacy. I don’t tend to find theory arguments about how it’s unfair to think about representations even if they’re important to be that persuasive – see above theory thing. Similarly, it's hard to persuade me to consider representations exclusively and ignore the plan.

That being said, I think having lived in our nation's capital for a year will change the way I evaluate these debates. The government is a complex bureaucracy that has a lot of inertia and vested interests in the status quo. It's really hard to change policy, much less the fundamental way we conceive of policy decisions. This is purely speculative, but I think this means that I'll be a bit less eager to dismiss small but not paradigm-altering changes as insignificant.

CPs

My predisposition is that a CP competes with the plan. CPs that compete by defining words in the topic but don’t compete with the plan text are, in my opinion, not competitive.

Another of my predispositions is that the 2NR needs to choose what their final position is. If the 2NR extends a CP that's worse than a bad plan, I'll vote aff unless instructed otherwise. "The status quo is always an option", to me, means that the 2NR can choose to advocate the status quo.

Liz Jones Louisville 2 rounds

Aaron Kall Michigan 1 rounds

Director of Debate at The University of Michigan

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.

Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.

Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.

Seasonal voting record:

Kevin Kallmyer Georgetown 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 23, 2016 at 8:41 PM UTC

2016 NDT Update:

The NDT will be my first tournament of the season. Two points you might be wondering: 1) topic familiarty, 2) current thoughts on judging:

--Very familiar with the literature, and pretty familiar with the arguments teams have been making and the core strategies. I'm not familiar with any argument norms that have developed. Takeaway: You don't need to teach me about the topic, but might have to teach me about your T or CP competition argument, and the year's arg trends that make an argument seem logical or terrible to you. Please use c-x and frame your arguments appropriately.

--As I reflect on judging debate, I think the single most important factor to me is the credibility of the debater. It's why I find well-researched, technical arguments so persuasive, but why I'll also vote on a counter-intuitive argument if the debater has complete ownership over it -- both of those signal the debater's credibility. Likewise, if I watch an unprepared debater extend the perfect strategy without any in-depth knowledge of why the strategy works, I won't find that strategy very credible -- your argument is great, but you as a debater are a joke...The point is: whatever your strategy is, you'll be more likely to win if you demonstrate you own that argument and your opponents are out of their depth. Evidence comparison, focused, in depth and technical cross-exs, having evidence supremacy and specificity, clarity in both your speed and in your description of args, etc. are all factors here -- but they matter in relation to that overarching goal. Whatever your path to victory is, own it and who cares about the rest. Now, this big picture issue in no way substitutes for winning that technical debate and the line by line, but it sure will influence how I resolve those more granular issues.

---Philosophy (2010)

General Thoughts

-Debate should be characterized by hard work, well-researched strategies and clash.

-Debate is a communication activity. Both speaker points and the weight arguments have in my decision may be affected by how those arguments were communicated. Incoherent introduction of arguments undermines those arguments persuasiveness.

-Evidence: Smart arguments win. The minimum standard for a relevant argument is a claim, warrant and impact. Smart and intuitive analytic arguments can easily meet this threshold and evidence often doesn't meet this threshold. Evidence that is over-highlighted may not constitute “evidence” in any meaningful definition of the term.

-Execution: High quality evidence can significantly impact my decision, but cannot substitute for poor debating. I keep returning to my flow throughout making a decision and am very paranoid about making a decision that does not reflect the debating in the final rebuttals. As a result, there are very few rounds where I made a decision that one team’s evidence quality overwhelmed another team’s argumentation in the final rebuttal. However, a reason for this trend is that debaters have, to their detriment, rarely made appeals to evidence quality. When debating on a particular issue is very close (generally because arguments are contested in a good debate, or because debaters are just making contrary assertions in a bad debate) I often resolve that debate through evidence quality.

-Offense/Defense: Its a useful way to conceptualize arguments and strategy, but sometimes over-emphasized. Every team needs offense to win a debate, but teams don’t necessarily need offense on every flow to win a debate. I’ve always been confused by the negative argument that the aff cannot win because they don’t have offense on a disad—their offense is the case. Win your stuff beats their stuff and I’ll vote for you.

-Risk: It is very unlikely that there is literally “no risk” of an argument, but I can persuaded that the risk is so low that a rational policymaker should consider the risk negligible. Often, the phrase “only a risk” is code for “we don't have a real answer to their arguments,” the phrase simply begs the question what degree of risk.

-Default: Is the topical plan preferable to the status quo or a competitive policy option. This default could be changed, but that is likely an uphill battle.

-Mishandled Arguments: As a judge, I vote for a team. I vote for an argument. For example, if the affirmative drops a disad, I don't vote on "the aff dropped the disad;" I vote for the disad, which was not answered by the aff. I think this is more than a semantic distinction. If a team drops an argument you should not just say, "they dropped X" and move on. You should couple that with some minimal extension of the argument and its impact for how the arg should influence my decision.

Argument-Specific Thoughts

-Topicality—I enjoy smart, well-researched topicality arguments and dislike topicality arguments disconnected from topic research. Negatives will be best served by winning the affirmative interpretation is unreasonable. Reasonability is not “T is not a voter”—the aff needs to prove that their interpretation solves most of the neg’s offense and explain a disad to voting for only a slightly better interpretation. A case does not become topical by being run throughout the year. In round abuse is a stupid standard.

-Counterplans—Net-benefits should be net-benefits—the fact that a plan links more to a net-benefit is not enough if the CP is sufficient to trigger the link, unless the negative made arguments on how to evaluate link thresholds. Affirmatives should impact their permutations in the 2AC to explain why it makes the CP not competitive or they have not yet made a complete argument (“perm do the CP” isn’t a complete argument, “perm do the CP-it’s a way the plan could be implemented” is). If the 2NR goes for a counterplan I will only evaluate the plan vs. the counterplan unless the 2NR explicitly makes an argument that I can and should evaluate the status quo if the CP is not competitive or the best policy option.
-Theory—
---I increasingly think that affirmatives would be well-served attacking the competitiveness of counterplan's that change a non-mandated process of the plan's implementation. For agent/international counterplans, I'm often unsure why these are relevant to my decision-making.
---Interpretations on theory debates are generally arbitrary and unhelpful unless they provide a coherent view for debate practices.
---Conditionality is likely good, but unconstrained conditionality might be excessive.

-Disadvantages—Explain what your turns the case arguments are--do they solve the case or take out case solvency (this is relevant to how I view "try or die" arguments). I don’t think that "controlling" the link creates a risk of uniqueness and vice versa, but do think that the link is more relevant to the overall risk of the disad. A politics disad presents an opportunity cost to the plan if there is a coherent link and internal link story.

-Critique Stuff
---Plan-less affirmatives—I am *very*unlikely to be persuaded that these are fair. I also think it’s worthwhile to learn how to improve government policymaking. Even if a team doesn’t read a plan, it makes sense to me that you can debate the merits of their advocacy and its affects, and that those consequences shape whether I should or should not endorse that advocacy.
---Critical affirmatives—I don’t see much of a distinction between policy and critical impacts. If you say your plan is good for x, y and z reason, then you should be able to win in front of me. I don’t have much of a disposition on the substance of these affs.
---Critiques—Critiques that seek to disprove the plan and apply their general theory to the specific causal claims made by the 1AC are great arguments, and shockingly rare.

-Things to be aware of
---Specification arguments need to demonstrate that the topic necessitates debate of specific implementation questions to have a complete and educational discussion of the plan for me to vote on them.
---Stock issues. They still exist. I will vote on presumption if there is a negligible risk of the case, or if the case is not inherent. Presumption goes to less change. Burden of proof is on the team introducing the argument.

Paul Kanellopoulos Harvard 4 rounds

I used to have a really long philosophy that listed most of my feelings towards certain arguments. After a year, I’ve found that what I believe has become increasingly irrelevant when I evaluate debates. I’ve decided instead to list a couple of general principles that are important to me and that I like to see in debates.

(1) The debate is for the debaters – My overall philosophy is pretty simple: You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. I really don’t care what arguments you make as long as they are good. I would much rather see you debate your best going for an argument you like and feel comfortable with than try to adapt to my argumentative proclivities.

(2) Framing is important – Tell me how you would like me to evaluate arguments. Make comparisons and distinctions. Framing the debate controls how I go about making my decision. The more you do it and the better you are at it, the better place you will be in. Engaging the other team’s arguments and guiding how I should evaluate them in comparison to yours makes my decision really easy. Making a debate messy, on the other hand, makes it less likely my decision will make any sense.

(3) Debate is a speaking activity

(a) Speed and clarity – Speed is fine, blippiness is not. Clarity is your friend. I like to think that I am able to keep up with even the fastest debaters. But distinguishing between arguments and fully explaining them is a must if you expect me to keep a fair record of what happened in the debate.

(b) Evidence – I will read your evidence, but you need to do more than simply reference that you HAVE evidence in the rebuttals. Don’t expect me to extract warrants from your cards that are not highlighted in rebuttals. If you think it’s important enough for me to base my decision off of it, then it should probably be in the speech.

(4) Kritiks/arguments that don’t involve plans – most relevant things I have to say are covered in sections (1) and (2). However, I will say that if you are making an argument that doesn’t involve or rely on a pure, reductive USFG-centric approach to fiat then it would be in your best interest to very clearly articulate what the role of the ballot is and why that should be the role of the ballot. What is my decision supposed to accomplish and what should I evaluate in making that decision.

(5) Speaker points – I will follow any guidelines that tournaments provide me. Beyond that, I will assign speaker points based on a holistic evaluation on how I think the debaters in the debate did. I don’t think that I can really mechanistically list all of the factors that I will use beyond this: if you sound good and do smart things in debates you will be rewarded.

Fred Karem Harvard 5 rounds None

Joe Keeton Vanderbilt University 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 20, 2018 at 9:40 AM CDT

Put me on the email chain - lovemesomepolicydb8 [[gmail]]

My background

High School debate – None

College debate – University of Richmond

Coaching – Miami Beach High School

Bronx High School of Science

Columbia University

New York University/New York Coalition

West Georgia

University of Richmond

Vanderbilt University

Berkeley Prep

Overview points

The most important thing you should know about me is that when I finished my undergrad college degree I was done with school. Grad school/academia wasn’t for me. I took a jobs in sales (take note those few of you who still associate debate with persuasion), and spent years working for a Survey Research company before taking over the day to day operations of my own company (chemical manufacturing). This shapes my debate outlook.

1. I strive to be a judge that minimizes my beliefs to the greatest extent possible, and votes on the flow. I often vote on things I don’t believe are true but because they are dropped I’ll vote. I will do my best to flow everything and base my decision solely by what was said in the round. You want me to be a policymaker judging USFG action – cool, you want me to be an individual judging a performance – ok, I don’t care per se. I’ve voted for all styles of debate over the years, and I’ve also worked with teams that have run the spectrum of arguments. When I was a debater I didn’t like it when some judges refused to listen and vote on certain arguments (whether it be K or policy because both sides do it) and I don’t want to be grouped like that. End of the day whatever your argument is, I’m going to do my best to understand, treat you with respect, and we’ll see how it goes.

I prefer direct line by line debate above all else. By that I mean – they say/my response straight down the flow. If you are a debater who doesn’t flow to the point that you don’t respond to your opponent’s arguments because you didn’t record what they were then you may have problems winning my ballot consistently.

I view debate like a tennis match. The aff has to get the ball over the net by making an argument, then the neg has to return serve. They may return that ball at over 100mph (offensive strategies with turns and grand impacts of high magnitude) or they may go soft return (defensive arguments). Either/both could trip up the other team. You don’t need offense necessary to win my ballot (but it doesn’t hurt either).

I consider topic education my highest core value. The more topic specific cards (as opposed to backfiles) you read in a round the better all-round you’re going to be.

Providing details and drawing distinctions is always better than being vague and unclear about what you do. My threshold to vote on vagueness is way lower than my o-spec threshold.

Quality of evidence should guide your strategy. Quality always beats quantity. That said I think debaters self-censor in that if they don’t have a card they refuse to make the argument believing analytics to be of lower value then having a card. While that may be true, there are also rounds where the literature needed to properly rebut may not exist. In these cases direct analytics can often be better than generic cards that don’t apply.

If your only response to your opponent’s analytics is “you didn’t read a card”, you may be on weaker ground than you think.

The enthusiasm you display in selling your arguments can be important. A little pathos can yield positive returns.

I can vote against your opponent instead of for you. Sometimes attacking your opponent’s arguments instead of advancing your arguments can capture my ballot. Example, the neg may read a K that I don’t find very persuasive, but the aff ans turn out to be worse. Other times that strategy fails, and you need to advance a positive reason to vote for you.

I pay attention to CX and have seen teams that have won and lost rounds based on CX but that’s becoming much rarer. Any gains made in CX should be referenced in subsequent speeches.

You can try to speak as fast as you want. If you believe you are best served going as fast as you can, and not slowing down when it counts I can reflect that in your speaker points. If I don’t have an arg on my flow that’s probably not good for you. I don’t read the speech docs as you go, it’s still a communicative activity to me.

The specific arguments

If you are Aff: the only burden I will hold you to is that I will check every answer in the 2ar to make sure it has a 2ac/1ar basis. Arguments introduced in the 2ac, dropped in the 1ar, and revived in the 2ar will not count. Beyond that I’m pretty open. Do what you want on the aff. That said over the years I found myself drawn more toward the policy end of things. Affs that are willing to defend a plan or solution to the harms they identify are preferable to affs that are 9 minutes of harms only. I’m usually far more interested in the 3 aff speeches after the 1ac then the 1ac itself. Affs often lose my ballot because they concede too many negative arguments. If you don’t answer each part of an off case argument, you’re handing the ballot to the neg. Oftentimes 2ac extensions of case resolve solely around explaining your 1ac cards, the only thing I care about though is responding the 1nc cards.

If you are neg: anything goes, it’s up to the aff to stop your strategy. If you are looking for a strategy that gives you the best odds in front of me, it would be a plan inclusive CP with a topic specific net benefit. That said no one likes a nitpicker, whatever part of the aff you take objection to should have an impact.

Disads – I’d much prefer you read link/internal link/or even impact uniqueness instead of extra impact scenarios. Developing one or two impacts is preferable than 5-6, and to be honest you lose a little cred in my mind the more extinction scenarios you introduce.

CPs – I default to the lit to decide CP legitimacy. Generally speaking I can see why consult, condition, QPQ, states etc could be unsound, but the quality of the solvency ev can go a long way. Must confess the question of when the neg can kick the CP is not very interesting to me.

Case debate – I was brought up to believe if you don’t have 20+ cards on case you’re in a hole.

Topicality – votes on it. The more specific your violations the better.

Theory – I don’t believe there is a single theory argument, not even conditionality, that justifies rejecting the team over the argument. If you want to win the debate on theory, justifying why I should ignore everything else to vote here is a priori and that discussion should begin early in the debate. That said I would categorize going for theory in front of me as akin to a Hail Mary pass. I find theory debate to be a set of self-serving claims with no proof to support anything. I’m looking to vote on substantive things first and foremost.

Traditional Ks – philosophy plays a very minor role in my life. I likely haven’t read your lit directly, nor would I ever outside of debate support many of the alternatives I come across. Specific links are vital. My voting record on backfile Ks has become very low. I have no why K teams think they can read old evidence (sometimes 20-30 years old) and I’m supposed to think it’s still relevant.

New School debate/identity politics – my voting record for these types of arguments is much higher than when you are neg vs aff. If you are aff I’m often very unclear where the burden of proof line lies. Set up a threshold for pulling the trigger on an aff ballot because leaving me to my own devices may not work out in your favor. Also when I wrote above that sometimes I can vote against your opponent instead of for you, out debating your opponents on framework/I got a better root cause K than you can be a winning strat. All that said as someone who was around at the very beginning of this movement and knowing the justifications that started it, I’m a little disappointed New School debate has taken to speed reading a bunch of cards that don’t always apply.

Framework – I end here because it’s become such a large part of so many debates and I personally think it’s often a real dumb argument. Debate groupthink. If you think speed reading is the way to go in front of me you’re wrong. Depth beats breadth always. If you don’t do line by line on framework, I’ll vote for the aff that doesn’t defend the USFG. I would love for framework to evolve. IMO it’s the same arg now that it was 15 years ago and I find that very stale. You greatly underlimit yourself when your violation solely revolves around the USFG, there are plenty of other reasonable standards you could apply to teams that don’t defend the rez. Identify the voters early because I find many framework arguments to be nothing more than time kill.

Any other questions/clarifications please ask.

Kathryn Kernoff Dartmouth College 3 rounds

Kathryn Kernoff - Dartmouth College

I don't have strong argumentative preferences. More than anything else, I care about teams engaging specifically and explicitly with the other team's arguments.

I am not great at flowing and miss things that are unclear or too blippy. I say "clear" pretty frequently and I mean it. Even though no one does it anymore, I am a big fan of hard numbering.

Because of these two things, I am not a fan of embedded clash (except in the 1AR and some other limited circumstances). I think it's often an excuse for not answering things well enough or specifically enough and it usually causes me to miss things as I try to figure out where you are on the flow.

I care a lot about qualifications and am willing to disregard unqualified evidence if the other team points it out. If there is an unresolved question in the debate, qualifications are often important in how I resolve it.

I like debate, I like research, and I like hard work. I also have a bleeding heart and like believing it's possible to make the world a better place. I am not a good judge for arguments that contradict these predispositions.

These things matter to me more than any particular argument.

Some other thoughts from my old judge philosophy (still true):

1. I think there is room for both "policy" and "critical" considerations within the same debate. You are unlikely to convince me that I should categorically disregard either the kritik or DA and CP debates are fine. You should debate the way you want to debate. I am impressed by debaters who can intelligently deal with both. With either strategy, I prefer specificity and depth over generic claims I think there's a world of difference between the prolif K when the aff reads a prolif advantage and some generic kritik about psychoanalysis.
2. I strongly believe that topicality is a voting issue. I am generally unsympathetic of affs without plans and entirely unsympathetic of affs that don't attempt to talk about the topic. I think the neg has to prove that the aff is unreasonable, but I could be persuaded to vote on "our counter-interpretation is a tiny bit better." I think topicality evidence is very important (especially exclusive evidence) - the topic determines ground, not the other way around. I also tend to view topicality primarily in terms of limits. Although sometimes arguments about ground can be persuasive, I'm unlikely to think that ground loss alone makes the aff unreasonable.
3. It will be very difficult to persuade me that PICs or conditionality are bad, although I am a much easier sell on conditionality if there is more than one counterplan. With other theory issues, I believe in a more ad hoc approach. If neg can persuade me that the counterplan is discussed in the literature, it’s probably good for debate. Counterplans that do absurd things are probably bad for debate but generally just reasons to reject the counterplan. To get me to vote on any theory argument, you will need to persuade me to overcome the presumption of "reject the argument, not the team." I probably give the aff a little more leeway on perm arguments than most judges. I'm extremely unlikely to vote on severence or intrinsicness, especially if the aff says "do both" at some point in the debate.
4. Please be nice to both the other team and your partner. Debates are more enjoyable for everyone this way.
5. I think the strict offense/defense paradigm is silly. Obviously, it’s tough to win if the CP solves your case and you just have a couple of impact takeouts on the DA. But I think a team can win with defense alone. If there’s no internal link, there’s no internal link. A devastating takeout can be worth a thousand bad turns. Likewise, I don’t understand why the neg should have to win offense on theory or why the aff should have to win offense on topicality. I also attach less importance to uniqueness than many other judges. Things can always get worse. Uniqueness takeouts can reduce the probability of the DA but can’t “control the link.”
6. I will flow all speeches and read some evidence (although I'm not one of those people who can flow every single word - so if something's important, make it more than three words long). Warrants in speeches and in cards are important. Debaters are most persuasive when they explain an argument well and then reference a card to back it up (not necessarily by name). It’s also important for debaters to compare take evidence quality seriously. Qualifications are important and I prefer well-reasoned, well-researched evidence over evidence that is "literally on fire" with outlandish claims. I also give a lot of weight to analytical arguments that are warranted and make sense.

Elli Kuenzel Michigan 6 rounds None

Edward Lee Emory University 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:53 AM EDT

Ed Lee

Judge Philosophy

Emory University

ewlee@emory.edu

Revised: November 2013(Remixed by KRS One)

My Philosophy

KRS-One (My Philosophy) Let's begin, what, where, why, or when / Will all be explained like instructions to a game / See I'm not insane, in fact, I'm kind of rational / When I be asking you, "Who is more dramatical?"

KRS-One (Stop The Violence) I want to be remembered as the ghetto kid to jump up for world peace, because the stereotype is that all ghetto kids want to do is sell drugs and rob each other, which isn’t fact. I came from the heart of the ghetto — there ain’t no suburbia in me.

1. We are playing a game and there is nothing wrong with that. I love games. I play a lot of board games with my partner. It is our primary form of entertainment. Collecting board games has actually become a little hobby of mine. Gaming teaches conflict negotiation, winning and losing with honor, and proper ways to respond to adversity. However, all of that is lost if we unfair, disrespect others at the table and turn the game into something it is not. Play hard. Play by the rules. Ignore the wins and losses. Do those three things and you got of a decent shot at your debate career and life turning out pretty well.

2. Competitive debate cannot be the cure all for everything that plagues us. It has a very limited range of things that it can do well and its incentive structures can actually be quite harmful to creating productive conversations over our most intransigent social ills.

I strongly believe that debate educators and students should use our skills to help move our communities to a place where we can engage difference without being divisive. A large part of my job has become the facilitation of conversations on Emory’s campus that encourage students to civilly and civically engage controversy. I wholeheartedly support the effort of the Barkley Forum to provide every student on Emory’s campus with the opportunity to meaningfully engage. Debate educators have the capacity to present an alternative mode of politics and deliberation that is not motivated crisis and inundated in vitriol. Unfortunately, I do not think competitive debate with its uncompromising zero-sum outcomes and time limits will serve us well in our attempt to negotiate interpersonal differences. I see the current crisis in intercollegiate debate as proof of that.

I would prefer that we allow competitive debate to do the few things it does well and utilize our collective expertise to develop other forms of deliberation to address these vastly more important issues. I look forward to talking to anyone who will listen about The Barkley Forums efforts to us debate in partnership with the content experts on our campus to address racism, sexual assault and religious intolerance and a myriad of other social ills. I am sure that the other Emory coaches and students will appreciate it if I had a larger audience for this conversation.

3. One of the unique values of competitive debate is its ability to train students to quickly assess and evaluate information from various sources. I do not think there is a better pedagogical tool for providing this much-needed skill. This has become critically important as the Internet has made information dissemination and access uncontrollable.

4. Competitive debate is a laboratory for experimenting with ideas and identities. It can only function as long as we are not beholden to or damned by every idea we put forward to test. I believe this type of space is essential for our personal and cultural development.

Judging

KRS-One (Know Thy Self) Sometimes you gotta go back to the beginning to learn.

KRS-One (My Philosophy) See I'm tellin', and teaching real facts / The way some act in rap is kind of wack / And it lacks creativity and intelligence / But they don't care 'cause the company is sellin' it

1. While I am a huge fan of quality evidence, my decisions will privilege a debater’s assessment of an argument over my reading of a piece of evidence. I do not believe that every argument needs to be evidenced. I routinely vote on un-evidenced arguments that are indictments of the opposition’s evidence or a defense of one’s claims based on historical analogies, counterinterpetations of political theories, and assessment of an author’s qualifications.

2. Topicality exists to protect the guiding principles articulated above. It will be very difficult to convince me that affirming the reading of 1acs that is outside the bounds of the resolution is more academically beneficial than topically affirming the resolution. While I am not certain, I sense that I am less hesitant to vote on topicality than many others in the judging pool.

I think that we should have topics where the Neg has the ability to and is incentivized to prepare a coherent set of argument strategies that are topic relevant. I don’t think that a model of debate that encourages the AFF to defend truisms is a productive way to utilize this intellectual space.

3. Topic rotation is good. We should encourage students to explore and unearth the unique set of arguments that are germane to each individual topic. I strongly discourage argument strategies that that create disincentives for topic explorations. Counterplans that compete based on immediacy and certainty and narrow interpretations of the topic that deny the Neg opportunities to generate offense are examples of the type of strategies that I find academically lacking.

4. 2As need to reign in the Neg’s counterplan power. They should be more aggressive about launching objections to certain types of counterplans. I am particularly concern with those distort the literature base to such a degree that an informed debate can’t happen because scholars have never entertained the possibility of the counterplan.

