If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!

//shree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated 3-7-24

Congrats on attending Nationals. Being at a university with the resources to send you cross-country to represent them is an immense privilege Thank those responsble including partners, teammates, coaches, parents & especially your opponents. People matter. Celebrate, respect and appreciate them while you can.

(NEW) TLDR: K Affs, FW, DA/CP strats, K strats, Procedurals - Fine. You do you. Condo- Ok w Limits (read CP stuff below) Base points - 28.7 If you care about pts a) look at who got 29.4+ from me to see what I like. b) 2NRs that don't spend time on case do so at their own risk. When I'm online, a) get verbal/visual confirmation before you speak b) slow down 10%. Won't litigate past debates, social media beefs etc on my ballot. PRE-EMPT- Read no further at your own risk.

General Approach: Add me to the chain if you have my email already. Start the rd when your opponent has the doc up once you confirm all parties are ready. I don't follow along with your speech docs. Flowing on paper. Pen time good. Be organized, Be considerate. Be ready. Recuts of opponents' ev need to be read in round not just inserted into the doc to be assessed on my flow. Good debaters work extremely hard so I will make every effort to be very thoughtful and conscientious as your judge. Whatever decision allows me to inject myself the least into the interpretations of issues in the round is the one I will attempt to make. Compare positions, ev and tell a story in your last rebuttal that frames the round the way you wish me to decide it. I’ll vote where you tell me if it's coherent. If you have multiple stories, prioritize them. Don't rely on my post-round reconstruction. If you only spend 10 seconds on a key point in your last rebuttal, don't expect me to spend much more than that evaluating it. Most rounds come down to impact assessment and warrant comparisons. An author’s name is not an argument. Provide warrants for why your ev is better than theirs.

Tech vs. TruthTech over truth is an inflection point not a value system. My voting record reflects a tech leaning apparently but that's more reflective of how truth is framed in the 2AR vs. my role to protect the neg. My ballot really comes down to the skills and execution of the particular debaters.

The Aff: Do what you want in terms of policy, K or performance. Explain advantages to your model over theirs. Tell me how to evaluate your affirmation prior to the 2AR if you are performing. Make sure that the role of the ballot is articulated and extended and not a 2AR surprise. My evaluation will come down to offense on the FWK flow based on impacts identified by the debaters unless it's one of those rare rounds where the neg has a viable, specific strat.

The Neg: Well-developed, evidence-based strategies are awesome and will be rewarded. 90% of affs, both kritikal and policy have lit that goes the other way. Cut cards and forward options along with T/FW. If you want to defend your right to a Deterrence DA link or a certain interp, go for it. Presumption matters and is underutilized.

TOPICALITY/FWK: I’ll vote either way on T/FW if you win the relevant impacts to your model of debate e.g. EXTERNAL (why is it or is it not productive?) or INTERNAL (what does it communicate or provide you with in the debate space of importance?). You're more likely to have faith in the credibility of your definition and implicit approaches to the topic than I am so be prepared to defend them. Not a fan of: violations that morph in the block unprovoked, crummy counter-interps or generic TVAs that disregard this 1AC. T against policy affs is underutilized. Elevate your answers from the crap you read in HS. It's disingenuous for experienced debaters to say K-affs about AB, Set Col. or Trans Life were unpredictable or that FW is the ultimate form of violence in the world.

DISADS Fine obviously. Providing reasons why the DA turns case is always a good idea. CAVEAT - Including this since it's come up 2x this year. If there is an Existence question relating your DA or aff story (e.g. a rumored "secret" weapon system, Aliens are coming, etc), try or die only kicks in if you win the Existence question as a precursor.

CPs Smart CPs with solvency advocates improve your strat. If you regularly read CPs with conditional planks leading to 10 different versions or more than 3 conditional advocacies in a rd, I'm not the right judge for you. New or undisclosed 1ACs lend credence to more condo options. Feel free to take advantage of teams that read & react without studying your CP text carefully. Sympathetic to "1AR gets new answers" vs CPs with no 1NC solvency ev. or process CPs with no relqtion to how the US government works. I welcome solvency deficits if the AFF is correct on function indicts. I don't judge kick without specific instruction.

K: For teams that generate links from messed-up, in-round behaviors or focus on the debate space-all good. If teams defend external claims and impacts, winning anti-blackness is a superstructure or capitalist gov't solutions have failed on-balance is necessary but not sufficient. Quality examples are essential and readily available whether you're discussing micro-political movements, capitalism, racial injustice, colonialism, sabotage, disability and/or militarism. Your arsenal needs solid answers to scalability, empirical solvency, and why gov't action will not inevitably be needed. Include good reasons why the K turns case. 3 page long cards don't equal explanations.

Topic Specifics Spent 4 years working with Rev Vernon Nichols at the UU-UNO when he chaired the NGO Committee on Disarmament learning about prolif, movements and miscalc. As far as the 2023-24 topic, I read lots of topic lit from both traditional and nontraditional sources and have judged too much.

Pet Peeves that lower points: 1-STEALING PREP TIME -It's a nasty habit. You are taking time from my life that I will never get back. 2-POOR TECH PREP- I have sympathy for unexpected tech issues not poor preparation that delays the tournament. If you're debating online: a) Check your tech between rds for charge etc. b) Have a back-up (phone, tablet, etc.) in case of lmid-speech malfunctions c) Get verbal/visual confirmation everyone is back before starting speeches d) don't record people without permission e) slow down 10-20% because it's hard to hear/decipher stuff online 3--OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE in your speeches. Don't have a bright line but if you need to ask, you're probably excessive. 4--SLOPPY SOURCING. You say “Read the Jones 10 ev after the rd!” I read it and it sucks. In the post-round, it becomes “I meant to say Roberts, not Jones,” or “There were 3 pieces of Jones ev I meant the 1AR card.” That's a "you" problem. Effective communication good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Years Coached: 2 (Democracy Assistance and Energy)

School Affiliation: Formerly Liberty University, Hired Judge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cole Bender

Debate Experience:

Assistant Debate Coach, Liberty University (2011-Present)

Years Judging: 2008-present

Former varsity debater at Liberty University

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

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

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

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

CHANGES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addition for Decrim and Subsequent Topics:

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

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

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

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

Specific types of arguments below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lauren Cameron
Debated and Coached at Binghamton University

I'm fine with whatever you want you want to do in front of me. Make sure your impacts are well extended, clear, and comparative.

T-- For me to pull the trigger on T, impacts need to be very well explained. Contextualization to the round will definitely help. I default to competing interps.

CP-- Need clear competition explained on both sides, especially on the perm.

K-- Clear links and alt. Need the links to be specific to the aff-- will have a problem voting for a generic K with generic links. Also, I want impacts to be comparative here most of all. Impacts should be related to those that the aff is extending and vice versa. That being said-- I really do like the K.

Theory-- Not a huge fan of it. Will definitely pick you up on it though-- same basic standards to win it as T.

I debated for CUNY for three and 1/2 years so I ran a decent amount of arguments dealing with policy but not so much in the critical aspect of debate rounds. I vote on anything as long as it is given to me in the rebuttals clear, concise and logical. Even though I am not profound in certain kritiks, as long as they are explained to me then I will most likely vote for it, unless I disagree with the viewpoint of that kritik. My viewpoint deals with race arguments and how it prevents certain impacts such as genocide. I am really patient so I will not take time for jumping files but please make sure that it doesn't prolong the round for too long. Please be sure to accommodate for the other team if all your files are on the computer and you flow on it as well.

Hi, this is my fourth year debating for Army. I do not have any predispositions but I prefer depth over breadth. Make your arguments clear and strong and you should have no problem in front of me.

Theory/topicality: These debates are a little hard for me to judge if you are not incredibly clear. Blippy arguments won't really get you anywhere. Often times teams just read blocks without providing any clash, making it really hard to vote on these two things.

Ks: Are great as long as you can identify a clear link story. I don't think you always need to win the alternative but make sure the perm doesn't solve. I have run a lot of different Ks but am not as familiar with postmodern literature.

CPs: I think these are great. The more strategic, the better.

DAs: Not really too into DAs but I will vote for them. The story here is really important--make sure you really flesh out the cards and have some good impact analysis.

Framework: Either way, just make sure you articulate your interpretation and impact it out. Whoever does that better will come out ahead.

Be nice. There's nothing more frustrating than being in a debate round where people aren't treating one another with respect. Have fun!

Kristie Cramer

Affiliation = George Mason University

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

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

1.        Impact comparison is vital to you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have been judging debates for a long time now (21 years) and I think for the most part I am a significantly better judge now than I was 10 years ago. I’m probably not a better flow, but I certainly understand arguments a lot better and over the past few years I have worked hard to think about how I judge and what that means for you as a debater. Here is what I have:

I think that my role as a judge is twofold. First and foremost it is to decide who wins the debate. Debate is a competitive activity and that competition has the potential to bring out the best in all of us. When we work hard and engage the other team (in whatever way makes the most sense for you) then that makes our activity better, stronger and more inclusive. Second, I believe that I am an educator. Not in the way that come judges claim that they are the ones who possess some idea of the way debate should look. Instead I view it the same way I evaluate the work of the students in my classes. I want to know that the student worked hard on their assignment (hard work includes cutting cards, but it is certainly not limited to that) and that they have thought of the ways that the assignment interacts with the world around them. These two roles both compliment and contradict each other and I work hard to balance them as I adjudicate a debate.

Framing all of this (and everything that is contained below) is one overriding tenet. DEBATE IS FOR THE DEBATERS. If you are a director, coach or judge who thinks this is about you then you are in the wrong activity. This informs my judging in a couple of ways. First, I am looking for ways that each debater gets to debate in a manner that allows them to engage materials in the ways that they feel best fits their educational and competitive goals. That means that debaters who want to debate politics should have at least some debates that focus on those issues and debaters who want to focus on issues of debate pedagogy should have debates that focus on those issues should have at least some of those debates. I am not sure what the ideal debate world will look like, but as I try to answer the question of “What do you want debate to look like if your daughter decides to the debate?” I am sure that I am not smart enough to answer that question. However, I do know that I want students to feel as if they are empowered to make arguments that they are excited by and moved by and are not dictated by some myopic closed minded judge in the back of the room. I will do my best (although at times I am sure I will fail) to be open-minded and evaluate the debate in front of me.

So, as you are doing you judge preferences (or reading this for the first time five minutes before the debate starts) what does this mean you should do in the debate. Here are some guidelines: 

1. You should be able to explain why your framework meets two criteria. First, how is your framework related to the topic. I certainly don’t think that you have to read a plan or rely on traditional debate evidence or defend fiat, but I think you should be able to explain how you are related to the topic. Second, and probably more importantly, how is that relationship fair for both sides. Do both sides have the ability to engage meaningful issues under your framework? What does debate look like if your view of debate wins out?
2. I tend to be more flexible when it comes to the negative. I think that a negative framework that is not closely related to the resolution is probably more acceptable than a similar framework on the affirmative. Obviously clashing with the affirmative is more fun debate for me to judge, but not a necessary requirement for the negative. 
3. If you say “We can fit our arguments into this paradigm” then please pref me. I try to be as fair as possible in debates and I work hard to meet you on your terms. 

Argumentative Preferences: 

Negative Kritiks – I like Ks. The best Ks are ones that directly engage the affirmative. I am probably more liberal than most when it comes to what it means to “engage the affirmative”. I think that state bad Ks, language Ks and kritiks of the system can be argued to engage the affirmative (I could also probably be persuaded that they do not). 

Affirmative Kritiks – Similarly to my stance on negative Ks I think the affirmative Ks should have some relation to the what the negative says or to the resolution. I have voted on kritiks of the debate community, but these debates are much more persuasive to me when combined with some explanation about how the negative helps support or reify those norms. 

Topicality/Procedurals – I like T debates and other procedural arguments a lot. I think I am kind of a geek about the way the political process works so I tend to enjoy debates that ask questions about the way the system normally works. That being said these arguments are significantly better when accompanied by evidence to prove your interpretation. Additionally, I think the negative normally needs to commit significant time to these arguments if they want to win them. A 20 second T argument in the 2NR is unlikely to get my ballot. 

Theory – I am a hard judge to get to vote on theory. I tend to judge theory debates the same way I judge policy debates. You should win a link (they are a pic), an impact (pics are bad) and implications (why voting against them matters). When multiple theory arguments exist in the debate I often weigh the impact of each theory argument. 

Disads – Most DAs are pretty bad. Of course, so are most of your affirmative advantages. Debaters rely too much on evidence and do not spend enough time exploiting holes in the evidence. Try combining evidence with some smart analytics and your speaker points will be rewarded accordingly. 

Cplans – This is probably where I have the fewest dispositions. I don’t really have a stance about pics, agent cplans or the like. Cplans supported by specific evidence make me much happier than your super generic cplan strategy. However, I am equally likely to vote for either. 

Performance debates – See above. I tend to find performance debates interesting. If you are affirmative relate what you do to the topic. When you are negative contrast what you with what the affirmatives does. Warning: Explain the implications of your performance to me. What happens if you win the argument that traditional debate evidence is bad? Do they lose the debate for reading the evidence in the first place or do I just not consider that type of evidence? 

