Debated for University of Rochester for 6 years in Varsity Policy Debate and BP/Worlds Debate

Coached HS policy debate for 1.5 years

Currently a Clinical Psychology PhD student at Indiana University Bloomington

And yes, I would like to be on the email chain: oabubaka@u.rochester.edu

Borrowed from the Glass man himself: "If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible."

Honestly, just do what you want in front of me and just explain your arguments. I will vote on how you want me to vote (since how I see the debate may not be the same way you think you are articulating).

Also, if you can, I prefer debaters to slow down when in front of me. I am not the best judge for you if you decide to spread as fast as Harvard MS or Northwestern MV (although Arjun is very clear).

If you read high theory, do not pref me unless you are willing to explain your argument. My area of study is in psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and disability studies so I am not hitting up the latest post-modern/structuralist/etc. papers.

Updated June 2023

Short Version + Email:

Read what you want - I don't think tabula rasa exists, but I do think the predispositions I share below clearly indicate my open engagement on many aisles. I have a decent breadth of knowledge of things in the world but will reward you for making it clear you have depth of knowledge. My debating background was mostly Ks, my coaching background is mixed but leaning K, and my career/academic work is mixed but leaning policy. I'd recommend you read the section below on the argument you want to go for.

I will vote for theory and T. Smart DA / CP strategies are fun. I judge a lot of policy aff v. K rounds and would appreciate if K folks would ground more in the literature and make more content args than K trick args. With framework, fairness can be an impact but you must win debate is a game. K affs probably need to win debate is not just a game / impact turns to FW outweigh the value or truth of game framing.

Write my RFD for me at the top of your 2NR / 2AR, but make args instead of grandstanding about how you're winning - you did it right if I repeat your words back to you in my RFD. Impact framing is a powerful tool. Cost benefit analysis is inevitable to a degree but it's your job to convince me how the round's cost benefit analysis should look.

Would appreciate if you add me to the email chain in advance - just let me know that you did so.

Email: larry [dot] dang2018 [at] gmail [dot] com

---now the full paradigm---

The Overview

I care quite a bit about being a good judge, but only if you're clearly here to bring your A-game. Do what you will with that information.

*In case this ever matters, this is a policy paradigm*

Read whatever you want - I really do mean it. As humans tend to do, I have my predispositions. They are evident in the rest of my paradigm, which I worked to make very clear on my positions. However, I like to believe that I am a fair judge who can evaluate whatever style of argument you bring to the table, be it very policy, very K, or something new altogether. With that said, see the two paragraphs below.

I seem to end up judging a lot of policy aff v. K debates and end up voting policy slightly more than K (see next sentence for explanation). I think that as a big fan of critical literature and as someone who reads a lot, I have a high bar for explanation and content-based argumentation. I will vote for but am pretty tired of K tricks on framework or supposedly using sweeping claims to skirt points of clash. I like voting for smart K explanations, so if you're a K debater disappointed to hear about my voting for policy args more often, same here. By all means, I hope you can turn that record around, but by no means will I "hack for the K." Shallow K args make me sad and I won't reward it. One problem I feel like I see often is that K args don't become complete and coherent strategies by the end of the round cos the pieces are not tied together - don't let this happen. It seems like a missing the forest for the trees kind of issue.

T is a viable option in front of me, and a good T debate will be rewarded in your speaks.

You will benefit from reading the section of my paradigm on the arguments you plan to execute in front of me. I explain how I think arguments are best won. With that said, my suggestions are functional in nature. You should do what you do best. I will reward you for being smart, strategic, and hard-working.

Good luck!

Framing This Paradigm

I believe that reading paradigms is less a practice of learning how judges view specific arguments and more a practice of learning different ways to execute arguments. My debate knowledge has increased exponentially from reading paradigms, and I write this paradigm with that in mind.

A Note for the Economic Inequality Topic

I feel quite familiar with this topic from a professional perspective because I currently work and previously studied in this space, but I don't know a lot about how the debate community has engaged with the topic. I haven't been rigorously involved in judging and coaching since the water topic in 2021-22.