5. My weakness as a judge is my ability to flow very quick technical debates. This is particularly true for theory debates that occasionally evolve into a string of unsupported claims with very little engagement with the opposition’s args. Please keep in mind that cards provide enough pen time for judges to catch up even when they miss an arg. We do not have that luxury with theory debates. This also tends to happen in the 2ac on the case. I am a huge fan of efficiency. However, there are some forms of embedded clash that has has made it extremely difficult for judges (at least this one) to follow.

I tend to make up for this shortcoming by paying close attention to every aspect of every debate judge, staying on top of the evolution of a topic and having a pretty decent memory of things even when I fail to write to them. I will put in as much work listening and evaluating your arguments as you put in preparing and delivering them.

I will not vote on evidence/arguments I do not have explicitly extended through the block and contextualized in some way. This tends to hurt some hyper technical tag-liney debaters.

Specifics

KRS-One (South Bronx) “Many people tell me this style is terrific/It is kinda different, but let’s get specific.”

KRS-One (Step Into A World) I'm 'bout to hit you wit that traditional style of cold rockin' / Givin' options for head knockin' non stoppin' / Tip-toppin' lyrics we droppin' but styles can be forgotten

Topicality

1. Topic anarchy is unproductive. I truly believe we need some stasis in order to have a productive conversation. To be honest, I am not sure if that means you have to defend the state or you gotta have a plan. However, I do believe that it is much easier to encourage a clash of ideas when those things are present. Debates can’t happen unless the AFF is willing to defend something.

2. The most limiting interpretation is rarely the best. I can be easily persuaded that a larger topic is better because it incentivizes AFF creativity while preserving core Neg ground. Far to often the AFF fails to push back on the limits debate and allows topicality to be a referendum on which team has the most limiting interpretation.

3. Topicality is about guiding future research endeavors. That makes source qualification an important aspect of the discussion. Who is defining and for what purpose is worth evaluating.

4. I tend to lean towards “competitive interpretations” over “reasonability” because it feels less interventionists. However, I think there are ways to craft “reasonability” arguments to change the direction arrow on this.

Counterplans

1. I find some theory objections more persuasive than others. It is hard for me to get overly excited about counterplan status debates. While I have and will vote on conditionality, I just don’t consider it that great of an offense when there is only one counterplan. I have some concern about multiple conditional counterplans because of their ability to pervert 2ac strategic choices. It is such a rare occasion that a debate was improved with the addition of a 2^nd or 3^rd counterplan. I will go on record to say that I have never seen a debate with multiple CPs that would not have been improved by reducing the number of CPs to 1.

2. I think counterplans that compete by excluding a part of the plan text is good for debate. They encourage both the AFF and the NEG to research topic mechanism instead of focusing on impact debates that rarely change from one topic to the next. They also create opportunities for a more nuanced impact framing that is not oriented towards maximizing one’s magnitude.

3. I think Perm “Do the CP” is persuasive against counterplans that compete off of things that are not written in the plan. Neg research that supports the necessity of a particular action to do the plan will resolve this debate in their favor. However, the bar is one of necessity and not possibility.

4. I am not a big fan of States or International Actor CPs. They have each effectively narrowed the range of AFFs we can talk about to those that access US hegemony or a set of actions that can only be formed by the military. I am occasionally persuaded by the arg that they are necessary to functionally limit the size of the topic. Aff should keep in mind that topicality exist for that same reason.

5. We need to do a better job telling judges what to do with theory objections. The statement “vote against the arg – not the team” is not an argument. It is claim. Teams need to be more aggressive about telling me the impact of my decision in either direction.

6. My default is to stick the Neg with the CP if go for it in the 2nr. I do not think it is fair to force the 2ar to have to do impact assessment for a world that includes the counterplan and one that doesn’t. The “judge kick” model discourages the 2n from making choices, discourages the development of a coherent 2nr based on that choice and undermines the ability for the 2ar to properly compare relevant impacts.

7. I am starting to toy around with the notion that the AFF should be able to advocate permutations to compensate for the multitude of CP options we have created for the Neg. AFF needs to more creative. The vast majority of argument innovation since I have been around has occurred on the negative.

Critiques

1. The more germane you can make this set of arguments the better. The major problem is that I rarely find the grand sweeping totalizing claims of inevitability and the necessity of radical response to social problems persuasive. I am quite suspicious of claims that are grounded in an indictment of “all” or “every.” I tend to opt for permutations that prove that the AFFs reformist pursuits are in the same direction as the alternative.

2. 2. What is that alt again? I would be a much better judge for the neg if I understood what the alt was and its functionality. AFFs that exploit this weakness by carving out solvency deficits for the case impacts and the squo tend to win these debates. The best 2As highlight the internal links to the advantages and identify those as reasons the Alt can’t solve.

3. The Neg would get much more mileage with this category of arguments if they treated them like ethics/ontology/method DAs with an impact that was more important than the AFF utilitarian impacts. Many will think that is overly simplistic. Keep in mind that I spend most of my life thinking that I am a simple man living in an overly complicated world.

4. 4. The Aff is too dependent on framework args. The plea to weigh the 1ac is not a substitute for engaging the criticism. I kinda agree with the Neg that Aff framework args are arbitrary in their self-importance and exclusion of the Negs link args. A little research on the educational value of talking about your AFF gets you to the same place without appearing dogmatic.

5. The most persuasive critiques are those that challenge the way the 1ac encourages us to understand others and ourselves. They challenge the pedagogical force of the 1ac. These types of arguments are appealing to Ed Lee, the teacher.

Disadvantage

1. My general dispossession is that most impact claims are highly unlikely and the block gives the negative a structural advantage in the competition of lies. All other things being equal, I think a DA+Case strategy is the best path to victory. Keep in mind that the amount of DA you need to win is directly related to the amount of the case that the AFF is winning. You don’t have to win much of your DA if you are sufficiently beating up the case.

2. I believe uniqueness operates on a continuum where the terminal impact of the DA is more or less likely to occur in the squo. Both sides should be more sophisticated in assessing the probability of whether or not the impact will happen and why gradual shifts along the continuum are worthy of a judge’s evaluation.

3. “Turns the case” rarely means turns the case. Neg usually has uniqueness issues with winning this line of arument. A better direction to go in is to explain why the DA impact short-circuits the ability of the Aff to solve the advantage. It gets you to the same place and doesn’t have the uniqueness burden.

4. 2a should invest more time in reading the Negs DA ev. There are usually a goldmine of alt causalities, uniqueness args and impact takeouts. This is a place where you can get a lot of mileage out of witty analytics. I am wmore than willing to vote unevidenced assessment. Don’t just read. Debate.

5. Don’t ignore the internal link debate. Most debates seem to boil down to a limited number of impacts – Hegemony, Trade, Climate, Economy. The better teams will invest time winning that they have a stronger internal link to these impacts then their opposition.

6. 1nc should generate some offense on the case. Impact turns are useful because they force the 2a to read ev on the case and you usually have a counterplan (or 2) that makes this a risk free proposition for you.

Speaker Points

KRS-One (Tears) While you lay the flowers on the grave, let's talk about how you behave. Do you come out the neighborhood or out of the cave?

KRS-One (Health, Wealth, And Self) I'll give you the gift, but use the gift to uplift.

Criteria - Things I Like and will give the gift of points

I will start this discussion by identifying some of the styles/skills I like and tend to reward with high speaker points. It is easier for me to talk about specific people. Some of these folks are still in our community. Others you may find some videos of. All were exemplary in one form or another of what I think great debaters do and what I want to honor them with high speaker points.

Kacey Wolmers (Emory) – Fast, technical and clear. I actually find some beauty in this presentational style. Her 1ncs were artwork. I must emphasize the clarity component. She was one of the few extremely fast debaters that I had no problem following. That had a lot to do with her clarity. She also made arguments and not a random assertion of claims.

Martin Osborn (Missouri State) – Efficient and driven. Martin is a testament to fact that you don’t have to choose between being fast or being a "policy" debater. He was one of the most efficient debaters I ever judged with superb in-round argument selection skills. Words were never wasted and he rarely extended an argument in the final two rebuttals that were not necessary.

Julie Hoehn (Emory) – Dedication to preparation. I never judged Julie. I was her coach. However, I saw how her dedication to prepare won numerous debates. It created a situational awareness that was vast superior to most. Julie was rarely caught off guard and it never happen twice. She had the capacity to quickly diagnose and dismiss trivial and inconsequential arguments.

Gabe Murillo (Wayne State) – Argument Explanation. Some people ask me how they can get me to vote on critiques. I tell them to debate like Gabe. I know very little about most of his arguments. However, Gabe was fantastic at identifying my limitations and biases and developing argument strategies that resolve them. I distinctly remember the times that I voted against him and the post-round being a series of questions about repackaging the argument and ways to alter phrases. Gabe was constantly trying to figure out ways to connect with me as a judge. That was true even he disagreed with my decisions. Most people would be extremely shocked by how often I voted for him.

Naveen Ramachandrappa (UGA) – Research. The stories about his evidence production are absurd. Talk to Hays Watson about it. Much more impressive was that he demonstrated it debate. Naveen was a master at debating evidence and not just reading it. He understood not only the strength and weaknesses of his evidence but his opponents.

Seth Gannon (Wake) – Humor. Humor can stand in for any gift of persuasion you have. Be yourself. Have fun. I never judged Seth and didn’t look like he was having fun. Even during the stressful final round of the NDT, he looked like he enjoyed being there. That makes judging so much easier and pleasurable. The judge is your audience. Connect with them.

Debbie Lai & Varsha Ramakrishnan (Michigan State) - Hard workers. This is my favorite debate team of all time. They were two regional debaters who worked hard to become the best debaters they could be. It was and honor and pleasure to watch them growth and develop. I wanted to vote for them. They were not a first round team and didn’t clear at the NDT. However, they had a genuine love for the activity and were willing to invest a tremendous amount of time an energy to get better even though the odds were long and they started college debate at an experience deficit. I look forward to rewarding those who work hard and value the process.

Criteria - Things I don’t like and will reduce points

I implore you hold Emory’s debaters to the same standard. They should be expected to play fair, be clear and conduct themselves with respect and humility even if you don’t expect it from other debaters. Help me help them to be better people and debaters.

Cheating – Cross-reading, card-clipping, using disclosure/speech doc to gain an fair advantage. Your honor and integrity is far more valuable than winning the game. I don’t play games with cheaters and I will not reward them. I am a guardian of the integrity of this activity and will not wait for others to ask me to perform that role.

Lack of clarity – This is a communication activity. If I don’t understand it, I will not evaluate it. I don’t like the model of debate where students incomprehensibly read at me and then ask me to read a litany of cards after the round to determine who wins. Debate. Persuade. Analysze. Don’t just read.

Creating a hostile environment – Respect is a non-negotiable for me. It always has been. It is the primary reason I go out of my way to be civil and cordial to everyone I interact with. I know that there is no chance that we will have a productive conversation unless you are willing to speak to me in a way that acknowledges my humanity. I not only have that expectation for the way you communicate with me but the way you communicate with each other. It is not healthy for me or anyone else in the room to watch you verbally assaulting your opponent. If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors or the president of your university then you should not do it in front of me. I am more than willing to have a conversation with anyone about where this line should be drawn. That conversation is long overdue.

My scale

I will the scale established by the tournament. Grandma taught me to never show up to someone's home and not eat the casserole. that's just rude.

29.6 -30: I think you are debating like a Top 10 debater at a national tournament.

29.3 – 29.5: I think you are debating like an Octos debater at a national tournament

28.8 – 29.2: I think you are debating like a 5-3 double octofinalist

28.5 – 28.7: Debating like you are 4-4 and on the verge of clearing at a national tournament

28 – 28.4: You are working to get better

Revised 2-16-94
NAME __Ed Lee_____________________ INSTITUTION __University of Alabama ___
POSITION _Director of Debate ___ YEARS OF COACHING ___5__________
NUMBER OF TOURNAMENTS THIS YEAR ___10____________________
I am a very flexible critic. Win a link and explain why the impact is more important than what the other team is winning. This holds true
regardless of what artificial box we decide to place the argument in - harms, critiques, disads, and theory.
Topicality
I consider topicality to be a discussion about the best way to interpret the resolution so that we create the fairest debates possible. I think about
topicality the same way I think about a plan vs. counterplan debate. Each side needs to explicitly discuss the benefits of their interpretation that
can not be co-opted by the counter interpretation.
Counterplans
Solve for the case harms and win a disad. It sounds like a decent strategy to me. Affirmative needs to offensive in this debate. It is more likely
that I will vote on a disad to the counterplan than theory. Don't take that to mean that you can't win the counterplan theory debate in front of me.
I think this statement stems from the difficulties I some times have flowing quick blippy theory arguments. (Bydaway: Tell me what you want
me to do if you when the theory debate and why. My default is that the line of argument should be evaluated. Winning theory is not an
automatic victory.) Not only are grounded claims easier to flow but they make better arguments. The best affirmative theory arguments use the
negative’s stance to justify a set of affirmative offensive arguments. I operate under the assumption that the negative must make a choice
between advocating the status quo and or the counterplan(s) in the 2NR. I think that it is your argumentative responsibility to stabilize your
position of inquiry.
Disadvantages
I do not believe in the risk of a link. One must first win a link and risk assessments are made when evaluating the probability of the impacts.
Critiques
What is the link and why is it more important than the affirmative? Why does it doom the entire affirmative's project (plan) just because one
piece of evidence uses “nuclear” “terrorism” etc? The affirmative should force the negative to articulate how the criticism interacts with the
1AC and why it is wholly cooptive. The negative needs to be explicit about the opportunity costs of not voting for the criticism. At times, I am
at a lost for what the impact is to the criticism even after the 2NR.
Affirmative needs to be more offensive at the impact level of these debates. Unlike disads, I think that the negative has an advantage at the link
level of this debate and the best Affirmative attacks come at the impact level. The most persuasive 2ACs have been those who turned the
alternative, counter-critiqued, and been generally offensive.
Speaker points
CX should be used for more than gathering cards and talking about tidbits of nothingness. CX is a powerful tool that can be used to setup future
arguments and provide the critic with a filter for evaluating the debate. I listen to CX.
My average speaker points are between 26-27. 28 is reserved for those performances that "wow" me. These debaters are usually able to make
my decision easy even when there are no conceded voting issues. Arguments no longer exist as disparate, isolated blocks on a sheet of paper
but live and interact. 28s are able to competently discuss argument relationships and consistently make link and impact comparisons. 29s are
performances of brilliance. It is a presentation that allows me to forget that I am judging a debate round. The presenter is on and everyone
knows it. I think that it is a measurement of near-perfection that I reserve for only the most amazing speeches. A 30 allows me to temporarily
forget that another speech in the round was worthy of a 28 or 29.
ed lee
Director of Debate
Alabama Forensics Council
University of Alabama
bamadebate@yahoo.com

Marquis Lewis Clarion University 6 rounds

Marquis Lewis

Clarion University

Years Judging: 0

Debated at Clarion University for 3 years.

Hello, reader. As a first time judge of college debate (I have done two years of high school judging), here are what you should know about me if I am in the back of the room.

1. You should constantly be looking at me while debating in the round. I am fairly expressive and will show you when I approve, disapprove, or am confused during a debate. If you see confusion, that should be a cue to clarify your position/arguments, especially if you are talking about philosophical positions.

2. Please be civil to one another. I appreciate the spirit of competition and some good-natured teasing. I do NOT like rude or hurtful comments and am willing to dock speaker points if you choose to act like an ass during round.

3. Have fun while debating. Show enthusiasm, make me laugh (I love a good joke and will award better points to people who get a chuckle out of me). I hate the idea of participating in a sport about speaking and not taking advantage of the power of theatricality and performance.

4. Don't refer to me as JUDGE, please call me Marquis.

As for arguments, here is what you will want to know:

1. Theory/Framework: I love a good debate on the rules, structures, and definitions of debate (I am an English major, 'nuff said). That being said, if I do not have a clear framework or method for weighing impacts in a round, I default to Utilitarianism. As for theory, show me the abuse to win. I allow 1 conditional position and the status quo without pulling any triggers on theory. If the NEG has more than that, we can have a debate.

2. Topicality: ALL AFFIRMATIVE PLANS MUST BE TOPICAL. I do not care what some say about topicality being genocidal or marginalizing. If you do not endorse the topic as the affirmative, you lose in front of me. What counts as meeting the line of topicality (substantial debates, for example), I am willing to give leeway, since this is a game of words and persuasive capabilities.

3. The Critique (most call it the K, but I took French, not German, so I spell it that way): I am willing to hear critiques. I don't try to discourage too many arguments. However, if I don't understand it, I will not vote on it (refer to the number 1 of the previous section). Philosophy/critical arguments are not my strong suit, but a good debater will explain his/her position to those who may not be as well-versed in their field of study.

4. Politics: I am in complete adoration of Politics DAs. This shows a person's persuasiveness and critical thinking abilities to the fullest. I want to hear these all the time.

5. Counter-plans: I like them. Different views on how to solve a problem is what debate is about. Use them wisely. I don't allow abuse to go unpunished.

That is what I can think of at this time. If you have any questions of me, feel free to ask before the round. I will take any inquiry and answer to the best of my ability.

Sarah Lundeen West Georgia 5 rounds

Jim Lyle Clarion University 5 rounds

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.

Paul Mabrey James Madison University 5 rounds

Two caveats on how I approach a debate round:
First, I approach debate tournaments such that they matter. I try to make sure that I am prepared so that I may coach and judge effectively. I will do my best to be rested, fed, and sufficiently caffeinated.
Second, what follows are merely my habituated ways of thinking about debate. They are debatable. They are my presumptions entering the debate but may be altered through persuasion. The following categories are just heuristics.

How to Win: 1. Compare, compare, compare. Compare everything: Evidence, qualifications, impacts, plan v. counterplan, interpretations of the topic, plan v. alternative, evidence dates, arguments across flows, etc. 2. Be strategic, no matter how you debate. Take risks, make concessions, and think about the strategy of the round. Think about how arguments interact with each other across the flows. 3. Have fun.

Flowing: I start the debate with the assumption that I should flow in our community’s traditional manner and that the flow matters. Despite objectivity being impossible, I try to work within those limits. I do try to flow everything, it is harder the less clear you are. I generally give feedback on whether or not I am following; sometimes what I think about your argument may be apparent.

Evidence: I value good evidence. I generally do not call for evidence unless I am asked to do so. Asking me to look at evidence requires extension of that evidence beyond a tag and cites. I also generally call for evidence that is in contention. I do not over-determine the role of evidence. I just as equally like smart arguments, maybe even more.

The Topic: This is a special category. I think the topic, like debate, matters. I think this topic is very interesting given its timing and urgency. I am eager to learn and hear you debate it. Do not assume I know it all; please debate with care when drawing out intricate details.

Theory: I generally default negative on most theoretical controversies with the exception of topicality and conditionality. I think unmitigated conditionality may be too much; I am more comfortable with some interpretation of a limited conditionality.

Topicality/Framework: Topicality seems to be about competing interpretations, if you play that game. I think Affirmatives should defend affirming the resolution and defend that affirmation throughout the debate. That said, I think the affirmative has some flexibility with what affirming the topic means. But that is not reason to do anything on the affirmative; I think there should be limits. Those limits are debatable. I also generally think that because the negative has so many options and we have had a lot of experience and exposure to different arguments that the negative should have plenty to say in their tool box. Framework arguments can be persuasive if couched better. I think these arguments should be framed according to what the educational, political, ethical or other advantages or disadvantages to role-playing in one world versus another. Frame your argument better than the last sentence, please.

Counterplans, Disads, and K’s: Oh my! Whatever, they may be just different tools in the toolbox.

Performance: All of debate seems to be performative. See the above.

Two notes:
1. I am not sure how I feel about the trend of reading two conditional counterplans in the 1nc. My hesitation is multiplied when you are also kritiking, leaving the status quo as an option and the two counterplans (and their net benefits) are treated as separate. Or if you read one counterplan with 13 conditional plan planks.
2. I tend to keep a running clock during the debate.

Susan Mader Vanderbilt University 6 rounds

Mikaela Malsin Georgia 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:28 AM EDT

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either. In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate.

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree) I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of basic communication.

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently.

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive. I think that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact.

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame).

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial.

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny)

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Jadon Marianetti Florida 8 rounds

Alex McVey George Mason University 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:25 PM EDT

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading, the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it. I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

Ben Meiches Minnesota 6 rounds

In general, two beliefs characterize my judging. First, I like good debate. This means whether you like traditional policy arguments, critical debate or something else I don't particularly care as long as you explain, execute, and make intelligent arguments. Now, this might sound vacuous, but really its a gesture towards many different approaches having merits or strengths and a sign that I don't have strong preferences in terms of what type of arguments you are making. You can read anything in front of me as long as as you have a clearly articulated claim, warrant, and impact. Second, your enjoyment as a debater should be prioritized in the round. Tangibly this means that you should make whatever arguments you think will win you the debate/whatever you are best at/whatever you enjoy arguing and do that. I think people should treat each other with respect. Humor is good, but humor at other people's expense can be unpleasant. It has come to my attention that my speaker points are out of touch with community averages and/or standards. My desire is not to punish teams that pref me or to have points jeopardize someone's opportunities for competitive success. To that end, I am going to amend my speaker points to approximate community averages. While I won't precisely determine what this change means say a 28 becomes a 28.3 or a 27.5 becomes a 27.9, I will, on average, be raising my points. I think evidence is important and that qualified evidence should be prioritized although what constitutes qualified evidence is certainly up to debate. Finally, I have standards for what qualifies as an argument this means both a coherent claim and warrant that is clearly expressed. If you expect me to vote on something that was vastly underdeveloped or quickly incoherent, cheap shots whatever then don’t pref me.

A few specifics:

I think in general that the affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend that plan throughout the entire round. Although if a team advances a different framework or method for thinking about the debate and wins that interpretation is better than what I articulate above they'll likely win. Specific impact work on all sides/theoretical questions is key so tailor your arguments.

I tend to value specific uniqueness arguments when adjudicating disads and believe it controls the general direction of the link. I also appreciate contextual as opposed to general impact calculus: probably, magnitude, and timeframe don't really mean much in the majority of rounds I hear them. I think it's possible to win zero risk of a disad.

I am negative biased on the majority of counterplan/alternative questions. I have a high threshold for voting on conditionality or dispositionality and would prefer substantive debates to resolving these issues. That said, I am willing to vote on conditionality/dispo bad, pics bad, consult bad, etc. as long as you are winning these arguments, clearly, this dependence on the context and the degree of specific impact work. Theory debates that develop late are is an uphill battle in front of me. I am largely on the textual comp side of the functional/textual competition debate. In terms of assessment I think about this, as with almost all issues, in an offense/defense paradigm. As with all arguments you can persuade me to adjudicate these issues differently as long as there is a coherent explanation of an alternative approach warranted both in terms of the impacts in the round and on the general status of debate itself.

I am familiar with a lot of the literature used in critique debate. This does not mean that I will automatically appreciate your particular insights into biopolitics, capitalism, being, nothingness, or any of the other concepts that are thrown around in these debates. Instead, as a general rule I think if you are going to talk about these things you should have some idea what you are talking about, be able to articulate it intelligibly, and not expect much lenience or work on the part of your critic to fill the holes in what you say.. I think critiques must be impacted in terms of the affirmative, I think narrow and specific alternatives are the best. If the criticism calls into question a world-view or approach that’s fine just make sure to articulate and impact this in terms of my ballot and how these things shift the way I should view the round. Affs should remember to use their affirmative in these and all debates. Context is better than abstraction.

I flow speeches and CX that won't change under any circumstances. I am highly distractible and so 'connection moments' are important both for speaker points and in general. I value strategies and tactics that reveal critical thinking and feel like the execution on generics, while highly perfectible, isn't as important as real creativity.