Speaker Points

I was rewriting my judge philosophy anyway before so this is really the only section that is a reaction to recent events. I had already adjusted my speaker points up this year as I tended to be below the average for teams on the bubble of clearing although I was above for many teams that were regularly clearing.

I’ll be honest. I am still not sure what I will do about speaker points. I am likely to have a lower floor than most (meaning I am more likely to venture into the 27s on a more regular basis). However, I believe that speaker points are a community norm and that I cannot pretend that my point exist in a vacuum. So I will do my best to figure out what the community average at a given tournament might be and adjust my points accordingly. I am still likely to deviate further from the average both in terms of lower and higher range points. Which means if the community average is a 29 you are still likely to see a few people in the 27s (teams that are going to be in the bottom quarter of the tournament) and probably quite a few points near 30.

This is the portion of my judge philosophy that I am least sure about is most apt to fluctuate. I will make sure I update often as things change.

Some other things: 

1. Evidence matters. Evidence matters a lot less than arguments. Slow down and think about how arguments interact. Using your evidence (or your opponents evidence) is likely to get you much higher points that reading more evidence.

2. I ask for all speech documents during the debate. I very rarely look at them during the speech (I normally only look at the plan or counterplan text). I do spend a considerable amount of time reading them during prep time and I make sure that when you are discussing a piece of evidence in cross examination (be clear about which card you are asking about). I find that asking for speech docs is a great way for me stay engaged during prep time and I feel it makes me a better judge.

3. It is your job to be clear. I will say clearer once. After that if you are still unclear and I miss arguments it’s your bad. 

4. Be nice – I hate people who are jerks in debates. I have been known to destroy your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents or partner. Debates are best when they are competitive without people being jerks. 

5. Every argument requires a claim, warrant and data. Which means arguments like “Perm: Do Both” mean little to me until they have some explanation attached to them.

6. Author names are not arguments – They are helpful in that I know what cards you think I should as for after the debate, but when they are not coupled with warrants from the evidence they are not very useful. “Davis 05” is not argument by itself. 

7. I work extremely hard in making my decisions because I know that as a debaters you work extremely hard as well. You can do lots of things to make my life easier so I do not have to do as much work. Things like if then statements and explaining the warrants behind your arguments will get you pretty far in my book. 

8. Don’t steal prep – Every second of prep you steal is a moment of my life I can never have back. And it’s cheating. I am fairly lenient about paperless debate, but just be cognizant of the fact that when you say you are done prepping or when you run out of time you should stop prepping.

9. Debate should be fun. If you are not enjoying yourself (and making the experience enjoyable for others) then you should spend your time doing something else. 

Thanks for listening let me know if you have any questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I debated high school policy for 4 years on the national circuit from 02-06.  I'm currently coaching with Rutger's university, 1st year.  

I'll vote on the issues the round revolves around. If you love the K or you're a performance team, do what you're good at and what you're comfortable with. This means establishing the role of the ballot is quite important, as is clarity and analysis.  I will vote on any well warranted argument, without preconception (to the best of my ability).   Again, this means clarity is paramount - if I do not understand you or do not hear an argument, it is likely I will not be able to vote on it.  

You should be aware that my background knowledge will vary depending on your type of argument selection, and your presentation should take this into account.  I'm most familiar with politics/current events and this is where my intellectual interests lie, my critical literature base is limited.  I enjoy critical debate however, just be aware part of focus should be on making sure I understand your criticism, not making the assumption that I have read your authors and know what you're talking about before the speech begins. 

Paperless Debate: I will stop prep when you tell me you are done and are jumping files.  I will not give you an inordinate amount of time to do this, it shouldn't take you more than 15 extra seconds to save the file to a flash drive.  

Yes email chain: lincolngarrett49@gmail.com

https://www.debatemusings.org/home/site-purpose-judging-debates

AFF on T

NEG on conditionality, but even I have my limit (more than 3, no evidence for a bunch of them, combining them later in the debate, amending and adding 2NC cps). NEGs are less good at defending their egregiousness in my recent experience.

I will kick the CP if I think it is worse than the status quo. A neg team doesn't have to say "judge kick" and the AFF isn't going to convince me I shouldn't do this.

I reject the argument and not the team for most every other theoretical objection to a CP.

Will vote on K's. Will care about if the plan is a good idea even if the AFF can't physially make it happen.

Don't have to read a plan, but merely saying the res is bad and dropping stuff will lead to L's.

I am not in the market to award AFF vagueness or poor explanations of cases until the 2AR

Evidence quality outweighs evidence quantity.

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. 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.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

Samantha Godbey, PhD

Director of Debate

West Virginia University

Debaters please send speech docs here: wvucoaches@gmail.com I only check this email at debate tournaments.

If you would like to contact me, not during a debate tournament please email at SamanthaEGodbey@gmail.com.

A note about my education-I started as a novice in 2004 (fossil fuels)- debated through college mostly in CEDA Northeast. My PhD is in Political Science, in particular my dissertatation is on the American public policy process in the area of human trafficking policy. I also have comped in International Relations and Comparative Politics- I have never taken a communications class in my life. All of that means literally nothing except that there are pretty good odds I have not read whatever it is you are reading (policy or k lit). It is your job to explain it to me and pursuade me, not assume that I already know what you are talking about.

How I feel about arguments

I want you all to do whatever it is you do best/ enjoy the most. There is nothing I won’t listen to/ vote on. I really like offense. It is very persuasive to me. I feel as if that is what I look for when I am making my decision at the end of the round, I also like when debaters tell me how they won. I don't like having to look for those reasons/ decide which is most important myself.

Im not crazy about judge intervention, I do my best to come in to every round as tabula rasa as possible. It is your responsibility to persuade me in one way or another to get my ballot.

I believe that I am extremely flow centric (unless you tell me not to be), also seems like I should note that I flow what you say not what is in your speech doc. I wont have your speech doc open at any time unless I am reading cards at the end of the debate. So, if its said in the round, it'll be on my paper. The round is therefore decided by my flow (again, unless told otherwise).

I vote for who wins the debate, I find all types of arguments persuasive from critical to straight up policy. I don't care what you do, just do what you do best (and impact it).

I also think it is worth noting in framework debates that though I have, and I'm sure will in the future, vote on fairness being an impact to framework, I do not find it very persuasive. I am much more into topic education, roleplaying government good, TVAs, switch side education good, etc being a reason why debate should conform to certain guidelines (i.e. framework).

Cecilia Hagen

What is important to me:

Clarity is important to me. If I cannot understand you I won't be able to flow you. Be knowledgeable about your arguments and be ready to defend your links and impacts.

Novices* Flow the debate so you don't drop important arguments or miss key details.

J.V. and Varsity* Please explain things for me, I am not always up to date on the topic and it is better to cover all your bases and have a nice clean and clear debate.

For Performance, critical teams and any others* In general I have voted for many arguments. The most important aspect of the debate for me are clarity- being clear and concise, also taking the time to explain arguments for me.

Feel free to ask me specifics before your round if you have any more questions.

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Heather Holter Hall

Hallheather8@gmail.com

Salem and Tallwood High School Debater 1990-93

Liberty University Debater 1993-96

Liberty University Assistant Debate Coach 20+ years

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

For novices:

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

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

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

For everyone else:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Updated for Gotham Debates 2024:

Email: Brad.Hodgkins@gmail.com

Please feel free to ask any specific questions prior to the round. I have judged a considerable amount of high school rounds this year, so I'm less familiar with topic specific lit than if I were judging more on the college topic, but I am am active duty Army officer specializing in missile defense, so the topic area is certainly in my wheelhouse. I love good K debates, too. I will vote on anything with a well articulated ballot story and clearly extended warrants, so I would encourage you to debate the style you are most comfortable with.

I'm leaving my generic high school LD paradigm below for reference and so i don't have to rewrite it later. But please, don't hesitate to reach out via email or in person before or after the round!!

Good luck!

Hey everyone!

My name is Brad Hodgkins and I debated for 8 years. I did 4 years LD in California and 4 years of open college policy. I competed at CEDA in open policy all four years. I was deeply interested in theory as a debater, but that does not mean that I am keen to voting on blippy unwarranted theory arguments. I do, however, enjoy well warranted and nuanced theoretical discussions about the debate space.

I have experience running all types of arguments, but please don't expect me to be able to parse 'warrants' in your Baudrillard evidence if you can't explain it . Do not be afraid to engage in the type of debate that you are most comfortable in, I think diversified styles make the activity a lot more valuable and make the judging experience a lot more exciting.

Please feel free to ask any questions, but there is no type of argument and/or style that I would discourage you from running in front of me.

My primary emphasis is on clearly articulated arguments. I'm willing to vote as I'm told to vote in-round,  but you have to tell me how and why. Explain your arguments from beginning to end. Debate is about dialogue and engagement, don't just pontificate. Argue. Make my job as the judge easy and we'll both be happier.

-CX: I like it. Don't be a jerk, but feel free to engage in debate during CX. I might not be flowing CX, but I will be listening and I will pay attention to answers and responses and evaluate them in my final decision (so long as I'm told to).

-FW/Theory: Give me a clear framework for making my decision. Explain to me what I should value and how I should weigh and then lay out how that framework applies. When in conflict, justify your FW. As for topicality, I've got mixed feelings on it, so I'm very open and receptive to arguments either way as long as they're clearly warranted.

-ADV/DA: I'm very receptive to arguments that call out hyperbole. I really dislike arguments that say everything leads to nuclear war and if it's a .000000001% chance that's still reason to avoid it. So if you're opponent is saying those things, please make arguments pointing out why that's flawed. I like arguments that recognize that actions can be bad without leading to nuclear war. I'm more receptive to arguments that say a decline in the economy creates increased poverty, hunger, etc. than I am to arguments that say a .01% decline in GDP is going to cause the US to nuke random cities.

-K: I've debated the K and have a rough understanding of the way the debate community uses certain authors. I have some academic experience with some authors (esp. in Postcolonial/Colonial Studies and International Relations). That said, when you run the K, assume I don't. Don't try to obfuscate your argument to deceive your opponent, because chances are you'll just be hiding it from me too. Be clear and forward.

-Cards: Read the cards for me. Know your cards and, as much as possible pay attention to your opponents cards. I will call if necessary, but only over particularly disputed topics. I don't want to intervene, so I'd much rather you do the work in round and tell me why a particular card does or doesn't say what the tag says.

-Theory: My threshold for voting on theory is relatively high and if you want me to do more than reject the argument, you need to clearly and forcefully explain why that action is justified. In particular, I expect illustration of the abuse, especially

-Experience: Currently participating in my 4th year as a policy Debater for Army. Previously participated in various forms of High School Speech and Debate (Primarily PF, LD and Extemp)

Feel free to ask me questions before/after the round. That said, once I've made a decision and am giving my RFI, you can ask clarification, but don't try to change my decision. I can't and I won't. Besides, as the judge it's your job to convince me in the round. As such, if I don't vote for you, you didn't convince me. I'm the only one who can decide if I was convinced, so as such, my decisions is always right. Sorry. Beyond that, I do debate because I like the activity and believe that it's valuable.

Above all, be respectful in and out of rounds to your opponents, your judges, your partner. To everyone. It'll go a long way.

Updated March 2019

New School Debater 2007-2010 / New School Coach 2010-2014 / WVU Coach 2014-2019

Please feel free to do what you are most comfortable with. I have a reputation for being very critically oriented, but I feel as if I vote for policy arguments more and more. I am still pretty far left of center, but not as far left as I was when I first started. I will not, however vote for arguments that I find morally repugnant. If you don't know what those things might be, then "better safe than sorry" might be a good strat.

Some general comments that will help you understand how I feel about certain parts of the debate. I think that a compelling, developed argument without cards will often beat a highly carded, poorly explained argument in almost every case. If you can make smart arguments and analytics, then I am probably going to be persuaded by you. I don't think that every arguments needs to have a card to be true, and I don't think an unwarranted card makes a bad argument true.

A few technical things: I vote more and more on my flow than on my overall perception of a debate. If I don't know what you're saying, then you should probably be clearer or slow down. I don't want to read a lot of cards after the round, but I will read important ones that you tell me to if you explain why I have to read that card. Tell me that it directly answers their important cards, or that it is the best piece of evidence that shows why you win, or that it's written by an author I like, and then I'll probably read it. When it comes to the end of the debate, give me specific ways to vote for you. The easier you make it on me, the more likely I'll be to vote for you.

T- I used to be very biased towards T arguments, but I am less so now. I think that T arguments can devolve into blippy extensions of a three word definition. Those are the kinds of T debates I dislike. If there is a specific reason why an interpretation changes the way an aff functions, then I am open to that debate. I think that an argument over "how much is substaintial" is not particularly useful. I am completely fine with non-topical affs, in fact I like them a lot. With that having been said, with great power comes great responsibility and that responsibility is often answering T and FW. For me, “T is fascist” is not enough. You need to explain why you need to be non-topical and why a topical version of your plan is a bad idea. I am more likely to buy abuse stories that involve education in a coherent way, saying non-topical plans kill education is not enough, explain how that type of education is bad, and why a topical version might work better, or just a modified version. If you are going for the "topical version" argument, then you should probably have an example of what a topical version would be.

