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.

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.

Email: mary.bobbitt1076@gmail.com  Please include me on your email chains

People I wish to judge like: Sarah Lundeen, Jarrod Atchison, and Matt Struth.

2016-2017 update:

I have recently left the debate community to work full-time. This means I know very little about the literature on the topic and you should explain acronyms etc. 

I. Overview:  Don't over adapt to me. I am a flow centric judge. I flow on paper thus you need to slow down on cp texts, theory, fw etc. I do not think of debate as a classroom but rather a seperate competitive activity.  I default to the offense/defense paradigm. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I focus on analysis over evidence. I am most interested in the radical of the left and right.  I am a very expressive judge; if you need different signals than traditional nonverbals please feel free to tell me and we will work something out. 

                A. Timing the debate and paperless:  CX and prep starts as soon as your speech ends. The time ends when the jump drive is pulled out the computer.  You should time yourselves; however, I will be enforcing efficiency.   I am very strict about time. 

Additionally - I will stop flowing as soon as the timer goes off.  

                B. Clarity:  If I cannot understand the full text of your evidence clearly I will not flow your cards and will treat the tags as analytics.  Slurring so badly that you are not reading the text of the evidence is akin to clipping.  I will say clear one time before I stop flowing you.  I will give more leeway in JV and novice.

                C. Speaker points:  While I love snark and jokes and hilarity, there is a line where that passes into just being mean. Snark/Jokes/Puns internal to the debate and arguments you are presenting are better than those just randomly put in.   I think having respect for your opponents is fundamentally a good thing. 

II. The K: The alternative is generally the weakest point of these arguments. I prefer debaters to demonstrate that they know the literature they are speaking from and not simply the cards that have been cut. 

                A. Flowing nontraditional debate: If you would like me to take notes or evaluate rounds beyond the traditional method of flowing, you must outline for me how to do so. 

                B. Perms - Counterperms are a difficult sell.  I don't understand how                        they work. 

                C. Opacity:  If you ask me to leave the debate because I am white you must tell me to do so and tell me what to do with my ballot.  I will not leave you my ballot if I am the only judge – I will take it with me and flip a coin.  I will only leave if both teams would like me to.

                D. Social death theory: This argument is generally asserted rather than explained. Please give warrants for why it is true

                E. Do not try to steal my ballot. They’re now mostly online anyway so I’m not sure how this would work..

III. Framework: I default to counter interpretations.  I prefer traditional debate impacts as opposed to agonism impacts. 

IV. Counterplans: Advantage CPs > Process CPs.  This is probably my weakest point as a judge; if you are reading a techy counterplan you need to spend time explaining to me the mechanism of the cp. I have difficulty with internal net benefits vis-a-vis the permutation.  I love a good theory debate.

                A. Condo: All my predispositions are debatable but I think condo is generally good. I think perf con (CP + K) is good.  However, reading two contradicting k's is probably not legit. I will not kick the CP for you unless you ask me to. Slow down on theory.  

                B. Other CP theory: International fiat seems suspect. The more I judge the less I like 50 state fiat. 

V. DA – uniqueness determines the direction of the link.  The words “Fiat solves the link” is not an argument.  Explain what your interpretation of fiat is and why that doesn’t matter. 

VI. Topicality – Enjoyable.  Specification arguments are fun.  Please provide me a case list for your interpretation.  I think the most interesting part of this debate is competing interps versus reasonability.  How do they function in the debate in terms of abuse and what interpreteations are?  This is rarely developed in these debates. 

VII. Case – I think analytics can take out an entire advantage. Let's have some fun impact turn debates because #reasons. 

VIII. Theory - I

IX. Other comments

                A.  Card clipping: It’s an auto lose.

                B. Marking Cards:  If you do not physically mark a card during your speech I will not evaluate it if you ask me to call for it.  I write down every card that is marked. If is your responsibility to jump a marked document to your opponents at their request. 

                C. If you are reading or showing pornography, I would ask that you explain the theory/method/story/video without actually showing or reading explicitly sexual content for the purposes of arousal.  I will assume you have performed it in some manner to answer solvancy questions.   

                D. I do not enjoy debates where gendered/ableist/racist/exclusionary language is used. 

                E. CX: I flow it. Its binding but open to clarification.

IV. Topic Specific Notes:

 See above. 

 For your enjoyment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWM2joNb9NE

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

I debated for 4 years at Vanderbilt University with Cameron Norris. I am now a 3L at the University of Houston’s law school. I help coach for the University of Houston.

I will vote on any argument. I have voted on arguments I thought were awesome, and I have voted on arguments I thought were terrible. If you win the arguments, and you win I should vote on them, I absolutely will, regardless of my own personal views. My decision is not a referendum on anything except who won the round.

With that in mind, I can give you a brief history of how I have voted in the past:

DAs/Case: Obviously yes. In debates like these, I frequently find myself voting aff on “try or die” and frequently find myself voting neg on “our impacts happen faster than yours.”

Theory & T: I don’t really have many predispositions, and those I have are not strongly held. 

-I am happy to vote on T

-I do not like voting on theory

-With respect to this stuff, I will simply vote on the best explained argument. If that argument is competing interps is best or reasonability is best or theory outweighs T or anything else, I will vote for it if it is the winning argument. I will not reject an argument because I personally disagree with it.

-I think many process CPs are often terrible for debate in terms of the educational value they provide. Same with CPs that compete on certainty and delay. But not all of them.

-I’ve only voted on conditionality when there were at least 3 positions and if the 2ar gave a stellar speech and the 2nr didn’t; I generally find arguments against conditionality not explained to persuade me.

-I think intrinsicness against DAs is a very bad argument.

Legal Stuff: Now that I am in law school, I realize that debaters understand a shockingly small amount about how the courts are structured or function, even on legal topics. If the other team makes a contrived legal argument about the courts, or relies on an incorrect assumption of how they operate, I will be glad if you point it out. I certainly hope that, after 3 years of law school, I am pretty capable of understanding nuanced legal arguments (assuming you explain them).

