I competed in Lincoln-Douglas for three years in high school, and Public Forum for one. I've been coaching and judging LD and PF since then.

Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm

What I Like

I've gotten a few notes from debaters that my paradigm is mostly about what I don't want to see, rather than what I do. In an attempt to remedy that, here is what I enjoy in a debate round.

Evidence Debate - I love when debaters actually engage with the internal warrants of their opponents evidence and arguments. Point out contradictions between pieces of evidence, expose evidence that is too specific or too general to apply, call out evidence that is just claims rather than warrants. Any engagement with evidence beyond "my opponent's evidence is wrong because my evidence is right" will greatly increase your chance of winning my ballot.

Meaningful Framework Debate - I love when debaters pick and choose their battles on framework and clearly impact the results of the framework debate to how I should evaluate impacts in the round. You will not lose my ballot solely for conceding your opponent's framework. Not all rounds need to have a framework debate, even with different values/value criteria, if those frameworks evaluate impacts in roughly the same way or if both debaters have the same impacts in the round (eg, people dying). Debaters who recognize that and focus on the areas of framework that will actually change how I judge arguments, then follow up with an explanation of what I should look for in evaluating the round based on that change will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Internal Consistency - I love when debaters commit to their positions. Many arguments, especially the more unusual philosophical arguments require commitment to a whole host of concomitant beliefs and positions. Embrace that. If someone points out that utilitarianism requires defending the interests of the majority over the minority, be willing to defend that position. If someone points out that Kantianism doesn't permit you to lie to a murderer, don't backtrack - explain it. Don't be afraid to say that extinction does not outweigh everything else. Conversely, if you argue that prediction of the future is impossible in order to answer consequentialism and then cite scientific authors to support your claims, I will be much less likely to believe your position. A debater who is committed and consistent in their ethical position will have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Argument by Analogy - I love when debaters use analogies to explain or clarify their own positions, or to expose inconsistencies, absurd statements or flaws in their opponents arguments. I think analogies are underutilized as a method of analytical argumentation and debaters willing to use analogies to explain or undermine arguments have a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Comparative Weighing - I love when debaters specifically compare impacts when weighing in the round. Rarely does a debater win every single argument in the round and weighing significantly assists me in making a decision when there are multiple impacts for both sides. While I like weighing arguments in the vein of "This argument outweighs all others in the round" more than no weighing at all, a more specific and nuanced analysis along the lines of "this argument outweighs that argument for these reasons" (especially when it explains the weighing in the specific context of the framework) will give a debater a much better chance of winning my ballot.

Disclosure

I don't want to be on the email chain/speech drop/whatever. Debate is a speaking activity, not an essay writing contest. I will judge what you say, not what's written in your case. The only exception is if there is an in-round dispute over what was actually said in a case/card in which case I will ask to see evidence after the round.

Timing

You are welcome to time yourself but I will be timing you as well. Once my timer starts, it will not stop until the time for a given speech has elapsed. You may do whatever you like with that time, but I will not pause the round for tech issues. Tech issues happen and you need to be prepared for them.

Speed

I prefer a slower debate, I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable and the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak. If I miss an argument, then you didn't make it.

Flex Prep

No. There is designated CX time for a reason. You can ask for evidence during prep, but not clarification.

LARP - Please don't. Discussion of policy implications is necessary for some topics, but if your case is 15 seconds of "util is truetil" and 5:45 of a hyperspecific plan with a chain of 5 vague links ending in two different extinction impacts, I'm not going to be a fan. Realistically speaking, your links are speculative, your impacts won't happen, and despite debaters telling me that extinction is inevitable for 15+ years, it still hasn't happened. Please debate the topic rather than making up your own (unless you warrant why you can do that, in which case, see pre-fiat kritiks). If there is no action in the resolution, you can't run a plan. If there is no action, don't a-spec. If you want to debate policy, do policy debate. As with other arguments, I will evaluate a LARP round but will have a low-threshold to vote on evidentiary arguments, link/brink severance, and framework exclusion.