FW- I default to the framework of the aff unless the neg on face challenges it, but the aff also has to defend their framework and answer the other team’s objections with substantive answers, “aff choice” isn’t enough. If they want to use USFG policy to do something, then so be it. If they want to use themselves as agents, then that is good too. You have to defend which option you choose. I feel that debates about debate can be important and useful, but only if they are substantive and meaningful (I don’t find the Shively “Euthanasia” card falls into those categories).

DA’s- As a debater, I never read DAs, but I am becoming more comfortable with them. I don't do tons of policy research every day, so I may not know every scenario currently being read. That only means that it is the neg's responsibility to explain the story of the disad and the warrants of the cards. This is the bare minimum for any argument. I am sympathetic to K’s of DA’s, so be warned. That doesn't mean that I have an aff bias on disads, but that I am more familiar with the literature critiquing them than the uniqueness card you cut last night. Just one thing that might help you out, I am pretty willing to buy a “try or die” situation against a DA if there is not enough impact work done. This is especially true absent a CP. If it comes to Plan v. DA, I’m probably going to pick plan unless you explain to me why I can’t. If you make it seem like the plan action will certainly lead to the demise of the entire world then there should be some seemingly factual warrants to why this is the case (remember this doesn't have to be a card, see above).

CP’s- Competition is key. Explaining it is even better. There needs to be a clear discussion to how the CP competes and is net beneficial to the aff. I need a clear net benefit and why that is more important than plan action. I also need clear explanation on the Perm debate. Each Perm should be answered individually or group for some logical reason. Do not make a Perm argument on one perm, drop the others and then pretend you answered them all. I flow your answers on the specific Perm you mention. Be clear and be precise on the Perm debate. I will get to theory below.

K’s- I said at the top I was a K debater, so if you are a K team, this is a blessing and a curse. I will be automatically more attracted to these arguments, but will also hold them to a higher standard. Don’t expect that I know what you’re talking about even if I do. I try my best to only evaluate the arguments made, not what I know about the philosopher/philosophies you are citing. You will win easily if you explain how your arguments function in relation to the other team’s arguments. You will lose easily if you throw out high theory jargon and expect me to connect the dots.

Theory- I don’t particularly like it because it always seems to be lacking. Are multiple perms really that detrimental to anybody? Does it really skew your time that much to answer “do both” and “do the plan, then the alt?” I’ve never seen a really good theory debate and I don’t want to see a lot of bad ones to find a good one. If it’s something you like to do, then do it, but you’re really going to have to sell me on why your scripted block beats their scripted block. One way to do this is give specific examples to the debate you're in. I will be much more likely to buy your theory argument if you make it seem like X thing is bad always, but in this round it is just egregious.

Non-Topical Affs- These are the affs I have the most experience with and what I am used to judging. If you are the team that is looking for the straight up policy debate judge that just finished spending his Friday night cutting politics updates, I am not the judge for you. If you are the K team that is looking for the person that won't automatically vote them down for not being topical, then I am the judge for you.

I think that debate should be much more of an open space than it is. Just because something isn't what you do, doesn't make it automatically wrong and if you debate in front of me with that mentality, you will probably lose. Engaging arguments is the most important part of debate for me.

I feel the need to fix this huge communication issue in the debate community it will start with my judging philosophy. If you are a debater who say any of the following "Obama is president solves for racism" or "we are moving towards less racism cause of Obama or LBS" and the opposing team reading a racism arg/advantage or colorblindness I will instantly vote you down with 25 points for the debater who said it.

Jumping: Novice please don't but if you must which you all will you have 20 seconds after you call for prep to be stop till I consider it stealing prep and instead of restarting prep I will just measure it by the ticker timer in my head (which you do not want). I suggest that you carry a debate jump drive, viewing computer or the cloud system. For Open debaters I get even more angry with the lack of competence you guys have with being responsible when it comes to jumping files and card. I have a soft warmness for debaters who are mostly paper and may involve me smiling like a boy with a crush don't be alarmed it is just me remembering my old days.

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I won’t be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so forth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply not a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you must have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more than just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where the violation actually happens yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly falls and it is the teams’ job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general: I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

John Katsulas, Director of Debate, Boston College
30 years coaching

Here are the rules for debate:
1) The affirmative side must advocate a plan of action by the United States Federal Government. If you merely read poetry, dance, or play music, you will lose.
2) The negative side must defend a consistent policy position in the debate. The negative may choose to defend the status quo, or the negative may advocate an unconditional counterplan.
3) Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.
4) Conditionality is prohibited.
5) The resolution is worded as a policy proposition, which means that policy making is the focus of debate.
6) Kritiques are not welcome.
7) Performance-style debate belongs in theatre productions.
.
Here are suggestions for debating in front of me:
1) The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical.
2) Agent counterplans are fine. Don’t waste your time arguing PICS bad arguments against them. The legitimacy of international fiat is debatable, but I definitely believe there are far stronger arguments favoring limiting fiat to U.S. governmental actors.
3) Politics disadvantages are welcome. I like to hear them. Affirmatives should attack the internal link stories on many of these disadvantages. This is frequently a more viable strategy than just going for impact turns.
4) Both sides should argue solvency against affirmative plans and negative counterplans. Both sides should attack the links and internal links of impacts.
5) If you are incomprehensible, I won’t re-read all of your evidence after the debate to figure out your arguments.
6) Negative can win my ballot on zero risk of affirmative case solvency. Many affirmatives cases are so tragically flawed that they can be beaten by an effective cross-examination and/or analytical case presses.
7) I am very strict on 1ARs making new answers to fully developed disadvantages which don’t change from the 1NC.
8) Cross-examination answers are binding.
9) ASPEC: I won’t vote on it UNLESS you ask in cross-ex and they refuse to specify an agent.
10) Too late to add new links and impacts to your disadvantages during the first negative rebuttal.

I have a low threshold for dismissing non-real world arguments like nuclear war good and wipe-out.

For the email chain: kozakism@gmail.com

I am the former founding Director of Debate at Rutgers University-Newark and current Speech and Debate Coordinator for the Newark Board of Education.

I do not have any formal affiliation with any school in the City of Newark. I represent the entire district and have been doing nothing but competing, teaching, coaching, and building debate for the last 22 years. I have judged thousands of debates at almost every level of competition.

I am in the process of rewriting my judge philosophy to reflect my current attitudes about debate better and be more helpful to competitors trying to adapt. The one I have had on tabroom is over ten years old, and written in the context of college policy debate. I apologize to all the competitors in the many rounds I have judged recently for not being more transparent on Tabroom.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate arguments as you tell me.

I will keep a slightly edited version of my old philosophy while I work on my new one, as it still expresses my basic feelings about debate.

If you have questions about my judge philosophy or me before a tournament, please email me at ckozak@nps.k12.nj.us.

You can also ask me any questions prior to the debate about any preferences you might be concerned about. Good luck!

Old
.................................................................
My judging philosophy/preference is simple. Make arguments. That includes a claim, a warrant, and why your claim matters in a world of competing claims. I don't have an explicit judging "paradigm," and to say that I am a tabla rasa is naive. I am going to split the difference and just explain to you what kinds of arguments I am familiar with.

I debated the K for most of college. I value nuanced Ks that are well-explained and applied to a specific context. I like original thinking in debate and will try to adapt to any performance style you wish to present in the round. Just be aware to all teams when debating framework on these issues that I do not consider appeals to "objective rules" persuasive in the context of determining debate norms. Debate is a rare activity in which students can define the conditions of their education. I take this aspect of debate very seriously. This does not mean I am hostile to "policy debate good" arguments; it just means that I am holding both teams to a high standard of explanation when evaluating framework arguments.

I was mostly a traditional policy debater in high school, so I am very familiar with the other side of the fence. I love an excellent straight-up policy round. Give me all your weird counterplans and ridiculous disad scenarios. I am a current events junkie and find that form of debate extremely valuable. I enjoy speed; but I have a hard time flowing quick blips analysis (who doesn't?). If you just make sure you pause for a breath or something between arguments, I will get everything you need me to get on my flow.

It may sound like I have a lot of "biases," but I do honestly try to evaluate arguments exactly as debaters tell me to. These preferences mostly come into play only when debaters are not doing their jobs.

Avoid having to adapt to me at all, and just tell me what you would like my preferences to be, and we will be good.

I welcome you to ask any specific questions you may have about my philosophy before the debate, considering I don't have much of an idea about what to put in these things, as I found most judge philosophies deceptive as a competitor.

Updated for 2014-2015 debate season.

I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. However, I still strongly believe that if you care about the environment, racism, or injustice that you should register at tournaments vegetarian or vegan. Tournaments will provide for your nutiritional needs and you will have abstained from using your registration fees paying for the slaughter of sentient creatures whose death requires abhorent working conditions for people of color, massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the death of individuals. 

What people decide to consume is a political act, not a personal one. Deciding to consume flesh at debate tournaments continues the pattern of accepting violence and discrimination. This happens for workers, for people living in food deserts, people living in countries across the world, and for the non/human animals sent to slaughter. Tournaments are not food deserts. Your choice to consume differently can make a tangible impact on debate as a community and beyond. Your choice has global and local ramifications. I urge you to make the correct choice in registering your dietary choice even if it has no impact on your speaker points. Several people said that they didn't want to be coerced into making the decision to go vegetarian or vegan at tournaments for speaker points. Now is your chance to make that choice without the impact of speaker points.

All that being said, how you choose to debate is a political choice as well. You can debate however you like but you should realize that the methodology and the content you put forth are not neutral choices. Whatever choices you make you should be ready to defend them in round. “As Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen emphasize in Channels of Desire: The politics of consumption must be understood as something more than what to buy, or even what to boycott. Consumption is a social relationship, the dominant relation-ship in our society – one that makes it harder and harder for people to hold together, to create community. At a time when for many of us the possibility of meaningful change seems to elude our grasp, it is a question of immense social and political proportions.” (hooks 376).

If it is not already clear, I will say it outright: I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. This does not mean I won't vote on framework or counterplans. What it does mean is that the arguments that I will find most appealing are those arguments that speak to how traditional approaches to debate are beneficial to us as individuals to create a better world. It is not that fairness is irrelevant, but that fairness is relevant only to that extent. Fairness plays a part in constructing meaninful education and activism but is not the sole standard to enable good debate. Concepts of fairness are not value-neutral but it is a debate that can be defend and won in front of me since I do not think fairness is irrelevant either. For teams breaking down such structures, you still must win the debate that your approach to debate is better for advacing causes of social justice. If you like policymaking and are running counterplans you merely need to win that your counterplan is a better approach. The same applies for theory violations. I will vote on them if you win that the impact to the violation is important enough for me to pull the trigger. The same is also true for kritiks and other styles of debate. Win that your approach and your argument deserves to win because of the impact that it has.

Again, to be clear, this does not mean that I intend to abandon the flow or vote based upon my personal beliefs. My belief is that debate is more than a game and that the things we say and do in it are not neutral-choices. This does not necessarily mean that so-called traditional policy debate is bad but that the way it should be approached by those teams should not be assumed to be neutral.

Whether it is what you eat, or what you debate, your choice is political. Our world can change. It is up to all of us to make it happen. Movements are already happening all around us. Don't let the norms dictate what you debate or what you consume. Debate should be at the forefront of these initiatives. Use the education you gain in debate to say something and to do something meaningful both in round and beyond.

Debated at James Madison University for 5 years
Currently- policy analyst on the Hill (DC), and assistant coach for JMU Debate fall 2010-spring 2015
Judging at the college level since: 2010-2011

Short Version:

As a debater, I ran a wide variety of args mostly based on their strategic value and, to a slightly lesser degree, based on my personal interests. Just remember that in front of me, you should try to a) win a link, b) win an impact to that link, and c) argue why that impact is important. If you don’t do that, then you will probably require me to do a lot of work to figure out how to evaluate the round. Also, claims need warrants- otherwise you're just wasting your breath (even if the other team drops this "arg").

I usually evaluate my decision based on the flow and typically do not to call for much ev for review purposes. Usually if I do it's because a) I'm personally interested in the arg/ev cited or b) scouting. If you are already doing a good job comparing the claims, warrants, assumptions, etc. of your ev versus the other team then that is likely to deter me from intervening with an ev review. It's largely up to YOU to tell me why your ev is good/better than your opponents'. 

Longer Version:

Here are a few other biases and assumptions that I will bring to the debate, but these are obviously open to revision based on the arguments in the round and my ongoing experience as a judge.

Topicality/Procedurals- You need to flesh out why your interpretation is best for debate *and* prove why the abuse committed by the opposite team justifies a ballot in your favor (i.e., you need more than just a link). For T, I will try to evaluate based on competing interpretations. Affs can and should still make the actual reasonability argument (hint: this does NOT mean the blindly subjective, “heyyyy, come on judge…”) as an answer to an arbitrarily limiting neg interpretation. Theory args need a clear link, and should be impacted on why they have skewed the debate to the point that it has created an irreversible strategic disadvantage. Lastly, if you're one of those fast-talkers and you start off with T in the 1NC/2AC, please take the first 10-15 secs at about 75% speed so I can adjust and catch how the other team is cheating/how you aren't.