Lynda Mercer Louisville 8 rounds

Candice Merritt Emory University 6 rounds

My philosophy and perspective on debate has changed over the years. I began policy debate in middle school in the St. Louis Urban Debate League and continued sporadically in college until my sophomore year at Emory. My roots have gone from "stock issue" debates to "plan focus" to now also embracing critical/performance style debates. I am an academic/educator at heart and I am very politically and emotionally invested in issues related to race, class, gender, sexuality, ability, and equity in general. This means I am familiar with feminist theory (various varieties), critical race theory, and queer theory. As such, if a debate encompasses any or part of these issues, my ears do perk up more. Nevertheless, I try to be a very fair judge by being objective as possible. Yet, here are some more of my thoughts on specifics and caveats of debate:

Framework: At a fundamental level, I see debate as a communication activity designed to teach participants how to understand problems of the world and how to discuss their potential solutions. As a competitive activity, the winner of a debate either proves or disproves the desirability of a proposed advocacy or policy option. Such substantiation occurs through evidentiary support which for me includes formal scholarly research, personal experience, music, and art. If you have a different framework of debate, that’s okay. Win it. Be persuasive as to why it should be preferred. If you debate traditional policy where it is all about advantages, counterplan/disads, solvency deficits, magnitude/timeframe/probability, etc, that’s okay, too. But note: “any risk” of your “100% extinction” scenario from your politics disad may very well not outweigh the more probable systemic aff advantages (i.e. racism, violence, sexism, inequality, etc).

Flowing: I do it. A LOT. Sometimes I even flow cross-x. This means I am technical. Meaning, if the 2AR was awesome and may have won the debate, but the 2AC did not look anything like it, (although painful) I will probably default to “no new in the 2” and “protect the 2NR.”

Speed: (For JV debaters) I am all about quality over quantity. I need all individuals to be clear, even at the expense of not reading all the cards you want. If I cannot understand you, then my flow will reflect the lack that I heard.

Kritiks: I like to listen to them (please see above about political investments). I, however, do not like ambiguity or any argument that is unclear. If you want me to vote on them, you must win your framework. You must also EXPLAIN the whole argument. This means I want you to articulate the link(s), implications, and alternatives. I want you to be persuasive. Specificity is critical. For example, I enjoy when Negs utilize the 1AC and cross-x to get the aff to link harder. I do not enjoy floating PICs or when it is finally clear what the kritik is by rebuttals. By that point, I am more interested in other issues in the round (DAs, case turns, etc).

Theory: I admit that I am not the biggest fan, but I know theory has its place. You can win on it, but you need to spend time on the issue. I hate rounds where both teams just read their blocks and leave it at that. If you are going to go for I, then put in the time and energy to hash it out as to what ground or education was lost. How would’ve the debate been different if a particular argument was or was not ran.

Topicality: Definitely has its place. I think I am more privy to reasonability arguments because it’s all about ground. If the Neg has plenty of viable options to say against the affirmative, then topicality is not very persuasive to me. If the Neg proves that the aff kills some kind of topic specific education and particular kinds of clash, then the Neg is getting somewhere on T. For aff teams who arrives to the round not wanting to talk about the resolution, I do find it hard to reconcile that desire with an opposing team who needs ground to clash and talk about the resolution. At the very least, I want to listen to your criticism as it relates to the resolution.

Counterplans: If you are running PICs, I hope the Net Benefit is clear and significant because I am not very privy to these. I will listen to them and if Affs mishandle or concede, then you are more likely to succeed. If Affs call you out on them, impact, and explain the issue, then you better get to RANT-ing.

Although, some bias exists, this does not mean you should not run what you want. Debate is full of contention and possibility. Just remember to impact, explain, and be persuasive. If you do this well, you will get the win from me.

Nick Miller Emory University 4 rounds

Things I think:

1. Debate is a public speaking and communication activity. Good debaters engage the judge, speak clearly, and are able to explain their arguments and be funny despite time pressure. Debaters who look up from their flow while speaking will benefit from being able to see my reactions to arguments. Debaters who are clear will benefit from my ability to understand or flow the warrants of their cards. If I don't understand it/get it/know why it matters, I won't vote on it. I should know an argument is important from the way you extend it, both in terms of content and style.

2. Qualified evidence is very important, but only reaches its maximum value if it is unpacked and explained. Evidence or arguments that are comprehensible or well explained during the course of the debate are almost always preferable to evidence that I have to read after the round to understand, even if the latter evidence is "better". Well explained analytic arguments can slay bad advantages, disads, alternatives, and counterplans. To wit: I will privilege explanation in debates over reading I have to do after them.

3. I fucking love Cross-X. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your Cross-x well (eg, if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are used in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase.

4. I like smart debates about the case. Case offense, case defense, the case and a disad, a counterplan the interacts with the substance of the 1AC, a K that is deployed in a case specific matter--those debates are awesome to watch. Process counterplans designed to avoid clash with the majority of the 1AC, generic Ks, and debaters who think impact defense constitutes case debate make me sad.

5. Topicality: T is a voter, but if the aff has a good interpretation, the fact that the negative’s interpretation is slightly better isn’t really a persuasive reason to vote neg.

6. I think the idea that I can kick the CP or Alt for a team is kinda silly. Defending something is your job. Make choices yourself.

7. Don't be a dick to your opponents or your partner.

--

Please ask me about Emory KT - Klimchack and Tankersley - of late 1970's fame. They were the two greatest and most revolutionary debaters of all time.

Leah Moczulski Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 5:14 AM EDT

GSU 2019 UPDATE:

I'm walking into this tournament pretty cold on topic knowledge (read: I had Eric Lanning tell me what the topic was over the phone one time - so who knows if he even got it right) so please govern yourself accordingly. Everything below about how I judge or how I've judged in the past, I would suspect, still applies.

xoxo Leah

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

Background:

Debated at Gonzaga University 2007-2012, Assistant Coach at Wake Forest 2012-2014, Assistant Coach at Harvard 2014-2015, Assistant Coach for Gonzaga 2015-2017, Assistant Coach Kentucky 2018-Present. I'm a commercial disputes attorney in Atlanta.

Meta-Level:

1. I’m not as involved in deep topic research as I have been on past topics. Be careful with jargon. Please define an acronym before you use it for the rest of the debate. I may not be up on the hip abbreviations for all things emissions. Please don’t assume that I am. It makes the debate even harder for me to judge and I could end up making a silly error because of a gap in understanding. You have to do some of the work here.

2. I flow on paper. This is to make sure that I’m giving you my full attention. I understand the debate better this way. However, it comes with some drawbacks. I need more pen time, especially on case and theory arguments. I am not writing down everything you say verbatim. If you have an important point, emphasize it.

3. I also flow cross-x. You should make sure that cross-x translates into arguments used in your speech. I tend to reward debaters with good speaker points for using cross-x wisely.

4. I do not have a poker face. You should use that to your advantage. I am very expressive. I do yell things like clear if I can’t understand you. Try to be clear before we get to that point.

5. I only read the evidence that I think is absolutely essential to my decision. Do with this what you will.

6. I reward hard work and smart thinking.

Case Debate:

1. I think overall, affs have gotten very cavalier about how they debate the case. I think affs should be wary of too much embedded clash in the 2AC and 1AR at the expense of answering the nuances in the neg arguments. If the neg invests a lot of block time with good developed case arguments the aff should be equally technical in the 1AR defending the case.

2. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

Topicality:

1. I’m very techy when it comes to judging T debates. If your argument is more “truth” then “tech” you better have very good evidence to back up that your interpretation is correct. Otherwise, make sure you are hedging your bets by taking the negative up on the standards.

2. Again, I am not incredibly familiar with the emissions literature so I’m not sure (as of Georgia State) if I have any predisposed idea of what “reasonable” or “heart of the topic” affs are. This is really up for debate, at least early in the season.

Disads:

1. I always think the neg can use more impact calculus when they are going for DAs.

2. I will vote on low risk of DA high risk of aff. I think having offense is a better path to victory for the aff but if the negs DA has a number of logical leaps if the aff explains those well I will vote on it.

Critical Arguments:

1. I’ll be the first to admit that critical arguments are not my area of expertise just because I have less experience judging these debates. I will do my best and try my hardest to judge whatever debate is in front of me. I stole this from Adrienne Brovero but I think this is really helpful “if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments.” With that being said, you do you. If you’re neg and your argument has a link and an impact – I’m game. If you’re aff and your argument has an impact and you can articulate why winning the debate is enough to “solve” your impact – I’m game.

2. My academic background is in the following: political science, history, feminism and gender scholarship, and rhetorical theory. I’m also a law student. I do find myself presuming that the law is good at achieving positive outcomes. That is a presumption that can be rebutted.

3. My default assumption is that the role of ballot is to vote for who does the better debating. If you say the role of the ballot is something else, be clear about it and prove that you meet that role of the ballot.

Counterplans:

1. I generally think the neg gets to be conditional. You can try to persuade me otherwise. It is an uphill battle.

2. I will vote on other counterplan theory though based around the mechanism or the type of fiat that the CP uses.

3. I think advantage counterplans are under-utilized. Affs put a premium on being able to solve big impacts but often the internal links are very weak. You can either make this a case argument or counterplan out of it.

Have fun!

Andy Montee Florida 8 rounds

Mary Mosley Hire 2 rounds None

William Mosley-Jensen Georgia 4 rounds

Judge Philosophy – Will Mosley-Jensen

Edited 9-19-12

***Short***

1. Win an impact. (If you can’t do that, join the band)

2. Compare that to the impact you think they win.

3. Compare evidence in steps 1 & 2.

4. If you are fast repeat steps 1-3. If not focus your efforts on steps 1-2 with a sprinkling of step 3.

5. Have Fun! Clarity, Humor, and Civility all help your speaker points.

6. Specificity > Generality

***Long***

General Comments

When making a decision there are three factors that precede other considerations first, the status of direct counter-arguments, has an argument been dropped; second, the quality of evidence supporting an argument, is the evidence superior, average or inconclusive; and third, the correspondence of an argument to reality (or the relative “truth” of an argument).

It is important to note that none of these factors is fixed prior to any given debate, but rather that the debate itself determines them. I should also hope that it is clear that my ordering of these factors represents merely my fallback position if there is no re-ordering argued for in a debate. Some of the factors, such as evidence quality could, and should, be a part of the ways that debaters compare their arguments and establish the relative priority of their argument. If this is not done in a debate, then I will evaluate the debate utilizing the order that I have established.

Specificity is important in all debates. If you say that your disadvantage “turns the case” because Romney will destroy hegemony, then it is probably important to compare this warrant to the affirmative warrant for why they solve for US credibility abroad. The best debates are a comparison of warrants; the worst debates a battle of claims, with most debates falling somewhere in the middle.

Specifics

Topicality debates-

Against Non-traditional (not topical and proud of it) teams

I find that I have a very strong bias that affirmatives should be topical. Most of the reasons that teams advance for why they do not need to fulfill this most central of affirmative burdens pre-suppose several problematic propositions. First, that there is some value that is external to the debate community that can be gained from not affirming the topic. Second, that participation in debate trades-off with other types of activism, rather than occupying a supplementary role. Third, that the value of debate is not intrinsically tied to the identification of a common topic of discussion. Finally and most heinously, that debate is sustainable without the minimum of fairness that is provided by having a shared topic. These assumptions seem to me to be easily answered by a team that is properly prepared.

Against traditional (ostensibly topical) teams

A well-executed topicality argument is one of the most enjoyable debates to judge or watch in my opinion. If it is thoroughly researched and considered by the negative, topicality can represent a strategic tool in a wide variety of debates.

That said, I think that the negative needs to clearly articulate the method of evaluating topicality, and avoid statements in other parts of the debate that question the assumption of the competing interpretations framework. It is not unusual to hear a negative argue that “hard debate is good debate” on conditionality and then extend a topicality argument that is based on some trivial loss of ground. Affirmative teams should capitalize on such inconsistencies when arguing that their interpretation does not make debate impossible but improves it by creating strategic bottlenecks for the negative.

Framework debates-

I find that these debates usually come down to what the role of the critic should be. Namely, should the role of the critic be that of an impartial observer that evaluates the relative advantages and disadvantages of government action versus the status quo or a competitive policy option or should the role of the critic be something else? I can be persuaded that this role includes things not traditionally associated with the assumption that I am an impartial observer, but it helps if you provide some specific articulation of the benefits of deviating from the accepted norm. I enjoy policy debates and am sympathetic to a well-argued defense of the educational and fairness benefits of this approach. I will say that most of the time if the affirmative defends a topical plan that is usually enough to facilitate a productive debate, and in that case it is generally wise to question the solvency of the affirmative. In other words, if the affirmative team has read a topical plan text and the crux of your negative framework argument is “they are not policy enough,” I am likely to vote affirmative.

Criticisms

I am pretty firmly rooted in a Western metaphysics of presence and the value of enlightenment rationality. I am also of the mind that adjudicating debates requires assumptions of rationality and so if you want me to adopt a different framework of evaluation it will require some pretty solid reasons on your part. That is not to say I do not enjoy critical debates, there are some fine criticisms that are firmly grounded in modernity. If you are going for a criticism in front of me, it is likely that I have at least a passing familiarity with the foundational literature of your argument (I got my B.A. in philosophy and my M.A in rhetoric) but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go out of your way to explain the specific application to the affirmative. Similarly if you are reading a critical affirmative you should be careful to explain the reasons that your affirmative renders parts, or all, of the negative’s strategy irrelevant. For example if you are arguing that epistemological considerations precede policy considerations you should explain the nature of that relationship.

Counterplans

In most circumstances when negatives read counterplans that are questionably competitive/legitimate (process, consult, conditioning) I find that aff teams are unwilling to engage in a protracted procedural debate and so become competitive/legitimate by default. Usually going for a permutation is a time intensive process, but can be rewarding if you spend the time to work through the competition theory that purportedly supports the negative’s counterplan. Advancing theory on a counterplan should always include controlling not only the specifics of the theory debate, but also the meta-questions. For example, a robust defense of competing interpretations is generally necessary for the affirmative to win that multiple conditional counterplans are a voting issue. Most affirmative teams tend to simply spot the negative that it is not a question of competing interpretations but rather a question of whether the counterplan makes debate impossible for the affirmative (which almost no counterplans, save fiating the object of the resolution, do).

Speaker Points

Although debate is a competitive activity that doesn’t mean that people can’t be civil with each other. Your comportment during a round can easily affect your speaker points as much as the quality of your arguments. Debate is a fun, rewarding activity and the people that I regard with the most respect are not only great debaters but great people as well.

Robert Mulholand Georgia 4 rounds

Generally, I consider myself relatively flexible about what sorts of arguments I'll evaluate. In most circumstances, the debate seems to come down to the affirmative defending their advocacy against the negative's attempt to establish that an offensive position is competitive with and outweighs the Aff.

The debaters who tend to get my ballot (and good points) are good rebuttal debaters. I most respect the debater who can zero in on the central question and explain 1) why that is the central question and 2) why they're on the right side of it. This requires an ability to isolate the finer distinctions involved and debate those as well (e.g. impact calculus often doesn't just require the statement "our impact is bigger because of timeframe, magnitude, and probability," but rather "our impact accesses a faster timeframe, and timeframe is a more relevant consideration than probability because ...").

I'll add more specific things below:

-- If your opponent deliberately concedes an argument you made, that argument is treated as 100% true. I'm potentially willing to consider cross applications and the like in the instance of an incidental concession (this is subject to debate - see the "finer distinctions" discussion above), but I think you're fully responsible for a claim you made if your opponent decides to strategically concede it.

-- I find myself voting Aff on "try or die" style arguments all too often. If you want me to reject the Aff in favor of the status quo, you need to win that extinction is not inevitable in the status quo. If you want me to vote on a disad, you need either a CP or "status quo solves" case arguments - not merely "aff doesn't solve" case arguments. I do believe that the debate can become close to irresolvable if the Aff wins that extinction is definitely going to happen if I don't vote Aff and the Neg wins that the Aff is more likely to cause another scenario for extinction than it is to solve the advantage (in which case the finer distinctions of impact calculus become decisive). Nonetheless, protect yourself from logical quagmires.

-- I get the sense I care more about "precision" as a link argument for the T disad than some other people. I can understand the objection that certain T jargon ("ground," "predictability," etc.) gets thrown around in a way that begs the question of other issues (namely, the determinable qualities of the interpretation). But, I do not believe that limits (i.e. how many affirmatives does this interpretation allow?) is the only issue that matters, since questions such as the evidence's intent to define, the quality of the source, and so forth are also determinable qualities of the interpretation that access the internal links ("ground," "predictability," etc.) in the same manner as limits.

More to come.

Athena Murray Georgia 5 rounds

John Nagy Liberty University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 9:22 AM EDT

Please include me in your speech doc thread. My email is johnfnagy@gmail.com

If I am judging you online, you MUST slow down. I will not get all of your arguments, particularly analytics, on the flow. You have been warned.

I enjoy coaching and judging novice debates. I think the novice division is the most important and representative of what is good in our community. That being said, I opposed and still oppose the ADA Novice Curriculum Packet. It's an attempt by some in the community, who don't even have novice programs, to use the novice division to further their vision of what debate "should" look like. I don't like that.

I really like judging debates where the debaters speak clearly, make topic specific arguments, make smart analytic arguments, attack their opponent’s evidence, and debate passionately. I cut a lot of cards so I know a lot about the topic. I don’t know much about critical literature.

Framework debates: I don’t enjoy judging them. Everyone claims their educational. Everyone claims their being excluded. It’s extremely difficult to make any sense of it. I would rather you find a reason why the 1AC is a bad idea. There’s got to be something. I can vote for a no plan-text 1AC, if you’re winning your arguments. With that being said, am not your ideal judge for such 1AC’s because I don’t think there’s any out of round spill-over or “solvency.”

Topicality: Am ok with topicality. Competing interpretations is my standard for evaluation. Proving in-round abuse is helpful but not a pre-requisite. If am judging in novice at an ADA packet tournament, it will be very difficult to convince me to vote on topicality. Because there are only 2-3 1AC's to begin with, there's no predictability or limits arguments that make any sense.

Disadvantages: Like them. The more topic specific the better.

Counterplans: Like them. The more specific to the 1AC the better. Please slow down a little for the CP text.

Kritiks: ok with them. I don’t know a lot about any critical literature, so know that.

Rate of Delivery: If I can’t flow the argument, then it’s not going on my flow. And please slow down a little bit for tags.

Likes: Ohio State, Soft Power DA’s, case debates

Dislikes: Michigan, debaters that are not comprehensible, District 7 schools that cut and paste evidence from other schools and present it as their own without alteration. Do that in front of me and I might vote against you automatically.

Bruce Najor Wayne State University 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon April 15, 2024 at 9:26 AM EDT

he/him

Coach at Michigan State University 2019-

Coach at Wayne State University 2010-2019

Debater at Wayne State University 2006-2009

Debater at Brother Rice HS 2000-2004

BruceNajor@gmail.com

Below is a compilation of thoughts. Some are argument related, some are decision-making related. I update it periodically to keep it fresh, but nothing important has changed since you last read this.

-General-

- I used to judge 80+ debates a year, and now I probably judge less than 20. As with anything, skills atrophy, and I find that I'm a bit slower in terms of argument processing, both in real time and in decision time. It would behoove you to narrow the debate and explain the winning arguments as early as the negative block, treat the 1AR like a rebuttal, not a 3AC, and make connections on the line x line, instead of emailing me a plethora of cards and expecting me to sort it out.

- I flow. I don't follow the speech doc while you're talking. If you are unclear I won't be able to get what you say down and I won't vote on it.

- Slightly more truth > tech than the median judge. Once indicts are made your rejoinder burden grows depending on the strength/weakness of the original argument. Bad arguments can lose to bad arguments. Your argument got what it deserves.

- I value my decision time, and I'd hope you do too. Judges normally get around 30 minutes assuming everything in the round ran promptly. This is not an unreasonable amount of time, but ask yourself if the minute(s) it takes to get that marked copy before CX, or the "econ decline doesn't cause war" card before starting prep > subtracting those minutes from decision time. Please be prompt in making and sending a post-round doc.

- I carry the try-or-die flag higher than anyone else in the judge pool. I find I get sat on this argument more than any other. This probably won't bother you on a panel, but may be a tad more frustrating in a prelim debate. Ensuring that the world you're advocating for has a chance at sustainability is important. This isn't applicable to how I think about impacts generally (see below), rather, I think of it as a win condition of the game. If voting for you means there's a 100% chance of everyone dying, but voting for the other team means there's a 1% chance of everyone staying alive you lose, regardless of solving an impact. I'm open to teams who find themselves in a try-or-die trap arguing for rejecting this as a win condition, but debated out equally, or not debated out at all, well, you can't say you weren't warned.

- A bit inconsistent with the above, but once the conditions for try-or-die are not met, I find that I put greater emphasis on the link than many of my colleagues. When I get sat for non try-or-die reasons, it is often because I thought the link was small despite the impact being large.

- I don't flow "stream of consciousness" well. I encounter this a lot in 2NRs where the 1N typed up a thing for the 2NR to blitz through. I don't have an issue with speedy delivery communicated in a way that allows for the listener to digest the content, but if you're just speed reading through a long chunk of text I'm probably missing 50+% of it.

- We don't "debate out" accusations of unethical behavior/practices. If you want to stop the debate and have me adjudicate whether a debater/team was unethical, the debate ends. We cannot restart the debate from the alleged unethical practice, and the winner of the debate cannot be decided on "who did the better debating." I think a fundamental standard for "unethical" must be obfuscation for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage. This doesn't mean the team in question had to know they were gaining a competitive advantage (i.e. they didn't have to have cut the card), but that the way the evidence was presented gained the team a competitive advantage they wouldn't otherwise have had if the evidence was presented properly.

-Critical / Critique-

- I generally understand impact turns to topicality as "counter-standards" that support a counter-interpretation, so I struggle as a judge to get to an aff ballot when the "critical aff" (broad interpretation) fails to provide a counter-interpretation to the resolution. I equally struggle when that counter-interp is self-serving and not grounded in defining resolutional terms (i.e. "affs can affirm or negate the resolution").

- Most critical debate is too fast for me. If these arguments are your thing, you will benefit from slowing down over-explaining.

- I struggle to understand critiques of "fiat." I find that most of them rely on an interpretation that is divorced from what I understand "fiat" to mean. Absent a tech disaster from one team, I have consistently been persuaded that the aff gets to weigh the benefits of implementation versus the impacts of the K.

- A critique argument still needs to engage the case. Trying to simply outweigh the case or framework it away has empirically been unlikely to persuade me to vote neg.

- Critiques of "impact magnitude" are generally unpersuasive to me. "Critical affs" are much more successful in front of me when they focus on challenging the link.

-Evidence-

- My decision will probably reflect evidence quality / evidence specificity more than the median judge.

- I value good evidence with coherent highlighting. Nonsense highlighting makes me want to read for flaws in your evidence and have it reflect in my decision making even if not brought up in round.

- I don't have an issue with "insert re-highlighting" as long as its accompanied by an actual argument, and the insert has merit. If your "inserting" is actually just mis-readings on your end, I won't care if it's "dropped". Likewise, if you're inserting stuff but haven't introduced context for an actual argument, the other teams burden of rejoinder is low to nil.

-Theory / Competition-

- More neg than the median judge on conditionality.

- 50/50 on judge-kick but presumption is 2NR = one-world. This means if neither team addresses the judge-kick contingency, I will not do it and vote aff if the neg fails to prove a NB and/or competition, even if I think the NB links to and outweighs the case.

- Slightly more neg than the median judge on neg fiat (states, international, multi-actor). I can't see myself ever rejecting the team for non-conditionality theory arguments, even if dropped in every speech.

- "Perm do CP" means the plan and the CP can be the same thing. "Perm do both" means doing the plan and CP at the same time resolves all the NB, or enough of the NB that the solvency deficit outweighs. If you are making a different perm than either of these, you need to say more in the 2AC than "do both" or "do CP"

- I'm not going to vote on disclosure args (not disclosing the 1AC is a voter, you disclosed to us wrong, you're not on the wiki, you only gave us a paper copy, you only read this in X spot, etc.). Disclosure is a privilege, not a right, and I'm here to judge a debate, not be the disclosure police. That said, poor aff disclosure can be persuasively used to justify leniency for the neg on theory args, like conditionality or judge kick.

-Speaker Points-

- I don't really have a model. I suppose my scale goes from 28-30, but realistically my range is probably 28.5-29.5. That doesn't mean if you get a 28.5 you're the worst debater I've seen, it means you did an adequate job and I expected debaters I judged at this tournament to fall in that range. #BringBackTies

Len Neighbors Wake Forest University 2 rounds

Len Neighbors Judging Philosophy
Wake Forest University

Technical Information You Should Know.

+My flow leaves something to be desired, but it always did and I have come to believe that this is not necessarily a liability. I can hear and understand rapid debates, but slowing a bit when you need to be sure I get something written down is a good idea.