Meta-Level Debate:

-I have often voted on arguments that, whatever you advocate, whoever the agent is or isn’t, whatever you’re talking about, that you should defend a specific course of action / solution to the problems you identify. I find this argument persuasive because I believe enormous value is generated by learning how to craft and evaluate fairly specific solutions.

-I will not vote for you because others have explained your argument better than you. I will not vote for you because I personally believe your arguments. And I will definitely not vote for you just because your evidence is awesome. I will only vote for you, whatever position you take, if you cogently present a persuasive argument in the round.

-I think evidence is most useful to establish factual questions about what has or will happen. Evidence is substantially less useful when employed for other purposes.

Kritiks:

-When I vote aff, it is often on the argument that the aff has an impact and a chance of solving it, and the alt doesn’t solve it, and the aff’s impact happens before the K’s impact.

-When I vote neg, it is often because the aff’s impacts are all lies or otherwise irrelevant, or the alt solves all the aff’s impacts and there’s no reason to do the aff, or the aff solves nothing and the K turns the case.

-I am capable of understanding and reading arguments, but I am not immersed in nor very familiar with many of the underlying ideas, background thoughts, or even vocabulary associated with many schools of thought. If I do not understand the argument as you articulate it, I will not vote for you. I will read your evidence only in light of how you actually articulated the argument.

Stupid Arguments: Notwithstanding what I said above, my personal beliefs will interfere with your ability to win these arguments. I think almost every rendition of Spark, Wipeout, Ashtar, Timecube, 2012, etc. arg that I’ve ever heard is completely unpersuasive. The authors of these positions almost inevitably rely on incorrect or unwarranted assumptions and lack any semblance of credibility. I will give an extremely strong benefit of the doubt to the team that makes smart, reasonable arguments against these positions and/or argues that the other side’s “evidence” is little more than a series of unqualified assertions and anecdotal “data”/substantively baseless scientific-sounding rhetoric.

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!

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.

Update 4/1/2023

*If you are scanning this philosophy as a nonmember of the community, seeking out quotes to help your political "culture war" cause you are not an honest broker here and largely looking for clickbait. I find your endeavors an unfortunate result of a rage machine that consumes a great deal of quality programs without ever helping them thrive or grow. Re-evaluate your life and think about how you can help high schools and middle schools around this country develop speech and debate programs, core liberal art educational, to improve the quality of argumentation, that otherwise is lacking. In the end, as an outsider looking in, you are missing a great deal of nuance in these philosophies and how they operate in the communities (multiple not just one) around the US and the world.

If you have landed here as a representative of Fox News or an ally or affiliate, I would like to see the receipts of the bias that has and continues to perforate your organization from Roger Ailes to Tucker Carlson and more. Here is my question, when you learned about the Joe McCarthy era of conspiracy theory, along with the hysteria and demonization of potential Americans who are communist (or sympathizers) and "pinko" (gay or sexual "deviants"), is your gripe with McCarthy that he had a secret list without evidence, or do you recognize that a core problem with McCarthy is his anti-democratic fear that there actually ARE communists, gay, trans, bisexual, Americans?

My next question is when and where you think it is acceptable for a person with strong beliefs to exist in democratic spaces. Bias is inevitable and part of this debate game. Organizations attempt to manage types of bias and coaches and debaters learn how to adapt to certain bias while attempting to avoid problematic bias. What do you think? Would right leaning presidential candidates vote for an argument that affirms trans athletes in sports? Should a trans judge leave their identity entirely at the door and embody a leading republican presidential candidate who is against medical care for trans persons? Both answers are no. The issue you seek to lambast for viewership clickbate is much deeper and more complicated than a 3 minute video clip can cover. Thank for reading.

REAL PHILOSOPHY
Background: Indiana University Director of Debate as of 2010. Background is primarily as a policy debater and policy debate coach.

Email Chain: Bdelo77@gmail.com

The road to high speaker points and the ballot

I reward debaters who have a strong knowledge of the topic. Those debaters who can articulate intricacies and relationships amongst topic specific literature will meet what I believe are the educational benefits of having a topic in the first place.

Using evidence to assist you with the argument you are trying to make is more important than stringing evidence together in hopes that they accumulate into an argument. “I have a card judge, it is real good” “pull my 15 uniqueness cards judge” are not arguments. Ex: Obama will win the election – a) swing voters, Rasmussen poll indicates momentum after the DNC b) Washington post “Romney has lost the election” the base is gone… etc. are good extensions of evidence.

Less jargon more eloquence. I get bored with repeated catch phrases. I understand the need for efficiency, but debaters who recognize the need for innovation by individuals in the activity will receive more points.

Speed: I expect I can digest at least 70% of your speech. The other 30% should be general human attention span issues on my part. I firmly believe debate is a communication event, I am saddened that this has been undervalued as debaters prepare for tournaments. If I agree with X debater that Y debater’s speech on an argument was incoherent, I am more and more willing to just ignore the argument. Computer screens and Bayesian calculus aside, there is a human in this body that makes human decisions.

Should affs be topical?

Affs should have a relationship to the topic that is cogent. If there is no relationship to the topic, I have a high standard for affirmatives to prove that the topic provides no “ground” for a debater to adapt and exist under its umbrella. Negatives, this does not mean you don’t have a similar burden to prove that the topic is worth debating. However personally I think you will have a much smaller hill to climb… I find it disturbing that debaters do not go further than a quick “topical version of your aff solves” then insert X switch side good card… Explain why the topical version is good for debate and provides argument diversity and flexibility.

Policy debate is good: When I prep our files for tournaments I tend to stay in the policy-oriented literature. This does not mean that I am unwilling to cut our K file or K answers, I just have limited time and job related motivation to dive into this literature.

K Debate: Can be done well, can be done poorly. I do not exclude the arguments from the round but nebulous arguments can be overplayed and abused.

(Updated 3-2-2022) Conditionality:

1) Judge Kick? No. You made your choice on what to go for now stick with it. 2NRs RARELY have the time to complete one avenue for the ballot let alone two conditional worlds...

I tend to believe that one conditional substantive test of the plan advocacy is good (agent CP, process CP, or ?) and I am open to the idea of the need for a second advantage CP (need to deal with add-ons and bad advantages) or K within limits. I'm not a fan of contradicting conditional advocacies in how they implicate 2AC offense and potential.