Framework- If you are setting up a non-traditional framework for the debate space and role of the ballot, then just make sure that it is explicit and consistently mentioned throughout the round. When it comes to clashes of framework style, I generally think that races to the middle are probably easier to defend, compared to absolute assertations such as "the state is always/never good" - particularly given the wording of this year's legalization topic. In any case, I'll hold FW to the same standards as T/Procedurals: if the other team is running an abusive arg/FW, then you need a clear link, a significant impact, and a explain why your impact matters more.

Performance- I am fine with these as they meet the impact burden I listed at the top. This does not mean you have to win an orthodox impact, per se, but I should know what I am voting for. If you have an unusual interpretation for the role of the ballot, you better drive that point in and why that’s important too. Performance affs should meet the framework note that I mentioned above (i.e. performance affs shouldn't just ignore the resolution).

Disads- I hope yours have internal links. If not, then they might fail to pass my main criteria for evaluation, above. The risk of a DA can be reduced to practically zero, such as, but not limited to, the case that the Neg drops a major argument (ex. a no link).

Kritiks- The more specific the links the better. A lack of a specific link could hurt your analysis later. Don’t forget about impact comparison. If it helps, I usually view most Ks like a CP and a DA debate. The alt is like a CP and the impact to the K is the DA that the alt claims as a net benefit. Alternative solvency should be highly interrogated by the affirmative (you wouldn’t allow a counterplan to solve the aff without a fight would you?).

Counterplans- Counterplans should compete, if not then they go away. If none of the neg counterplans compete, then the neg, as my default, reverts to defending the status quo. Conditionality is debatable, but probably okay in most situations.

Permutations- I generally defer to the belief that they are just tests of competition, absent any specific discussion in the round. Two times when advocating the perm *might* be okay: a) if a 2NC kicks a flow, says the perm is “just a test of competition” and that gets debated out for the rest of the round b) if there is some sort of reps/rhetoric key argument flowing around it is used strategically. A time when it is not okay: new advocacy in the 2AR.

Other preferences:
1. Very important: be civil towards the other people in the room.

2. If you are speaking, do so clearly. I will yell out a “louder” or “clearer” only once. I try to keep a good flow, but if I don't hear something you say then I'll probably not take it into consideration when I review my flow. PAPERLESS TIP: It really helps if you angle your laptop away from the line of sight between me and you. It is so much easier to hear your speech if the computer is tilted 45 degrees or so away from your face. Plus, looking straight at the cute stickers on the back of your laptop screen for 15 minutes is not exactly charming.

3. Don’t steal prep. If you are stealing prep, then don’t be surprised if my timer is ahead of yours.
PAPERLESS PREP: I’ll stop your normal, 10-minute prep timer when your files are transferred to a viewing/opponent’s laptop.

4. An argument has a claim and a warrant. If you make/extend something that lacks one of those components, then that is not an argument. An author citation is neither a claim nor a warrant (although it is very helpful in flagging an arg).

5. I generally think debate is good, in the grandest sense as an advocacy and critical-thinking based activity. It will be hard to convince me that “debating is bad.” However, this is not an endorsement of the norms and procedures of policy debate, specifically. Those norms are always up for, well…debate.

6. One last thing about "dropped args." Speaking from judging experience, crucial dropped args on both sides (ex. FW) in some rounds make it difficult to have a non-interventionist decision one way or another. I originally evaluated this dilemmas by punishing the team that make the first drop, but now I think it's most proper to just weigh the better arg that IS extended. 

7. Don't assume that I am familiar with the literature base that you are reading from. I believe this is consistent with my previous recommendations on "explaining your arg." Even though I have been actively involved as a coach, I am not cutting cards like I did as a debater. Thus, I may or may not be as familiar with the topical literature base, critical literature, etc. 

8. On speaker points: Here is the guide that I try to reference each round. FYI: this is the scale I have already been using. So this is mostly for transparency purposes rather than to signify a change in my judging practices.

I obviously reserve to right for some subjectivity, based on a number of other performance measures in the round (e.g., cross-x, humor, civility [or lack thereof], clarity, etc.). H/T to Shree Awsare, who I copied and pasted this scale from:

• < 25 (< 50): You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale.
• 25 (50): You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech.
• 26 (60): You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents.
• 27 (70): You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims
• 28 (80): You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers.
• 28.5 (85): You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish.
• 29-29.9 (90-99): You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, you were hilarious (or if you aren't funny, you somehow connected with me as a judge and made me want to care), and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.
• 30: Life changed.

Finally, halfway through the year, copying my philosophy over from last year. I will say, there are a few big additions are up at the top. Those of you that pref me regularly probably know about them already.

1. I'm flowing on paper again. This means you have to spend time on the arguments you want ink on. This was a deliberate choice. It's meant to make you exlain things. Teams that think they can say a word (statistics, scholarly consensus, winners win, bioptix good are frequent ones I hear) and think it's a full argument will suffer. Sorry, life ain't kind.

This also means I'll, more than likely, show up to the round looking for a pen and paper. Sorry.

2. Lately, if you remind me, I'll give you a movie to make references to for extra speaker points. More often than not, it will be Good Will Hunting. 

3. paperless debating -- I don't know why anyone would make you kids use prep to flash. paperless debate seems to be one of the few things our community has managed to get right about practicing what we preach, so I'm willing to put up with the extra few minutes of waiting. I'll more than likely use the time you folks are flashing things and make bad jokes, and silly puns like "all the cards they're jumping you are so stupid, they might as well call that thing a 'JUNK drive!'" and then dock your speaks when you don't laugh.

4. I've been thinking more and more about deleting all of this crap and just posting one line as my paradigm: I'm a banana. 

I dream of the debates I would see. I envision young, smart, indifferent people all preffing me highly -- like at every D8 tournament there's a secret room somewhere where intensely smart performance debates are happening, but they only allow the craziest, snarkiest, least socially adjusted in the pool to judge it. 

Then I think about the other possibility -- I don't get preffed at all. That idea doesn't bother me either, really. The only thing that really deters me from doing it is not being able to say "just look up my paradigm" to people when I walk into a room and debaters, frustrated that another judge pulled the trigger on limits in their last round and wanting to know if I care that they're not topical, ask my "do you have any preferences?"

I mean, I would prefer not to, I guess. I'm not sure I can tell them that though. I prefer that debates happen where there is significant impact analysis, a point of stasis about the issues being discussed (srsly, in these deleuze v zizek debates, it'd be helpful if you could help me resolve what capitalism even is)  and depth on a few key issues.

*****

So, I debated at Vermont from the ag topic to immigration. I didn’t really run a plan my last few years debating, so those of you who are looking just to see if I'll listen to your business even though you don't have one, I will -- but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to vote on framework , either. make sure you’ve got a legitimate answer to it that’s a little more nuanced than an impact turn -- some topic specific defense is generally clutch in a situation like that. 

Everyone who's rolling their eyes now because you think I'm a k hack, hold up before you take out your heg impact and substitute in some security k advantage you 

a) aren't familiar with or 
b) don't really feel like running. 

I’d rather hear you do what you feel comfortable with. 

It occurs to me I should begin by telling you what types of debates I enjoy watching. I’d say I probably enjoy watching what more and more people are calling “non-traditional” debates best -- no offense to those running the EU counterplan, it’s just slightly boring to me. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think a beautifully run terror disadvantage isn’t fun to watch -- but when it’s not done really well, it can be agonizing. 

So, because I ran more critical args, I’m more familiar with them. I also think knowing your bias and admitting it is better than pretending I don’t have one and then not really understanding a teams arguments when you’re in round because you expect me to be deep into the realism lit -- so, you may have to slow down and be a little more explanatory. On the flip side, don’t expect me to know what’s going on with your k just because I ran a couple of them. 

Now we’re hitting the part of the judging philosophy where people list types of arguments and people say “I like them!” or “ehh, I’ll listen to it, but whatevs” -- since I’m assuming as a coach my first year out I’ll be hearing a lot of novice debate, I’m going to do you one better and tell you what to do with each of these args to get my ballot, or at least higher speaks than you’d have gotten. I’m operating under the (maybe faulty) assumption you’re a novice reading this, and not just a coach trying to decide to pref me or not. 

topicality -- think of T as a disad. just because you can prove their business doesn’t fit your definition of substantial doesn’t mean you get my ballot. your interpretation is an example of how the resolution should be interpreted in not just this particular debate round, but every debate round. People lose sight of this I think, and because of that, impact analysis can fall to the wayside. Admittedly, this is what would happen with me, at least. If you’re going to go for T, make sure you outline what args are permissible and impermissible under your interpretation, and what this means for the negative. It helps to have contextual examples specific to this topic, and as the year goes on, it becomes more important. 

Theory -- I probably have an abnormally low threshold for voting on theory, to be honest. If you are going for it in front of me, make the same impact analysis I’m calling for in a T debate, please. Lay out the worlds of debate, which is better, which is worse, and why. 

Case -- Not sure what to say here. Put something on. It’s easier to pull the trigger on a k or d/a if there’s a solvency deficit arg that’s persuasive on case. 

Kritiks --zero point of the holocaust is not an impact. It’s cool if you want to go conceptual, I’m down, but you want to 

a) have specific examples of the way your impacts play out that have some bearing on the topic, and what that means for people, and 

b) a clear idea of what the alt is, and how to explain it in simple terms. Be careful about assigning a role of the ballot, because that can get confusing fast. 

Other than that, this year it’s going to be easy for k debates to get stale, because the topic seems to lend itself to stale/generic links. Points for creativity. 

When answering a K with a straight up aff, the link turn is key -- use your 1ac please -- I won't be persuaded by a block of cards and then a brand new 2ar that articulates the link turn. It also helps your partner out when he/she is giving the 1ar, and helping your partner out is a good thing. 

D/A’s, CP’s -- These are way less conceptual, just make the smart argument and justify your business. Aff people who are answering these, remember to isolate the parts of case the cp can’t possibly solve for, and make that the most important thing in round, be it an ethic, an ontology, or a gw advantage. If you’re going for the d/a in the 2nr, make sure you’re weighing the impacts, and probability and magnitude are probably most important in the end. that doesn’t mean drop timeframe though. 

performance -- I don’t think I really have separate advise for this because I don’t think of it as a different category of argument from the above per se. Make sure you’re making those basic arguments about what your performance does to disrupt x problem. Do me one favor though, don’t use your performance as a reason why you don’t answer obviously important business because of your speed is exclusionary, going multiple off is bad, or whatever other generic arg you’re making is. Plenty of good teams are slow and don’t brush off important arguments. That also doesn’t mean I’m not persuaded by speed is exclusionary, it just means you’re going to have to be smart with your time. 

That being said, there are things people will tank your speaks for doing but in good humor, I think you should totally do them in front of me as long as you’re not being serious -- I’ll give you an extra speaker point or two, just because. They include, but are not limited to: 

1. using the phrase “jack taco.” 
2. saying “don’t do the work for them” 
3. stating “this was cold conceded” -- bonus points if it was not conceded. 
4. calling a piece of evidence “on fire.” 
5. saying “I don’t get a 3nr” 

But, in all seriousness, you should be respectful to those you are debating, and your partner as well. And have fun! Debate is hard, might as well enjoy yourself while you’re doing it.

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading,  the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the  performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it.  I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

General: Be sure to explain how specific args on the flow should affect my overall evaluation of the debate. In many debates, both teams have offense on different pages of the flow after the final speeches. When this occurs, comparing your impacts to those of your opponents is critical, as is explaining the relevance of these impacts to my decision. The 2NR/2AR should compare the world of the affirmative to the world of the negative. 

Cross-X: I view answers in cross-X as binding unless told otherwise. Feel free to be funny if you can, but don’t be rude, and there is a fine line. 

Topicality/Procedurals: Negatives going for topicality should provide specific examples of ground that they lose and why that ground is important. Generally, quality of ground (on both sides) is more important than quantity of ground. 

“Nonpolicy” affirmatives: I am open to affs that do not defend a specific policy action; in fact I hear them quite frequently. Negatives going for framework need to impact their arguments beyond just “fairness” and “education.” As with any other debate, both sides should engage in impact comparison. 

Counterplans: I’ll listen to just about any counterplan you want to run. I tend to lean negative on most counterplan theory questions, although I don’t find claims of “aff side bias” very persuasive. I can be swayed to vote aff on theory if the negative does not specifically justify their type of strategy. For example, if the negative reads a critique and a counterplan that links to the K, the affirmative can make arguments as to why contradictory positions are uniquely bad. In this case, the negative should justify not only conditional positions, but conditional args that link to each other. Teams should be clear on what the different CP statuses entail. Does conditionality mean that the status quo is always an option when I make my decision, or does the negative have to make a decision in the 2NR? If dispo means that the aff can make you go for the counterplan by straight turning it, then what constitutes a “straight turn?” I assume that permutations are tests of competition unless told otherwise. 

Disads: The more case-specific the better. Direction of the link is key; if the aff wins the entirety of the link direction, I view this as at least terminal defense for the aff, even if the negative is winning the uniqueness question. If you’re going for a d/A in the 2NR, weighing is always important. While timeframe is still important, I view probability and magnitude as more essential factors in the decision calculus. 