Background

I currently work in NYC at an anti-poverty nonprofit foundation specifically in the area of early childhood development. I think simultaneously like a critical sociologist, social policy researcher, and public administrator.

Here's my debate and educational history: Head-Royce HS 2018 (Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education), Harvard College 2022 (didn't debate) Sociology and Global Health.

I debated on the national policy circuit in high school and did decently well by traditional standards (blah blah TOC blah blah bids). Most of the arguments I read were critiques, on the AFF and the NEG, though I engaged with more traditional policy arguments a fair amount at camp and now in my time coaching. I believe that traditional policy genuinely has value - it just wasn't my focus as a debater. The Ks I read in rounds were mostly about capitalism, neoliberalism, sovereignty, biopolitics, critical security studies, and psychoanalysis. The K arguments I coach now are mostly in the vein of critical race theory and postmodernism. I have a good working knowledge of other common K authors/lit bases in debate like Baudrillard, Deleuze, queer pessimism, other queer theory, Spanos, critiques of death, disability studies, feminist critiques, and the likes. However, you should never take any of this as an excuse for lackluster explanation - shallow K debates are a big sad. All in all, do what you do best. That'll make for the best and most enjoyable debate.

General

Tech over truth - answer arguments and don’t drop stuff - debate is about in depth contestation of ideas. However, what constitutes tech is up for debate and should ultimately be a matter of contestation, whether that happens holistically, via a rigorous line by line, or otherwise. There are many different ways to be a skilled and technical debater that isn't always just following the line by line closely or forcing opponents to drop an argument. Smart framing claims and innovative arguments can go a long way. With that said, please do try to do line by line when appropriate - it's not the only way to debate, but it definitely is an effective way that is tried and true. A few more quick thoughts.

Execution probably matters more than evidence, but good evidence/cards goes a long way + helps speaks.

Don't cheat - no clipping cards, falsifying evidence, or stealing prep.

Achieving 0% risk is difficult but not impossible.

Voting NEG on presumption exists - some AFFs don't say anything.

Cross-ex is binding - I will listen and flow notable parts.

Do some impact framing at the top of every final rebuttal.

Be kind to one another and by all means don't be bigoted.

K AFFs

I read K AFFs for most of high school, so they're generally what you might call my forte. Some thoughts:

- A lot of K AFFs don't seem to in any way clearly do anything. Please make sure the 2AR (and the rest of AFF speeches) does not forget to explain the AFF. It becomes hard to vote AFF when I don't know what I'm voting for, even if you did everything else right. Utilize CX to bring up examples that will concretize your method.

- When answering framework, make sure that you have a justification for why your K AFF must exist in debate. Even if you have forwarded a generally good idea, framework begs the question not of whether the K AFF should exist in general but why it should be presented in round. Make arguments about how your K AFF interacts with the status quo of debate arguments, or how debate is a platform, or how argumentative spaces are key. I think the easiest way to do this is usually to impact turn the notion of framework, which I'll note is different from impact turning limits.

- When answering Ks of your AFF, the winner will usually be the team who can concretize their argument better. Don't forget that. Keep it simple and keep it real. Don't get bogged down in theory.

Framework

Despite having read K AFFs most of high school and coaching K AFFs most of the time currently, I also read and really like framework. In many ways, I do believe it makes the game work.

- Some general agreement about what debate constitutes is probably necessary for debate to function, even with K debates. Your job reading FW is to convince the judge that that agreement should be the resolution. Don't forget that FW is T-USFG. You are fundamentally arguing for a model of debate, with limits that provides teams the ability to predict and prepare for arguments. You forward a way to organize a game. Don't let a K team force you into defending more than you need to.