Beyond 1-2 conditional arguments, I am torn by the examples of proliferating counterplans and critiques that show up in the 1NC and then disappear in the negative block. There is a substantive tradeoff in the depth and quality of arguments and thus a demotivation incentive for the iterative testing and research in the status quo world of 3+ conditional advocacies. The neg's, "write better advantages" argument has value, however with 2AC time pressure it means that 1ACs are becoming Frankenstein's monster to deal with the time tradeoff.

Plans: I think the community should toy with the idea of a grand bargain where affirmatives will specify more in their plan text and negs give up some of their PIC ground. The aff interp of "we only have to specify the resolution" has pushed us in the direction where plans are largely meaningless and aff conditionality is built into core 2AC frontlines. The thing is, our community has lost many of its fora for discussing theory and establishing new norms around issues like this. Debaters need to help be the change we need and we need more in-depth theory discussions outside of the rounds. Who is the Rorger Solt going to be of the 2020's?

Reading evidence:
I find myself more willing to judge the evidence as it was debated in the round (speeches and cx), and less willing to scan through piles of cards to create a coherent understanding of the round. If a debate is being had about the quality of X card, how I SHOULD read the evidence, etc. I will read it.

Sometimes I just have an interest in the evidence and I read it for self-educational and post-round discussion reasons.

Judging:

I will work extremely hard to evaluate the debate as the debaters have asked me to judge it.

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.

Policy debater first, coach since 2007. A few stray thoughts:

-Familiar with most formats of high school debate, but haven't judge in America for some time, so I may not be familiar with contemporary theoretical norms and arguments. Explain everything.

-I haven't researched this topic with any specificity. Explain everything.

-I'll say this -- something I would have hated as a HS policy debater but here we are -- debate is a communication exercise first. As a judge, I work to not intervene recklessly but I do reserve the right to dismiss arguments that are not effectively communicated to me, which includes elements of both form and content.

-More often than not, quality > quantity. Cover smart.

-Enjoy the process. Debate will be what debaters make it.

Background

I debated at the University of Oregon, and am now in my second year coaching at IU. I’m working with the developing urban debate league in Indianapolis and I’ve spent a lot more energy on that this year than cutting cards (sorry IU debaters…) or going to tournaments: for now, I’ll be less familiar with some topic specific plan mechanisms and arguments that hinge on “the direction of the topic”. I enjoy judging a lot and I’m working hard to improve. My number one goal is to facilitate an educational experience for the debaters. I enjoy judging novice, JV and open debates, and I come to the round to learn too.

General

I don’t have a preference for any type of argument. Do what you feel comfortable with and what you like researching and I’ll follow. On K literature: saying an author’s name usually does not allow me to access a reservoir of knowledge on their work, but I generally believe that it takes the same sort of skills to contextualize a piece of k evidence to your opponent’s argument and the round, which you should do.

Evidence

I tend not to call for much evidence – I default to what the rebuttals say about the use and spin of the evidence. There’s an exception: as a way of incentivizing what I view as a very useful educational aspect of debate, I am quite willing to look at evidence if you tell me to evaluate the quality, coherence, highlighting etc of evidence that is important to the debate. I think these should be made quite often. You should be specific (it won’t do to say “their whole K has bad evidence”), but I won’t punish a debater if their indictment turns out to be mistaken. If aff evidence contains alt causes in the ununderlined text, that needs to be pointed out. If the politics link is hideously generic or taken out of context, say so. Sometimes I feel like debaters get too rushed (or embarrassed that they could be wrong) to make these types of arguments and prefer to hide behind a wall of cards. I think this is absolutely the wrong response. You can get a lot of mileage with me out of short analytic arguments – at worst they’re usually a good time tradeoff.

Effective Communication

It’s the rare debater that this does not apply to: start your speech slower and ease into the speed as the judge gets used to your voice.

I find the following characteristics most important to my assignment of speaker points (in order):

1. Responsiveness and evidence analysis. If your speech makes me feel like it couldn’t be given in 3 other rounds, I’ll reward you. You can earn high points under this metric in many ways: directly evaluating the text/source of the evidence, amending your overviews to include a specific example from the round, or contextualizing your own evidence to undermine the logical underpinnings of your opponents specific position.

2. Communication skills – are you trying to convince me? Are you speaking to your computer? Do you look up every now and again? Is your speed an asset, and not a hindrance?

3. Strategic and technical ability

4. Random intangibles – I’m trying to standardize the speaker points I give out, but it’s a work in progress.

Tips

More analogies, more historical examples. More theory. Fewer, slower arguments per theory shell. More analysis of sources and evidence. Less read the opposite card. More creativity in strategy and research! That you care about your argument and have spent time reflecting on your strategy is apparent from where I’m sitting.

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:

1. I prefer if you number your arguments.
2. 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.
3. I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
4. 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.
5. I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
6. I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. I still believe in a place called Hope.

I stand in solidarity with the protest movement of the U of L Malcolm X Debate Society. The protest movement is a call for institutional change that allows for increased effective decision making in a multicultural democracy. I understand judges to have the power to help create institutional change. Therefore, the team that best exhibits argument strategies that are inclusive of diverse perspectives and styles that follow the Ethical Code of Conduct found in the governing documents of the Cross-Examination Debate Organization (CEDA) will be affirmed. Each team will need to articulate in terms of the ballot how they move us closer to achieving that purpose. I believe that what is said in a debate ought to be said clearly. My preference is for clear storylines that logically constructed narratives that aim to educate others and articulate a position. I take notes during speeches as a means of understanding arguments not as means of scoring. I take a holistic view of debate and will evaluate teams and speakers accordingly.

- James Garrett, 1^st year judging, University of Louisville

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.

Andrew.j.hart@gmail.com

I have debated or coached for UGA since 2004 and debated for Stratford for 5 years before that. My knowledge and literature base exists largely on the policy side, but I am fairly ideologically neutral and well acquainted with K and K-ish args as well. After all, I have been in debate for nearly as long as many of the current high school debaters have been alive. That last sentence just hurt my soul, but it is true. My basic belief when judging is that as long as you clearly explain the argument and why it is more important than whatever the other side says, you will probably win the debate. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments fairly and without bias.