Kritiks: Impacts! Negatives running critiques often focus too heavily on the link level, forgetting why the K is important. That said, specificity of links to the aff is still key when answering permutations. Be sure to explain the way I should evaluate the implications of the K against the impacts of the aff. An analysis of the role of the ballot is helpful. It helps to have an alternative, but if you can win that the K functions as a case turn, you don’t necessarily need an alt. For affirmatives: don’t let your case go away when answering a critique; be sure to extend the 1AC. Aff framework args are more powerful as substantive rather than theoretical questions. That is, “critiques are cheating” is not a compelling claim, but the aff can use framework args to instruct the way I should evaluate different types of impacts. Oh, and please don’t make “aff choice” one of your framework args. 

Good luck and have fun! 

I coached and judged CEDA, NDT, BP, IPDA in my 20 year coaching career. Aside from some online coaching during the pandemic, it has been 8 years since my day to day involvement with a debate topic. I have judged CARD for the last few years and enjoy the format immensely. I really have no argument or style preference anymore. I want to hear well constructed arguments about the topic. I will be clear when I see them and will not hesitate to explain why I didn't feel they were well constructed or about the topic. I will take good notes about the debate but I will not transcribe the debate. If it is not in my notes it is usually because I didn't feel you made it seem important or relevant. Please ask me any questions before or after the debate .

natemilton@gmail.com

Background

I debated for four years in high school and three years at Liberty. I mostly debated a “CP and politics” type strategy on the neg and also enjoyed going for T and theory when it was strategic. I did read the K sometimes though. My favorite debates are large case debates with a DA or two.

General Philosophy:

I try my best to let the arguments in the debate determine how I evaluate the round although I will admit that I have biases that can influence how I view certain arguments. I have included some opinions that I hope you will find useful in specifically tailoring your arguments to me. I am flow centric. I enjoy clash. I believe that both sides should have an equal opportunity to win the round, so while not defending a “policy action” (ie not having a plan text) doesn’t mean you will automatically lose in front of me, I believe that if pressed, you should have some sort of a division of “ground” that enables the opposing side an equal chance to win (I believe in “fairness”). I believe that having to argue in favor of something you don’t believe is beneficial (“switch side debate is good”). I have a minimal threshold for arguments for me to evaluate them, they must have a warrant that makes sense. It is important for you to talk about impacts and compare them to the other side’s impacts on all arguments. I do not evaluate arguments that aren’t in the last two rebuttals. I don’t think debates should get personal, it should be about the arguments, not the people. I try not to have to read evidence, I prefer it to be explained and impacted in the debate, “call for this card after the round” is not an argument, explaining the warrants of the evidence in question is a more productive use of your time. Don't try to talk too fast (speed is overrated) and you probably shouldn't use profanity.

T + Theory

I will vote on T/Theory. I lean towards competing interpretations on T and that Condo is usually ok (1 CP and 1 K). I ere Aff on T, Neg on Theory. Please remember to impact these arguments, it’s not a “Voter” just because you say it is. T is not a reverse voter. Please be aware of argument interaction between different theory arguments.

Cross-Examination:

CX starts (my timer starts) promptly after the end of the constructive speech. Open CX is fine, however I feel that it is best to not engage in it whenever possible. I think the CX is an underutilized speech, and good questions are often not turned into arguments, it is important to turn CX questions and answers into arguments during a speech. I don’t flow CX but I do pay attention. CX greatly influences how I award my speaker points.

CP’s

I like clever PIC’s (not word PIC’s). I ran SC CP and politics a lot. However, I’ve been doing some thinking about agent CP’s, and the more I think about them the more I think they aren’t competitive (if the agent is within the USFG). Obviously this is a debate to be had and I can be persuaded either way. I am not a fan of delay or multiple CP’s (the exception to the multiple CP’s is if you are reading advantage CP’s and/or unconditional CP’s). In the 1NC, please SLOW DOWN when reading your CP text so I know what the CP is, thank you in advance. For conditional CP’s, unless the 2NR explicitly says that the SQ is still an option, if you go for the CP I transition into Plan vs CP framework in which the CP must be net beneficial to warrant a neg ballot.

K’s

I am not the biggest fan of the K. That being said, I will and have vote/d for/on the K, I would say that I just have a high threshold for the level of explanation that needs to occur for these kinds of arguments to be persuasive and make sense. I do not appreciate a bunch of post modern jargon; the simpler you can explain your K the better. Please explain what your alternative is and what voting for you means/does, what the role of the ballot is, and why all of that is more important than an endorsement of the Aff. I find that when I don't vote for a K it is usually because the explanation of what the alternative is/does is lacking. While I do not find some K's to be very persuasive, just because the debate makes me grumpy(ier) doesn't mean I won't vote for you, I'll probably just complain about it afterwards (although I will happily provide you with a list of my least favorite K's upon request). I will say that I very much dislikes K's based on a link of omission. If in doubt, read what you are best at and most comfortable with and tell me not to be so grumpy.

Paperless

Please be as prompt and courteous as possible. DO NOT: intentionally include 9 million cards that you aren’t going to read into your speech document (please feel free to ask for a new speech document with just the marked cards that are read, no charge), intentionally disorganize your speech document, or steal prep-time (no one should be doing anything during “tech” time). I am rather trusting on this issue so feel free to police yourselves, I won’t hold it against you if you call your opponents out (even if they are behaving).

MISC

I do not prompt for clarity, if I can’t understand you, I will stop flowing and make a face at you. I believe that judge adaptation is an important part of debate and so if you have a question about anything I have not covered here, please feel free to ask, but I will get angry if it’s clear you haven’t read this.

When in doubt: "Make with the good debating, not the bad debating."

I started in the activity in 2003 as a debater and haven't left. Please note that over the past couple of years, I've judge a lot less, and have spent much more time in the tabroom. As such, my ability to handle unintelligible speed has probably diminished. 

Etiquette: Debate is a fun activity; if you don’t enjoy it, you probably shouldn’t be doing it. Don’t make it miserable for others. Be polite, answer cx questions (tag team is ok, just don’t take over your partner’s cx time). Extremely offensive language will probably be reflected in lower speaker points (unless of course, it’s an actual argument). Most importantly, have fun!!

Pet Peeves: Don't steal prep time, it's unfair and it causes the whole tournament to run slower.  For paperless teams, prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer to hand to your opponents.

Speed: Speed is fine IF you’re clear. Slower is better when it comes to T, theory, and framework. Don’t sacrifice good analysis and argumentation for speed. I’ll shout “clear” if I can’t understand you, but I won’t do that more than two or three times. While I will call for important cards at the end of the round, I won’t call for so many that I’m reading everything you read on the position you go for at the end of the round.  

Do what you’re comfortable with doing. I will listen to what you say, flow it (unless you tell me not to), and vote for it; but there are certain types of debate that I’m much more comfortable with adjudicating.

Topicality: T is about competing interpretations. Provide a sound interpretation, a clear violation, and impact it. T exists to establish fair ground. It’s ok to take a different perspective and/or use a different style of argument, but I believe that you should have to affirm the resolution to provide some predictable neg ground. I believe switch-side debate is good. While I’m open to the argument, it will take some work to convince me that T is genocidal and/or shouldn’t come first when evaluating the round.

CP/DAs: I love good CP/DA rounds. Make sure your DAs have good uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts. Weigh the impacts against the aff impacts! Magnitude, probability, timeframe: they’re all good things to analyze. What are the solvency deficits or DAs to the CP? 

Kritiks: I’m open to listening to kritiks, but keep in mind that I don’t spend the little free time I have reading Zizek, Derrida, etc. Clearly explain the link and implications. Have a well-articulated alternative. Reject the aff is not usually a good alternative. Articulate how the aff can’t solve or how the K solves the aff better if that’s what you’re going for. What are the disadvantages to the perm? A lot of analysis and good explanation will go much farther than reading a few extra cards.

Performance: If you are going to perform, have a framework that allows for fair debate. Make an argument. Respond to your opponents’ arguments (yes, you may have to respond to a DA; you don’t have to read cards, but you do have to answer it). This is not the type of debate I’m most comfortable judging, but I will listen to you. I just may be easily convinced that you aren’t topical and/or don’t provide a fair framework for debate. If you do those things, go for it!

Theory:  Conditionality is fine, however running multiple contradictory conditional positions is probably abusive.  Don't just read blocks.  Draw distinctions, have a clear interpretation.  Show in round abuse, or explain why potential abuse should be a voting issue.  Impact analysis is important. 

I've been the Director of Debate at the US Naval Academy since 2005. I debated at Catholic University in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Put me on the doc thread: danielle.verney@gmail.com. Please use the wiki as much as possible!

Four things I hate--this number has gone up:

1. WASTING TIME IN DEBATES--what is prep time? This isn't an existential question. Prep time is anything you do to prepare for a debate. That means when it's start time for the debate, everyone should be READY TO START--restrooms visited, water gathered, stand assembled, doc thread started, timer in hand, snacks ready for your judge (jk). Any of these things that need to happen during a debate are technically prep time and thus should probably happen either during your prep or the other team's prep. The 2:15 decision deadline is an unequivocal good because it makes me 100% more likely to get a reasonable amount of sleep at night which makes me a better judge/coach/administrator/human, but y'all need to get better at managing your time to make it work.

2. Elusiveness (especially in Cross-Ex but during speeches too): “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. Taking your questioner on a goose-chase for the answer to a simple question is not. Pretending you don't know how the plan works or what it does or that there are a whole bunch of ways it MIGHT happen is not persuasive to me, it just makes it look like you don't know what's going on. Answer the counterplan; tell me it's cheating--I'm one of the like 5 judges in the community who believe you.

3. Debaters who get mad that I didn’t read their one piece of really sweet evidence. If you want me to understand the warrants of the evidence and how they compare to the warrants of the other team’s evidence, maybe you should talk about them in one of your speeches. Read less bad cards and talk about the good ones more--tell me how your one good card is better than their 12 bad ones.

4. Rudeness. Don’t be rude to your partner, don’t be rude to the other team, and DEFINITELY don’t be rude to me. Excessive cursing is frowned upon (louder for the people in the back). Conversely, if you are nice, you will probably be rewarded with points. Entertain me. I enjoy pop culture references, random yelling of "D7", humorous cross-x exchanges, and just about any kind of joke. I spend a LOT of time judging debates, please make it enjoyable, or at least not uncomfortable.

Performance/Ks of Debate:

I’m going to be painfully honest here and say that I don’t like performance debate or critiques of current debate practices. I’m also going to state the obvious and say that I really like policy debate. Why? Well, I guess it’s the same reason that some people root for the Yankees over the Red Sox—I’m evil. Actually, it’s because I think there are a lot of specific educational benefits to traditional policy debate that you can’t get anywhere else. There might be a lot of educational benefits to performances, but I think that you can get those benefits from doing other activities too, which isn’t necessarily true of policy-style debate. If this makes you want to strike me, I heartily encourage you to do so.

HOWEVER--the opposing team would need to advance those arguments to win the debate. Do I think status quo debate is good? Yes. Will I vote on "debate is good" without that argument having been made? No. If the opposing team concedes the framework debate or doesn't advance "status quo debate good" as their framework arg, I'm not going to vote on it, obviously; the debate would proceed as agreed to by both teams. I have judged these debates before and have voted on the arguments in the round.

Kritiks:

Whatevs, if it’s your thing, you can do it in front of me. I’m pretty smart, which means I attempt to avoid reading post-modern philosophy as much as possible, and the only languages I currently speak with any level of fluency are English and Pig Latin. This means you should probably SLOW DOWN and find a convenient time to define any words that are Greek/German/made up by an aging beatnik. The problem I have with most Ks is that they have totally sweet, awesome impacts but there’s little link to the aff (or no harder link to the aff than to the status quo), so maybe that’s something that both the aff and neg should work on in the round. I really prefer Kritiks with alternatives, and I prefer the alternative not be “reject the plan”.

Counterplans:

I think lots of counterplans (consult, international actor, conditions, etc) are probably cheating. As a director of a small school, I don't have a huge problem with cheating if you can defend it and do it well. I wouldn't make this the "A strat" for me if you've got other options, but I appreciate that there sometimes aren't any and I promise not to throw things or set the ballot on fire if you've gotta roll with it.

Not to sound like a grumpy old person (though I am) but I think conditionality run amok is hurting debate. I'm probably okay with 1 CP, 1 K, and the status quo as an option until the 2nr (test the rez from a variety of standpoints, etc). Any more than that and you're pushing my buttons. I'm about as likely to "judge kick" a CP for you as I am to kick a winning field goal for the Steelers (not gonna happen).

Disads:
There’s nothing better than a good disad. What do I mean by a good disad? Well, it should have a pretty clear, and ideally pretty specific, link to the affirmative. It should also (and here’s the part lots of debaters forget about) have some form of internal link that goes from the link to the impact. Aff—if the neg doesn’t have one of those things, you might want to point it out to me.

If your disad makes my internal BS-ometer go off I'm gonna tank your points.