- Game framing is very helpful in FW rounds. If you can win that debate is a game, then you hedge back against most of the offense the AFF will go for. You can best prove that debate is a game by giving empirics about the way that all debaters shift arguments to get a competitive advantage. Present the question of why the K AFF needs to occur in debate and strategically concede aspects of how the K literature might be useful while making it clear that that literature can be accessed outside of debate while your impacts to FW, such as policy education and advocacy skills, are best accessed in debate.

- There was a time when I think I had a decent predisposition against going for fairness as the only impact to framework, but I've since amended my belief to being that going for fairness alone is difficult but when done successfully is usually very dangerous and impressive. A few thoughts on how to make it good: 1) Win that debate is a game and that we do not become intrinsically tied to arguments in debate - make a game theory argument about the nature of competition. 2) Force the aff to make arguments about the value of the ballot. If the K team says they think the ballot is good, then they are in one way or another arguing that fairness in debate is somewhat necessary insofar as fairness maintains the value of the ballot. 3) Use #1 to then force the burden onto the aff to describe when fairness is good and bad, once you've pigeonholed them into defending that some fairness must be good. 4) Defend a dogma/switch side argument as offensive defense - I phrase it that way because I think dogma is a great way to internal link turn K affs without giving them education offense to impact turn (since the education offense then makes debate at least in some capacity more than a game / risks indicating that debate changes subjectivity).

- Go for your preferred FW impacts. Some will work better than others against different types of K AFFs, and I have some thoughts about that as a coach but enjoy hearing different takes on framework.

Plan AFFs

Do your thing. I think this is pretty straightforward. I will say, I'm not the biggest fan of when teams have a million impact scenarios and very little explanation of the AFF's solvency mechanism. I think that's a pretty abusive use of the tech over truth framing in debate, and I will in that instance grant the neg a chance to use framing to get their way (and vice versa with the neg reading a million off). With that said, I'll listen to what you have to say.

Critiques

I read Ks for most of my high school debate career. I think that they're a great way to think about the world and deepen our understandings of the world and problematize the mundane. Some thoughts on how to effectively execute.

- See paragraph 3 of the overview section of this paradigm.

- Overviews are good but not to be abused aka don't forget about line by line.

- The alt is usually the weakest part of the K, so I often find it effective to do things like take the link debate and make turns case arguments. These make the threshold for winning alt solvency much lower. Things about how your systemic critique complicates the way the AFF can solve or makes the AFF do more harm than good are very effective.

- The framework debate on the K is important - you should use it to your advantage to shift how the judge analyzes the round. Don't just throw it out there. You can use framework to make the judge think more deeply about whether or not it is ethical to take a policy action even if it solves the AFF's impacts, or you can use framework to have the judge consider implementation complications (e.g. the Trump regime) that the AFF doesn't factor in because of fiat.

Topicality

The biggest mistake NEGs make going for T is forgetting that at the end of the day, the impact debate is always still the most important, even with a procedural. Give me strong T impacts, limits and ground arguments that internal link to fairness and education - you can't win without it, even if you win that they violate and your interp is more predictable or precise.

I like to think about the meaning of the topic and what different models of the resolution look like. I'm okay with throwaway T 1NCs, but don't throw it away when there's opportunity. T can be a very good argument, as long as you remember to keep the impact debate in mind. Different models of the topic have different effects on people's education and fairness of debates. It's not sufficient to prove the AFF doesn't meet your interpretation.

Disadvantages

I like to hear nuanced DA debates, especially when they're contextualized well to the AFF's mechanism. Just don't take for granted the amount to which policy debaters are used to the idea that proving a link to the DA makes the DA true. At least make an attempt to explain the internal link between your link story and the impact scenario. Otherwise, I think this is an easy avenue for the AFF to win a no risk of DA argument.

Counterplans

Like with DAs, I really enjoy when CPs are related to the AFF's literature/mechanism. I will reward with speaker points a well-researched DA/CP strategy. Don't forget that in the 2NR, the CP is just a way for you to lower the threshold of DA/internal offense that you need to win. The CP is a very effective strategy, but it is not the offense that wins the debate.