+Citations are not arguments. Ideally, the last few rebuttals should focus on warrants.

+I am probably not going to read a lot of evidence. I will read evidence to resolve questions of fact, to determine the level of support for a claim, or to check for problems in reasoning pointed out during the debate, but if your ideal debate is one where large piles of evidence are sifted through by the judge, then I am not your ideal judge.

+Generic bad, specific good. This goes for links, counterplan solvency, critical arguments and their answers, cross examination questions, and plan texts.

+Choose early and choose often. Nothing in this judge philosophy should lead you to believe having more arguments in the late rebuttals is better.

Proclivities.

These are not rules in the sense that I enforce them regardless of what happens in the debate. You should be aware, however, that the other direction on these questions is often an uphill battle.

+I would like to think that I am open-minded about debate arguments, but in practice this is sticky. Whenever people have to decide what is more likely, more important, or more persuasive, those decisions are informed by how they view themselves. I’m about as politically, socially, and economically conservative as a person in mainstream America can be. I, of course, think of this entirely pragmatic, reasonable, and morally sound.

+I think of the activity as a sport whose purpose is competition. To that end, the ability for each team to compete fairly is the deciding factor in debates about theory. To me, conditionality and multi-actor fiat are good examples of theory arguments that make a debate unfair to one side or the other.

+If I have to choose between competitive equity and education, I will choose competitive equity. While education does play a role in debate, proving that something is important to talk about is only useful if talking about that thing preserves the fairness of a predictable topic. I prefer to see debates about the topic. This doesn’t mean I don’t vote for the K, but it does mean I will be more persuaded by the K if it is intrinsic to the topic. And “You use the state” doesn’t count as the topic, in my book. In the same vein, the Affirmative should present a topical plan.

+If you go for the K, have a realistic alternative. “Rethinking” sounds to me very much like doing nothing. Many judges self-identify as academics, but I self-identify as a businessman, a pragmatist, and a teacher. Over the years, I have discovered that this has a noteworthy impact on what I consider to be a “solution”.

+I also haven’t read a lot of modern philosophy because I don’t enjoy it. And by “modern”, I mean “unavailable to George Washington”. If you need me to understand an important philosophical concept for your argument to make sense, you’ll want to explain.

+I am willing to say that there is zero link of a disad. I am also willing to say there is zero solvency for an advantage. I think something missing from the more recent debates I have judged is a healthy sense of incredulity. Both teams will say a couple of reasonable things, and both teams will also say a series of preposterous things, and then the teams will conspire to make them indistinguishable. Perhaps this is because the preposterous things have larger terminal impacts, but that doesn’t interest me nearly as much as probability, subjection of internal links to reason, and the application of evidentiary standards to solvency and link evidence.

+I am probably not the best judge for your politics disad. I often think the evidence read doesn’t meet any reasonable standard of evidence, and many of the common internal link arguments (horsetrading, political capital, etc.) don’t actually work in the real world the way they must be described in debate in order for the politics disad to be a force in being.

Zoheb Nensey Florida State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 20, 2024 at 11:22 AM EDT

About me:

Update January 2024.
Whew. Been a long ride since I last updated. If I'm in the back of the room for you, it's because someone drafted me into judging a tournament as a fill-in for somebody else. My work has gotten increasingly busy, and now I work close to 12 hours a day. I also have a baby on the way (due April 2024!) so there may be some elements of sleep deprivation. I have stopped actively coaching debate, and probably will not pick it back up until the aforementioned child is in middle/high school and has decided to join the debate team.

As a result, a few things to think about.

My ability to hear speed hasn't gone away - I listen to debate rounds online from time to time, and fast spreading still sounds like conversational speech to me. What has gone away is my ability for my flow to keep up with speed. I can pretty much guarantee that if you spread anything except the text of evidence itself I will miss arguments on my flow. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what happens when I don't judge regularly.

I will not be familiar with the topic beyond what I follow in the news (though admittedly, I read a lot). It might be beneficial to think of me as a well informed person, but someone whose knowledge is much wider than it is deep. As I've stated in past updates, it's to your advantage to read deeper piece of evidence that you can explain well. Keep in mind that any narrative you build based on that evidence is vulnerable to disruption by the other team, and so be prepared for that.

If you want to read T, theory, or framework, that's still fine. It's my general perspective that framework debates have changed as the community has started embracing a lot more Ks, and given my unfamiliarity with that literature base, I'd spend some time explaining it if I was in your shoes.

I'm a lot more flexible, however, on what I'm willing to judge. I used to have a strong preference for reading a plan text. Judging so much PF and LD, where plan texts are less common (especially in PF, where it's usually a bad idea to read one), pulled me away from that preference. I'm more concerned with the central thesis of the debate more so than I'm concerned about plan action. That's not to say I don't enjoy the whole plan text + advantages structure which dominated my time as a debater, because I do. It's just that I recognize that affirmative solvency isn't necessarily dependent on the implementation of a plan. Most plan-less debates still have the concept that you need to present an alternative to the status quo and solvency for it, but that doesn't need to a plan implemented by a government entity.

Finally, a general thought. I do make a point of trying to keep up with developments in the debate community, especially in the policy and progressive LD domains. There is a lot of public pushback against both activities as exclusionary because of the various Ks that get read, and it creates an image that debaters are trying to push out people who don't agree with them. There are people outside of debate who will cherry-pick judging paradigms, or streamed debates which are K-heavy, and then present that as evidence that debate is broken. As someone who has been around debate for a long time, and as someone who has a lot of friends still coaching and judging who have informed me otherwise, I really don't think that's the case. Unless I see something which really leads me to believe otherwise, I will defend and advocate for debate as much as I possibly can. I only ask that you help me in this goal by being the best version of yourself - do deep research, constantly refine your speaking skills, practice flowing, and always do redos after your tournaments. Just like you need evidence to win your debates, I need it too.

Thanks for letting me be your judge.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update for Harvard 2022

I am super tired at this point in time, largely because I started a demanding new job in the middle of a pandemic while remote coaching a 10-person LD/PF team by myself (though my older debaters are finally cutting their own evidence, so that helps.) Please consider slowing down. I'm fine with all your tech, but maybe focus on reading deeper pieces of evidence and explaining them to me instead of going fast. I just wanna hear a good debate at this point, but not a fast one.

Rest of my philosophy is below, nothing has changed in the macro sense except the speed stuff.

My email is zoheb.nensey@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any questions post round or put me on the email chain.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I debated for four years at Miami (FL), took a year off to coach for the Chief at KCKCC, and then returned to school to coach at Florida State. I then spent 5 years in DC, where I worked with Oakton HS for like a year or two, and then with the Washingtion UDL for 3 years. I've since moved back to Florida and work with Jesuit (Tampa) on the side. We do a little bit of policy, and a lot of PF/LD (good locally, mostly a bunch of pretty bad 1-5s, 2-4s on the circuit).

Short version:

1) Speed's fine - I'll let you know if you're going too fast. Sorry if I miss it on my flow, but my local circuit is not very fast.

2) I have an ongoing love affair for T. You can turn it with your K if you want, but know that I'll evaluate the T flow before I evaluate anything else (including any turns.) Please slow slow slow down on these debates as I rarely judge T (or theory, for that matter) anymore. For 2018-9, I am not as familiar with the topic and what is normally considered topical as I would like. So keep that in mind when you're arguing about what the core of the topic is.

3) Arguments I consider outlandish but will still vote for (but warning - high threshold here):

a) Must define all terms - only if the aff somehow drops it.

b) nuclear malthus, spark, wipeout - only if the neg goes all in on it during the block and the aff doesn't win any offense against it. Feel free to bust out your turns, affirmatives.

c) ASPEC - only if the neg asks who the actor is in the 1AC cross-x, and the negative can justify loss of ground based on that actor choice.

4) K debates - go for it. Please provide real world examples of the kind of logic that the affirmative is using and why that logic is a bad idea.

5) Framework debates - go for it. But please let me know you're reading framework in your roadmap - I flow these separately, and much like a T debate.

6) Disads - have fun. Read them. I'm still skeptical of political capital being zero sum after having lived in DC for 5 years, but read it anyway if you think you have a good argument. All other disads are fair game, but don't make your internal link chains too contrived.

7) Counterplans - these are cool too. I'm skeptical of consult CPs from a theoretical perspective, but handle the perm debate and you'll be good. Also - if you're the aff, don't go too fast through your perms, and make sure you explain them in detail. If you're the negative, slow down on your counterplan text - I need to write it down.

8) Theory - I only really vote on super egregious violations (except as outlined above, like on consult CPs), but please avoid reading conflicting worlds.

Longer version:
Theory
I always read theory in debates as an answer if I didn't have anything else. My past experience has been, though, unless its a really egregious violation, I'm not likely to vote on theory. If you're reading more than one counterplan or alternative, AND they conflict, that's a pretty sure way to get me to pull the trigger on theory. If you’re saying “condo”, and then read conflicting positions which can function as offense against each other – you have another thing coming if you think I won’t let the affirmative make you defend both. If, however, they don't conflict then I see no real problem with multiple conditional positions.

T
I like T. I've won debates on T. I think that affs should have a clear link to the topic. For me, its always been a question of competing interpretations. I do think a lot of critical affs can still be run with a topical plan. That's not to say I won't vote for an affirmative that doesn't have a plan text - I've done it before - but you have to have a really good reason why doing your plan through a personal advocacy rather is a better idea then having the USFG doing the plan.

CPs
I think that counterplans are a necessary part of any debate. I'm fine with most counterplans, with the one major exception being consult counterplans. I don't like consult counterplans because it seems that most of the time the net benefit is pretty artificial and stems entirely off of the counterplan's action, rather than any direct link to the plan.
These debates always seem to be pretty heavy on theory, so when you're debating the theory part of these debates slow it down a little and explain things out, because if you're blippy on the line by line I won't be able to catch everything you write down.

DAs
Nothing's better than a good disad. I'm pretty fair game with almost any disad. Though I have a higher threshold for politics.

Ks
I like the K, but I'm not especially familiar with it. My background is such that I’ve spent a lot of time looking at political science things, communication things, statistics things, and computer things, but I have not had the chance to dig into philosophical literature much beyond the basics. I have judged a number of K debates over the years, so my basic feeling is that if you run into a K Aff, you should try and read a K against it.

If you’re an affirmative and you get a K run against you, try and engage it. I am not averse to the idea that the affirmative can be a step in the right direction. That being said, the negative should spend time highlighting the logic and assumptions of the affirmative – I tend to view the link in these terms, and I am persuadable by arguments along the line that even if the aff is a step in the right direction, its’ underlying logic means that it won’t achieve any sort of long term solvency for the harms that the K expresses. But it’s on the negative to prove that the bias of the affirmative is strong enough to preclude any risk of affirmative solvency or perm solvency at all, and on top of that I need to understand why the K’s alternative will eventually resolve the problems presented by the aff. A change in logic can lead to changes in how we formulate policy, but you need to explain that.

One other thing – on framework. I am not averse to it. I will judge it much like a T debate for the K – it comes first if it’s get read. But my threshold for rejecting frameworks that simply say that we should only do policy analysis is low. Policy considerations are always based on assumptions and ways of looking at the world, and your framework argument should tell me what your view of the world is and why that’s better than whatever the negative is proposing. Make it specific. Also let me know if you’re reading framework (in the form of – you’ll need an extra sheet) during your roadmap. I flow framework separately.

Offense/Defense
Offense is good --> having lots of it at the end of a debate makes me happy. In the case that the other team has lots of offense too, I need a clear explanation why your offense is more important than theirs, because otherwise you're opening the door for a lot of judge interventionism. I don't like intervening, but if I have to intervene I will.
Defense is good too --> I think you can win on an argument purely on defense. If you have some really good evidence that takes out their link or takes out the uniqueness to their disad, by all means, read it and use it to its fullest extent. I need there to be more than just a risk of a link to vote an argument. If you're negative, make sure your link is as concrete as you can possibly make it.

Miscellaneous
Be nice to the other team and to your partner. I once had a partner who was blatantly rude, and it cost us debates and caused a lot of bad feelings. Rudeness will hurt your speaks.
If you don't know the answer to a question in CX, it's far better to say I don't know or look to your partner to answer it than to stand there blankly or try and dodge the question.
I'm fine with tag-team CX.
Jokes about the Florida State Seminoles (even though I went there), the Florida Gators, and the Ohio State Buckeyes will be rewarded with a laugh and a slight increase in speaker points.
Humor in general will be rewarded with increases in speaker points.

Speaker Points Scale
30 - you're the best debater I've ever seen, and your execution was flawless. I don't think I've ever given a 30, but if someone were to get it they would probably also be in late outrounds at the NDT.
29 - 29.9 - You're one of the best debaters at the tournament (in your division.)
28 - 28.9 - You're good, You'll probably clear.
27 - 27.9 - You're an okay debater, you need some work, you didn't drop anything major.
26 - 26.9 - You dropped at least one or more important arguments that lost you the round.
25 - 25.9 - This is reserved for people who were either so atrocious that they answered nothing (an unlikely scenario, no matter the division), or were exceptionally rude to one or more people in the debate.

At the end of the day, do what you do best. If you can run and explain a K really well, then run it. If your pleasure is politics disads, go for it. I've voted against my personal preferences before, and I'll do it again. I'll work hard in deciding the round for you because I know you work hard to prepare. So do your best, keep it civil, and have fun.

Ana Nikolic Georgetown 8 rounds

Ana Nikolic
- I graduated in 2011 from Emory, where I debated for four years. I work full time in energy policy now in DC and have done a fair amount of research on the topic so I have a pretty high level of topic knowledge.

-I don’t have a problem with speed, as long as you are comprehensible and I can understand you. I will likely tell you if I can’t. Or make angry and/or confused faces at you.

-I probably fall in the camp of tech over truth – dropped arguments, no matter how dumb, are hard to ignore. But, even if an argument it dropped, it still needs to meet the basic threshold of an argument - claim, warrant, and IMPACT. Just extending the tag “PC low” with zero explanation of why that means I can’t vote for the DA does not meet this threshold. Dumb/cheap shot arguments can probably be dismissed in little time with just a few smart arguments, but I won’t make the arguments for you if you don’t make the time to do so in your speech.

-When I debated, I was a politics, disads, case, impact turns, and CP debater. This is not meant to imply you should do the same, but rather these were my favorite types of arguments to debate and now to judge also. However, at the end of the day, I would rather listen to a good debate than debaters trying to adapt to my preferences, so do what you are comfortable with.

-DAs: Read them. Make impact comparisons. Make turns case arguments. Tell me why I should favor uniqueness vs. link in this scenario (this applies to the aff just as much).

-CPs: I am very persuaded by “Perm Do the CP” against consult/condition/any CPs that compete off the process of the plan and not the mandates. Condition CPs I could be persuaded are competitive, assuming there is specific evidence to deal with competition/perm and there is a clear net benefit. Aff specific PICs with internal net benefits are awesome.

-T: Topic specific T arguments are great, just keep in mind that I am not a full time debate coach and probably have not spent at much time thinking about these arguments as you have.

-The K: Anyone who knows me will tell you I never ran kritiks, but that does not mean you should change your strategy and run a politics DA you downloaded from a high school camp file before the round. I am more than willing to vote on a kritik, but your explanation might need to change in front of me vs. someone who only ran the K. Turns case/alt solve the aff/impact comparison – all necessary. Dropped framework arguments are hard to ignore, so they definitely need to be answered by the Aff (however it probably won’t take much to convince me to let you weigh the Aff).

-The “K Aff”: I prefer to listen to the big stick policy aff with tons of advantages. But, definitely understand the utility of the small/k aff, and ran a small aff with a systemic advantage most of senior year, not because it was my favorite argument but because it was strategic. So read the aff that’s most strategic for you, not the one that will entertain me the most. That being said, its going to be very had to convince me that your aff doesn’t have to be topical. Or that extinction doesn’t outweigh just about every other impact.

-Theory: Conditionality is good. Two conditional CPs are probably okay, but I could be persuaded either way. Cheap shots, not very persuasive.

-Offense vs. Defense: Offense is obviously great, but good defense can definitely mitigate a DA/Advantage, so it’s not always necessary.

Cameron Norris Vanderbilt University 3 rounds None

Charles Olney Dartmouth College 7 rounds

New judge philosophy (Oct. 2013), which isn’t that much different from the old one, but is a little bit expanded. As always, the first thing is by far the most important, but I included the other stuff in case you care.

First, the basic stuff:

1. Generally speaking, you should do whatever you want to do. Debate is about the debaters, not about the judges, so I’ll try and judge the debate that you want to have.

2. That said, I find myself becoming more of a 'truth' judge as time goes on. Which is to say: I aspire to judge like Ross Smith. This pretty much just means that my presumption is tilted in favor of the team who is making more sense. A lot of debate practices are a bit silly and teams who can call out their opponents on this stuff will go pretty far with me. Good evidence can help a LOT to establish that you actually are on the right side of things. But bad evidence without further development will usually lose to good analytic arguments.

3. I have done very little work on this topic, but a lot of my academic work covers this stuff, so I am reasonably on top of things. You might want to go a bitter slower in T debates, though.

4. Speaking of going slower, allow me to go a little Grumpy Old Man for a second. Debaters are often very unclear and seem uninterested in flowing. My tolerance for this declines with each passing year. If you speak with structure and clarity, you will not just get better points, but will be much more likely to win. It’s hard to vote on an argument you haven’t heard or don’t know where to flow. Other Grumpy Gus things: 1) Overviews 2) 'Probably' 3) 'the X debate' which is just code for 'I'm going to read a block and didn't bother to flow the previous speech' 4) Almost every internal link in debate 4.5) Teams that just accept insane IL claims and then lose on 'would bolster leadership' becoming 'secures American military hegemony forever.'

5. Theory stuff: I’m getting a bit more weary of counterplan proliferation, but haven’t noticed much change in how I vote in those debates. I tend to feel that one CP, one K, and the SQ is a pretty fair position for the negative--even if this is a bit of an arbitrary line. I will not vote against a team because they made a perm. Severance is obviously bad; please spend 99% of your time winning the link that it is severance and 1% of the time saying severance is bad.

6. K stuff: perms are often the best aff argument, but often deployed very poorly. If you think the perm completely resolves the link, you’re not likely to win it. If you use the perm to isolate the specific area of disagreement and then win offense on that point, you are likely to be in better shape. I find Ks that speak from the perspective of the fox (Nietzsche and friends) to be a lot more strategically useful than hedgehog critiques ( Cap K, psychoanalysis, etc.). But that’s just advice. See #1.

7. T against K affs: very winnable for the neg, but it really depends on how well you can articulate where the line ought to be drawn and the value of drawing the line at that point. Too many of these debates quickly descend into farce where the aff says that any attempt to impose limits is the worst thing ever, while the neg posits that debate is literally impossible without a stable policy option. Teams that make some effort to acknowledge the silliness of these caricatures are likely to do a lot better than those who do not. My personal view is that teams who read a topical plan and have some reason why that plan is valuable should be given a LOT of leeway about the framework for analysis. I feel like that kind of aff is a bit of a unicorn these days, but wish that was less true.

8. I would love to hear someone defend a different theory of fiat. Why should fiat ignore probability of a thing happening? Seems like a good aff that's actually plausible is better than one that's not. Same goes for counterplans. Not quite sure how to model this in debate, but would like to hear people experimenting a bit.

The other stuff

I judge a lot of clash of civilization debates. Which is good. These are important debates and I often really enjoy watching them. I think that the quality of arguments on both sides has improved tremendously over the past decade.

From my perspective, the single biggest determining factor in the quality of these debate is empathy. I understand why empathy is often hard to muster for everyone involved, but debate really only works if we have at least some openness to the idea that people who think differently from us might have something to contribute. I have seen tremendous growth on this front over the past 10-15 years, from everyone involved (myself included). But there’s still a long ways to go.

That means that if you think it’s a plain fact that the resolution demands a policy, that it’s literally impossible to debate without a stable locus for rebuttal, you are far less likely to beat the complex arguments the other side will make. You might ask yourself: do these folks have debates against one another where framework is not an issue? The answer is yes, and they get by just fine. Not saying you can’t read T; in many debates, T is absolutely the right argument to read. But you ought to really think about what is at stake, what you’re defending, and whether it can really be justified.

On the other side, you probably won’t like me as a judge if you think that it’s self-evident that anyone who proposes an alternate way of looking at the problem is an enemy hiding behind ideology. Or if you think all claims of a ‘middle ground’ where certain kinds of arguments are set aside but a wide variety is permitted are entirely duplicitous. Again, not saying you can’t make these arguments. In many cases, they are absolutely appropriate. It is undeniably true that claims of support have historically lagged infinitely far behind any tangible commitment. And you are right to be skeptical. But you should establish why in this case that really is the best way of reading things.

The gist of this is: I think that very few positions are unassailable. I go into every debate hoping that everyone will leave with a better understanding of things. And such understanding is only possible if we can all acknowledge that we might not yet know what is best.

All of which is to say: we all like debate, and we all care about making it better. Perhaps our different ideas of what ‘better’ looks like are so irrevocable that there is no point to being generous to one another. But I don’t think that’s true. I think we make each other better by forcing these questions. And I like watching debates where people take on that task and do it well.

One last point

I suppose the final thing I should say here is: I care a lot about people being nice. Now, I am completely aware that notions of ‘civility’ can very easily reflect the hidden expectations that people form the anodyne, neutral subjectivity of upper-class whiteness. And I appreciate intensity. But I still think there needs to be space in debate for intensity that doesn’t immediately turn into attacks. Again, I’m not saying you can’t lay it all on the table. This is important stuff, and there are plenty of solid justifications for why politics needs to incorporate anger (Towson had a very good argument about this a few years back – I’m sure others have read it as well). So this is not an absolute statement. But, absent some strong justification, I’m frankly just a lot less likely to be on your side if it seems to me that you’re looking for reasons to yell at the other team, rather than listening to their arguments.

Kevin Park NYU Policy 7 rounds

Note: I have not judged any rounds for this topic nor done any research.

General Thoughts:

-I'm generally willing to listen to whatever you want, but highly prefer/encourage debates that are topically related. I also thoroughly appreciate creativity.

-Dropped arguments are not necessarily automatic winners for me, because often they are not actually dropped. You still need to explain/argue the point, and also foreclose other arguments that are on the flow. Just pulling it through leaves a waste of space on my flow (i.e. don't make arguments that lack warrants).

-When evaluating a round, order of operations is important. Teams should explain how the different issues interact and frame an order in which I should decide. Otherwise, I'll pick a starting point, and someone won't be happy.

-If you do something germane and funny, I will like you lots more. If you're rude or offensive, I will dock speaker points.

-You should probably look at me from time to time to see if I'm smiling, scowling, confused, etc. during your speech. It also indicates whether I understand the actual works you're speaking.

Ks-I am familiar with most critical literature, and very much appreciate a well constructed critique specific to the aff/topic (and dislike overly generic, bastardized, or mischaracterized arguments). Make sure to demonstrate that you actually know your argument well. I will generally not give (much) weight to arguments that are nebulous or vague at the end of the round. Thus you will need to have a specific and coherent argument, especially for the alternative and framework. Also, make sure the argument's structure is clear at the outset. No one likes a surprise alt in the 2nr.

Theory/T-I probably have a higher threshold for these arguments in both directions, and you need a significant impact for me to consider them. Make sure to be clear on your interpretation. I generally characterize these impacts in terms of fairness and education. I am unlikely to vote on a cheap shot theory argument, unless there is a compelling reason. As for T, I highly prefer topical affs, but if you have a very compelling argument about why something else is better, I'm willing to listen. Although that is not at all a guarantee that I'll buy your argument. Evidence/literature is very helpful on topicality.

CPs-Creative CPs, including PICS, are good. I also think conditionality is generally ok, but could be convinced otherwise. I'm not a big fan of consult or TF cps.

Jonathan Paul Georgetown 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2013 at 5:33 AM EDT

Update: WFU 2013: I will use the speaker point scale provided by WFU and encourage others to do the same.

Updated: September 2012

1. Be comprehensible. Aside from it having a huge impact on how I assign speaker points, I’m far more likely to vote for arguments that I can understand.

2. I don’t think my predispositions will be that relevant in many theory debates. I could envision a scenario where I vote on conditionality bad, but the way it is typically advanced (‘you make the 2AC too hard’) is usually unpersuasive to me. I’m aff-leaning on competition issues involving counterplans that result in the full enactment of the plan or PICs about things that the plan doesn’t explicitly commit to, but this probably shouldn’t effect your decision to go for one if you think you are winning the theoretical issues.