Topicality/Other Procedurals:
I don’t evaluate T like it’s a disad, which I think is the current fashionable thing to say, because unlike lots of people, I don’t think your aff advantages can outweigh T in the way that the aff could outweigh a disad. So I don’t focus as much on the “best” interpretation—if the aff interp is good but not as good as the neg’s, the aff will probably win in front of me. This means I think the neg really needs to focus on the ground and limits debate—here is where you can persuade me that something is really bad.

I think topics are becoming more broad and vague, and understand negative frustration at attempting to engage in a debate about the plan's mechanism or what the plan actually does (often the very best parts of a debate in my opinion). I feel like I can be fairly easily persuaded to vote against a team that just uses resolutional language without a description of what that means in a piece of solvency evidence or a cross-examination clarification. I think neg teams will need to win significant ground loss claims to be successful in front of me (can't just roll with agent cps key) but I think I am more easily persuaded on these arguments than I have been in the past.

Former Captain at New School University
3 years experience debating, 2nd year judging.

Oh hai. I like kritiks. And warrants.

General stylistic preferences:
Big picture over line-by-line
A few well articulated stories over 20 blippy arguments
Smart arguments over bad cards


Policy Debaters: Don't be too scared, I probably have a higher threshold for explaining a kritik against you considering most "K" debaters were handed a back-file they don't understand and pronounce it "Zee-zek". Link turns and offense on the alternative will be your best friend. That being said, I love a policy option that is not inherently imperialist/islamophobic/etc. Chances are, you're lying about all of your cards so I'm going to give as much weight to "Mitt Romney is the zero-point of the holocaust" and "Consult Gaga" as to "Canadian soft power key to avert nuclear war" and "Consult India"


Counterplans/DAs: I didn't debate these, nor do I judge many. There's nothing wrong with running them in front of me, but if you're looking for a judge who gets the nuance of CP theory, I'm not that guy.

Theory: Sometimes theory debates are really great. Most of the time, they're just a nice way of telling me you refuse to engage the other team's arguments. I'd prefer if you told me why their K is wrong rather than telling me it kills aff offense. I probably am unfamiliar with your blippy theory arguments and you'll probably be reading 10 of them in about 5 seconds. This is probably bad for you and me. I'd rather you save the theory arguments for when there is legitimate abuse and the arg is articulated well.


Kritik Debaters:
I prefer warranted analysis to 20 "cap causes war" cards. I'm not going to vote on a K just because I'm a K hack. I think ethos is pretty important.

Knowledge bases I am very familiar with:
Cap
Queer Theory
Feminism
Spanos
Heidegger on technology

Knowledge bases I'm sort of familiar with
Post-Althusser Frenchies (Badiou, Derrida, Foucault)
Hardt + Negri
Race theory
Wilderson
Deleuze

K on K Debate: I don't have any predispositions for how K v K debates should be had. I think I have a "default" that will influence my decision if neither side frames what the purpose of the round is. That default is probably framed in traditional offense/defense/permutation terms. That being said, I think that frame of evaluating the debate is probably not well suited for two teams that don't defend fiat. Debaters should frame how I view evaluate the round, and why thats uniquely good for education/liberation. I'd probably be the most tabula rasa here compared to any other circumstance.

I like when teams defend something. That seems to be my only burden for K affs, even if it means you only defend that "defending things is bad". Just be upfront about it, rather then making claims like "the aff wins because we start a discussion" and permuting any advocacy they ever make. As the great John "Rossita" Fowle once said, it's really easy to "add their something to our nothing" and therefore ensure aff victory.

Framework: I love good framework debates. I hate bad framework debates. For K affs, I will almost NEVER be persuaded that the aff steals neg ground, or kills clash. You're better off indicting the way they engage with politics/the world rather than going for standards. In other words, I'd rather you read 9 minutes of policy making good, roleplaying good, etc, then 9 minutes of OH NOES WE CAN NEVER DEBATE THEM.

Topicality:
Unless their aff is blatantly abusive (give one visa to one immigrant, for instance) then don't bother.

I think there are two standards for topicality.
One: If a team is intentionally not engaging with the USFG, congratulations, they probably have offensive reasons why topicality is bad. That being said, you'd be better off having a substantial FW debate about why engaging with the USFG is good rather than trying to tell me that queer theory explodes the topic
Two: if you're going to use the USFG, don't be shady. This means I will probably vote on all sorts of T for a team with a policy option and policy impacts that is clearly abusive. I think abuse can be easily shown with FX T affs and Extra-T affs.


Cards: Don't piss on my leg and tell me its rain. Don't read me a card that specifies that the fluid on my leg, is in fact, comprised of distilled rain water. I don't need a card to tell me what is blatantly true or false and neither should you. I will weigh un-carded arguments fairly generously as long as I am familiar enough with the arg to know you're not lying. Debate should be about what you know, not how many lonely nights you've spent in your dimly lit room cutting cards while listening to Bright Eyes.

Note: I have not judged any rounds for this topic nor done any research. 

General Thoughts:

-I'm generally willing to listen to whatever you want, but highly prefer/encourage debates that are topically related. I also thoroughly appreciate creativity.

-Dropped arguments are not necessarily automatic winners for me, because often they are not actually dropped. You still need to explain/argue the point, and also foreclose other arguments that are on the flow. Just pulling it through leaves a waste of space on my flow (i.e. don't make arguments that lack warrants).

-When evaluating a round, order of operations is important. Teams should explain how the different issues interact and frame an order in which I should decide. Otherwise, I'll pick a starting point, and someone won't be happy. 

-If you do something germane and funny, I will like you lots more. If you're rude or offensive, I will dock speaker points.

-You should probably look at me from time to time to see if I'm smiling, scowling, confused, etc. during your speech. It also indicates whether I understand the actual works you're speaking.

Ks-I am familiar with most critical literature, and very much appreciate a well constructed critique specific to the aff/topic (and dislike overly generic, bastardized, or mischaracterized arguments). Make sure to demonstrate that you actually know your argument well. I will generally not give (much) weight to arguments that are nebulous or vague at the end of the round. Thus you will need to have a specific and coherent argument, especially for the alternative and framework. Also, make sure the argument's structure is clear at the outset. No one likes a surprise alt in the 2nr.

Theory/T-I probably have a higher threshold for these arguments in both directions, and you need a significant impact for me to consider them. Make sure to be clear on your interpretation. I generally characterize these impacts in terms of fairness and education. I am unlikely to vote on a cheap shot theory argument, unless there is a compelling reason. As for T, I highly prefer topical affs, but if you have a very compelling argument about why something else is better, I'm willing to listen. Although that is not at all a guarantee that I'll buy your argument. Evidence/literature is very helpful on topicality.

CPs-Creative CPs, including PICS, are good. I also think conditionality is generally ok, but could be convinced otherwise. I'm not a big fan of consult or TF cps.

Joe Patrice

USMA

Paperless Policy:I'm at joepatrice@gmail.com. Or I can do the situational dropbox thing. Whatever. Regale me with your evidence. I don't read it during the round, I just want it all for post-round evaluation and caselist obligations. I still flow based on what you SAY so don't cut corners on clarity just because I have your speech docs in my inbox.

Flowing: Seriously, I’m not reading your evidence during your speech. Why doesn’t anyone ever trust me on this? Did I do something in a past life that makes debaters pathologically incapable of believing me? Anyway, if you’re not articulating your distinct arguments, you’re taking your chances that I’m not getting what you’re trying to put out there. I consider debate to be a contest between teams to communicate to me what should be on my flow and where, so orient your argumentation accordingly.

Everything Else: I characterize myself as a critic of argument, which is the pretentiousway of saying that I listen to everything, but that, all else equal, certain things are more compelling than others.

NOTE: Do not necessarily interpret any of my preferences as bans on any kind of arguments, or even guides to how to select down. It's a threshold of believability issue.

Policy Debates: Compare your impacts, weigh them, and tell me a story of the world of voting Aff vs. voting Neg. I’ll choose the one that’s comparatively advantageous.

I prefer fewer positions withlonger evidence, clearer scenarios, and more analysis of impact probability ratherthan harping on the massive scale of the impacts. If I hear that a slight increase in spending collapses the world economy triggering a nuclear war, you may as well tell me aliens are invading. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll vote on it, but I’ll die a little inside and there’s frighteningly little of my soul left to kill – I’m a lawyer.

I’m not particularly excited about the world of flinging 4 CPs at the Aff and just playing the coverage game. It’s just not the makings of a compelling debate, you know? Pick a lane! And it doesn’t seem especially cool on a topic featuring legal scholars proposing almost infinite specific counter-proposals to research. I’ve got no preferences on CP/Perm theory arguments other than it bugs me that people don't feel compelled to explain the abuse story like they would on T. I do not think the blip "the Perm is severance" is enough to get the job done and if I’m going to vote on it, I’d really prefer if, before the round is over, I can comfortably explain why it severs and preferably a reason why that is uniquely disadvantageous. But given that caveat, I'm more than willing to vote on these args because people all too often don't answer them well enough, probably because they don't know how to flow anymore. NOTICE A TREND!

In other words, if you're going the policy route, you’ll make me so happy teeing off with specific arguments tied to the real academic/policy debate over the subject.

And if you’re reading this harsh criticism of policy debate with a smug look on your face, slow your roll there Kdebater...

Kritik Debates: Kritiks challenge the advocacy of the other team in salient ways that could be lost in a pure utilitarian analysis. Issues of exclusion and oppression ingrained in the heart of a policy proposal or the representations of the other team can be called out with kritiks ranging from simple “-ism” args to a postmodern cavalcade.

It is NOT an excuse to say random pomo garbage that sounds cool but doesn’t bear upon what’s happening in the round. Esoteric ramblings from some dead French or German thinker can – and often do – have as little to do with the debate round as the hypothetical global nuclear wars that have killed us a million times over in this activity. Look, I actually KNOW what most of that garbage means, but that's not a reason for you to not make sense. Make the K relevant to the specific policy/issue discussion we’re having and I’ll be very happy.

Again, I vote on this stuff, but see above about killing me inside.

When it comes to K/Performance Affs, I’m pretty open to however you justify the Aff (metaphorically, as activism, as some kind of parable), so long as deep down you’re advocating that all things equal, “giving rights or duties to the things listed in the topic would be good.” Faint in the direction of the topic and you’re in good shape.

With that caveat, if you outright refuse to "affirm" anything in the "topic," that's all well and good, just be a really good T/Framework debater. I'll vote for a compelling justification — I’ve recently been told that according to Tabroom, I’m almost exactly .500 in K v. Framework debates over the last few years. I don’t know if that’s true, but it sounds right. Frankly, I'd rather hear "we can't be Aff because the resolution is broken and we'll win the T/Framework debate" than some squirrely "we're not topical, but kind of topical, but really not" thing.

But who am I to judge! Oh right... I'm the judge. Kinda my job.

An honest pet peeve (that I can be talked out of, round-by-round) is that I don't think “performance” means acting out the argument in-round. For example, Dadaism is an argument, not a reason to answer every question with “Fishbulbs!" You job is to sell me that people answering questions with “Fishbulbs” would be good – if you’re doing it in-round you’ve skipped the foundational part.

Topicality: I feel like I've told enough people in enough rounds about this that I'm comfortable putting it here: if you're running this Scalia evidence as a definition of "vest" despite the fact that it is EXPLICITLY not about rights and duties and solely about Article II power or if you're running the "rights are 15 things" from a definition about how the Indian legal system makes distinctions between constitutional rights and statutory legal rights, you're engaged in an act of such intellectual dishonesty that I think I'm willing to vote on that alone if the other team mentions it.

Every time you steal prep time will also kill me a little more inside. But you’re going to do it anyway.

Braden Picardi

Debated for Clarion University 3 years, judged for 1 year in college and some high school.

Good Suggestions for High School Debaters:

1. Make decisions in the block. Choose your time allocation wisely. The 2NC should probably have the bulk of the pieces of paper to cover unless you pick a two pronged attack like a K or T in the block. There is nothing wrong with case and a disad. Pick your spots and go for them. 

2. Theory is something I have a very low threshold on and often times things that are really on the edge of a catch 22 for either side often go in noticed. This will be covered more in the Theory section. 

3. I am not going to do any work for you. If you dont extend solvency in some shape or form and get called out on it then I am going to have a hard time voting for the affirmative unless the negative drops an advantage. 

4. When the negative runs a CP or K, generally, presumption flips affirmative but goes toward the side of least change. 

5. Inherency is not really something debated in college. I have a higher threshold to win this argument. It doesn't seem to add anything for me. 

6. First question in CX on the affirmative when the other team is running a CP or K. . .  What is the status? To avoid issues in the round and for your own benefit please ask this. Do not assume it is conditional. 

7. Speaker points for me come down to a few things: Clear line by line debating, how well you articulate the arguments, and how passionate and persuasive you are. 

8. I believe with prep time being so low and speech times being what they are, that some additional leeway for the 1AR is warranted in terms of new arguments or articulation. I was a 2N and 1A for most if not basically all of my debate career.  

Case- I have no problem voting on no solvency. Likewise, I have no problem voting on a brink situation for the affirmative. Discussion of internal links to impact scenarios should be flushed out and carried through for the affirmative. Know your evidence and warrants within the evidence. Do not assume because you have impacts that you solve them. Know your solvency evidence inside and out. 