Use theory against abusive CPs when you're AFF - I will take it into account. For the NEG, read smart CPs or be prepared to defend against theory. It will favor the NEG if a CP is maybe abusive (process, PIC, agent, etc.) but is core controversy in the literature.

Theory

I am willing to vote for theory to reject the team. Theory arguments with claims about how the violation specifically engages with the topic literature are especially convincing. My threshold to reject the team is high but winnable and I enjoy theory when it's done well. Don't forget to go for reject the arg strategically when things are really cheat-y. Impact out reject the team and reject the arg differently when theory is a big part of the debate strategy.

Maybe this is a hot take, but my default assumption is that the status quo is always an option. Unless the 2AR tells me no judge kick / vote aff on presumption explicitly (and all the 2AR has to do is assert this - I’ll change my assumption if you tell me to assuming the 2NR has not made an issue of this), then my paradigm for evaluation involves judge kick, cos I think that just means the neg proved the status quo is better than the aff, and that’s enough for me to vote neg even if there was a CP and that CP doesn’t do anything.

I like conditionality debates.

Speaker Points

I consider 28.5 to be about decently average (not a bad thing). I think inflation has gotten to a point where I skew a little low, but if you are good, then I wouldn't worry about it cos I am far from conservative with 28.9+ points. If it helps for context, I debated from 2014 to 2018, so that's my frame of reference for points. I follow this guide pretty closely. Here's a breakdown:

29.7-30: You are one of the best speakers I've ever seen

29.3-29.6: You should get a speaker award, and I was really quite impressed

28.9-29.2: You gave some really good speeches and maybe deserve a speaker award

28.7-28.8: You spoke decently well, performed above average, and have a fair shot at breaking

28.3-28.6: You performed probably squarely in the lower middle to middle of the pool (standard for circuit bid tournament)

27.8-28.2: Your performance signaled to me that this pool is probably tough for you, but you're getting there - keep trying!

27-27.7: Your performance signaled to me that this tournament was/is probably going to be rough for you, but don't give up!

Below 27: You almost certainly did something offensive to deserve this

Ways to increase speaks: have organized speeches, be friendly in round, have good evidence, know what your evidence says, be effective in cross ex, be funny (but don't force it)

Ways to decrease speaks: have disorganized speeches, be mean, make it clear that you are reading blocks you don't really get, treat the debate as a joke (don't waste our time)

Ways to get a 0 (or a 20 since that's usually the minimum): be blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or generally bigoted towards your opponents or people in the round in any way

Don't forget to have fun in debate. Good luck!

Last substantial edit: Jan 2018

Hello!

My name is Jen! I currently work in nonprofit communications in Boston, MA. Before that, I spent two years as a graduate assistant debate coach for Vanderbilt Univerisity's policy team. I have experience judging for both BP and Policy at the college level, as well as middle and high school policy formats.

For BDL high school tournaments:

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates! More below...

- I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter (but still need to hear the fully explained T argument, please).

- Affs, don't drop this.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

______

For college tournaments:

My pronouns are she/her/hers. I expect all debaters to either use gender-neutral terms for the other debaters in the round or use each debater's preferred pronouns (which can be made known at each debaters' discretion through Tabroom). Speaker points are at stake.

* Please send documents to jennifer.elizabeth.newman@gmail.com *

My judging philosophy...

- I am open to hearing arguments of all types, but I feel strongly that the debate space needs to be inclusive. That's my bias. Other than that, I am pretty chill. Just be considerate.

- Although I have these listed by division, it may be a good idea for debaters to read all the sections.

I. Novice - with the packet

- Be sure to answer every argument. There are cards in there to answer all of the arguments for every affirmative case.

- Remember to explain the cards, do not just read them to me with their tags. This will be particularly important when you're giving your rebuttal speeches.

- Be as clear as possible as to why you win. For example, why your evidence is better or why your impacts are better, etc.

- If the debate is messy, it's okay to point that out to me, and why your speeches are more organized or better argued, despite the messiness.