3. If the neg reads a conditional CP, I will consider the status quo as an option if I conclude that the CP is worse than the plan absent explicit instructions from the other team. This is a default setting that can easily be overcome if the aff makes arguments about why the neg has to explicitly choose in the 2NR, but that’s what I’ll do if no one says anything. Obviously, if the neg says ‘we’ll only go for one policy’ as an argument to defend conditionality, then I will only consider the option they select.

4. “Perm-Do the CP,” “A logical policy maker can do both,” “fiat means the plan doesn’t cost capital,” “voting issue for fairness,” etc. are not complete arguments and do not require a negative response until the argument is developed. All of those claims could be winners in certain circumstances, but that doesn’t obviate the need to make complete arguments in the 2AC. Generally speaking, I’m ok with new arguments in a lot of situations. The one exception is if the 2AC omits a genre of argument (doesn’t perm, read a link turn, etc.).

5. I vote neg on the K occasionally. I tend to evaluate these debates the same way I evaluate policy arguments. This means you are best served by winning your impact, debating about the plan, and making arguments about why the alt solves the case instead of attempting to convince me that I should ignore the aff because they had a problematic representation or because fiat is not real.

6. I prefer that the aff defend a topical plan.

Kristen Porter Florida State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 6, 2017 at 2:31 PM EDT

If you're reading this right before a round here's the summary: affs should generally support the topic. I'm enjoy kritical and performance arguments. CP's and DA's are fine. I find it hard to win a round by winning a politics scenario. K's are good, but you need to understand what you're saying and be explaining it as you go. T and Theory are important tools for debate but there has to be real in round abuse and the 2nr/2ar needs to be spending just about all of the 6 minutes on it if you want me to vote on it.

now for details:

I debated for four years in high school and then 1 year for USF and 2 years for FSU. During that time, I was primarily a K debater. I have been judging and coaching on and off since 2012. In my time coaching, I have found that I have become more middle of the road and generally acccept any argument, provided you tell me why I'm voting on it.

GHG Topic Specifics: On Warming, I beleive that if your advantage is going to solve for extinction, you have to also won the leadership advantage. If it is a mitigation scenario, you have more leway and I can weigh them separately. Carbon Tax is probably not topical

Affs need to be related to the topic but I don't necessarily feel they should have to be resolutional. K affs and performance affs are good, though you need to have a reason for doing so. A lot of novice teams will forget to keep their aff in the round- make sure its in every speech! I believe the Aff wins if they prove they are better than the status quo and any alternative plans. Bonus points if you use this to evaluate the round in your rebuttals!

CP's are a good way to test the affirmative. If you plan on defending the actions of the CP and have it be more than a test, you need to have your net benefits clear from the beggining. Generally, I feel that perms should be a test of competition. If you are the Aff, please explain to me why your perm is now a legitimate "world" that you can win.

DA's are good however in order to win the round, you need to be winning more than the DA flow- case takeouts or another DA. Which brings us to impact calculus. This should be utlized in every speech in every round. The less work you make me do, the happier I'm going to be. Tell me why your impacts matter in the round not just the typical timeframe/magnitude/probability.

T/Theory. They both can be used for gaining offense on other flows. For topicality, unless the team is horribly untopical, I'm not likely to vote on T. For theory, I feel condo is legitimate until there are 3 or more conditional advocacies. Both sides need to spend time on this flow and actually answer your opponents arguments. Too much theory debate is just reading blocks you didn't actually write. If you want to win on t/theory, it must be the entire 2NR with proven in round abuse.

K's are my favorite but I think they need to specific to the topic and not some generic "government bad." This is where I spent most of my time as a debater. My favorite K was by far Foucault's Biopower. Just because I'm familiar with the lit, doesn't mean you shouldn't explain it. Please take the time to explain the K (overview/underview) and not just read cards. I think I am one of the view judges who believes that Kritikal DA's are legitimate. AKA your K doesn't have to have an Alt. If this is a strategy you plan on using, look back over my notes on DA's. If you do plan on using an Alt, please make it specific; 'reject the aff', 'reject the topic', 'vote neg' are not enough.

Performance debate I think is an important part of debate. I prefer when performance is either about the topic or about the debate space. If you plan on kritiking debate and the rules, make sure you factor in what that means for the judge. Should I be flowing or taking notes in a different way? What does my vote actually mean? Why am I here? The earlier you set up these rules, the easier my life will be, and the happier I will be to listen to your performance. If you are facing a performance team, please don't use arguments such as "do speech events instead" "this bad for debate." I generally support that performances should be listened too, even if you choose to utilize framework instead of engaging in their argument. Silencing the performance is probably abusive.

Framework is where some of my favorite debates take place. Role of the ballots should be established early. 1AC if you are a kritical aff, 2AC if the Neg offers a ROB, and the 1NC if you're neg. Adding ROB's later in the debate is messy and can shift how the entire round plays out, which is probably abusuve. I think that arguing about the rules of debate is an important part of debate. Please include impacts to your framework.

Paperless debate, I have accepted as the new normal, even though I long for the days of paper and tubs. While I understand there are a lot of benefits to paperless debate, there are also a lot of new problems. First and foremost, if you are having technical difficulties, talk to me, talk to your opponents, and talk to your partner. So that we are all on the same page and can get it resolved quickly. Then start talking about the weather, traveling, funny youtube videos, anything that shows no one is stealing prep. This should also be applied when you are transfering speeches. Once upon I time, i would say preptime stops when you remove the jump drive, now that we are in a world of email/pocketbox/speechdrop/etc., it is harder for me to know when you're actually done prepping. I do not want to be included on the email chain. Debate is primarily about communication; I expect all speeches to be clearly spoken, and taglines and authors to be pronounced. I have found that debaters (especially in the first constructives) while spread it all together since "everyone is looking at the evidence." I think this is a bad practice to get in to and is less effective in communicating your arguments. If I need a specific card, I will ask for it after the round.

At the end of the day, this event is all about you. Do what you do, do what you love!
If you have any other questions, just ask!

Niko Poulakos Hire 4 rounds None

Tom Preston Georgia Tech 4 rounds

I would characterize myself as a critic of argument, although I will only look at the arguments in the round. I will consider any theoretical argument posed--but because you lose a topicality argument, a kritik, an a-spec, o-spec, counterplan, etc, doesn't mean its a bad argument--the other team had the responses. Be sure theory applies clearly to the arguments in the rounds. Theory for theory's sake is very limited.

I will flow the best I can, and I find that in today's debate it's best to take some time to read the evidence at the end of the round--so make sure your evidence is recent, is qualified, and matches your taglines. Sometimes, the rebuttals decide. . .but when it is very close, reading the evidence can be the best thing that happens.

The taglines I can flow--so when I read your evidence after the round, it should match the taglines.

So--I like theory--but that includes, say, topicality as a reverse voter if it is argued well. Also, topicality or anything you claim is a priori has to be won hands down.

I like to hear the link-debate between plan and counterplan (or what is linked to the status quo). Making those clearer in rebuttals without brining up new arguments helps you.

I like good evidence on both the theoretical and practical level, and again, I will take time to take time to read it after the rounds. Debates are won and lost in rebuttals--but as well in the time we take after the round to read the evidence.

I am also open to narrative forms of debate, but again, the narrative should be original--and again, just because the other team has the responses doesn't mean don't run it again.

If there are other questions, please ask. Paradigms are a two way street--students may ask any specific question before the round--but they can also tell me how to serve them as well as particular skills they wish to receive feedback on in the round.

I will say this is a student's game, so be willing to run your arguments and I will try to help you to improve them at the end of the rounds. Paradigms themselves are debatable, and have been for centuries. Set your standards and follow them or you may or may not like how this critic of argument intervenes in applying his own.

Be sure to make practical applications and impacts on all of the arguments in the round. Be creative, and be sure to respond and meet the burden of rejoinder.

Narrative approaches are okay, but if you use this approach, be sure that you are using original arguments and not the same stories told for 15 years at this point.

This varies from my past philosophies--I love all forms of debate, and this is what I believe NOW. As times change, so will my paradigm.

Dylan Quigley Dartmouth College 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM EDT

Dylan Quigley

Currently an attorney for foster youth, coached at Dartmouth ('11-'13) and Harvard ('13-'16), debated at Kansas ('06-'11)

Updated: 9/2023

Note for 2023:

I've been out of the activity for a bit now so do with that what you will. I did debate on the last nukes topic and have continued to follow nuclear policy some so I should be ok with topic jargon, but probably not more recent K authors or generics.

Some distance from debate also makes me feel that my original paradigm below is a little too serious. It's a game; please have fun.

Note for 2019:

Being out of debate has not substantially changed my views except maybe to deepen my belief in empathy for others. I think the stereotype is that people leave debate and become more skeptical of K alts which is probably true, but I think I have become equally more skeptical of the "pragmatism" of most plans as well.

Original Philosophy:

I like nerdy, wonky, academic debate.

I don't flow that well, slow down.

I like and reward people who take on big debates, rather than avoid them with fancy footwork.

I think I am most impressed by debaters who can use small concessions or the given facts in the debate to create a complex vision of how the world operates.

I try to try hard to resolve debates because it's what I valued most in a judge when I debated and because its what I value most from those judging my kids.

If you are doing your prefs, I may not be a good judge for you if:

I am turned off by highly abstract arguments or things that rely heavily on an anything goes, game playing model of debate. If your jam is irony, conspiracy theory, word pics, OOO, death good and Ashtar, I may not be a very good judge for you. If "trolling" is a word you use to describe your arguments or debating style, I may not be a good judge for you. If your argument is against making the world better in any way, I may not be a good judge for you. [2023 edit: I still sort of believe this but would also tell my past self to chill out a little.]

But since you are mostly likely a policy team about to debate a K team or vice vera, I have pulled the following sections to the top.

Topicality versus non-traditional affirmatives:

As a debater, I both read non-topical affirmatives and also went for topicality against teams that did not defend the resolution. I have found myself very turned off by affirmatives that defend exceptionally minor revisions to the sqo or an unwillingness to defend a large vision for social change and have been voting on T with much more regularity.

I think that the question of the value of debating the particular Aff at hand is very important. For the Aff, I think that explaining clearly what the core controversy of the affirmative is and why the negative should be reasonably expected to negate that claim is key. (Put differently, what is productive about asking the negative team to negate the 1AC you’ve presented?). I want to hear about why and how either teams interpretation facilitates debates over particular mechanisms for social change.

Competition in non-traditional debates:

I do not enter the debate with the presumption that competition functions in the same way in plan focused and non-plan focused debates. I think that one possible way the debate community can facilitate debates that do not necessarily require the affirmative to defend the resolution while ensuring relative side equity and quality debates is to demystify permutations and develop new ways of thinking about competition. I look forward to judging debates about this issue.

Now the rest...

The quick stuff:

-I believe strongly that intentionally conceding the claim of another team means that that argument is true regardless of evidence quality etc.

-I don't believe that the Aff has an absolute right to define the scope/meaning of the plan.

-For some reason, it really bothers me when people look at each other and not me during CX.

-My default facial expression is often a scowl – it’s not you, it’s me.

-I believe zero risk is possible (and often likely) for the purposes of deciding a debate.

-I reserve the right to not vote on a sufficiently stupid theory argument.

-An all-case 2NC will likely receive extra speaker points.

CP Theory:

I find myself leaning aff on some competition questions especially for CPs that could result in the entire Aff. I'm fairly skeptical of states/international cp's - I’m especially interested in the way CP's like states constrains the affirmative research process at a very early point and how it affects the common sense of the debate community as to what counts as a “good aff.” My default is that presumption shifts aff when vs. a CP/K alt.

Critiques:

I have an academic basis in critical theory and debated mostly critical arguments at the end of my debate career. I think many critiques I see are vulnerable to being impact turned and I'm surprised and disappointed I don't see Aff teams doing it more.

In the context of a traditional aff versus a critique, I think the vast majority of debates that center around the question of "should I evaluate the plan or ontology/epistemology/scholarship/whatever first" are a waste of time for both sides. Frameworks that ask me to ignore large portions of the 1AC rarely make any more sense to me than frameworks that ask me to ignore portions of the 1NC. Both sides time is likely better invested in other parts of the debate.

Dig it especially when placing an emphasis on evidence and normative/literature based argument rather than abstract limits based arguments. I think we are almost always served best by drawing our lines from the literature, not imposing them ourselves.

Conditionality/judge choice:

I don’t have any strong feelings about conditionality, though I find myself moderately uncomfortable with judge choice. My default assumption is that if you extend a CP/Alternative in the 2NR, you are giving up the possibility of advocating the status quo. I do not feel comfortable kicking anything for you unless this framework has been well developed earlier in the debate.

Side bias/case debate:

Though I said above that I lean aff on many competition questions, I am disturbed about much Aff teams seem to get away with on extending their case in the 2AC and 1AR. I think just as strong of a burden of rejoinder should apply to the case debate for the Aff as would apply to the Neg on a DA.

Speaker points:

-I care deeply about cross-examination, presence, persuasiveness, eloquence, cross-examination and clarity. By “eloquence” I mean speaking at a rate and style that I can flow and that allows you to talk continually with out stumbling, stopping or repeating yourself unnecessarily. Mentioning cross-examination twice was not an accident.

Andrea Reed Kentucky 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 7:35 PM CDT

Kentucky 2017 update: This is the first year since the Europe topic where I didn't attend the season opener. So whatever T/competition things the community "collectively figured out" during the first tourney, do not assume that I am in the know re: that info. I have been reading about healthcare and doing some topic research, so don't over-apply this advice. I know what single payer means, I know what happened to Graham-Cassidy, I know Price resigned, etc. My point is more about the *competitive* direction the topic is heading.

Updated Fall 2013: I added a new section on evidence, clarity, and clipping at the end, given its length, but I wanted to mention it up here (in case of TL;DR)

Crotchety old person complaints: You should flow. You should go line-by-line unless having a purposeful reason not to. You should talk about the other team’s evidence. You should talk about your own evidence. You should have warrants to back up claims, and examples to contextualize your arguments. Historical references are great. Smart analysis > more cards. I will not read cards after the debate to reconstruct arguments that you failed to communicate yourself during your speech. I will read cards that are intelligently contested by both teams. Wiki golden rule- put as much intel up as you expect from other people.

Cross-x: is my favorite part of the debate. I flow it. Being smart in CX can win or lose you the debate.

T debates… things that will help you out: explaining which affs we should be debating and why, which arguments we should be debating and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion, ect. If the neg’s interpretation is more limiting, but the aff can clearly explain why that definition is not predictable, or the affs that the neg allows are not good affs or exclude critical parts of the literature, ect, the aff will be in a good place. Limits are not the end all, be all. Discussion of sources of definitions also important for the aff to win if their counter-interpretation is not going to be more limiting.

Theory debates- happen at a speed where its impossible to get all of the 2ac/2nc/1ar args... if this describes you (and it almost certainly does) and the aff wants theory to be a real potential option for the 2ar, know that you should slow down to around 75% speed. I lean neg on most counterplan theory questions by default, but its all up for debate.... assuming I can understand what you are saying.

Ks- I am not a judge that you cannot go for the K in front of. Judges get siloed in some weird ways based on presuppositions about how they think, and philosophies are meant to clear that up. SO! I evaluate kritik debates like any other strategy- superior analysis and refutation in the final rebuttals over the key questions will win you the debate. Negs should focus on why the alternative remedies their link arguments (and solves the aff's 1AC impacts, if you are trying to do so). If there is no alternative or you posit that your framework is your "alt," you do need to explain why this instance of rejecting the aff/their representiations is alone/taking an ethical standpoint in this debate is sufficient action to avoid the impact that is identified by the K. The one thing I will say for the neg is that there is some tension in my mind between the common neg claim that "the aff doesn't leave the room, there is no "spill up," the state never hears them, so they can't access their impact turns" with the neg's alternative solvency claim that "rejecting this aff solves our terminal impact which is global extinction from neolib/militarism/antiblackness," etc. Is there "spill up" to one debate judge's choice or not, and if not for the aff, why is it assumed for the neg? I think this is best remedied by the neg narrowing your impact framing to the types of things that ARE clearly within the judge's purview-- epistemological choices behind scholarship presentations matter, single ethical choices made by individuals matter, representations even within academia matter, and so on.

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s argument as possible... not impressed with the aff that recycles the same 4 cards against every kritik. Same for the neg- if you mix it up every year with kritiks that are tailored to the topic, I will be a good judge for you. If you've been doin more or less the same thing for the better part of a decade.. meh, there are better judges for you. The aff should say what their permutation actually means in the 2ar. I've found most framework debates in policy aff v. neg K debate to be vacuous. Everyone wants to meet in the middle. The neg rarely seems to go as far as to say "no aff," and the aff is too afraid to say "no alt," and we all can never get those 120 minutes of our lives back.

In terms of K affs, though my default is that the aff should discuss the benefits of hypothetical topical action by the USFG, affs should at a minimum demonstrate topic-relevance. If you are reading an aff that very explicitly ignores the topic, I'm not the best judge for you, though if you do find me in the back of the room, you should be sure to explain fully why departing from the topic is essential to whatever your thang is. Bottom line, my default is the topic, but you should always do what you think will maximize your chance of winning, rather than comporting to what you think my own leanings are. Debate is hard and you should do what you are best at. All arguments have a chance of winning if they are well reasoned, and if its clear why I should prefer them compared to your opponents arguments.

Paperless stuff- your prep time ends when you are ready to send the email or give the jump drive to the other team. The more time you waste, the less decision time I have, so be mindful of that.

My only request to you when you debate in front of me is to please be civil to your opponents. In CX's, post rounds... coaches getting in post rounds. Yuck. Having your judge cringe at you is never a good thing. I dislike debaters who visibly or audibly react negatively to the other team's final rebuttal. You get your last speech and thats it. I dont need the 2N to be a one-person peanut gallery during the 2AR. Its distracting to me and rude to the other team. You have now been warned re: your speaker points. You should be able to tell how I’m feeling if you look up once and a while.

**New section on evidence and card clipping:

Evidence- this is getting out of control. First, the ethically problematic and academically lazy practices:

--highlighting to the point of creating new content- if you are making new arrangements that the original author did not intend, that is a problem. Let’s call “creative highlighting” what it actually is: fabricating evidence. If your highlighting of evidence is making stuff up and then wrongly attributing it to the author to give it false credibility, that is fabricating evidence.

--ending cards before the end of the author’s original paragraph- I thought this was a universal norm but apparently not.

Second, these practices are not unethical per se, they just make you worse at debate:

--removing warrants from the tag- its hard to flow evidence where the tag is 2-3 words long. I do my best to flow the warrants in each card, but its impossible to get everything said at 300 wpm for 9 mins straight. Debaters should be highlighting the critical parts of evidence in your tags and then deliver them clearly.

--cutting strawperson evidence- lazy research, period. This wouldn’t fly for academic work, so it shouldn’t for debate research either.

--having things that hurt you in the 2-point font of your card. Lets be honest, blowing that stuff up is the first thing I do when I see that in a card. You can expect to find good stuff here usually. This makes it pretty easy on your opponents.

--"abbrev"s make you sound dumb. Why are you highlighting "targeted killing" as just T....K...? "Nuclear weapons" as "nuc.........s"? You are being the characture of policy debate that everyone ridicules.

Clarity- If I cannot understand you, I won’t read your cards after the debate to reconstruct your arguments for you. Debate is a communication activity, love it or leave it. Delivery is a big issue here obviously, but so is form. If your speech is a string of debate “abbrevs”, its pretty hard to flow. Clarity in content is important. If you aren’t contextualizing your arguments and giving examples in your final rebuttal, you leave the judge no choice but to have to input their own analysis to resolve the debate.

Cross reading, “clipping cards”, stopping short on evidence or not marking cards and then misrepresenting what you have read in a debate are unethical practices. If a team suspects another team of doing this, they should stop the debate and present their evidence. I would be willing to listen to any video or audio recording in the room that is available to me. For me, the important thing is the actual result (did the audio of the speech as presented include all of the text submitted into the “record” of the debate?), since intentionality is impossible to prove either way. And I will say this: if a debater’s performance is SO unclear as to look exactly like what cheating looks like, that is still a huge problem.

Will Repko Michigan State University 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Updated - Pre-NU - 09.12.23.

On balance, J Philosophies should prob cut to the chase - but I'm gonna violate my own rule this time:

We exist in an era where being unfiltered gets glorified.. where the smartest person in the room is also encouraged to be the loudest.

Every now and again, someone arrives in our small pond - and they have all the characteristics of a great judge. They are quietly brilliant. They are thoughtful. They hold the community's respect for the simplest reason of all: they are undeniably good at what they do. It doesn't need to be broadcasted - it finds itself on display in each oral critique.

I won't be the guy that pretended to know Brian McBride on a deeply personal level. Our interactions were often limited to those panels that finish their task at 2am.

... but I know enough to say this with confidence. I learned a great deal by letting that guy go first in the post-round. He rarely called attention to himself. I am hopeful that our community finds ways to honor his contribution - even if he would've bashfully declined such praise.

I had a great deal of respect for who he was in this community.

Customary biz:

Yes - speech Doc.

Repko.Debate@gmail.com

Side note - I often miss non-speech doc correspondence sent to that address bc I only use it for judging.

** New - Topic Specific - Nuclear weapons, 2023-4

With all the asterisks that often accompany this, I'll say I'm not going to deeply break-down my thoughts on hyper-generics and the kind of K's that tend to get run on every Res. I do have thoughts on these matters - but I am much more apt to be placed in a Policy-Policy round... this is bc clash/K teams have (correctly) concluded that there are many judges in the pool where their win% would be higher.

I have sneaking suspicions that Topicality will arise more in Policy-Policy rds - what follows is designed to be helpful:

- As a general proposition, I am more Aff than most on T - but I do think the Framer's worded things in a manner that gives the Neg something to argue here. Enough will come down to execution that some of what follows could be overread.

- I do not enter into the T Debate presumptively assuming Negs are structurally hosed on *this* Res. This ain't the water or CJR Res - there's at least room to argue that this Res= atypically good for Negs. I often judge on panels where the lone conception of "ground" is Neg. Absolute kudos to the Neg if they can pull of that framing - you should (as ever) run with the premises your opponents concede. But - in an evenly matched debate - I do think there's space for the Aff to push back on the some of the classic Neg ground claims.

- While I can certainly imagine hypotheticals where one side's interp is noticeably imprecise (i.e. old school "substantial" defs about a Court case involving a kitchen measurement), I tend to think most prepared teams read a reasonably precise interp. Once the opponent's interp has exited the theater of the absurd, I am open to threads that argue that we should consider defaulting to other RTP various interps. Better put - if you're trying to win that an inch of precision >>> a mile of balanced ground/limits, I would recommend you have technical execution on your side.. bc I am going to need to read the opponent's interp and chuckle at how non-applicable it is. If your lead on precision is NOT an inch - I am very good for your side.

Deterrence and Assurance are a thing. If/when the Neg blends them together, they create Aff openings where "thumping one" can "thump both".

Revisionism has become the Policy equiv of ontology. The 2N uses the fact that "Russia has revisionist tendencies" to lower the threshold for the link, the impact, the "turns case" thread, etc.... OK - I suppose it's somewhat helpful to the cause - but let's not overdo this. No one would pretend that reading a card that "X nation is revisionist" is - by its lonesome - a link to the NFU Aff... The best K research takes the ontology claim and contextualizes it to the Aff in question. The best disad research takes the revisionism premise and applies it to the NFU Aff. I find no dissonance here - it feels logical (to me) to demand scholarly contextualization from both revisionism claims and ontology claims. And - to be candid - I suspect I have a higher bar for Neg contextualization than most.