When it comes to assigning risk to an argument, I do not ascribe to an offense-defense paradigm. I can and will assign zero risk to an argument if defensive arguments are clearly won. If there is no link, there is no link. And no uniqueness if there is no uniqueness. For example, if your uniqueness evidence on a politics DA is 3-4 weeks old and the Aff has definitive evidence from a few days ago saying the opposite and cites a specific change, then there is zero risk to me. This also equally applies to advantages and solvency and pretty much all arguments. I’m perfectly willing to vote on only defensive arguments such as a perm, no link, and impact/uniqueness D, but it is still much easier to get my ballot by reading and going for offense.

I believe that debate is a communicative activity and not a judge reading comprehension test, which means I will not just call for all of the evidence at the end of the debate because it was read. I will pay attention to and flow the warrants of the evidence read if possible, so you should be clear when reading the text of the evidence if you want me to know what it says. I find that judges that just call for all of the evidence tend to reconstruct the debate in terms of evidence read instead of the arguments made. I will certainly call for evidence if necessary, typically if I did not get the substance of the evidence or if there is a debate over what the evidence actually says. Also, extend the warrants of the evidence in addition to extending the piece of evidence.

I keep a pretty decent record of the debate, but my pen does not move as fast as you speak. This means that you need to slow down when reading theory or other multiple analytical arguments in a row etc. If I do not have an argument on my flow, I cannot and will not vote for it. This also means that jumping around the flow can very quickly lead to flow chaos and potential missed arguments because I cannot just add in new cells or flow straight down and rearrange the flow during prep like on the computer.

As far as prep time goes for flashing speeches, I am reasonable if you are. You should be saving the speech when you say end prep and not continuing to copy and paste or compile the speech.

If you are caught clipping cards or cross reading or any other major ethics violations/cheating in a debate in front of me, you will immediately lose the debate. This is a very serious accusation with serious consequences, so there must be rather substantial/conclusive evidence of this occurring for me to be willing to end the debate. I have no qualms whatsoever dropping the hammer if it’s proven. If you believe that the other team has done this, speak up during C-X/prep, and we will resolve the issue before continuing the debate.

*Treat everyone in the round (and also outside the round) with respect and dignity. I understand that debate is a competitive activity that can lead to some heated arguments, but that is no excuse for being a complete jackass and a terrible human being.*

A couple of minor argument disclaimers/leanings/answer to pre round questions to note. These are clearly not strict rules and should not deter you from doing what you do best. I have voted for Condition/Consult CPs, ASPEC, non-topical Affs, and Affs that refuse to even engage the topic, and I believe that almost anything in the round is debatable with the exception of speech order and time.
1. The aff should at the very least discuss and be in the direction of the topic, so the neg at least has some reasonably predictable ground and the ability to have clash. Plans are often the best/easiest way to establish this, but they are not required – just preferred. I can and have voted for Affs that are neither in the direction of nor talk about the topic.

2. I, like most judges, do not want to have to wade through a big theory debate to decide a round. I much prefer the substance, but I will do it if needed. If you think it is your only option or that you are winning the argument and want to go for it, by all means go for it. I tend to default to reject the arg and not the team (except for condo/status) unless you can explain why the violation warrants that level of punishment. Even dropped theory arguments must be developed and explained as to why I should reject the team.

3. I tend to find the argument that counter-plans that result in the entirety of the plan, especially those with competition based off of certainty (condition, consult) are unfair/not competitive persuasive. You can certainly win the debate with these counterplans because they are strategic, and I do vote for them regularly. However the difference between strategic and unfair is a rather thin line in this area and that argument that can be won in front of me. As I said, I will evaluate the arguments based upon what happens in the debate and not my beliefs. Pointing out that this or other specific notes on arguments are in my philosophy as a justification for your argument is not an argument or reason for you to win. I wrote it. I do know what is in my philosophy. You must still effectively explain why these arguments are unfair and answer the neg arguments. There are still good reasons why these CPs should be allowed and good answers to the perm.

4. I’m not a big fan of most any spec argument. If you need to read A-SPEC to force/generate competition for an Agent CP, then by all means do it. At that point, there is a strategic value to this move. However, A-SPEC should probably not be the A-strat going into the round since it is difficult for me to envision a world in which the Aff must specify more than what the resolution demands. Occasionally, there is a good reason for a spec argument, but that is rather rare.

5. Topicality – I will vote on it if you win it and is well developed. Voting on T becomes easier if the argument is well developed beginning in the 1NC and extended with example case lists that each interp allows.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Updated for IPDA and Policy judging

Craig Hennigan
University of Nevada Las Vegas

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. I was the Director of Forensics at Truman State University for 7 years and now am the Director of Debate at UNLV and started in 2022.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I don't judge kick. If the CP is in the NR, the SQ isn't an option anymore.

I don’t like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote against the K.

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Darn right, what are you gonna do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, it is a high bar and you probably shouldn't do it.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. Make an argument still with the performance. I don't typically want to do extra work for a debater so you need to apply your performance to arguments your opponent makes. I don't place arguments on the flow for you through embedded clash.

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Policy:Most of this is the same. Know that I'm getting older. I used to be around an 8 on the scale of speed and its probably dropped down to a 7. This means don't spread analyticals if you want me to vote on them. If you group 4-5 perms at once very quickly I may not get them all. I'm only in the game 2-3 times a year so some of the newer terminology or tricks I may not be as up to speed on. I won't vote on short blip arguments. Not the biggest fan of too many conditional worlds, 1 K and 1 CP is my default. I don't do judge kick either. I'm probably a bit of a dinosaur in this area now.

IPDA: IPDA is not policy nor should it resemble policy. I'm much less flow oriented. I'm of the belief that IPDA is far more of a speech activity and judge it accordingly. Dropped arguments carry weight, but less weight for me if they aren't really quality arguments. I'm of the opinion that a debater can win even if they aren't winning "on the flow" by being persuasive and speaking well. This is a publicly oriented event, so being cordial and good natured is important. This is a showcase to what debate ought to look like for the public, so treat it that way. I aim to be a judge that tries to leave behind my Policy/LD experience to substitute my speech experience and quality argumentation knowledge.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains or ideally a speechdrop so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it. If its obviously unintentional then I'll warn you about it. (like you're a novice or you skipped a non-strategic line by mistake).