- You do not have to keep all of the advantages or disadvantages throughout the round. By the rebuttal speeches, you should be focusing on the arguments that you are winning, and telling me why those arguments are strong.

II. JV

Some things to note:

- I like Ks. I am also super familiar with most of this material so I will know if you do not know it. Be specific on framework, and if you're aff be specific about what your aff does. What are the impacts of thinking this way? Or doing this thing? etc. Also if you want me to evaluate the round differently than a typical policy judge, set that up from the beginning and be extremely clear and consistent.

- I also like policy debates. In fact, I think this topic lends itself to some incredibly interesting potential policy affs. I don't have a "preference" per say about theory args. I generally vote on theory based on the strength of the responses on the aff.

- Be clear about having a claim, a warrant, and an impact to your arguments. If you're running a K or a performance aff where this may not apply, be explicit as to why not.

III. OPEN

- I am totally fine with speed. Caveat: don't sacrifice clarity for speed. If I can't understand it I can't flow it, if I can't flow it you're not going to win on it.

Framework

- Hard Framework (aka we should be debating government policy action): I don't typically vote on this. I attribute this to seeing K debates where the K team is well-prepared for this. It could also be that I am just not persuaded by it because I think K debates are really important to the debate space.

- Soft Framework (aka you have to DO something, and/or you have to engage the state in some way. You don't have to use the state but you have to engage it): I am actually likely to vote on this. The ground argument, or a version of that, is really compelling to me for Affs that have shifty ground and no-link out of other Ks or DAs. I'd say it's a good thing to go for when you don't have anything else. For the Aff, be ready to explain to me exactly what ground the neg had that they failed to see and go for.

T

- There are in fact policy affirmatives that I think aren't topical. I won't vote on this unless the other team drops it. If they drop all or part of this, I'd go for it. I do think T is an a priori voter.

- Affs, don't drop this.

- I am less likely to vote on T for Carbon Tax than I am for cellulosic ethanol. I think it's difficult for most affirmatives to actually BE topical (insert disgruntled comments about the resolution here). I think you should be able to justify your aff is topical.

- Effects T is a thing I will vote on if you go all in and the other team doesn't provide satisfactory answers. In a K debate, I'm less likely to vote on effects T if there are Aff answers like effects T bad or something like that.

Techy Stuff

- If you want to win on a tech policy debate, here is how with me:

1. Be clear about what your turns, straight turns, double turns, perms, etc. DO. It's not enough for me to say you "turned" the DA. Tell me what you get with that and why that helps your case. I know that sounds super rudimentary but really teams miss doing this in the rebuttals. I'm not likely to vote on something obscure you did just because you said you did it. That's not how I see the activity.

2. If you want me to vote on something that was dropped, make it clear that it matters to the debate round and why you win on it.

3. I will vote for theory things if they're not answered. Feel free to explain to me in detail why negative counterplans are bad for 6 minutes in the 2AR if they dropped it. Just remember to explain why that outweighs.

4. Don't tell me something is an a priori voter and move on. Explain why it should be.

Ks

- So, a few things:

1. I'm open to anything. I hold as open a posture as possible for what can be argued in a debate round.

2. HOWEVER, I think that it is important to have negative ground in a debate round. To me, "ground" means that they have a variety of options for offense against the case and that the negative is not forced into arguing for a status quo that the affirmative identifies as racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/etc. or just arguing framework. I have voted on framework in a K debate for there not being enough ground for the Neg.

3. Make sure I can tell what I am voting FOR. Don't make the Role of the Ballot something that the neg could never argue against. If it's something other than what is typical for the topic (this year, whether a specific climate policy is good) then explain exactly what that ballot should be, what the debate should be about (the problematic) and what my role as a judge is in this round.

4. I am not a fan of vague cross-x answers during K debates. If the other team is asking you what your aff is about, I would prefer you not make remarks demeaning the other team's intelligence for not understanding your aff. Give a CLEAR explanation of your advocacy statement. If you are asked what a word means, I want you to explain it (I might already know what the term means, but this is good for clarity of your argument and good to make sure I know what YOU mean by that term). Do everything you can to help the other team understand during cross-x if they ask so that we can have a better debate.