Disads- Bread and butter of policy debate. I am a great judge with them in the back of the room. Pretty straight forward. I like a lot of link work and explanation. Impact calculus cannot be overstated as a must in the block. Timeframe, magnitude, probability and explanation of how the impacts in the round work would be great. If you are the affirmative and say case outweighs you need to explain it in a clear fashion as to why. 

CPs- I am a fan. CP with a net benefit of a politics DA is always a favorite. The CP needs to have a net benefit. Theory on counterplans can be tricky. I am the kind of judge that is fine with a few CP's in the round. Defend multiple worlds and conditionality and you are probably fine. That doesn't mean reading off jargon though. Explanation is needed. Consult counterplans are not very theoretically legitimate to me, but it is a debate after all. Running a Country A DA and a Consult Counrty A CP is not legitimate and will be probably voted down. 

Theory- As stated above, I have a much lower threshold for theory than most judges. If you pick your spots like the 1AR or even the block I have no problem voting for you. This doesn't mean I will vote for you if you go for it. It just means exactly what it says. If you are on the affirmative and you are confident you are losing on substance, this may serve as a way out that gets you ahead going into the last speeches.

K- I am fine with them. This is an argument for me whether the team can blow the round out of the water or spend the time floundering around with jargon so I would say it is hit or miss. In some cases I prefer them depending on how well written and developed the argument is. I ran them a decent amount in college. Basic though like Zizek and not some things that are ran today that may fall under the K or Performance. If you can explain what I am voting for I would appreciate it. The alternative should be somewhat well thought out and the defense against what the affirmative does should be very organized. The permutation is basically a no link argument to me and should be flushed out whether it is a test of competition or whether it is an actual advocacy and how that functions. 

T- It is a voting issue, period. It is (probably) not genocidal. Debate is a competition first and educational a definitive second. I am a fan of a good topicality debate that focuses on competing interpretations rather than reasonability. Clash on standards and explaining your definitions are important here. The affirmative has a slightly more uphill battle here but it is still hard to lose on it. 

About me:

Director of Debate at George Mason University.

Please add me to chain: japoapst@gmail.com

11/26/2023 Speaker Point Update:

I will be utilizing the Regnier speaker point scale

5+ Random Things that Annoy me:

1. Hostility - I am too old, too cranky, and too tired to hear undergraduate students treating opponents, partners, or me like trash. I literally can't handle the levels of aggression some rounds have anymore. Please just stop. Be community minded. You are debating another person with feelings, remember that. Opponents are friends on the intellectual journey you are having in debate, not enemy combatants. Give people the benefit of the doubt and try to practice grace in rounds.

2. Debaters who act like they don't care in debates. If being a troll or giving some performance of apathy about debate is your shtick I am absolutely not the judge for you. Debate is a privilege that many individuals do not have the ability to participate in due to lack of collegiate access or financial well being, and I think we should treat the opportunity we have to be in this activity with respect.

3. Multiple cards in the body of the email.

4. Yelling over each other in cx - everyone will lose speaks.

5. Interrupting your partner in cx - I am seriously close to saying I want closed cx, I am so annoyed at how egregious this is becoming. I will deduct speaks from both partners.

6. Extending Cross ex past 3 minutes. I will actively stop listening in protest/leave the room. Anything past the 3 minutes should be for clarification purposes only.

7. Wipeout, Baudrillard, Malthus, Con Con CPs, Strike 'x' country CPs, trivializing the holocaust, reading re-prints of books from 1995 but citing it as the reprint date, fiating mindset shifts.

Topicality:

The nukes topic is great for the negative and I do not think I will be persuaded on sub-sets arguments against NFU. This topic is too small give the aff a break.

If cross ex actually checked for specification questions (i.e. "who is the actor" - and they tell you "Congress") - that is the only argument the 2ac needs to make against a 1NC spec argument.

NOVICE NOTE: I think it is ridiculous when novices read no plan affs - do whatever you want in other divisions, but these kids are just learning how to debate, so providing some structure and predictability is something I think is necessary. I err heavily on framework in those debates for the negative in the first semester.

Theory:

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. I genuinely do not know how I lean in condo debates. Some rounds I feel like the amount of conditional positions we are encouraging in debates is ridiculous, others I wish there were more. Open to being convinced in either direction.

Counterplans:

Are awesome. The trickier, the better. I’m okay with most of them, but believe that the action of the CP must be clearly explained at least in the 2NC. I don’t vote on something if I don’t know what my ballot would be advocating. I shouldn’t have to pull the CP text at the end of the round to determine what it does. I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff (if you can defend theory though, this doesn’t mean don’t read them). Also, I think that perm do the cp on CPs that result in the plan can be rather persuasive, and a more robust textual/functional cp debate is probably necessary on the negative's part.

**Delay and consultation cp’s are illegit unless you have a specific solvency advocate for them. Agenda DA Uniqueness cp’s are too – I’m sorry that the political climate means you can’t read your politics strat on the negative, but that doesn’t mean you should be able to screw the aff’s strategy like that. Have other options.

Important CP Judge Kick Note: I always judge kick if the negative would win the debate on the net benefit alone. However, I will not judge kick to vote on presumption. Going for a CP forfeits the negative's right to presumption.

Disadvantages:

Wonderful. Disadvantages versus case debates are probably my favorite debates (pretty much every 2NR my partner and I had). I love politics disads, however, I can be very persuaded by no backlash/spillover answers on the internal link – in so many situations the internal link just makes NO sense. I think there is such a thing as 100% no link and love thumper strategies. Like elections DA's - not a huge fan of impact scenarios relying on a certain party/candidate doing something once they get in office. Think shorter term impact scenarios are necessary.

Kritiks:

2023 update: For the past several years my work with Mason Debate has primarily focused on research and coaching of our varsity policy teams and novices. I am not keeping up with the K lit as I was a few years ago. Please keep this in mind. Everything below is from a few years ago.

I wrote my thesis on queer rage and my research now focuses on a Derridian/Althusserian analysis of Supreme Court rhetoric - but that does not mean I will automatically get whatever random critical theory you are using. Due to who I coach and what I research for academics, I am most familiar with identity theories, biopower, Marxism, any other cultural studies scholarship, Baudrillard, Derrida, and Deleuze. If your K isn't one of those - hold my hand. I think the most persuasive kritik debaters are those who read less cards and make more analysis. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line/tied into the case debate. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it structured. Unless your kritik concerns form/content - be organized.

Note for policy v K regarding the "weigh the affirmative or nah" framework question - basically no matter how much debating occurs on this question, unless the affirmative or negative completely drops the oppositions' arguments, I find myself normally deciding that the affirmative gets to weigh their aff but is responsible for defending their rhetoric/epistemology. I think that is a happy middle ground.

Critical Affirmatives:

Nukes note: I think the affirmative should *at least* defend that the US' reliance on nuclear weapons for military policy is bad. Some type of critique in the direction of the resolution. Inserting the word "nuclear" or "weapons" into your aff is not enough of a topic relevant claim imo. In general, I believe affirmatives should defend some universalized praxis/method and that deferral is not a debatable strategy.

Overall Framework update: Procedural fairness IS an impact, but I prefer clash key to education. I find it difficult to vote for impacts that preserve the game when the affirmative is going for an impact turn of how that game operates.

Generic Case Update: I find myself voting neg on presumption often when this is a large portion of the 2nr strategy. I recommend affirmatives take this into account to ensure they are explaining the mechanism of the aff.

I find judging non-black teams reading afro-pessimism affirmatives against black debaters an uncomfortable debate to decide, and my threshold for a ballot commodification style argument low.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable). I enjoy critical methods debates that attempt to develop a praxis for a certain theory that can be broadly operationalized. For example, if you are debating "fem rage" - you should have to defend writ large adoption of that process to give the negative something to debate. It is pretty difficult for a negative to engage in a debate over what is "good for you" without sounding incredibly paternalistic.

Overall Sound:

I am partially deaf in my left ear. It makes it difficult to decipher multiple sounds happening at the same time (i.e. people talking at the same time/music being played loudly in the background when you are speaking). I would recommend reducing the sound level of background music to make sure I can still hear you. Also means you just have to be a smidge louder. I'll let you know if sound level is an issue in the debate, so unless I say something don't let it worry you.

Flowing:

I love flowing. I do my best to transcribe verbatim what you say in your speech so I can quote portions in my RFD. I do NOT flow straight down, I match arguments. I most definitely WILL be grumpy if speeches are disorganized/don't follow order of prior speeches. If you ask me not to flow, the amount I pay attention in the debate probably goes down to 20% and I will have mild anxiety during the round.

Your Decorum:

Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent. This includes anything from ad homs like calling your opponent stupid to super aggressive behavior to your opponents or partner. Speaker points are a thing, and I love using them to punish jerks.

My Decorum:

I am extremely expressive during round and you should use this to your advantage. I nod my head when I agree and I get a weird/confused/annoyed face when I disagree.

<3 Jackie

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

Pitt Debater, assistant coach at Binghamton. 
Notes people will care about: 
-- I find myself almost never calling for cards. The reason is either 1. that card is not explained or 2. that card isn't responded to/in contention. I find controlling articulation of evidence extremely persuasive. 
-- Framework-- I find that many of the clash rounds that I watch, the big problems with framework are 1. lack of articulated impacts or 2. specificity of links to the aff. 

Original Philosophy-- 
General: My default position is to choose between something like advocacy's. This can mean any range of things. 
Particulars: 
T- I like competing interpretations as the standard and I really like when that's done well (disadvantages to interpretations, etc). 

Theory- Aff should probably win that there's some sort of "abuse" in order for me to reject the argument/team. That being said the neg does have to justify their actions as being legit. I don’t see a real difference between theory and topicality. Increasing specificity is also important. 
Framework- Justify it. Tell me how I should be deciding this round. Tell me why that way to evaluate it is a good idea. Tell me why the other sides framework is bad. 
Disad's: Impact them, and I don’t mean “Terrorism” or “economic decline”- I mean something terminal and comparative. I’m not opposed to less “body count” disads, but you still need to make your impact comparative. Explain why uniqueness matters (or lack there off). I'm very willing to listen to "no brink" and "no internal link" arguments as long as they’re impacted. 

K's: Admittedly most comfortable here. I need to understand, at least, the ways that the alternative interacts with case and implication (which also has to interact with the case). No, I don't think there always needs to be an "alternative" but at least tell me why what you want me to do is a good thing. K's are probably the part of debate that i'm going to be able to give you the best feedback. Perm Notes: Timeframe perms are cheating, and I’m REALLLY unsure why “Perm do the Plan” is a perm at all. Note v.2.0: I find it difficult to, in K v K rounds, articulate a decision in words used by the debaters. Many times I have tried to look for words to explain the decision and have felt like I come off as intervening. I'm still doing my best to work through these language difficulties. 

Performance/non-traditional/somethingleftythatpeopledon'twanttocallak: Do it, just tell me why you're doing it, what should I be doing. If Framework is the only thing to defend against performance in your tub, you're probably going to be behind from the start. 

A few little things. Please don't call someone else lazy- if you call another debater lazy (performance, K, policy, theory, whatever) I will drop your speaks. Just because the debater doesn’t do what you do and you lack the imaginative capacity to value the work they do doesn’t mean it’s A. not there and B. not valuable 
Bad Jokes that are reiterated in the debate community over and over again suck. 

Kathryn Rubino
USMA
Put me on the chain: kathrynrubino@gmail.com

I dislike intervening in debate rounds. I would much rather apply the criteria the debaters supply and work things out that way. As a result the final rebuttals should provide me with a clean story and a weighing mechanism. If only one side provides this I will default to their standards. If neither side does this, I’ll use my own opinions and evaluations of the round.

Simply put the debate is about impacts- weigh them, their likelihood and magnitude and we’re doing fine.

I think it is the debater’s responsibility to explain the analysis of their cards, particularly on complex positions. However, I recognize the time constraints in a round and will read cards that receive a prominent place in rebuttals. But I do not like to read piles of cards and being forced to apply my analysis to them. As a side note, I rarely flow author names so don’t just extend the author’s name- also be clear to which argument the card applies to.

I’ll listen to whatever people want to say- but you should probably know my dispositions ahead of time. Be warned however, I have voted against my preferences many times and anticipate doing it again in the future.

I like kritik/advocacy debate. That being said, I do not have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear them. Part of what makes kritiks interesting is the variety and depth of responses available. To get my vote here I generally need a clear story on the link and implication levels.

I enjoy framework debates- debating about debate is fun- and as a bonus I don’t think there are any right or wrong answers- just arguments that can be made.

I rejoice the return of topicality! And I have no problem voting on topicality, even if I don’t agree with a particular interpretation, but I do think a T story needs to be clear and technically proficient.

DAs are great, and the more case specific the better. Make sure you have a clear story and try to create distinctions between multiple end of the world scenarios if that's your thing.

I don’t mind listening to PICs or other interesting CPs, and I often feel they’re good way to test the validity of a plan. However, I am open to theoretical debate here and I’m willing to vote on it.

I will vote on the easy way out of a round- I don’t try to divine the ultimate truth of what the debaters are saying. I’m just adjudicating a game- a fun game that can teach stuff and be pretty sweet- but still a game. So enjoy your round, do your job and I will too.