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.

Name: John P. Koch

Institutional Affiliation: Vanderbilt University

Experience: 15 years (Currently, Director of Debate at Vanderbilt University. Formerly, 1 year as Interim Director of Forensics at the University of Puget Sound, 6 years as a Graduate Teaching Assistant at Wayne State University, and 1 year as Assistant Debate Coach at Capital University)

Please put me on e-mail chains: johnpkoch@gmail.com

Preface; or TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. If you want to know about me, I was a four-year CEDA/NDT debater for Capital University. I was primarily a policy debater. I read topical plans and went for politics. However, debate has changed since then, and I do my best to try to keep up with it, because the activity is now yours. I enjoy policy debates. I enjoy critical debates. I enjoy the testing and clashing of ideas. In general, my reading list runs the range from political science to critical theory. I cut politics cards and I cut critical arguments. This is not to say I will be familiar with your authors, but to say that if you have something to add to the discussion, an advocacy that will point us towards something better, whether it is a policy change or a wholesale change in civil society, then I look forward to sharing the debate space with you.

Debate Specifics:

1.) For the record, a good argument consists of a warrant, data, claim, and impact/implication. If an argument you go for at the end of the debate is missing one of those components, you are unlikely to win the round on said argument.

2.) I am by my nature a pragmatist. I say this in the philosophical sense (John Dewey, Richard Rorty, Cornel West), not in the every day political usage of the term. For debate, this means that I am open to and see positives in the productive tension created by different forms of advocacy. The point of debate is to contest policies, aims, methodologies, and practices, so as to point us towards new and better experiences. This is all a long-winded way of saying defend something. In short, I do not require that you have a traditional policy proposal, but I do require that you have an advocacy. However, while I do not require a policy plan, I will vote on framework if the argument is won, so be prepared to defend your choices.

3.) I often think of debates on the macro-level before I dig into the micro of the flow. This means that debaters who advance a coherent thesis throughout the debate and control the framing of the nexus question(s) are most likely to win my ballot. If you want to give yourself the best possibility of me evaluating an argument that you think is central to the debate in your favor, then you need to make it the focal point of the debate, connect it to your larger thesis, and impact how I should evaluate it in terms of resolving the nexus questions.

4.) I will work hard to put as much work into judging as you do preparing your arguments. However, the easier you make it for me to understand why you should win, the happier you will be with my decision. In other words, make the connections for me. Do not expect me to make the important connections for you.

5.) The arguments advanced in the debate are what establish “truth.” Each side having ground and creating clash are essential to test ideas and arrive at a decision about the best course of action. It is your job as a debater to advance a thesis and resolve the nexus questions of the debate in your favor. It is also your job to explain how I should evaluate the relative strength of evidence and arguments. Even/if statements are the hallmark of a successful debater. These are the essential tasks of rebuttal speeches and if you do this all correctly, then you will put yourself in the best position to win the debate.

6.) I am not the best flow when it comes to fast theory debates. In truth though, I think I am just more honest in admitting that contemporary theory debates happen at too fast of a pace for me to keep up. If there are judges who can really keep up with them, then my hat off to them. For me, you will need to slow down and make it clear what issues matter in order for me to resolve the theory violation. This is also true of framework debates.

7.) In relation to the above, I am not against speed. However, speed for the sake of speed is resulting in lack of clarity. You need to be narrowing your arguments, flagging the important ones, and explaining how they resolve the nexus questions of the debate. The earlier you start identifying the nexus questions and answering them in the debate, the better chance you have of persuading me. In short, your final speeches need to be writing the ballot for me. Otherwise, you leave it up to me to write the ballot. Trust me, you would rather write it.

8.) There are some rules of debate. I will enforce those relating to prep time, speech order, and speech time. Other rules, such as card clipping, are up to the debaters to point out and tell me how to enforce. You are all adults. I am not going to police civility, respectability, or cheating. If you think something that your opponents do in the debate space warrants them losing, then make an argument.

9.) I view framework debates as a question of whose method best allows us to access the educational benefits of debate. Whoever wins the better internal links into resolving this question (access, fairness, clash, testing, etc.) will win my ballot. If your strategy is to pretend that there are normative rules that I have to enforce, then you will most likely lose the round.

Postscript:

The rest is for you to write within the round. Questions, e-mail me at johnpkoch@gmail.com or ask at a tournament.

I debated for 4 years at Vanderbilt University and have now been judging and coaching there for the last 7 years. 

By default, I evaluate the debate within a policy paradigm. If you want me to evaluate it the debate in a different way you need to tell me that. I prefer CPs and a good case debate---impact analysis being key. I will listen to critical arguments, but do not assume I have read the literature. To win on a critical argument, you probably need to be making specific arguments as to why you solve the affirmative or how the affirmative plan will aggravate the circumstances that the critique indicts.

Topicality: I have been known to vote on topicality, but you probably need either actual abuse or a well-warranted argument of potential abuse to win it. 

Theory: I hate theory debates, but having said that I realize that theoretical objections are a necessary tool to fight against many CPs and strategies, and will take that into account. Slow it down a little on the blippy theory arguments because I need to get them all down. For theory, I usually default to drop the argument and not the team for the “transgression”, so keep that in mind when making decisions at the end of the round. Make sure you go for uniqueness on the theory debate or else I really don't know where the brightline is or why I care. My threshold for voting on a theory or "rules" argument is fairly high, you could say.

I have a very expressive face. Look at it during the debate and you will get a plethora of indications of what I am and am not feeling and/or understanding. 

Be nice.

Finally, I would rather not have to read evidence at the end of the debate. I probably will not unless a. everyone does a bad job on impact and/or warrant analysis, or b. one team alleges the other team is lying about what is in their evidence. Think about that when you are deciding how much warranted analysis you want to give me at the end of the debate.

**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.

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

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. 

I flow everything straight down on paper.