*Older stuff starts here - I'd only read through it if you needed more than the basics

I'm somewhat correctly stereotyped as a "good judge to break a new aff in front of". And, certain broad strokes will not change between now and Monday:

- I am bad for some Neg generics that get run in these spots (process CP, many K's)

- I will do enough "reading" in the post-round to at least try and comprehend a novel Aff or Neg arg - and, as these things go, that can open room for a prepared new Aff to win on various appeals to specificity

- I get that Neg's adore the Cap K... but the way this is getting deployed in the modern era is just so far from what I feel is a complete reason to Negate. I could break down my creative Cap K 2.0 blueprint ..or go on some rant - but, unless your Cap K has some very unique twists, I'd say that I am the second worst judge in the pool for your Cap K (behind Katsulas). This is meant to be helpfully honest as you make pref decisions;

- I am one of the better judges in the pool for "the impact turn doesn't link". Let me unpack - as this might read as illogical. Just bc the Aff said "heg" doesn't mean that *the way* the Aff enhances Heg auto-links to your backfile... similarly, just bc the Neg read an impact module that loosely referenced "ag" or "econ" doesn't mean the camp backfile is simply greenlit. Often times the OG impact is about "preventing a future decline in Heg"... or helping a sector of the econ that may solely be a piece in the dedev puzzle. I'll obviously "play ball" if both teams opt to ignore this int link minutiae. But I do sometimes find myself on the bottom of a 4-1 bc I strongly consider analytic threads appealing to whether the impact turns applied in the first place. This is not intended to full-on dissuade. Teams seeking to impact turn should invest some time connecting the "top-level" dots between the opponent's impact claim and their impact turn. Impact turn strat can also wind-up defending a squo that's very messy (transitions, other Aff impacts). Think about more than the narrow impact turn itself - and the broader system being defended.

- I differ from many judges on "disad turns case". I was recently asked to recount an NDT elim I judged a few years back. In it, Aff slams on Adv... Neg slams on Disad... Aff is bad on "disad turns case"... neg is silent on "Aff solves case"... 8 out of 10 judge vote neg here: after all, Neg turns Aff. I regularly vote Aff on "aff solvency claim is every bit as dropped as the neg's claim to turn solvency". There are some exceptions where I would vote Neg - suppose the neg's "turns case" arg is couched as comparative to the 1AC solvency... OR maybe the neg claim simply makes more sense than the OG Aff solvency.. etc... but I tend to not punish the Aff for lacking large re-explanations of (dropped) swaths of their case. Negs would do well to make comparisons that bake-in the particulars of the Aff.

- there is a risk of overcorrection to all of this. I have voted on "PIKs bad" at the NDT - and it was the correct 2AR choice.. I voted on a "meh" human innovation disad earlier this season bc the Neg tailored it so well to the opponent's solvency claims. There have been other decisions that might surprise a third party coach - unless they watched the debate itself. I do understand that debate is a game. All of this advice assumes situations where both sides have the time to evenly execute on a position - but sometimes that hasn't taken place. Capitalize accordingly.

--- Everything below this is older stuff... all of it still applies - but may be more than you need ------

TLDR - general

More apt to be placed in Policy v. Policy rounds. A great deal of the research that I do is on critical/culture theory. And, a lot of outcomes are possible in a world of imbalanced coverage/attention to detail.

That said, I have a poor track record for planless Affs. I have enough "argumentation teacher" in me to give a range of oral critiques. But, I do think K of this Res/Topicality struggles vs. standard (policy) boilerplate responses.

If your pref decisions hinge on post-round academic convos, I will be an engaged critic. But if a big component of your pref decisions are about the grizzled bottom line of winning (which is 1000% understandable, IMO), I think much of the pool has a better track record on behalf of the K.

Seems like there's two sets of Policy judges on this particular Res:

Camp 1.0 - summer pleasure reading was about Bostrom, gray goo bloggers, and meta-physical q's posed by British scholars.

Camp 2.0 - not that.

I'm more in camp 2.0. I have cut policy cards on the topic. I am not dismissive existential risk. I think the Sci Fi impacts are fine - strategic even....

And, I am (quite fairly) accused of letting your ev do some work for you. But there's a wave of oral critique out there that's akin to: "the sub-text of the Aff entropy claim rests on Toby Ord's The Precipice - which is hardly viable without a deeper defense of hypercomputation".

... huh ?..

I can get there - but you'll need to at least start me down that journey.

TLDR - process CP, compete on "should"

Anything is poss in the land of wildly disparate in-rd execution/coverage - but I am quite Aff here

Where are you good for the neg ?

Disad, CP of non-process flavor... the 1AC itself = often pretty silly.

'Rona

For me, I am judging INP for the first time in a minute - mostly bc it would not be great if I brought COVID back to my household.

I am appreciative of the efforts the tournament and the participants are making to reduce the risk of COVID. I mean that quite genuinely

... this simple statement could be over-read or cause students to overreact when I am judging. I understand that sure-fire solutions are rare... and I do not need to 2A to debate outdoors or something. Just a friendly - not judgmental - reminder that I will be on the cautious side of this one.

--wrote this pre '21 NDT - I'll leave it up a bit longer, but it has little to do w. arg preferences ----

This strikes me as an audience where one can make a bold claim... and be granted an opportunity to back it up.

Here goes:

One of the strongest people I know is only 3 yrs old.

... I've watched her figure it out.

When the six yr old points and stares.

When the family switches lanes in swim class.

When they ask why her mask is the kind that ties in the back.

...and I've watched in amazement. Somehow, she channels her exasperation into thoughtfulness. Somehow, these aftermaths are productive.

A few years ago, I heard rumor that a student was thinking of foregoing her final NDT - ending her career after her Junior season. This student had challenged MSU Debate ...in the best ways possible. Judging policy rds as I do, I knew this debater. I decided to drop her a note. I thanked her for the hard work she'd put in.... for the indirect ways in which she'd made our program grow. One never knows what to expect once the send key is hit. I do think she was a little surprised to receive it. But I came to learn it made a small difference... that it landed with the right timing.

Later that season, I wrote a similar note - this time to a non-traditional debater. The same premises held. This student pushed our program and drove us to be more prepared. I extended an overdue "thanks". I imagine they were more than a little surprised to receive it. Judging policy rds as I do, I had even less of an idea how it may land. I was glad to learn it landed well.

The days leading up to the NDT are an especially good time to keep one's head down.

...But when the dust settles... when the inevitable frustrations grow distant... consider crafting a simple note. Consider sending it to a judge... a rival... a teammate.

Above all, consider sending to someone that may not expect it.

In doing so some will accuse you of being weak. Why extend energy to your rivals ?.. Why breathe life into the foe ?

But - in doing so - you will be anything but weak.

You will exit a challenging season... perched atop a most-challenging 12 months... and you will have done something genuine.. something unexpectedly thoughtful.

And - in doing so - you will show strength.

Strength similar to the strongest girl I know.

A girl who is Earless... and Fearless.

A girl named Robin Jane Repko.

#E&F

Thanks - and best of luck to each of you this weekend.

NDT 2021

---------old stuff here-------------------------

True non-starters:

A - Teams that joke-y or playful about death or trauma - esp as part of some high-theory attempt to illustrate a point. I was early to this train - but I think a lot of people in the community are ready to close this chapter.

B - Consult Cplan in almost any variety - it's quasi comeback is surprising.

Topicality:

I'm overwhelmingly Aff on "contrived" interps bad. In general, I think I am more Aff than most on T in policy rounds. If it helps, I did not happen to judge the elim between UGA AR + KU HM on the Exec Authority. Here - by all accounts - the neg did a dazzling job on a T thread that amounted to "you gotta be a big Aff".

I cannot know - but I suspect I would have been an above-average judge for UGA in that spot. It has nothing to do with the debaters - all four were/are magnificent. It's more that I find T interps of that ilk tend to break-down under strict scrutiny.

I don't mention this example out of nowhere. I am writing in 2021 bc I suspect it could be instructive for this yrs college topic. I would not be shocked if I voted Neg on T - hard work has dividends. By this is a game of inches - and this is me being transparent about an inch.

Just be honest, please:

In an evenly matched-debate where all the best args are on the table (two important caveats), rate yourself on the following items relative to the field of possible policy judges:

A - CPlan competition theory.... Aff (esp vs. "resolved", "should", etc).

B - Kritik - even the flex variety - Aff by a considerable margin.

C - Truth or tech.... truth by a decent amount..

D - Are you lying - lots of judges just lie in these philosophies ?..

Not really... I'm pretty ardent - but I will say that anything is possible in the land of wildly-disparate in-round execution. I did vote on PICs bad (dropped) last season.

-------------- old philosophies start here -------------

I wrote this a few years ago - it still holds:

Often, the K struggles on the alt... and can be a little over-reliant on the checklist for someone (like me) that's a bit of a truth-seeker and post-round ev reader.

To give a concrete example:

Suppose a (policy) Aff said "a Small Modular Rector will *solve* for a nuclear accident". Further suppose that the Neg did not engage this claim in any way.

Then suppose the Neg said "interrogate our relationship to neolib -- as it may *solve* neolib". Suppose the Aff was comparably inattentive to that alt.

I would start the post-round evaluating competing solvency claims. Both teams 100% won their original statement -- but the word *"solves"* in both sentences does not get at questions of magnitude/likelihood. "Solve" was not posited as a 100% affair in either the ev, the tag, or under any standard of logic.

So, yes, both teams "solve", but the degree to which an SMR could prevent an accident is miles ahead of the degree that individual interrogation might solve neolib. I acknowledge that not everyone judges these args in this manner -- in part because they fear being labelled "interventionist". I happen to feel it "intervenes" to impose magnitude onto either team's claim (as stated).

I can imagine a future time where the K more assertively attempts to have Alts that inform policy praxis or generates non-institutional collectives... And if you think your arg is novel in that regard, then I might be a better judge for you... But, the odds are that you've learned to run the K based on the prevalent community norms that have developed over the previous 15 years... Over that time, your predecessors did an exceptionally mediocre job of helping the K inform praxis and be PART (not all) of negating an Affirmative.

-------------------------------------------

Rando:

- I rarely think "literature" alone makes a cplan competitive. I consider the two as wholly unrelated and I struggle to grasp this line of thinking. Some are aghast if the two options that are compared by a think tank article are somehow not auto-competitive. This borders on laughable - as there's lit that defends plan-plus cplans....Sometimes I have judged literature that demonstrated that the perm severs - that might be germane.

- I think "judge kick" needs to be flagged early and often - not merely implicitly as part of a conditionality answer in cx - for it to be a presumptively strong arg for the Neg. I consider "conditionality" to be a question of whether multiple strategies can/should be carried through the middle of the debate - and *not* whether the Neg should ultimately be afforded multiple choices at the end of the debate. I will assume that you went for the one damn strategy that you did extend in the 2NR unless you play your "multiple options" card earlier in the debate.

If you have specific questions about how I'd evaluate an item, feel free to ask. I'll strive to respond with candor.

Best,

Will

Sean Ridley Appalachian State 3 rounds

Nick Ryan Liberty University 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

Sandoz Sandoz Vanderbilt University 2 rounds

Zachary Schaller Hire 8 rounds

Zak Schaller - Georgia State University

(3x CEDA, 4x NDT, elimination rounds)

CPs: Pretty useful because they allow you to steal most of the aff. I always liked word PICs, Condition and Exclusion CPs, and Alternate actors. Sometimes those style of counterplans can be difficult to win competition for, but that's up to the debaters. Textual vs Functional competition is a debate that will probably need to be fleshed out, as I can be persuaded to vote for just one or the other, not always both. The only CPs that are 100% legitimate are probably alternate country or alternate agent CPs. I like it when affs have good DAs to counterplans or 2ac add on's that the CP cannot solve. CPs with critical NBs are sweet. I also like it when CPs have internal net benefits.

Ks: Used to love em', read a ton of them, now I'm more moderate. I will be familiar with most of your literature. I read a lot of Zizek, Lacan, Foucault, Deleuze, and Nietzsche, plus a ton of Marxism. K's need to have a mechanism to either moot the aff impacts, explain a prior framing question, or have some tricky way to deal with aff impacts, because the aff will get to weigh their case unless you have a good reason why they shouldn't. Affs should mostly likely just go for impact turns, alt doesn't solve, and case is a DA. I'm open to floating PIKs and new alternative solves the case spins in the block, and a smart aff team needs to make smart 1ar theory args to deal with those if they happen.

Theory: It's stupid, but necessary. Condo is good as long as there's not contradictory arguments being introduced. You should probably get about 2 CPs, a K alt, and the sqo. I can be persuaded otherwise but that doesn't seem unreasonable to me. PICS are good - you should have to defend the words in your plan text since you wrote it. Framework-as-an-off-case debates are really really boring. I would prefer to see a negative strategy that answers the lefty aff's arguments instead of just saying 'must read a plan'. But again, I understand why it at least needs to be an option. Condition and consult might not actually be all that competitive - that is an uphill battle for me if you are neg. The neg gets to read a K. Aff choice is stupid; nobody gets to choose - you have to debate it out and I vote for whoever wins why their framework is better. I prefer substance over theory but I understand why some arguments should be considered cheating. I usually err neg on most theory arguments; aff needs to have answers to stuff.

T: it's an arg. I will vote on limits and ground arguments. Would like to see some examples of in round abuse in terms of arguments you couldn't run and why those are good arguments. Fairness is probably the most convincing T voter. Potential abuse is kind of lame, but I will default to competing interpretations unless the aff is winning an overlimiting arg. Whatever.

Affs: I like affs with lots of big impacts, but also affs that have high probability scenarios because of good internal link evidence, very specific specialized scenarios, and good internal link warrants and solvency evidence. I also like it when aff's have agency advantages that act as built in DAs versus counterplans. I also like affs with time sensitive arguments like real impact thresholds.

For K affs I like it when your K aff has good solvency evidence for whatever you are doing, even if it isn't a plan. You should really look to use your K aff in the 2AC as a way to read that K versus whatever the neg said in the 1NC. It helps to load your K aff down with some pre-empts versus predicitble 1NC args, like framework.

I'm sure this isn't nearly comprehensive enough because I had like 20 mins to write it, so if you have more specific questions please feel free to ask. I try to be truly neutral in terms of how this is approached - it's your activity not me so just do what you want and explain why whatever you said or did should make you win and them lose and we will probably be alright. Also jokes/ burns are good for extra speaker points.

Nick Sciullo Hire

Last changed on Wed September 5, 2018 at 12:09 PM CDT

2018: I've gotten out of debate coaching as a full-time profession in order to focus on my research on the tenure-track. I'll still write and speak on debate in journals and conferences, respectively. I'll likely judge at some local high school tournaments in South Texas and may do some judging in the Texas area at both the high school and college levels. I very much enjoy debate and will still be a strong advocate for it. I'll just be doing less of it as a career. In 2018, I was fortunate enough to win the Forensic Educator of the Year for Southern States Communication Association and Coach of the Year from SE CEDA. I also won the John Cameron Turner Memorial Novice Critic of the Year Award from SE CEDA, which probably means more to me than any debate award I or my debaters have won. I will still be a good judge in race, cap, and high theory debates, but my reading on the topic won't be that great.

2016 Updates: I continue to think debating is good for education and that many different styles of debate have merits. I still prefer critical arguments to policy arguments, although much to my chagrin, I'm not the worst policy/policy debate judge. Judges are not neutral when they enter a room. We should stop pretending they are. I prefer certain arguments, I've read more critically certain books, I've written things I stand by, and I find some debates more interesting than others. I do not think debaters should have to agree with me or only read arguments I'd like to read, however. I was a 2N/1A most of my life so that's often how I think about debates. I never was to sure what that meant, but since it's in many people's philosophies. I judge a lot of debates in all divisions, although now I'm judging a lot of novice debates as a result of coaching novices. Novice debate is important to this activity, and we should be kind to our novice debaters. I recently returned from Barcelona studying decolonization and also spent significant time in Germany working broadly on communication tragedy. I don't care what pronouns you use to describe me. I use he/his/him. I appreciate people not using "guys" as a gender neutral pronoun and that you make a good faith effort to call people what they want to be called. It's also important to engage the substance of arguments you might not like, which probably means framework arguments are not always the best in front of me, although I have voted on them. I think Sean Ridley and Erik Mathis are good judges and good people, which may say something about me as a judge or a person. I'm currenty reading a lot of Lacan, which has always been the case, and thinking through some issues of leadership and social mvoements. Have fun!

2015 Updates: I continue to be a good judge if you run arguments that address issues of race, capitalism, and ideology. I recently completed my dissertation on George Jackson's Soledad Brother and I actively write about race and (rhetoric, law, capitalism, counter-terrorism and national security). I am starting a new policy team this year so that will likely reduce the critical literature I am personaly reading, although that ought not change my judging philosophy. I continue to think debaters should be nice, fair, and honest. I want everyone to come away from this activity invigorated, feeling as though they are better thinkers, students, scholars, and activists. Although I am clearly a critical style debate person, I am more than competent at judging traditional policy style arguments. Just don't expect me to call for and read your 10th uniqueness card with the same interest I'd put into a piece of Anthony Farley, Charles Mills, or Carlos Mariategui evidence. And yes, I did cut a piece of evidence and cite it as "Saint Alloysius, 400 A.D. or something" for my NDT-qualifying team of GSU NS. I'm a fan of the odd. Have fun, be smart, argue passionately!

The philosophy... more or less...

Explanation and analysis over random card reading. I’m open to hearing any arguments and not disinclined to vote on any argument. If your strategy is politics DAs and Counter Plan theory—read ‘em. If you love reading Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida—read ‘em. I thought about writing my philosophy for every conceivable argument, but that would probably lead folks to think I had a strong preference for or against arguments which really is not the case. All critics come into rounds with experience in different areas just as debaters come into rounds with different majors. It’s your job to convince me, not my job to tell you what I want to be convinced on. I am ultimately a kritik-oriented debater and coach. I prefer to hear these rounds and am probably more qualified to judge these rounds. I love performance, memory politics, poststructuralism, identity politics, and feminism particularly.

Debate is subjective, but I try to come into each round with as open a mind as possible. That being said, I have a strong background in critical theory, critical race theory, feminism, and rhetorical theory, but that does not predispose me to vote for poorly constructed arguments that claim to engage those ideas.Because I’m more involved (reading and writing) in those areas, I probably am a better critic in those rounds.Again, not because I have a preference for those areas, but because that’s where a lot of my intellectual energy has gone over the years.BUT, I also worked the in DC Metro Area in government affairs, so I have an on-the-ground sense of how politics actually works.

Your ultimate goal should be to convince me why you win the round.That can come about using not only many different arguments, but also many paradigms. I value your performative consistency and gender neutral language.Debate is an open canvas upon which debaters can construct communities of action. The ballot can be a tool, but before you assume I’ll vote on something, you need to explain why your paradigm makes sense in the round. If you believe my ballot sends a message, explain why I should feel the same way. If you feel like we are policymakers, then explain why my position as critic upholds sound policy decision-making. Inspire me to take action with you.

I prefer not to call for cards after the round, but if you feel I must, then provide some darn good reasons. Explain why your evidence is better. What are the qualifications of your author? The warrants behind her or his arguments? The inconsistencies of the other team’s authors? I have a good flow, but I’m not perfect. It’s very important to me to flow things in the appropriate place and make sure that I can follow arguments from start to finish. I value debaters who are organized. I usually don’t flow CX, but if I hear something that sounds particularly relevant to the resolution of the round, I’ll jot it down.

Speed does not matter, but speed should not be a substitute for persuasion. Sometimes speed gets valued over persuasion, and that’s not helpful for anyone. It’s great that you read 7 internal links, but how do they matter to the round and why are they better than your opponent’s answers. Don't make speed a substitute for argument.

I've voted on T, DAs, CPs, Ks, Turns, Perf con, Condo, the various Specs. For theory, I am very concerned with education in the debate round. I find a lot of theory unpersuasive, but if you can explain why the other team hurts your, their, or my learning in this round, then you'll be in a good place.

Have fun, be humorous, don’t take yourself too seriously. This is a competative activity, but it's also a fun activity.

Other debate information…

Coaching Experience:

Director of Debate, University of Central Florida (17-18)

Director of Debate and Forensics, Illinois College (15-17)

Assistant Coach, Georgia State University (11-15)

Assistant Coach, United States Naval Academy (09-11);

Director of Debate, T.C. Williams HS [VA] (07-12),

Assistant Coach, West Virginia University (03-04)

Head Policy Debate Coach, Midlothian HS [VA] (00-03)

Debate Experience (all policy): Middle School, Tallwood High School [Virginia Beach, VA], University of Richmond

Education:

Grad. Cert., University of Central Florida (women's studies)

Ph.D., Georgia State University (communication, track: rhetoric and politics)

M.S. Troy University (international relations, concentration: national security affairs)

J.D., West Virginia University

B.A., University of Richmond (history, urban practice and policy, rhetoric and communication studies)

Brian Severson Iowa 5 rounds

I am pretty open-minded about most arguments, but here are some of my preferences/predispositions.

I think the Aff has to be topical. I think the Aff has to prove their interpretation would be good for debate, and the neg has to prove that the Aff’s interp would either make being neg too hard or would undermine an intrinsically important form of education or ground. I don't think topicality should make the perfect the enemy of the good, in other words, if the Aff seems generally good for debate, then I think they are topical.

Topicality or specification arguments that last less than 30 seconds are non-starters in front of me, and the Aff definitely gets new 1AR arguments in that situation.

I don’t think debate is a soap box. Alternative ways of expressing an Aff advocacy still have to be resolutional or at least attempt to justify that particular way of looking at the topic. If your Aff is “topic bad,” you are probably in an uphill battle in front of me. If you have some way of connecting your Aff to the topic and justifying that, then you are probably in better shape.

K’s have to make sense. Most of them do, but every once and a while I have a “wtf” moment and don’t get it. If you think there is a decent chance that I will say “wtf,” then you probably should spend some more time explaining the underlying rational or basis for your K. I will not read evidence to try to surmise what your K is.

The risk of the disad or advantage is more determined by the causal link chain than it’s “uniqueness.” Determining the causality of the plan causing the disad or solving the advantage is more important than the relative quality of uniqueness. There is such thing as zero risk if the causal link chain is proved to be silly. Extinction seems like probably the worst thing imaginable, but if it is substantially less probable than something that is also really bad, then I am probably erring towards "really bad."

Counterplans have to prove they compete, and there is an opportunity cost to doing the Aff or perm instead of the CP. I am not a big fan of consultation CP’s, multi-actor fiat CP’s, or non-USFG fiat based CP’s. I think there are very strong reasons why these are bad for debate or not competitive. Conditionality seems ok unless there is more than 1 CP. My predilection for conditionality changes substantially in such a situation. WARNING: If a CP is conditional, and I deem it worse than the plan and squo, my default is to revert back to evaluating the squo versus the plan.

Saying “voting issue” isn’t enough. Theory arguments are not reasons to reject the team unless a reason to reject the team is given (except conditionality bad, which is obvious).

I am willing to give the 1AR some leeway on “newish” arguments provided they are in the spirit of what the 2AC. New arguments in the last rebuttals are a much harder to sell. If you drop an argument in the block or 1AR, you are probably screwed.

*Paperless Teams* If your computer crashes, that is prep time. Have a viewing computer. Email me all of the evidence you read in the debate. I don’t really have a problem with sorting it out, and if I need to be directed to a specific card I will ask. Email Info: bseverson01@gmail.com

Jonathan Shane South Florida 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 9, 2014 at 4:20 AM UTC

Jonathan Shane

Head coach at Florida State University

Debated at Georgia State and South Florida

Updated September 2014

I don't have many biases that should affect your debate choices. I've heard, read, cut, voted for and voted against just about every style of argument and don't reject anything on-face.

That said, I do tend to be most impressed by clever and nuanced strategies more so than metaphorical (or literal) podium pounding.

I also tend to strongly prefer specificity over generics.

I can keep up with any speed and I'm a pretty good flower. But if you're disorganized (jumping between flows, not sign posting, reading random cards without any clear purpose) you might lose me.

Focus on warrants and explaining things in a comprehensive manner. Tag line extensions are a waste of time.

I understand that 2ACs use condo and the like as strategic devices so I can appreciate them from that respect. But I'm not super likely to vote on the tacky theory violations unless you're willing to do more than just read off some camp theory file from 2003.

I am not biased one way or another on the CP-specific theory arguments (agent, int'l, condition, etc.)

Just like a disad/case debate, I expect theory to be framed in the context of impacts (i.e. standards).

As far as the "clash of civilization" debates, please, for god's sake, don't focus solely on your own offense. Spend some time directly responding to your opponent--without actual clash, these debates are the pinnacle of repetitive rubbish.

Kritiks should portray the alternative as a solvency mechanism and explain it as such. Explain exactly how your alternative works and what the ROB/a priori value of the debate is.

I don’t give a shit about cursing or decorum. Just be respectful.

***Assuming there are no more non-paperless teams out there: Prep time ends when the usb drive leaves your computer. None of this 20 minutes to save the file bullshit. I suggest having your speech doc already on the drive so you can just hit save and be done.