Evidence Ethics

I will intervene on evidence ethics if I determine that a card is cut in such a way as to contradict or blatantly misrepresent what an author says, even if no argument is made about this in the round. I have no patience for debaters who lie about evidence. Good evidence is not hard to find, there's no need to make it up and doing so simply makes debate worse for everyone.

Arguments

Role of the Ballot: A role of the ballot argument will only influence how I vote on pre-fiat, not post-fiat argumentation. It is not, therefore, a replacement for a framework, unless your entire case is pre-fiat, in which case see "pre-fiat kritiks". A role of the ballot must have a warrant. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression" is a statement not an argument. You will need to explain why that is the role of the ballot and why it is preferable to "better debater". Please make the warrant specific to debate. "The role of the ballot is fighting oppression because oppression is bad" doesn't tell me why it is specifically the role of this ballot to fight oppression. I have a low threshold for voting against roles of the ballot with no warrants. I will default to a "better debater" role of the ballot.

Theory: Please reserve theory for genuinely abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I am willing to vote on RVIs if they are made, but I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge in intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Pre-fiat Kritiks: I am very slow to pull the trigger on most pre-fiat Ks. Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world or in debate. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the affirmative", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts. That said, I will vote on pre-fiat Ks - a good metric for my preference is whether your link is specific to the aff's performance in this round or if it could link to any affirmative case on the topic (or any topic). If you're calling out specific parts of the affirmative performance, that's fine.

Post-fiat Kritiks: Run anything you want. I do like alts to be a little more fleshed out than "reject the resolution", and have a low threshold for voting for no solvency arguments against undeveloped alts.

Topicality: Totally fine to run. I have a slight bias towards genericist positions over specificist ones, eg "a means any" rather than "a means one".

Politics Disadvantages: Please don't. If you absolutely must, you need to prove A: The resolution will occur now. B: The affirmative must defend a specific implementation of the topic. C:The affirmative must defend a specific actor for the topic. Without those three interps, I will not vote on a politics DA because it doesn't link to the aff.

Narratives: Fine, as long as you preface with a framework which explains why and how narratives impact the round and tell me how to evaluate it.

Conditionality: I'm permissive but skeptical of conditional argumentation. A conditional argument cannot be kicked if there are turns on it, and I will not vote on contradictory arguments, even if they are conditional. So don't run a cap K and an econ disad. You can't kick out of discourse impacts because performance cannot be erased.

Word PICs: I don't like word PICs. I'll vote on them if they aren't effectively responded to, but I don't like them. I believe that they drastically decrease clash and cut affirmative ground by taking away unique affirmative offense.

Presumption - I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to risk of offense.

Pessimistic Ks - Generally not a fan. I find it difficult to understand why they should motivate me to vote for one side over another, even if the argument is true and the alts are often unclear. I will vote on them but run at your own risk.

Ideal Theory - If you want to run an argument about "ideal theory" (eg Curry 14) please understand what ideal theory is in the context of philosophy. It has nothing to do with theory in debate terms, nor is it just a philosophy which is idealistic. If you do not specify I will assume that you mean that ideal theory is full-compliance theory.

Disclosure - I will not vote on disclosure arguments. I don't believe that disclosure as a norm is beneficial to debate and I see it used to exclude non-circuit debaters far more often than I see debaters who are genuinely unable to engage because they could not predict their opponent's arguments.

Framework - Please have an actual warrant for your framework. If your case reads "My standard is util, contention 1" I will evaluate it, but have a very low threshold to vote against it, like any claim without a warrant. I will not evaluate pre-fiat framework warrants; eg, "Util is preferable because it gives equal ground to both sides". Read the philosophy and make an actual argument. See the section on theory - there are no theory-based framework warrants I consider reasonable.

Speaker Points

Since I've gotten some questions about this..

I judge on a 5 point scale, from 25-30.

25 is a terrible round, with massive flaws in speeches, huge amounts of time left unused, blatantly offensive things said or other glaring rhetorical issues.