5. Do not have a shifty advocacy. Be clear and consistent with what you are advocating. If your advocacy shifts, my ballot may shift with it.

6. To teams on the neg in a K aff round: I HAVE voted on framework but I have also done the opposite. Going for framework in the end may be the equivalent of tossing a coin with my ballot. There are arguments out there like critical conformity that provide more clash in these debates. However, if they're being abusive for one or more of the reasons I listed below, feel free to point that out. It may be worth going for.

If you got this far (for all divisions)

1. Go prep with your team.

2. JK here's some fun ways to win speaks (I'll only give you credit for two times).

- Beyoncé quotes (or that Beyoncé should have won album of the year) +0.1 speaks

- Disney animated movie quotes (Particularly from the 90s-early 2000s, like Aladin, the Lion King, Beauty and the Beast...) +0.1 speaks

- I will change this up a bit each tournament.

GOOD LUCK!!!

Feel free to ask me questions, or seek further explanation of my reasonings after the round! :)

Best of luck!

J

P.S. If something isn't in here that you think should be, please let me know!

rnix@bostondebate.org

Policy Debate Coach for 3 years at Edward M Kennedy (MA), now working for the Boston Debate League. I'm familiar with the resolution and most of the common policy Affs this year. I'm familiar with the more common K and Theory arguments, but if you're running a theory-heavy kritikal aff, do a little bit extra to make sure I understand your argument. I believe my role as the judge is to help both teams improve their arguments and learn from the round.

I go blank slate as best as possible, but I will vote down offensive arguments, and I will explain myself fully in my feedback if that is the reason why I voted you down. I will vote on anything, including K, T, Theory, FW.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate, if you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round, I will do my best not to intervene). Violations won't lose you the debate, but they may cause me not to consider some of your arguments.

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to it's content or validity.

Impact analysis is the debate round. Convince me why your impacts within your framework are best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me. You need to do the work to weigh the most important arguments at the end of the round. It's safe to assume that if an argument was run and extended throughout the debate that I will at least minimally weigh it in my decision calc, so ultimately you need to explain to me why the summation of your impacts outweighs those of the other team.

I'm pretty good with speed, but volume is important, as long as you're loud enough we'll be all set. There is something to be said for emphasizing your most important points by extending them throughout the round and changing your tone when you present them. Otherwise I will assume everything you're saying has equal weight, which may not benefit you in the round.

Organization is important. Tell me which flow you're on and tell me when you move to something new. If you're giving a line-by-line, let me know, otherwise I'm going to flow everything straight down as an over/underview. I won't do the work for you on the flow.

Matt Schnall Judging Philosophy (updated February 2021)

The three most important things to know about debating in front of me are: First, I am an exceedingly open-minded listener; I am willing to take most any argument seriously. Second, in convincing me, argument strength (logic, appropriately evidenced premises) is generally more important than technique. Third, debate should involve interaction — between you and your opponent; between you and me.

A short explanation:

“Taking all arguments seriously” means that I am open to persuasion on almost all issues in a debate, outside of time limits and speaking order. Creative and strategic arguments tend to particularly engage me. This doesn’t mean, however, that everything you say is automatically an argument. Generally, I will only consider arguments that are complete. So, if you say x will cause y to happen (or prevent it) but do not explain why y would be good or bad, there is no argument and no response is required. Similarly, “perm do the aff” requires some explanation in order to become an argument.

In terms of truth versus tech, I appreciate technical proficiency and rhetorical skills in debate. They make it easier for me to be a good judge. Good line-by-line debate, preceded by a coherent story, is usually the best way to convince me to see things your way. Nevertheless, I do my best to evaluate arguments however they are presented, and if your opponent persuades me on a point, the fact that you have been faster, more emphatic, more eloquent, or repeated your argument in more ways will not carry the day. In evaluating evidence, I will begin by giving weight to the supportive warrants a proponent has flagged or the gaps articulated by the opponent. Once I am reading a card, however, if there is a gap that is plainly inconsistent with the proponent’s explanation, I will not ignore it merely because the opponent did not point it out.