I actually think framework is a good argument, but in the way that I think it pushes K args to defend some of the fundamental aspects of their arguments - reform, legal solutions, the state, progress, liberalism, traditional forms of politics, etc. I think these are the important aspects of framework. Procedural fairness is an impact and not one that I love, but it's a means to an end. You still have to win some kind of terminal impact to framework, otherwise we're just playing a technical game of checkers. Give me a reason to care.

Affs get perms. You need a link to your K anyway. That should make it so the perm is unable to solve the impacts of your criticism. But they still get to make the perm argument so that that aspect of the debate is tested. I get it, it's a method debate. But I super want you to have a link that says why their method sucks.

Example: direct revolutionary praxis vs strategic, opaque resistance. There are a ton of flavors of these methods, but at their roots they are competitive and produce good debates.

"Performance" - All debate is a performance. This categorical distinction is arbitrary and I don't like it. Of course you can read a story to support your argument. People do that.

Evidence – I'm going to read cards. I like them. I think cards should be good and well warranted, and I hate calling for cards only to find a good argument was backed up with some lackluster ev.

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. 

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.

My default position:
I will judge the debate how you tell me. If I’m supposed to believe that I’m every citizen in America then I will. I really don’t care. Please be clear.


Counterplans:
All cp’s are legit until the aff prove otherwise. Cheat how you feel and the aff should be making as many theory arguments as they can.

Kritiks:
I ran the K for the majority of my college time. Explain your link story, how it turns the aff, how your alt functions and how it interacts with the aff. If not, I’ll have to vote on “case outweighs, perm solves residual links”. For the aff answering the k, be smart please. Don’t just say framework and the perm double bind. Diversify your arguments and cross apply your aff scenarios to mess with the k story.

Non-traditional debate/performance:
Do what you gotta do. I’m in no position to tell you how or how not to debate. However, you probably should explain why your performance is important and how it relates to debate, the rez, the other team, me, etc. Don’t just dance or play a song and expect me to vote for you.

DA/Case:
Nothing wrong with that. If your DA is tricky then explain it. If not, keep it simple and make sure to do the proper impact analysis. In fact, start that asap.

Theory:
Conditionality is probably good. T is probably a voter. However, this and every other theory question is up for debate. Chances are I won’t flow the 6th subpoint on your theory blocks because you’re probably just speeding through it. Slow down and make your arguments as needed.

Speaker points:
Be funny, be smart, and don’t be arrogant. Debates happen too early in the morning for me to have to deal with people’s ego.

I debated at the University of Florida. I’m now a law student at Vanderbilt. I will not hesitate to let you know if you are unclear. 

My general philosophy about judging is that I should minimize my interference in the round and let the debaters do the debating.

All things being equal, here are some of my general leanings. I can be persuaded to vote against ANY of these general leanings, especially when the side who agrees with me fails to fully explain their position or doesn’t answer the other team’s arguments.

Framework:

My default framework is that the debate is about a single yes/no question: is the topical plan preferable to the status quo or a competitive alternative?

I find arguments that affirmative teams shouldn’t have to defend a literal interpretation of the resolution to be less persuasive than a straight up policy aff, but if you make the right arguments and win them I won’t be afraid to vote for you. With that said, I will feel dirty.

However, a sad but true fact about these debates is that the Aff team has much more experience and is thus much better at debating framework. Be forewarned: I won’t vote Neg on framework without good explanation and impact analysis. But, I feel your pain and will extend a sympathetic ear.

Kritiks:

I think most Kritik arguments are oversimplified outlooks on the world dressed up in obnoxiously dense jargon. Affirmative teams who recognize the actual (probably pretty simple) argument made by the Kritik and are prepared to defend their assumptions should be in a very good position. I ran the K during my debate career, but not because I enjoyed it. I was usually a CP/DA debater. But I am certainly amenable to a well argued K.

The major hang-up for me with the K is typically the Alternative. If the Alt calls for me to “reject the affirmative” for some practice they engaged in or some assumption they made, I have no idea why that solves anything. If the aff makes the argument that rejecting them doesn’t solve your impacts (preferably, with evidence), and there’s still some chance that doing the aff could prevent some unique harms, that seems pretty compelling to me.

All that being said, I think Kritiks have a legitimate place in policy debate and make challenges to the Aff that teams should be prepared to answer.
And, despite my reservations about the alternative, I don’t think they make the K any less winnable. If the negative wins that something about the Aff means it solves none of the identified harms, and risks making things worse or leading to some other unique impact, then they can certainly win my ballot on the K. Also, if the negative wins impact arguments like “no value to life” or deontological obligations, it’s going to be Bad News Bears for the Aff.

In general, if you decide to read a Kritik in front of me—though I am fairly familiar with the typical K’s that have been around for awhile—I expect you to completely explain your argument in relatable terms. If the first time I understand what you really mean is after the round when I’m reading your cards, you did not do a good enough job communicating to me, so I will give your evidence much less weight.

Theory:

It’s hard to persuade me that one Conditional advocacy is abusive. But I can be persuaded that multiple conditional advocacies are abusive. Blippy theory debates do not bode well for you.

Though I don’t see any of these issues as settled, I do find the following arguments theoretically suspect (though often very strategic, especially given how poorly theory is typically debated):

Counterplans that compete based on Certainty/Immediacy
States CPs
Agent CPs
International Actor CPs

Finally, with the exception of Conditionality, I will default to rejecting the argument if I am persuaded that it’s theoretically illegit. Rejecting the team seems excessive without some in-depth explanation about why it’s an appropriate remedy.

Topicality:

I tend to think that if the Aff is reasonably topical, it meets the threshold asked of it. Reasonability is just a strong argument for the aff. However, if your interpretation of “Reasonability” is that you just need to show that the negative had some ground and that your aff is related to the topic, then you will be in a bad spot in front of me. I do expect the Aff to present a Counter-Interpretation of what the topic should look like that preserves good limits, ground, and education for both sides. If that condition is satisfied, there are compelling reasons why the Aff shouldn’t always lose in a T debate just because the Negative provides a slightly “better” version of the topic. In short, I am sympathetic to Reasonability as an offensive argument but rarely as a defensive one.