Feel free to ask questions before the round or email me

jshane@fsu.edu

Lindsey Shook Central Florida 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:43 AM CDT

EMAIL lindseyshook@gmail.com

Currently - Director at the University of Oklahoma

Previously – Director at James Madison and Univ. of Central Florida

Way previously – graduate student coach at Univ. of Kansas

Long long ago – debated for the Univ. of Central Oklahoma

BIG PICTURE

My default way of viewing a debate is as follows – I am deciding between hypothetical worlds. In general debates are either about the world at outside of our activity (fiated plans, CPs, and critical advocacies that are about what society at large should do or think or change). Or debates are about debate as an activity (topicality, theory, critical advocacies that are about endorsing or rejecting particular kinds scholarship or argument or forms of presentation).

In either case I assume I am being asked what is the preferrable world? The world where the aff plan is enacted into law? The status quo? The world of debate where everyone meets your version of the topic? The world of debate where no one reads conditional advocacies? Etc.

Arguments that directly challenge this are things like reject the team for reasons of fairness or because they did something problematic. I have and am certainly willing to vote on those reasons but they need to be clear and specific to what has gone wrong in the debate you are in. Ideally not a generic set of reasons (at least by the last rebuttals).

I can certainly be persuaded to understand debate in a different way or to evaluate your arguments from a different perspective but just so you know that is where I start.

OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES

- - A drop matters if you make it matter and if it actually implicates the round

- - I am not offense defense oriented. You can win on defense alone particularly against poorly written advantages and disadvantages.

- - It is hard but not impossible to win you link you lose style debates. You are better off with some version of an alt or a more specific framing argument in front of me.

- - I flow on paper. I can generally keep up with speed but the less you sound like a person reading fast and the more you sound like a robot spitting out random words with no rhythm or cadence the harder it is for my brain to process what you are saying. So if you know you are in the wordwordwordwordwordword spreading habit either slow down a bit or work on getting some normal speech patterns into the reading.

- - I’m old so I try to line arguments up on my flow. This makes me annoyed with overviews and people who don’t do the line by line. I will still flow it but I will try to line things up until I can’t keep up with you and line things up. Then I will flow straight down but it makes my decision take longer at the end so be warned.

SPECIFICS

Case – more case debate is good. Always. In every kind of debate. The more specific and in depth the better. I think that is coldest take in debate at this point.

T – I mostly judge clash debates and I don’t hate judging them or T. If the aff can be used as offense against your topicality argument you would do well to have specific arguments to neutralize that (not all TVAs or do it on the neg etc. are good and having a bad one is a waste of time). You can win fairness comes first. Again it helps to have some specificity about why this round or affs like this one are so bad. I am not convinced affs have to have a counter interpretation to win. Impact turning the neg. interpretation can be enough.

Kritiks – framework against the K from the side of a traditional policy aff is generally meh. You get to weigh your impacts if you win that those mechanisms are good. Util? policy making? Extinction? If those are good things to value when I make a decision win that. Fairness is useless as a standard. They get a K. Stop it. See above for alts are preferable. Floating PICs are generally useless. Most K tricks are tricks for a reason they don’t work in the face of answers. I still have no idea what no perms in a method debate is supposed to mean.

CPs – I love theory and think it is absolutely crucial for most 2As (including critical affs) to help fend off counter advocacies and counter plans. CPs are probably the easiest way to neutralize the aff – I probably care more about how they solve than most judges so more time on solvency deficits in both directions is a good idea.

Disads – great arguments with often terrible evidence and spin. If your ev is bad debate well enough that I don’t have to read it. You are better being honest about your evidence and making up for it with spin and common sense than pretending your cards are amazing only for me to figure out that’s not true.

Eric Short Minnesota 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2019 at 10:35 AM CDT

ericjohnshort@gmail.com please add me to an email chain.

previous coaching: Niles West (2016-present), Walter Payton (2014-2016), Wayzata (2009-2013), Moorhead (2007-2009), University of Minnesota (2011-2015, plus various tournaments since), Concordia College (2006-2009).

I generally judge 75+ debates on the high school topic.

updated September 2019

I'm updating my philosophy not because of a meaningful change in how I evaluate debates, but because I think the process of how I decide debates is more important than how I feel about individual arguments.

I judge debates in the way they are presented to me. This means you control the substance of the debate, not me. As such, the team that will win is the team that is best able to explain why their arguments are better than their opponent's arguments.

I start deciding a debate by determining if I need to read evidence. I often read very few cards at the end of a debate. In many debates, the quality of evidence, its qualifications and even warrants or conclusions go uncontested. I'm not the judge to reconstruct the debate for you. Then, I assign "risk" to the positions forwarded in the last rebuttals. The type of "risk" is determined by the debate--anywhere from "does the DA outweigh the aff" to "do the representations lead to a unique impact" to "does the performance actively resist forms of oppression". Link and impact analysis is therefore extremely important. You probably won’t like the decision if I decide what is most important.

Most of my topic research revolves around critiques. I have also worked at a summer institute almost every year since 2005. Chances are I am familiar with your literature base, no matter which side of the library it's housed in. However, you still need to explain your arguments for me to consider voting for them.

If you want me to consider the status quo as an option, you should tell me in the 2NR: I will not default for you. Outside of conditionality, I default to rejecting the argument, not the team unless instructed otherwise.

Note on decision times: the longer it takes to finish the debate, the less time I have to adjudicate, so it is in your best interest to be efficient.

Speaker points are influenced by a variety of factors. While I do not have a specific formula for integrating all the variables, your points are reflected by (in no particular order): argument choice, clarity, execution, participation in the debate, respect for others, strategy, and time management. I tend to reward debaters for specific strategies, humor, personality and speeches free of disposable arguments.

Sean Slattery Samford University 6 rounds

Stephanie Spies Northwestern University 2 rounds

I will vote on anything as long as it’s well-explained and supported by quality evidence. I will try to remain as unbiased as possible when judging, so you should go for the arguments you are good at and prepared for, not the ones you think I’ll vote on. That said, there are a few important things to keep in mind:

I am inclined towards technical, flow-oriented debate and thus will not be a good judge for those that do not go "line by line" (no, using the other team's speech document doesn't count). However, just because an argument is “dropped” does not ALWAYS mean it is “true” --- in order for me to vote on an argument, you must explain it, impact it, and interact with the other side’s arguments (example: if the 2ac says "conditionality is a voting issue - 2ac strategy" and the block drops it, I don't automatically vote on conditionality without more aff explanation, and the 2nr probably gets some new answers since the 2ac did not make an "argument" with a WARRANT)

Comparative impact calculus is important for all arguments, whether you’re going for a DA or theory. Don't just leave it up to me to decide what type of topic I'd like better, what sort of war is worse, etc. -- there is a 50% chance you'll disagree with me!
Evidence comparison and indicting the other team’s arguments, whether it is the qualifications or warrants, will go a long way in resolving important questions in the debate and prevent judge intervention when calling for cards. I'll obviously read evidence, but only because I think it's important to my decision, not because you said "call for our ev!" without any further explanation in your speech.

I probably don't know nearly as much about this topic as you think I might, so don't use crazy acronyms, highly specific topic terms, or weird examples without explaining them -- at least early in the year...

Don't be mean to your partner. That's not cool.

If you have any further questions, please refer to Professor Daniel J. Fitzmier's judge philosophy -- specifically:

"If any of the preceding makes you think that I have altogether lost my marbles, that THEY have finally gotten to
me, or that something really quite strange is afoot in Evanston, I encourage you to give
me the old strikerooo; of course, drunken rage, angry sobbing, and barely-concealed
disdain are all available alternatives, but I must say that I would much prefer the more
dignified anonymity of your strike. In all seriousness, please enjoy your GSU 2011!!"

Rebecca Steiner Florida 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:39 PM EDT

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Ron Stevenson Wayne State University 3 rounds

I have the following preferences, but I will vote counter to these biases if a team wins
their arguments in the debate.
1. I view debates from a policy perspective as clash of competing advocacies. For me
this means that minus a counterplan, the affirmative must prove that their plan is better
than the current system. Fiat operates only to bypass the question of whether something
could pass to focus the debate about whether something should pass. I do believe that
fiat is binding so rollback arguments can be difficult to win.
2. I will vote on topicality if the negative can clearly articulate how the affirmative is
non-topical and why their interpretation is superior for debate. In this regard I see
topicality debates as a synthesis between a good definition and a clear explanation of the
standards. Critical affirmatives must be topical if the negative is to be prepared to debate
them. I won’t vote on topicality as a reverse voting issue under any circumstance.
3. I don’t find most theory debates to be very compelling, but I have voted for these
arguments. These debates are often filled with jargon at the
expense of explanation. If you do want me vote on these arguments then don’t spew your
theory blocks at me (I’ve tried – but I just can’t flow them). Have just a couple of
reasons to justify your theoretical objection and develop them. Pointing out in-round
abuse is helpful, but if their position justifies a practice that is harmful for debate that is
just as good. Identifying the impact to your theory arguments in the constructive is a
must.
4. I am a big fan of all types of counterplans (pics, agent, consult etc.). The only
prerequisite is that they be competitive. I am not a big fan of textual competition and tend
to view competition from a functional perspective. When evaluating counterplans I believe that the negative has the burden to prove that it is a reason to reject the plan. This
means that the counterplan must be net beneficial compared to the plan or the
permutation. Affirmatives can prove that some of these counterplans are theoretically
illegitimate, but be aware of my theory bias (see above).
5. Kritiks are fine as long as it is clear what the argument is and that there is a clearly
defined impact. Statements that the kritik takes out the solvency and turns the case need
a clear justification. Hypothetical examples are extremely useful in this regard, and the more specific the example the better. I prefer frameworks discussions occur on a separate page from the K – from a judging perspective I’ve noticed that when it’s all done on one piece of paper things tend to get convoluted and debate gets extremely messy. Having an alternative is helpful, but I can be persuaded that you don’t need to have one.
7. The most important thing for you to know to get my ballot is that my decision is highly
influenced on how arguments are explained and justified during the course of the debate
rather than thru evidence. While I do think that at certain levels you must have evidence
to substantiate your claims, good cross-examinations and well developed explanations and comparisons are often the key to persuading me to vote for one side over the other. Other than that just be polite but competitive, intelligent, and enjoy the debate.

Ken Strange Dartmouth College 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 14, 2014 at 3:53 AM EDT

I'm a crazy, old man. You are strongly advised to strike me. If that didn't convince you, I hope the following will.

While I'm pretty much willing to listen to anything, the following are my biases. As much as I try to set aside my preferences, I'm sure they influence my understanding what teams say, what the warrants are, and ultimately my assessment of issues.

I firmly believe that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan. I think this is the only viable way for the negative to have a chance to prepare well. If defended well, there is some chance of my voting for an aff without a plan, and the odds are a little better if the affirmative at least talks about issues related to the topic.

On topicality, I prefer a standard slightly different from reasonability and competing interpretations. I think it should be negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better. The best way to prove an interpretation bad for debate is limits – that the interpretation is so broad than the negative could never be thoroughly prepared to debate every possible case.

I do not think debate is role playing of federal actors. You're you and I'm me, and there is a debate about what we think the federal government should do. Fiat obviously doesn't assume anything really happens. Fiat is just ignoring the question of "will" and debating "should" in order to focus the debate on the merits of the idea/ policy.

I tend to be fairly liberal on counterplans, with competition being about the only requirement. PICs, agents, etc are fine. There does needs to be some limit on negative fiat for agents, but that can be debated out. Presumptively governmental actions are OK, and private actors are not.

K's and K affs with plans are fine with me. I am not that familiar with much of the literature. So, you should explain things thoroughly. Ultimately, these debates become matters of what makes sense to me.

Spin, explanation, and telling a good story are crucial to winning my ballot. Even more important is resolving arguments, and I am increasingly frustrated by debaters in rebuttals emphasizing their own arguments and never referencing opposing responses. 2NRs and 2ARs with lots of "they say…, but" references are more likely to win my ballot.

Please be clear. Start speeches at less than full speed. Pause a little before and slow down some on the argument tags. I hate it when I cannot tell that a card has ended and a new argument is being made. Please do not get quiet when reading cards. I know this is hard for you to believe, but if you stop to breathe at punctuation marks, you will be faster and clearer than the awful double gasping that so many of you do.

Matt Struth Wake Forest University 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:22 AM MST

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

Aaron Swanlek Wake Forest University 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 11, 2019 at 7:27 PM UTC

Have fun and be your best you!

2 Years Graduate Assistant @ Pitt.

2 Year Coaching MA @ Wake.

Debated Four Years at Clarion University.

Quick notes

1. Be nice to the people you debate, being rude to them during/after will cost you speaker points and I will judge you as a base creature

2. Love big debates with a bunch of arguments made (Warrants > Cards).

3. Author qualification matters.

4. Love specificity of argumentation and analysis. If deeply theoretical connect it to practice (in-round or normalized experience).

5. I think debaters relying on judges calling for evidence has gotten out of hand. A team will win a micro-argument if they explain the warrants of their evidence albeit they read less/worse evidence. If I call for cards it will be because the area of debate is undecidable based upon the analysis in the round.

6. I'm much more open to framework discussions for critical affirmatives then previously thought.

Rest of it.

Paperless Debate: I'm not really a stickler about prep time as long as people try to progress the debate to the best of their abilities. I understand that issues arrive because technology will be technology but I ask everyone in the room to be as ethical about not stealing prep as possible.

Framework: Without instruction, I will look at it from the view of an informed citizen trying to decipher whether or not the question of the resolution is met by the affirmative or not. If you want me to resolve the debate in another manner I need you to explicitly frame what voting aff/neg means and/or what the ballot represents and WHY that is important. Teams that want me to act more traditionally have the same presumption when telling me why I should actively execlude the performance of alterity.

Theory: I like interesting theoretical arguments; this is usually garnered by teams being specific when it comes to theory. Example, conditionality by itself seems good, multiple worlds without advocacy of a permutation while the status quo always being logical seems bad.

Biases I can think of:

-Multiple conditional Cp’s or alternatives are ok.

-Multiple conditional worlds - combination of Alt’s/Cp’s seems problematic.

-International Fiat – no opinion

-Agent Cp’s – No opinion

-Consult – Dirty/Cheating

-I find arguments for advocating a permutation to be persuasive.

-States Cp: No Opinion

Be topical. Reverse voters aren’t arguments. Substantial matters.

Critiques: Fine. The strength of the link qualifies how much weight I give to the impacts.

Speaker Points - It's all relative - Have fun - do what you love - be funny if you can - be true to yourself and the speaker points will follow.

Much Love,

Swan.

Christopher Thomas Wake Forest University 7 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2019 at 7:43 AM EDT

Debated China, Courts, Middle East @ University of Kansas
Debated Agriculture, Nukes @ University of Texas at San Antonio

Coached @ UTSA (2010-2011)
Coached @ Wake Forest University (2011-2013)

Coached @ Gonzaga (2013-2015)

Coached @ Valley High School in Des Moines (2013-2016)

And I’ve been working at a handful of high school debate camps in between over the years

Presently, I am an Assistant Profess in the Department of Communication at The College at Brockport, SUNY.

Meta-Level

§ I’m coming back to judging college debate. My knowledge of some of the evolutions within debate are sparse and my knowledge of the topic is even more limited. That said, I’ve kept up with debate in some way or another over the years.

§ For the most part, I don’t care what you do. There are arguments I enjoy more than others, but that should not influence your argumentative decisions at the end of the day. I debated weird stuff, but I’ve coached and taught across a wide range of argument styles.

§ I appreciate argument congruence (that may mean less arguments) more than throwing the (digital) tub against the wall and seeing what sticks.

§ I flow on paper. I think it lets me actively engage the debate. This also means I need pen time, especially on case and/or theory arguments.

§ I don’t really read evidence, unless critical for my decision.

§ CX is a lost art. It would do you well to be strategic, not argumentative. Listen, too. It helps.

Micro-Level

§ Case Debate: Affirmatives get too much leeway in how they debate case. Block nuances are often overlooked by the 1AR. I enjoy the strategic use of case arguments in the 2NR strategy, too.

§ Topicality: Woof. I’ll be honest, sometimes debaters are far more concerned about these debates than I am. These debates need to be organized well by the neg and not done at top speed either. Reasonability makes sense.

§ Disads: Negs need more impact calculus. I have no problem voting on low risk of DA and high risk of aff. Politics debates often rely on quantity of evidence, I get that. Refer to my comments above about flowing on paper.

§ Counterplans: I generally think negs get to be conditional, welcome to persuade me otherwise. Other counterplan theory, I’m open to arguments. Mechanism-based counterplans need some extra explanation, I’m new to the topic and don’t like voting on things I don’t understand.

§ Critical arguments: My debate and coaching backgrounds are pretty expansive in this area. However, don’t confuse my enjoyment for an easy ballot. Do what you wish, but have a purpose. Also, don’t be alarmed when people tell you that you’re wrong, mistaken, or should lose the debate. A debate about methods is insanely boring and, often, lacks competitiveness. There should be more to a debate than method, at the very least. The ballot is a vote for who does the better debating, tell me if it should be for something else.

Ironic, given the kind of debater I was. But, if you could try and not be jerks to each other (unless rightly justified) or me. I'll try my best to listen and judge and you try your best to debate and understand my constructive feedback.

Joshua Turnage Liberty University 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2013 at 7:19 PM UTC

Introduction:

I debated for Liberty University for four years and have judged for the past two seasons. I have a B.A. in international relations and philosophy, a master’s in religion and theology, and am working on my master’s in public health with a concentration in global health policy.

Because of my diverse educational background, I feel equally at ease adjudicating policy rounds as well as those that are critically oriented. I will discuss specific strategies and positions below, but I would like to highlight two important preferences here:

First, your rebuttals must contain impact analysis. This seems rather intuitive, yet again and again I hear rebuttals that are 95% solvency and link articulations and then, with 20 seconds to go, I hear “extend the impact, causes extinction” or “causes violence.” Write down all the impacts in the round, both your impacts and those of your opponent. Ideally, the 2NR and 2AR should mention each of these impacts, elucidating why yours are more important and how they relate to those of your opponents.

Second, do not alter your strategy for my sake; do what you do best and I will adjust accordingly. If you think you are winning T, go for T. If you think the other team has severely mishandled the K, then go for the K. You can win my ballot with a lucid articulation of just about anything.

Topicality and Framework:

I believe the topic can be a strong starting point for discussion. If you – as the affirmative – believe this is not the case, then argue otherwise. If you believe that the resolution does not provide the best approach to discussing violence or oppression, by all means, offer your viewpoint on the issue. Though I am fairly lenient on what the affirmative must do, I want to make it clear that I will vote on framework if I believe the negative offers a more persuasive articulation as to why USFG action - or, in some instances, any action - is critical for education and ground....and/or the affirmative drops important arguments like topical version of the aff.

Above all else, interact with each other’s arguments, particularly the framing issues. Yes, line by line is important and all of your opponent’s arguments should be responded to, but please remember the meta-debate that is happening here: what should the aff be doing and how does debate educate those of us who participate in this activity.

Lastly, if you are going for topicality, please explain potential aff’s the untopical aff justifies as well as what abuse as occurred. If you are answering topicality, extend a counter-interpretation. The neg’s interpretation versus no-interpretation extended by the aff almost always means a neg ballot.

K’s/Performance:

I will listen to whatever you feel best conveys your argument. If that involves singing, dancing, powerpoints, or cross-dressing, so be it. You must, however, explain the relevance of your performance to the debate round and to your argument. I am familiar with a wide swath of critical literature; however, my knowledge of Wilderson, Baudrillard, Butler, or Deleuze does not excuse you from explaining what your position is and how it provides a better method of approaching the world.

Role of the ballot: what does “role of the ballot” actually mean? So often – too often – I hear both sides advancing ROBs that are conveniently tailored to their positions. Please do more than just extend the ROB and how you meet. In fact, I would rather hear a somewhat shallow ROB extension and a more detailed discussion of why your impacts outweigh or come first. At the very least explain how the two ROBs interact and attempt to give me a reason why I should prioritize yours.

Disadvantages:

Link and impact analysis is of utmost importance. I really enjoy a good politics debate, one with ample impact analysis and specific link scenarios. Affs: you need uniqueness for that link turn. Please stop extending link turn cards without uniqueness. Also, just because you link turn doesn't mean you should forego putting defense on the DA's impact.

I will only pull cards if they are highly contested; otherwise I go strictly on what either side has said about those cards. Reading more evidence in the block is strategic; extending the evidence by name and tag in the 2NR is not. Explain why things are true and give me warrants. The greater your specificity, the higher your speaker points will be and the more likely I will believe your scenario.

CPs:

I do not like consult CPs or CPs that compete based solely on the immediacy of the plan. Aside from that, I am open to any CP you have. In terms of theory, I view them in a similar fashion to DAs. If you win a link, but fail to articulate an impact as to why that’s bad, I will not vote for you. Spend most of your time on the impact standards if you are going for theory. As I said on T, an aff that does not extend a counter-interpretation is in trouble. Please do so.

I do not enjoy theory debates (and who does, really?), but for the umpteenth time, I will vote on persuasively articulated and impacted positions.

Concluding thoughts:

I flow and you should do the same. I’ll know if the other team actually dropped an argument or not. I also flow cross-x, or at least things I deem important from cross-x.

I have an utmost desire to be useful and to make debate as educational a game as it can be. Over the past few years I have judged a wide array of debates and I truly enjoy the variety. Never be afraid to impact turn K’s, critique specific words, perform, or go for politics DA’s for the entire block; do what you need to do and I will give you my attention as unbiased as I possibly can. If you have any questions regarding arguments, authors, etc. feel free to talk to me.

John Turner Emory University 4 rounds

T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are important. I consider T an argument that doesn't specify the relationship between the debaters and the resolutional actor (i.e. how the debate is evaluated and what the role of the judge for evaluating the debate is still in question). To me, framework is a category of arguments that establish a limit that restricts not just the resolution but the role for the judge. I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are difficult for me to accept, while criticisms of framework have frequently been successful.

DAs- I’m unlikely to assess uniqueness/link in absolute terms. It tends to be easier to get me to consider direction/quality of link & internal link over uniqueness. Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give analytic and defensive arguments more weight than many judges.

CPs--I've rarely voted against CPs for theory reasons. This probably has more to do with what affs are willing to do/commit time to more than it demonstrates any real appeal of certainty-based competition arguments.

K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to not being obnoxious in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags. Historical examples help a lot for either side.

Theory—I tend to dislike theory debates focused on narrow comparison of interpretations. For the most part, people would be better off discussing the logical implications of a practice rather than a potentially arbitrary implementation of that practice (i.e. conditionality rather than "neg gets 1 CP and 1K"). I am biased in favor of conditionality, though not that strongly. To me, "status quo is always a logical option" or other logic-oriented defenses of conditionality require a judge to evaluate the plan versus the status quo even if the negative goes for their CP. I say this for clarifying purposes -- this has very rarely changed the outcome of a debate that I have judged. I often judge debates that do not presume conventional plan-focused models for debate yet still contain theory arguments that presume a plan-focused terminology and its resulting constraints. I point this out only to suggest that I think debaters should devote some time to thinking about the consequences of strucutral changes in the form of debate that they advocate for the smaller theoretical practices that occur within those debates.

Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the 2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely dislike random unqualified internet evidence.

I prefer cross-ex strategies premised on listening to an opponent's answer and using it in a subsequent speech, not posturing/arguing as though c/x were another speech.

I'm a bit of grump, especially when it comes to my consistent facial expressions in debates. It's not often that is about you, the debaters. I often talk a great deal after debates.

I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is lower than our current average. I've tried to get more in line with current norms so as not to punish people for speaker point inflation. That said, for high points (28.5+) I still need to be impressed.

Kyle Vint Iowa 8 rounds

I probably lean towards the “big picture” end of the line-by-line to big picture spectrum of debates. This is not to say that the line-by-line and dropped arguments are unimportant, rather I think that there are often times some foundational arguments which respond to claims even if they are not directly lined up on the flow. I think it is important for teams to be ready to distinguish how arguments not directly answered on the flow are uncomplicated by other areas which may have some applicability in order to give them the added weight that comes with dropped arguments.

Disads: The link and internal link are the heart of the debate. Often debates come down to impacts that are roughly of the same size. Therefore, explanation of why your link and internal link stories are a more probable outcome are likely to win the debate.