Interaction means clash; it means listening; it means asking and grappling with difficult questions in cross-ex, not dodging them. It means I may interrupt your speech or cross-ex to ask a question. Even if I say nothing, I will provide a wealth of non-verbal feedback. If I frown or look puzzled, I probably don’t (yet) understand your argument; if I shake my head, I may not (yet) be convinced. In either case, try it again. You will be most successful if you treat me as an active listener who is working to understand and evaluate what you are saying, rather than a passive canvas on which to paint some preconceived picture.

Clarity and online debate:

I decide debates based on your arguments. To do that, I need to understand all of your words, and more generally to understand complete arguments as they are made. I can do this in person at a reasonably high rate of speed, but it does require both comprehensibility and digestible, transparent argument structure. For online debate, I would recommend slowing down to a speed consistent with your technology. I will look at evidence if resolving an argument depends on it — and to this end, please include me on the email chain — but do not expect that I am reading along with your speech doc.

More details:

My background — I debated in college and coached college teams with some success when I was much closer to your age than I now am. Over the last 25+ years, I have stayed involved by judging somewhat regularly. I did a bit of coaching and argument development and judged more heavily over the period in which my children were high school debaters (2010-2016). Harvard will be my first debate judging on the criminal justice topic.

Clarity —

(1) Comprehensibility should be the same for tags, citations, and evidence: I am listening to, and flowing, cards. If you are not comprehensible I will say something, but after 3 or 4 "clear"s you would be wise to keep an eye on me to see whether I am following, as eventually I will give up on verbal feedback.

(2) An argument is not an argument until I understand it. If you reiterate it in a later speech, I will treat it like any other new argument. Obscure wording is not your friend. If a tag is more than 10-15 syllables (not words), you probably need to simplify it. Pay attention to me when you are making any novel or intricate argument, particularly theory and advocacy statements (plan/counterplan/alternative advocacy) — if I look confused or stumped, explain further.

Predispositions — I expect that a debate will involve advocacy by the affirmative team and a response to that advocacy by the negative team after which I can determine a winner using some reasonably objective standard(s). Beyond that, I will entertain debate on framework, theory, etc. I am predisposed to resolve theory disputes in favor of competitive balance and educational value, but I can be convinced otherwise. All else being equal, I would prefer to see a debate about the topic.

Time limits and speech order are not negotiable. On a two-person team, each debater must deliver one constructive and one rebuttal speech, and I will not evaluate advocacy that takes place by a different person, including a partner, during that speech. Absent reasoned argument to the contrary, rebuttal speeches, including the 1NR, are limited to response to or elaboration of arguments from prior speeches; however, outside of the 2AR, I will not entirely discount an argument as new unless the opponent so identifies it.

Incomplete arguments — As noted above, I do not evaluate an argument if it does not contain — or I do not understand — all of the elements necessary in order for it to affect my decision making (such as an argument missing a link or impact). Whether an argument is complete is of course a subject for debate, but if you think your opponent’s argument incomplete, you should point it out. If I agree, then I will treat the argument as newly made when it is completed. This might cause the argument to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, and it would always allow you to make new responses after the argument is completed.

I debated in high school (policy) and college (policy but mostly parliamentary) and have been judging off and on for nearly 10 years.

I try to be as much of a blank slate as I can and am open to hearing any argument that you wish to make. But I expect debaters to be respectful to the other team and the audience. Convince me why your framework is best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate. If you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round).

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to its content or validity. In general, I try to avoid this if it all possible.

I'm okay with speed but am not as fast as I used to be. I ask that you be clear and I won't punish you if I have to ask you to be slower mid-speech. I also only judge a couple tournaments each year and therefore have limited topic knowledge.