Being revised.

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)

Sean Slattery
Samford University
Fourth Year Judging
GSU 2013

Though I am more experienced with the "policy" form of debate, I do my best to evaluate what I have written down in front of me regardless of content. I prefer to judge rounds that are related to the topic in some capacity; the more esoteric the argument, the less competent my judging becomes.

Given the legal depth of this topic, there is an additional burden on you to explain the nuances of whatever process or policy you are discussing. Simply put, I haven't researched or memorized every Supreme Court case related to the resolution, so please do your best to unpack these details in a flowable manner. 

When it comes to "critical" and "non-traditional" arguments, I am what some call a "checklist" judge. I vote on these arguments not because I am exceptionally familiar with the literature base of the K / non-traditional genre, but because debaters frequently mishandle "a priori" and "inevitabillity" claims.

Counterplans that compete off the word "should" or "resolved" are dubiously competitive. 

Stating an argument is not the same as making an argument. I communicate just as much as you do during round - it's just a question of whether or not you notice. In an ideal world, you would consider what's on my flow during your speech just as often as you'd consider what's on yours. 

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.

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.

.

Judging Philosophy

Credentials: Master of Arts in International Administration from the University of Miami 2011, 6 years combined speech/debate experience (extemp in high school, policy in college), Coaching with South Florida St. Pete (1 ½ years) and Florida State (1 year).

Coaching/Judging Philosophy:

I consider myself to be fairly unbiased when it comes to debate. I was a middle-of-the-road debater in college, running policy-type arguments (DA, CP) AND krittiks. I leaned further left as my career went on, performing a few times and mostly reading Ks towards the end of my career. That said, I am fairly familiar with all types of debate argumentation, but I have a stumbling block where performance and high-level ivory tower philosophy is concerned. Pop-philosophy like Foucault, Agamben, Churchill, Capitalism, Beres/Fear of Death is easy enough to understand for me, but I have more trouble with certain Derrida, Zizek, Baudrillard and Heidegger arguments. If you run these kinds of authors, please be clear about what they say and what the impact for debate AND the real world are. 2NC or 2AC overviews of these authors’ arguments help a lot. I will vote on CPs, DA impacts and link stories, Krittik alternatives, Krittiks without alternatives that turn the case, and Theory. My threshold for theory is pretty high, because I ran a lot of theory in college and I believe that any team that runs theory as a voter should give it substantial time and impact if they want me to vote on it. I DO NOT like Topicality or SPEC arguments, but if given sufficient weight I will vote on them. NOTE: If you run T in front of me and go for it in the 2NR, you’d better spend at least half the speech on it or I will have to look elsewhere well before I give it weight. I differentiate between theory and topicality insofar as I believe theory has a legitimate place in debate because we have to understand what kinds of arguments are legitimate, illegitimate, and abusive. I believe that reasonability is one of the best standards in debate and think that competing interpretations are legitimate if and only if there is clash between them. I support the use of advocacy statements instead of plan texts if your affirmative is better suited to them. I believe that a perm is a test of competition, and that 1% solvency is NOT enough to win you a round. The biggest thing I vote on is impact calculus. If you have one big bad and the other team has two poorly explained bads, then your bad will likely outweigh if you explain it properly. I hate hearing “extend our impact, it’s the biggest in the round” and no explanation of why. Also, if your impact is systemic and their impact is not, then you must justify why your framework means that I have to prefer your impact to theirs and why they don’t get their impacts in the world of your framework. Impacts and framework are the first two places I look in a debate, and more often than not I will vote on impacts.

Speaker Points:

Speaker points are a bit of a nuisance for me. I use my speaker points to reflect a debater’s clarity, speed, intonation, argumentation, strategy, and politeness in a given round. That said, if you are rude, curt, unclear, poorly organized, or overly aggressive towards the other people in the room (be aggressive and passionate about debate, not at the people IN the debate), then you will likely receive lower speaker points than a debater who is none of those things. Be polite and courteous before, during and after the round, or your speaker points will reflect those shortcomings either immediately or the next time I judge you. If you take exception to my decision in a confrontational way and I have not turned in the ballot, it will reflect on your speaker points. It’s okay to disagree with me, and okay to ask questions to try to understand why I made the decision that I made, but it is not okay to make me or anyone else in the round feel attacked on a personal level. If you don’t like my style of judging, don’t pref me next time.

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. 

Howdy,

You’ve the distinct privilege of debating in front of the grumpy pasty blond haired guy who is hopefully wearing a suit for no apparent reason (if not, feel free to throw something at me, although I’ve been really slacking off about this whole suit thing). Also, I’ve been known to use sarcasm quite extensively.

So this philosophy got a little long, I might seem unapproachable but if you have questions you should probably just ask me. Especially novices, I actually started as a novice and think one of the worst things in our activity is the high barrier for entry, so I’d love the opportunity to help, no matter how dumb you think your question might be. Believe me, I’ve heard and asked dumber. (Although if you’re a novice and reading a judging philosophy I’m super proud of you already.)

I debated policy debate at Vanderbilt University for four years with pretty solid success, and am generally open to all lines of argumentation so long as they are argued coherently, but will add a few personal notes.

Humor- big points, use it often. But if you’re not funny, I will deduct points and/or decide the case against you as I see fit. Choose Wisely.

I also believe in intervening somewhat as a judge, especially in lower level debates. I’ll sometimes answer questions in cross-ex to avoid a long debate about nothing (like if one team doesn’t know what their “status” of the cp is) and might make snarky remarks in between rounds. Just a heads up, don’t be too worried about it.

Crazy Stuff- I like stuff that’s a little off the wall but still makes sense, so if you have something that’s a little zany, go ahead and run it and just see if I start smirking or if I am staring at you trying to make your head explode.

Also, as a general rule I adhere to the “they started it” rule, meaning if the 1AC is about alien invasions, the 1NC can say whatever crazy stuff they want about aliens and I won’t take it out on them. Same thing for K’s and strange affs.

T- My partner always used to debate T, so I never got to into it, not to mention I know very little about this topic and the "norms" established. As a former 2A I tend to default to reasonability. That being said if you’re way out there, I probably will cut the negative team a good deal of lee-way.