Counterplans: I like them. I think that Consult counterplans, normal means pics, etc. are probably not competitive, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Topicality- I generally tend to lean pretty aff in these debates. In round abuse or ridiculous examples of what the aff justifies are far less persuasive then an explanation about good topic education and ground that is lost by the affs interpretation. It is not enough to say that the negative loses X argument, instead you need to explain why that argument is necessary for debate on this topic. T is probably a debate of competing interpretations, but the aff can win that it isn't.

Theory: I am probably a little neg biased on theory questions. I do think that there is a general trend to allow the negative to get away with whatever they want and the aff can persuade me that strategies which include things like multiple counterplans should be rejected. I tend to think that most "interpretations" of theory incentivize completely arbitrary standards for what the negative can or can not do. Permutations are tests of competition (unless advocated otherwise) so issues like severance and intrinsicness are simply reasons not to evaluate the permutation.

Critiques: For me good K debates focus are based on a very specific link story and examples. A lot of this stems from unfamiliarity with a good amount of critique literature. I think that alternatives do not necessarily have to advocate a particular action, if you win the way you presented your argument is in itself a good idea and the way the other team presented theirs is bad, then you will probably win the debate.

John Warden Northwestern University 4 rounds

Below are some of my thoughts about debate (in no particular order). I will always vote for the team I think won, not based on my own argument preferences. Adapt as you will, but I generally think your best chance to win is going for arguments you’re most comfortable with.

1. Mechanisms are the most important for topicality. The words and phrases in the resolution impose requirements on what the aff must do, rather than set parameters for everything they can do. Predictable neg ground, and not a small list of potential affs, is what makes a topic manageable.

2. Counter-interpretations on theory, both aff and neg, are only persuasive if they are logically coherent. For example, “C/I we get two cp’s and one k and the second cp is dispo” isn’t going to do much.

3. I think there are persuasive reasons that counterplans should use the actor of the plan.

4. Calling something a voting issue doesn’t make it one. It’s difficult for me to think some theory arguments could ever be voting issues. If a counterplan is bad, the counterplan should go away.

5. I generally think that conditionality is logical and good, but also believe that a good case can be made for limiting the negative to one conditional counterplan.

6. Focus on what the role of the ballot or framework should be, not what it is. Specific cards about the need to debate the details of policy proposals are better than generic cards that say switch-side debate and policy education are good.

7. I think "no value to life" is a meaningless phrase.

8. It’s better to take advantage of “abusive” practices by capitalizing with offensive argument than fairness voting issues--vague alternatives are bad because they’re ineffective, permutations are justified, etc.

9. Counterplans should be functionally competitive based on a difference in text -- there’s a difference between the mandates of the plan and the likely outcomes. Affs who can explain this will do well against questionably competitive counterplans, and negs should keep this in mind when debating permutations. A second part of this -- neg’s sometimes assume that words like "all" or "entire" are in the plan when they’re not. For example, if the plan says USFG that does not necessarily commit it to the entire USFG. If the counterplan meets these requirements, winning that it is unfair because it “stole part of the plan” is unlikely.

10. I think that counterplans that compete based on opportunity costs are both relevant and legitimate. That being said, many of the worst types of these counterplans (think consult) can be easily defeated by -- among other things -- logical, legitimate permutations (request, consult on another issue, etc.).

11. I have often said that I think the 1ar is a constructive. This might be a slight exaggeration, but not by much.

12. I think that debates are better if they adhere to agreed upon resolutions, allowing both sides an equal opportunity to prepare. I also think there are benefits to having debates about U.S. Government policy, an area where there is an expansive and open literature that all debaters can access. Therefore, my presumption and preference is that the affirmative present a topic plan.

13. I always have been and remain open to alternate perspectives on the ideal form of debate. My ideas about debate theory and practice have evolved over the years upon hearing convincing arguments from other debaters, coaches, and judges. For teams that pursue these arguments in debates that I’m judging, I have two general suggestions. First, make clear arguments that directly engage the other side. I have judged few if any debates where a team did not attempt to read a topical plan and am unlikely to have read the literature you're drawing upon. Beware of using specialized language that I may not understand or making short-hand or implied arguments that I may not follow. Second, I think about all decisions in terms of alternatives and opportunity cost. Therefore, I will find your arguments more persuasive if you can answer the following types of questions: What is the alternative form of debate that you are proposing? What are the advantages of the change? Why do those advantages outweigh the costs?

Hays Watson Georgia 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 7, 2023 at 3:32 AM EDT

Hays Watson, former head debate coach @ University of Georgia. whwatson@gmail.com. I split my time between political consulting and caretaking for a dying parent. Haven't judged a debate since 2020.

Online debate 411 - Please slow down, speak up, have patience, and make sure that everything (sound/camera/wifi/tech) is on and working properly. I will do my best to judge as I normally do and make the best decision possible while providing helpful feedback.

My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments made in the debate. That being said, I remain a teacher at heart and I'll also offer suggestions for how you can improve. That's why I still write full ballots and send them via email to the teams that I judge.

Here are many of my preferences, simply-stated:

Clarity trumps speed...the best debaters are able to achieve both.

Evidence matters...but not much more than logical, analytical arguments. Many positions (case advantages, politics, etc.) can best be defeated with smart, analytical responses. Use your brain.

Efficiency and explanation both matter - but doing one while sacrificing the other produces bad debate. Explanation seems to lose out quite a bit these days...there is such thing as being "too efficient."

Process questions determine substantive questions. The "who" of action does, in fact, determine the effectiveness of "what" action is being taken.

I prefer that Affirmatives advocate topical action. Specific plans of action are preferable over vague/generic policy suggestions. Yes, that means I still appreciate spec-based args.

I tend to find more persuasive logical/plausible scenarios ("truth") than technical/strategic ones ("tech"). A dropped DA is a dropped DA, but a card saying the economy will collapse tomorrow doesn't make it so.

I reward arguments grounded in the topic literature over arguments based upon non-germane net benefits or advantages. In other words, I'd prefer that you read the deterrence DA and an advantage CP over a made-up counterplan with an artificial internal net-benefit or a crappy politics DA.

Links/internal links are more important (and more interesting) than uniqueness questions. Most debate impacts are silly - not everything causes extinction. Yes, advantages/harms can be linked turned. Yes, impacts can be turned as well.

I'm increasingly frustrated by the relative absence of debates about important theoretical questions. Topicality no longer is seen as a strategic Negative tool. Affirmatives consistently refuse to challenge the theoretical legitimacy of various negative positions (conditionality, politics DAs, kritiks, etc.). Why?

Impact defense alone is an insufficient way to answer an argument. I'm confused as to how case attacks based solely around impact defense have become the "norm." The best argumentative strategies involve mixture of offensive and defensive responses. "No impact" doesn't cut it.

Effective cross-examination is still the most underutilized tool in debate. Poor, un-strategic cross-ex questions (and responses) make me sad.

I can spell 'K' despite my reputation. It's impossible not to acknowledge (albeit begrudgingly) that a well explained and case-specific kritik supported by high-quality evidence is an important strategic tool. Play to your strengths - even its gooey and critical.

I flow. I still flow on paper. It's hard to flow stuff - blippy T args, theory, embedded clash on the case, etc. Keep that in mind, especially if you are debating online.

Nick Watts Harvard 4 rounds

"I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." - Scott Harris

I will attempt to limit the amount my predispositions will influence how I evaluate a debate round. Basically, I would like to hear you read whatever argument that you feel you can deploy the best. I will do my best to evaluate it based on the framing that you have chosen. Remember, framing is always up to debate--tell me how to evaluate your arguments and you will prevent I enjoy specificity and nuance. I place importance on how pieces of evidence get debated, as opposed to simply constructing debates based on the pieces of evidence that have been introduce. While I also place a premium on quality evidence (which, I would like to be able to hear during your speech), I believe that a smart analytic argument has the potential to gain equal traction to a solid piece of evidence. Quality always trumps quantity.

I think that c-x is incredibly important. I keep track of it and think that most debaters misuse their time and often forget to utilize arguments made in c-x during their speech. A nuanced question asked of the 2nc may radically alter how a 1ar responds to a position—but it is up to you to prove that in the speech.

Theory:
I am not a fan of any counterplan that does, at some point, the entirety of the aff. However, I have voted on them.
Theory needs to be well executed. Debates in which theory blocks do the arguing almost always favor the neg.
I don’t like cheap shots. I like arguments to be well developed. Most cheap shots are not reasons to reject the team and significant time would need to be spent in order to convince me otherwise. However, it is your burden to point out how irrelevant many theory arguments that are advanced in debates are, as a concession may force my hand.

T:
I like T. I think that the aff should to be about the resolution. The aff’s relationship to that resolution is up for debate. Framework should be debated as a substantive issue.

The K:
These are the arguments I am most familiar with. I will do my best to limit my predispositions from giving explanation or advancing arguments for the other team. Specificity and spin are important for both sides of the debate. I don’t like generic explanations of meta theory with no tie to the affirmative. Similarly, I don’t like generic responses to critical theory outside of the context of the aff. Generic evidence does not force generic explanation.

CPs/Das:
I love a good, well-researched, specific strategy. The more generic your strategy becomes, the greater the chance of me assigning an extremely low risk to these arguments. Sometimes there is simply no link. I am generally not persuaded by “any risk” style arguments. The more specific your DA the better.

The last thing I will say is that debates that I have fun in will be rewarded by higher speaker points. I have fun when I see well thought out and deployed strategy.. Make me laugh and you will be rewarded. Be nice.

Stephen Weil Emory University 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 8:25 AM EDT

Updated 9/9/2016

A few firm rules:

-Speech times are 9 minutes for constructives, 6 minutes for rebuttals, and 3 minutes for CX. Prep is determined by tournament invite. Each debater should give one constructive and one rebuttal, with only one debater giving each speech.

-Note on CX: you get 3 minutes of CX time. If you ask the other team clarification questions during prep (“Did you read this card?” “Can you confirm your CP text?” etc), it would be pretty rude of them not to answer, but I will not flow this/treat it as argument-development time like CX.

-I will use my ballot to decide the debate in front of me. Debaters can advance various criteria for how I should evaluate that debate, but I can’t render a decision on the basis of something that did not occur in the debate I have been watching.

-Be transparent about your evidence. The other team should receive the same speech documents that I do. That doesn’t mean you are obligated to include analytical arguments – people should also flow! Also, mark stuff during the speech, you probably aren’t going to remember each word you stopped at once the speech is over.

A few argument leanings:

-I am pretty convinced that competitive debate requires a point of stasis. That doesn’t mean I think there is only one way to read/interpret the resolution, but it does mean that I am most persuaded by affs that relate themselves to the resolution in a way that they can argue provides predictable points of contestation for the neg. In short, Predictability/Argument Testing Good > Policymaking Good.

-I like plan/CP texts with some specificity. If your plan text is just a re-printing of the resolution, it will probably annoy me. If a team is vague about their advocacy, I am more likely to give the other team leeway in interpreting how it would play out through evidence.

-I am more sympathetic than average to aff theoretical objections (conditionality and multi-actor fiat stand out). If theory debates reflect well thought-out visions of debate rather than regurgitation of stock phrases, then I actually enjoy them.

-I can be persuaded that theory arguments are a reason to reject the team, and not simply the argument, if persuasive reasons are given. However, my default position is always to reject the argument (conditionality is an exception; rejecting the argument would make it conditional, so teams are encouraged to explain an alternative remedy), unless a developed warrant is made to the contrary.

A couple general reflections on my judging:

-I think I care more about evidence than I did a few years ago. Debate requires skill in framing arguments and making comparisons, but also in finding good evidence to support your claims. Obviously I prefer to watch debaters do good evidence comparison, but it’s often hard to fully interrogate every piece of evidence in the debate. If a team has invested good effort in evidence comparison, I will try to extend their skepticism in a limited fashion as I read other evidence after the debate.

-I give the best points to debaters who have a good big-picture strategic vision of the debate and how the relevant arguments interact. If debaters invest their time in the right places and explain their strategic decision-making, I am more likely to view the debate the way they would like.

Whit Whitmore Michigan 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM EDT

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.

Kris Willis Florida 8 rounds

Kris Willis
Director of Debate
The University of Florida
Years coaching: 10 (19 totals years in the activity)

Debate is a game. It should be fun and educational.
Please be nice to each other.
I will judge the debate you want to have to the best of my abilities. I would say you are better to debate what you are good at debating, than change for me in the back of the room. I do, however, have some predispositions and beliefs regarding debate that you should know. Absent a framework set-up during the debate, I will default policymaker. I prefer to watch debates with good evidence and oriented around a policy action.

Theory Debates: I do not like to watch theory debates because they are generally blippy taglines and impossible to flow. Having said that, I understand the importance and strategy of engaging in a theory debate. I recognize that sometimes it is what you got. If you go for theory in the debate, go deep and slow to analyze the debate. Continuing to read front-lines with no depth of explanation will be bad for you. Try to make the debate about in-round implications and not centered around potential abuse or "how" debate should be in the future. In general, if you haven't caught on by the descriptions, I tend to find education arguments more persuasive than fairness arguments. But fairness is important.

Framework/Performance (or the like) debates: If the debate is a debate about framework or how I should evaluate the debate, please don't forget to talk about the other arguments in the debate. In other words, there should be something "productive" that comes with the way you want me to vote. Debates about how we should debate are interesting, but make sure you engage in some sort of debate as well. Reading scripted/blocked out front-lines is very unimpressive to me. Make it about the debate at hand.

Topicality: I do not vote for T very often but I do think it is a voting issue. If you read a T argument make sure to talk about "in-round" implications and not just potential abuse arguments. With the caselist, disclosure, and MPJ, I do not find potential abuse arguments very compelling. Linking the T to other arguments in the debate and showing the Aff is being abusive by avoiding core neg ground in the debate is what works best. Discussions about predictable literature outside of the in-round implications do not carry much weight because in most instances the Neg knew about the case and research a good strategy. The exception is when an affirmative breaks a new 1AC, then the neg should be allowed to make potential abuse arguments--they didn't get disclosure and the caselist to prep. I generally prefer depth over breath education claims.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific the better. The Link is very important. Please make evidence comparisons during the debate. I dislike having to call for 20+ cards to access uniqueness on a Politics DA (etc) when they are highlighted down to one or two lines. Read the longer, more contextual cards than the fast irrelevant ones. I tend to not give a risk to the DA. You need to win the components to the DA to have me weigh it against the Aff.

Counterplans: I do not like Consult CPs, please choose another type of CP. PIC and Agent CPs are OK, but are better when you have contextual literature that justifies the the CP. Advantage CPs are cool. Affirmatives should not be able to advocate the permutation; however, theory abuse arguments can be used to justify this action. Condo is OK, but you shouldn't go for contradictory arguments in rebuttals.

Case Debates: I like case debates; however, these debates tend to turn into "blippy extensions" and force me to read cards to understand the arguments and/or nuances of the case debate. Debaters should make these explanations during the debate and not rely on me to read the cards and make it for you. I tend to try and let the debater arguments carry weight for the evidence. Saying extend Smith it answers this argument is not a compelling extension. Warrants are a necessity in all arguments.

Critiques: I generally consider these arguments to be linear DAs, with a plan meet need (PMN) and sometimes a CP (often abusive) attached at the end. Yes, I will vote for a K. When I was in Graduate School I read a lot of this literature and so I liked these debates. Now that I am 10+ years removed from Grad school, I tend to see bad debates that grotesquely mutate the authors intent. This is also true for Framework debates. Your K should have as specific literature as possible. Generic K's are the worst; as are bad generic aff answers. While I think condo is OK, I find Performative Contradiction arguments sometimes persuasive (especially if discourse is the K link)--so try not to engage in this Neg (or Aff).

General things you should know:
1. I like switch-side debating. While you are free to argue this is bad, it is a strong disposition I have to the game. **Read-Affirmatives should have a plan of action and defend it. However, because of this I usually give more "latitude" to affirmatives on Permutations for critical arguments when they can prove the core action of the aff is a good idea.
2. Potential abuse is not very persuasive. Instead, connect the abuse to in-round implications.
3. Engage in good impact analysis. The worst debates to judge are ones where I weigh the impacts without the debaters doing the work in the speeches.
4. Research: I am a big believer that what separates "policy debate" pedagogically from other forms of debate and makes it a better form to engage in is the research and argument construction that flows from it. Hence, I like good arguments that are well researched.
5. Don't steal prep-time! If you are paperless, prep stops when you hand the jump-drive to your opponents, not when you say I am ready.

Any questions, just ask.

Carly Wunderlich Michigan State University 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:49 PM UTC

Background: Debated 2006-2010 at Michigan State University, Assistant Coach at Gonzaga 2010-2011, Coach at MSU 2011-present

carly.wunderlich@gmail.com

---Updates Based on Getting Old---

1. What happened to 1NC DA shells that were complete arguments? Card 1 – Dems will win now – health care is a thing that matters. Card 2 – Dem win stops impeachment. Card 3 – Trump causes nuclear war. Um, no. You don’t have an argument here. The aff gets a wreck of leeway to answer stuff in the 1AR because this isn’t even starting to establish a causal link chain in the 1NC.

3. What happened to 1NC solvency cards for CPs? If your 2NC starts “they dropped the announcements plank in the 2AC it’s GAME OVER” but you haven’t read solvency for that plank that’s a no as well.

They all have huge strategic benefits, I get it – you can just spread them out and then piece it together once the aff drops everything. It’s gross to watch, your speaker points will reflect it and I won't forget who's fault it is that the debate is a wreck to try to decide because the debating didn't start until the block. This is also all true of ludicrous aff moves in the same vein

---Old Philosophy + Minor Revisions---

Things I like about debate

1. Working hard/preparation--- I think quality research should be a guiding factor when making decisions. Specific strategies rewarded, poo-nuggets punished

2. Critical thinking--- nothing gets you thinking you your feet like debate. I like interesting pivots and fast-moving debates

3. Argument testing---looking at both sides of an issue to parse out the most compelling arguments on both sides without confirmation bias – more important than ever, in my opinion

Topicality

As an old 2A I think reasonability works out well for the aff in a lot of spots. I'm very close to living in a post-T world if I'm being honest. The link to the limits DA should be well explained and evidenced (either by analysis or with actual evidence). Need clear case lists with explanation why you do/don’t include a specific case. T-substantial/significant is no for me.

CPs

I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, states) as reasons to reject the team. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. I also do not think that distinct is competitive and I think the neg should compete off a mandate of the plan.

Conditionality- for the last decade my philosophy has read “this is an area where I've started to move farther into the aff camp. My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans. It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a better job of protecting the aff in this department.” Unfortunately, I have failed the aff and voted neg in a LOT of spots. I still wish in my heart that we could limit the number of CPs read in a debate but unfortunately my voting record has not reflected that.

Unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

DAs

I think there are many logical inconsistencies with DAs that often go unremarked on by the aff in favor of impact defense. I think the aff would generally do better on engaging at the link/internal link level of dubious DAs. Picking one argument to deal a death blow to the DA works better than death by a thousand cuts.

Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. Links to the plan action are best. Affs get far on “K doesn’t remedy “x” advantage and that outweighs” if the neg is not good and explicit about it. Almost all frameworks are a race to the middle. Neg gets to question assumptions of the aff, aff gets to weigh advantages- that’s a warning to the aff and the neg.

The Aff

I feel that there are lots of instances where crummy affs get away with it because the neg only focuses on impact calc. I think this is another instance, like DAs, where focusing on solvency/internal link args can pay bigger dividends than impact calc.

Speaker points

Things I like in speeches

1. Connections on central questions- slowing down and effectively communicating about guiding issues

2. Technical proficiency- answering clearly all necessary arguments

3. Clarity- I’m doing my best to be mindful of this but I honestly sometimes just forget- I’ll call clear once if you’re incomprehensible but at a certain point it will affect whether or not I vote on arguments

4. Strategic cross-exs- I’d prefer not to spend another 12 mins listening to “where does your card say that?”

Things that will result in reduced speaker points

2. Tech fails- please be prompt and quick with tech things. In a world of decision times this is increasingly getting to me.

3. Creating an environment that is hostile or unsafe for me or the other team – It's important for productive conversations and it's not healthy for all of us to leave tournaments hating each other.

4. Talking over everyone in c-x – I get it, you think you’re cool but I’m pretty bored with watching people get themselves all worked up and then just yell over the other team

My Speaker Point Scale (unless otherwise published by the tournament)

29.6 -30: You should receive a Top 10 speaker award

29.3 – 29.5: In this debate, you were an quarters level debater

28.8 – 29.2: In this debate, you were a 5-3, octos or double octos debater

28.4 – 28.7: In this debate, you were a 4-4 debater on the verge or bubble of clearing

28 – 28.3: You are improving but not quite there on big picture issues

27.5 – 28: You need some improvement on technical items as well as big picture things

Kelly Young Wayne State University 3 rounds

Kelly Young
Director of Forensics, Wayne State University
Years Coaching: 22

If there is an email chain, please include me: kelyoung@gmail.com.

In general, don’t change how you debate just because I’m in the back. What I list below are general preferences, but aren't hard and fast rules by any means. Seems like I have voted for about every type and style of argument at some point in my career. Whether I really liked those arguments or not is a separate matter. Overall, debate is about making well warranted, competing arguments. If your strategy refutes the central thesis of the other team with solid arguments, you are doing things correctly in front of me.

Important items to know:

I like plan and advocacy statements with the efficacy of those plan texts and statements operating as the center of the debate. Links about the plan/statement or values embedded within the plan mechanism are far more persuasive to me than other links.

I’ve never been terribly good with performance debates, particularly negative performance strategies. It’s not that I’m not open to the arguments or completely unfamiliar with the literature base, but I often don’t find performances terribly competitive with the plan or advocacy statement, which is how I understand the concept of competition.

Items that make me sound like/exposes that I am an old curmudgeon:

· Generally dislike rude debaters – if you go out of your way to be mean, cruel, hyper-aggressive, etc., I’ll punish your speaker points. That doesn’t mean a 28.5. I mean like 8.9. Don't overreact to this statement. If you are typical debate assertive, you're fine. If you're going out of your way to be a jerk, then this statement applies to you.

· Dislike excessive profanity in debates – used in moderation or part of a performance, it is probably okay. But dropping f-bombs just to do it because you think it’s cool, meh. It’s inefficient, opens you up to offensive, and just kinda annoys me.

· The increasingly popular “new affs bad” jurisdictional arg is the dumbest argument I have heard. I’d likely vote on a poorly asserted RVI against it.

· Tech persuades me far less than narrative and smart argument. I like big picture explanations over 10-15 awful args or bad cards. Please don’t just throw everything at me in the last two rebuttals and force me to figure it out. That said, I do often vote on arguments that I dont think are necessarily the truth, but the team consistently does a good job justifying the position, particularly when they are ahead technically.

· Dropped cheap shot, sandbagged, underdeveloped or asserted random claim don’t really persuade me and I’m open to new responses once the argument is explained.

· Evidence supports arguments, not the other way around. A persuasive argument that lacks evidence can be given a large risk.

Clipping Issues - I don't proactively police this during debates and I don’t record debates, so if debaters want me to access charges of clipping, they should have an audio/visual record of the debate and raise a challenge in the debate. I do occasionally scan through documents to see if everything is being read. If I claim is made, I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a decision after the review. While I understand why other people proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.

Topicality debates: I’m probably more open to T debates than I have been in the past. But I’m not really a great theory judge. If you have better substantial args to go for, please do so.

I like the argument if the aff is clearly on the margins of the topic, but I really don't like dumb T debates that arbitrarily attempt to limit out central or core affs. I really prefer evidence heavy T debates rather than theoretical speculation. Topicality is always a voter, never a reverse voter. I also strongly believe that voting for T is NOT an endorsement of genocide, violence, etc. Topicality always comes before critical arguments.

CP debates or theory debates:
Generally, I strongly lean neg on conditionality. I prefer theory arguments based on what specific arguments/strategies you lose in the debate rather than arguments that conditionality/dispo makes your speech too difficult. I'm probably not going to judge kick for you unless you spend some time explaining under which conditions I would so.

I’m not a good judge for process, word pics, or condition cps. I’ve voted for them in the past, but I have difficulty with competition that’s grounded on little more than the immediacy of the plan.

Framework debates: Probably the most frequently heard issue in most debates I judge these days. I tend to evaluate most framework debates like a disad - there's uniqueness about the state of debate/education/politics, links, and the theoretical impacts.

Login to Tabroom

GSU National College Debate Tournament

2012 — GA/US

Policy Paradigm List

My Philosophy

Judging

Specifics

Speaker Points

Judges