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

I'm a crazy, old man.  You are strongly advised to strike me.  If that didn't convince you, I hope the following will.

While I'm pretty much willing to listen to anything, the following are my biases.  As much as I try to set aside my preferences, I'm sure they influence my understanding what teams say, what the warrants are, and ultimately my assessment of issues.

I firmly believe that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan.  I think this is the only viable way for the negative to have a chance to prepare well. If defended well, there is some chance of my voting for an aff without a plan, and the odds are a little better if the affirmative at least talks about issues related to the topic.

On topicality, I prefer a standard slightly different from reasonability and competing interpretations.  I think it should be negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better.  The best way to prove an interpretation bad for debate is limits – that the interpretation is so broad than the negative could never be thoroughly prepared to debate every possible case.

I do not think debate is role playing of federal actors.  You're you and I'm me, and there is a debate about what we think the federal government should do.  Fiat obviously doesn't assume anything really happens.  Fiat is just ignoring the question of "will" and debating "should" in order to focus the debate on the merits of the idea/ policy.

I tend to be fairly liberal on counterplans, with competition being about the only requirement.  PICs, agents, etc are fine.  There does needs to be some limit on negative fiat for agents, but that can be debated out.  Presumptively governmental actions are OK, and private actors are not.

K's and K affs with plans are fine with me.  I am not that familiar with much of the literature.  So, you should explain things thoroughly.  Ultimately, these debates become matters of what makes sense to me.

Spin, explanation, and telling a good story are crucial to winning my ballot.  Even more important is resolving arguments, and I am increasingly frustrated by debaters in rebuttals emphasizing their own arguments and never referencing opposing responses.  2NRs and 2ARs with lots of "they say…, but" references are more likely to win my ballot.

Please be clear.  Start speeches at less than full speed.  Pause a little before and slow down some on the argument tags.  I hate it when I cannot tell that a card has ended and a new argument is being made.  Please do not get quiet when reading cards.  I know this is hard for you to believe, but if you stop to breathe at punctuation marks, you will be faster and clearer than the awful double gasping that so many of you do.

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

I am still fairly new to the debate community and am continually learning. I am best suited to judge novice rounds where the speed is slower. Above all else I look for clarity, both in your speaking and in terms of the arguments you are presenting. If I cannot understand the argument, it makes it difficult for me to make a judgment on it. 

I prefer debates about policy over kritiques. I like seeing the negative pick apart the affirmative’s arguments, point out weaknesses, and propose an alternative policy with greater solvency, less disadvantages, or more efficiency. Much of this is done by using evidence but good analytics can also be valuable.

Although solving for long-term harms can provide a team with a strong argument, it is important not to neglect the immediate harms occurring in the status quo. When I do hear a kritique, this is something I keep in mind.

During CX I do take notes to help clarify points made during the speeches. It is very important to carry your CX questions into your speeches. It is hard to give an argument full weight if it is only brought up in a CX.

Introduction:

I debated for Liberty University for four years and have judged for the past two seasons. I have a B.A. in international relations and philosophy, a master’s in religion and theology, and am working on my master’s in public health with a concentration in global health policy.

Because of my diverse educational background, I feel equally at ease adjudicating policy rounds as well as those that are critically oriented. I will discuss specific strategies and positions below, but I would like to highlight two important preferences here:

First, your rebuttals must contain impact analysis. This seems rather intuitive, yet again and again I hear rebuttals that are 95% solvency and link articulations and then, with 20 seconds to go, I hear “extend the impact, causes extinction” or “causes violence.” Write down all the impacts in the round, both your impacts and those of your opponent. Ideally, the 2NR and 2AR should mention each of these impacts, elucidating why yours are more important and how they relate to those of your opponents.

Second, do not alter your strategy for my sake; do what you do best and I will adjust accordingly. If you think you are winning T, go for T. If you think the other team has severely mishandled the K, then go for the K. You can win my ballot with a lucid articulation of just about anything.

Topicality and Framework:

I believe the topic can be a strong starting point for discussion. If you – as the affirmative – believe this is not the case, then argue otherwise. If you believe that the resolution does not provide the best approach to discussing violence or oppression, by all means, offer your viewpoint on the issue. Though I am fairly lenient on what the affirmative must do, I want to make it clear that I will vote on framework if I believe the negative offers a more persuasive articulation as to why USFG action - or, in some instances, any action - is critical for education and ground....and/or the affirmative drops important arguments like topical version of the aff. 

Above all else, interact with each other’s arguments, particularly the framing issues. Yes, line by line is important and all of your opponent’s arguments should be responded to, but please remember the meta-debate that is happening here: what should the aff be doing and how does debate educate those of us who participate in this activity.

Lastly, if you are going for topicality, please explain potential aff’s the untopical aff justifies as well as what abuse as occurred. If you are answering topicality, extend a counter-interpretation. The neg’s interpretation versus no-interpretation extended by the aff almost always means a neg ballot.

K’s/Performance:

I will listen to whatever you feel best conveys your argument. If that involves singing, dancing, powerpoints, or cross-dressing, so be it. You must, however, explain the relevance of your performance to the debate round and to your argument. I am familiar with a wide swath of critical literature; however, my knowledge of Wilderson, Baudrillard, Butler, or Deleuze does not excuse you from explaining what your position is and how it provides a better method of approaching the world.

Role of the ballot: what does “role of the ballot” actually mean? So often – too often – I hear both sides advancing ROBs that are conveniently tailored to their positions. Please do more than just extend the ROB and how you meet. In fact, I would rather hear a somewhat shallow ROB extension and a more detailed discussion of why your impacts outweigh or come first. At the very least explain how the two ROBs interact and attempt to give me a reason why I should prioritize yours.

Disadvantages:

Link and impact analysis is of utmost importance. I really enjoy a good politics debate, one with ample impact analysis and specific link scenarios. Affs: you need uniqueness for that link turn. Please stop extending link turn cards without uniqueness. Also, just because you link turn doesn't mean you should forego putting defense on the DA's impact. 

I will only pull cards if they are highly contested; otherwise I go strictly on what either side has said about those cards. Reading more evidence in the block is strategic; extending the evidence by name and tag in the 2NR is not. Explain why things are true and give me warrants. The greater your specificity, the higher your speaker points will be and the more likely I will believe your scenario.

CPs:

I do not like consult CPs or CPs that compete based solely on the immediacy of the plan. Aside from that, I am open to any CP you have. In terms of theory, I view them in a similar fashion to DAs. If you win a link, but fail to articulate an impact as to why that’s bad, I will not vote for you. Spend most of your time on the impact standards if you are going for theory. As I said on T, an aff that does not extend a counter-interpretation is in trouble. Please do so.

I do not enjoy theory debates (and who does, really?), but for the umpteenth time, I will vote on persuasively articulated and impacted positions.  

Concluding thoughts:

I flow and you should do the same. I’ll know if the other team actually dropped an argument or not. I also flow cross-x, or at least things I deem important from cross-x.

I have an utmost desire to be useful and to make debate as educational a game as it can be. Over the past few years I have judged a wide array of debates and I truly enjoy the variety. Never be afraid to impact turn K’s, critique specific words, perform, or go for politics DA’s for the entire block; do what you need to do and I will give you my attention as unbiased as I possibly can. If you have any questions regarding arguments, authors, etc. feel free to talk to me. 

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

I debated for USMA for 4 years from 2004-2008. I am now a Gynecologic Surgeon. I enjoy the debate activity.

Email for round evidence chains: fairshasta@outlook.com

In summary, I will vote for anything as long as it is clearly articulated and explained to me. I do prefer that the Aff be topical, but if the Aff can demonstrate that topicality is not important better than the neg, I’m fine with voting for a non-topical aff. I also prefer to hear well articulated policy debates. Assumptions and perspective are important parts of policy making and should be debated if relevant. Good argumentation leads to good education however that may play out in the round. Do not take my leanings as an indication that any arguments are banned. This is not the case. I vote for the best argumentation, not what I agree with.

Be nice to your opponents, even if you are winning/losing badly. Debate is about exchanging ideas, so don’t get upset if someone disagrees with you. It’s sort of the point of the activity. Just debate the arguments. If you think something is immoral and that morality is important, make that argument rather than whining. People will disagree; get over it. Cross ex is binding. Don’t shout at each other or start fighting here either.

Topicality:

I think T is about competing interpretations. Impact your voters. Debaters must define what they are arguing about. Don’t be afraid to go for T, but if the Aff is doing a good job here, it may not be your best option, especially if you are winning some other position in the round.

Theory:

I like deep theory debates if relevant. Debating rules and procedure can be an important aspect of life. Reading a bunch of shells with no examples at lightning speed may not help you. Be strategic here. Tell the story, impact the voters, and cover all your bases on the flows if you are going for this.

Kritiks are just like any other argument in debate. If it is well explained, I’ll vote for it. You must defend your alternative. Tell the story. I prefer well articulated debates with clear impact analysis.

Disads:

Explain the scenario. I don’t want to see some amorphous disad throughout the round that suddenly makes sense in the 2NR. Weak disads (aka, ridiculously complex, improbable, poorly written, bad internal links) typically are not that compelling to me. Trying to win how many times the world will be annihilated based on budget rules stretches my imagination to say the least. War is miserable without needing to escalate to nuclear winter. Tell the story, win the links and uniqueness, and do some impact calculus.

Counterplans:

I like Counterplan debates. Be tight on the theory. Multiple conditional advocacies can be abusive. Gateway arguments can be abusive, but if you can win the theory args, run whatever floats your boat. I do tend to protect Affs from really abusive counterplans, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for them. Determine how you are running arguments and go for it. Wanky counterplans can be fun if you do it well.

Performance:

Fine if done well. I see many poorly constructed policy affs with improbably impact scenarios spoken at lighten speed to be a performance in some ways. Be prepared to debate the line by line. Impact the arguments. Tell the story and tell me why you win the ballot. I am not a fan of opacity. A clear exchange of ideas is important.

Years judging college: 12

Topicality: My default is that topicality is about competing interpretations of the resolution. Prove that yours is more net beneficial and provide an impact and you win the debate. I think of this as an evaluative tool for T debates and it applies to non-traditional aff's as well, unless the debaters provide me with an alternate framework. Spec args are fine also.

Theory: Love good technically proficient theory debates. Sentences like "Dispo solves the Neg's offense" are good but warranting them is even better. When I am judging a debate I always feel like it is more important to evaluate the arguments made as opposed to inserting my own personal opinion in the mix. However, when I say that to debaters they still seem to what to know what my general feeling is regarding things like Dispo and Agent CP's... So here you all go. I tend to think that Dispo is OK, Conditionality is rather shady and PICS can go either way depending on the nature of CP. Just to let you know... not a huge fan of the "Our K is a gateway arg". I think that it is often advantageous to have the groundwork for weighing the impacts to CP theory, perm theory, and alternative theory debates explicated and framed by the 1AR. This means reasons why this comes before T and warrants as to why it is a reason the reject the team and not just the arg should probably be made by that point in the debate.

Kritiks: For me, most times good critical debates that center around a position that has an alternative come down to offense (disads) to the permutation vs. in roads against the "solvability" of that alternative. I'd prefer not to feel as though I have to read a ton of your cards at the end of a round to synthesize your argument. My preference when I have to read evidence is to only read cards that is the focus of the finals rebuttals.

CP/DA: I heart a really involved DA/CP debate. I often think some of the best deployment of the DA involves interacting the disad impact with the case. Please take the time to kick them cleanly.

Framework- I really enjoy these debates. Framework debates necessitate that both teams do extremely effective impact work. My biggest suggestion when debating framework in front of me is to make sure to keep the rest of the debate in mind. How can your Aff be offensive even in a world that you are loosing a portion of the framework debate? Competitiveness- Are portions of the Neg’s framework not competitive with Aff's? How does that circumvent the Neg’s ability to garner offense off of the impacts to the framework debate?

Engaging the Resolution/Performance-  If you are a performance team with a coherent arg that in some way engages with the topic area of the resolution you are good to go. I don't need you to advocate state action, endorse fiat... but I do think the Aff should in some way engage the topic area (legalization and one of the subtopics). I really enjoy these debates when they are done well and when, at the end of the round, there is an argument that is being made. I am not the best judge for you if your strategy is to say nothing in an effort to bait the other side into being the only one who actually makes an argument. I feel as though this leads to debate that are woefully underdeveloped, frustrating, and debate only actually occurs when the final rebutalists decide to finally illuminate why they think they should win. 

Run what you want and what you feel you are good at. Speed is fine. Speed and clarity are even better :) Please remember to be polite and considerate. I know many of us tend to turn into a cracked out version of Perry Mason when the timer starts but please forgo this urge and remain civil. Answer questions in CX. Being evasive/sketchy looks bad and makes you seem unsure/insecure about your args. Make me laugh. Don't steal prep. I hate it. No, I really hate it. I feel a certain burden to protect the 2NR from new and unpredictable 2AR extrapolations and cross applications. Finally, debate is for the debaters. Take what I have said above as a guide and not the end all. If you have any questions feel free to ask me! Good luck to all and have fun!

see http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Wright,+Jason