Theory- Generally speaking I wouldn’t go for this against me. I tend to not want to resolve an issue on theory, so if you have another way to win the round I’d say try that route. I might vote for you on conditionality when they ran one conditional cp, but a piece of my soul will die and I might take it out on you and/or your speaker points. Unless you’re like super good at theory, at which point I have to ask, why? Also, Dispositional is a lie. Just say conditional.

Aspec is dumb. Ospec is dumber. The 2a should answer this, but don’t waste too much time (under 15 sec) Generally speaking I’m not voting on a Spec arg unless it is just completely mishandled. I don’t know what I,E or F spec is. If you can come up with a random letter and a spec (like Qspec, you don’t specify how many quarks are in your plan) I’ll giggle and give you a speaker point or something, but I’m not voting on it.

K- I generally speaking don’t like critical debate, or at least not how it becomes argued, and if I’m judging you in the back of the room hopefully you’re not a one off team (unless that one off is a dis-ad, then you’re awesome), but I’m more than willing to listen to whatever you have to say. I am in no way deep on any of the literature, and chances are if you try and dazzle me with your critical brilliance, I will become confused since I am trapped in some strange construct of believing that debating different policies will somehow benefit us. That being said I think K’s can be articulated and argued well, and good teams often avoid the pitfalls of just saying YOU CONCEDED OUR ALT! THEREFORE WE DESTROY CAPITALISM AND CREATE A PERFECT UTOPIA! ... whatever that means. Also, seriously, I’m wearing a suit (hopefully), I like capitalism, just a heads up.

DA- Pretty straight up here, I tend to give a lot of lee-way to an aff when answering in the 2a if the dis-ad is nonsense and everyone in the room knows it. One or two smart analytics will make something completely disappear off my flow. Make sure you do impact calc. Always, impact calc.

Politics- Disclaimer, I actually don’t really like politics debates… I know, that makes me a pariah among policy debaters but I think the dis-ad is a little contrived and used too much as a crutch when people don’t do enough work about the other persons case. I’ll vote for it, and by all means run it, just know that if it were up to me, and you were picking between politics or a case-specific dis-ad in the 2nr, I’d personally prefer you pick the dis-ad. Doesn’t change how I’ll vote, just changes what I think of you as a person. And as the aff don’t think you can just wish it away, I’ll pull the trigger, but a good argument about why the argument is a little silly or contrived might just convince me, use your own judgment.

CP- I like smart cps, I ran a ridiculous amount of consult as a novice, stopped doing that later in the debate but I’m one of the few people who doesn’t really mind the argument if articulated coherently. I’m also fine with agent counter-plans. Clever cps get major points in my book, no matter how absurd.

Case- If you’re spending more than 5 minutes on case in the 1nc, you’re my hero. I think far too often we run away from having a good solid case debate, and that’s a shame. I’d love to hear more than terminal defense on each advantage, but do whatever you think is wise. That being said I also hate when 2As start throwing away advantages and just making sweeping claims about your case, a smart 2A will go a bit deeper in answering case args and in using their case to beat back the off-case positions in front of me.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

TLDR

Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. These practices may lower your speaker points. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. These practices might also lower your speaker points. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. If you shift your position and the other team catches you, calls you on it, labels it a voter, impacts it, and you do not give that response serious consideration, you will have missed the opportunity to respond to something likely important in the decision. I prefer that debaters determine the issues in the round. My job is to evaluate how well, how clearly, how expertly, and how meaningfully the debaters present, refute, and summarize versus each other.

I like and am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal-clear rebuttals. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT, In a nutshell:

Tell Me What Your Argument Is

Tell Me Why I Should Prefer It

Tell Me Why If I Do Prefer Your Argument Why You Should Then Win The Debate---Some form of Impact Calculus/Weighting Magnitude, Probability and Time Frame-ish args are goods.

If you think you are really winning something, "sit on it" and explain why you win.

Updated 1/05/2024

Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a large factor in my adjudication process. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Especially in online debates. Slow down and be really clear on why you are winning. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding. I don’t like “camp games” that steal time. I see you. Keep it to a minimum. If there is a mistake or misunderstanding just apologize. Saying you are sorry is often overlooked. You might clean it up well and still be in the debate. At the very least, you will save yourself low speaks if you make an honest effort to play it smart and on the level.

My paradigm biggies are as follows:

1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So, its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this---if it becomes an issue. Don’t just wait to see what I’ll do. In a vacuum of no direction on a debate argument, I am left to ignore the argument or evaluate by my own standards. I prefer to not do this. Its your debate. Clean it up. As far as just throwing out a bunch of stuff and then dropping it as a strategy---it does not usually go very well. I do not automatically judge kick. If you run 10 off, then win 10 off that do not contradict each other. Most importantly, be sure that you are clear as crystal even attempting it. When you time skew and then kick out, I am predisposed to vote for the other team if they argue time shew is a reason to reject the side that initiates such practices in the debate space. Absent compelling reasons why I should not do this--that's my predisposition. Again, its your debate so remember to tell me as the judge why I should prefer you style or point of view. Say what you mean and mean what you say is always best---as long as you are not being rude to your opponents. Practice civility always in debate rounds.

2. Topical Counterplans are probably not OK. If at the end of the round I have been effectively persuaded that there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Give me reasons to not do so, if this is part of your normal strategy. Explain why in a manner that includes what the AFF is doing and WHY even a topical CPLAN is preferred.

3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why it’s important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it. Again, compare your position to your opponents and why your side should win.

4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear, irrefutably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. Really. Postdating sources is good. Supported evidence indicts are good. If you introduce an ethics challenge into a debate round, be prepared to win it. The penalty for challenging someone in such a manner seems to be leading toward the initiator losing the round if they lose their challenge.

5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your positions (clear and concise!).

6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), is left up to the debaters.

7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it. Ask me to vote for your side. Don't completely on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negative wins the debate. Be particularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isn't lost and warrants a decision. These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully. And without why they should matter, I tend to be persuaded by other issues

8. I appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might want to vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which side of the debate you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot. :)

Best,

Marna Weston

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
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.