26 is a bad round. The debater had consistent issues with clarity, time management, or fluency which make understanding or believing the case more difficult.

27.5 is average. Speaker made no large, consistent mistakes, but nevertheless had persistent smaller errors in fluency, clarity or other areas of rhetoric.

28.5 is above average. Speaker made very few mistakes, which largely weren't consistent or repeated. Speaker was compelling, used rhetorical devices well.

30 is perfect. No breaks in fluency, no issues with clarity regardless of speed, very strong use of rhetorical devices and strategies.

Argumentation does not impact how I give speaker points. You could have an innovative, well-developed case with strong evidence that is totally unresponded to, but still get a 26 if your speaking is bad.

While I do not take points off for speed, I do take points off for a lack of fluency or clarity, which speed often creates.

Please please please cut cards with complete, grammatically correct sentences. If I have to try to assemble a bunch of disconnected sentence fragments into a coherent idea, your speaker points will not be good.

Judging style

If there are any aspects of the debate I look to before all others, they would be framework and impact analysis. Not doing one or the other or both makes it much harder for me to vote for you, either because I don't know how to evaluate the impacts in the round or because I don't know how to compare them.

Public Forum Paradigm

Frameworks

I default to an "on balance" metric for evaluating and comparing impacts. I will not consider unwarranted frameworks, especially if they are simply one or two lines asserting the framework without even attempting to justify it.

Topicality

I will evaluate topicality arguments, though only with the impact "ignore the argument", never "drop the team".

Theory

Yes, I understand theory. No, I don't want to hear theory in a PF round. No, I will not vote on a theory argument.

Counterplans

No. Neither the pro nor the con has fiat.

Kritiks

No. Kritiks only function under a truth-testing interpretation of the con burden, I only use comparative worlds in Public Forum.

Burden Interpretations

The pro and the con have an equal and opposite burden of proof. Because of limited time and largely non-technical nature of Public Forum, I consider myself more empowered to intervene against arguments I perceive as unfair or contrary to the rules or spirit of Public Forum debate than I might be while judging LD or Policy.

I'm a coach and a relatively new judge.

My paradigm falls primarily into speaking skills/communications.

I'm not impressed with spread. I am impressed with clarity and good arguments.

I like road maps and voters.

Former debater, favor traditional LD.

Don't spread, focus on the argument your opponent has offered and respond.

I don't score CX. Please use it for clarification and to better understand your opponent's position.

Rude or inappropriate behavior will lose you the round. I have 0 tolerance for bullying or belligerence.

Ancient, "old school" judge not interested in judgement nor opinion. Words like 'bad' or 'good' will leave me unimpressed.

I rely on you to tell me people's names, keep time so I can enjoy the debate and wait for me to get ready before you start.

You win valuable points with me if you:
Craft an opening statement that leaves the opposing side dumbfounded or at least momentarily stunned, and is so reasonable and logical that constituents can hardly keep from yelling,"Amen!" Anyone who checkmates the opposing resolve with their opening statement gets a standing ovation.
Are mindful of your audience and use creative expression in combination with a confident argument, keep your point simple - you needn't quickly rattle off 20 cards for just one of your points. We needn't beat a dead horse to death.
Don't just answer the questions..address questioners concerns quickly, with facts (not your opinion) that we all expect you to use..then surprise us by taking every opportunity to shoot down the opposing resolve. Yes, I know rebuttals are not really graded as part of the debate, but shouldn't you take all the air time you can to support your side?

How I Grade the Debate

Everyone starts with 27.5. I expect everyone to meet each others arguments tit for tat. If you actually don't address a point (which is pretty rare) - you lose half a point for each unaddressed issue. If you miss an opportunity to use an opponent's own argument against them you drop .5 point. If you use an opponents argument against them --well I love that -- you get a whole point added. If you resort to making statements like "good", "bad" or "well it just makes sense" - without a card pointing to just how much sense it makes.. you lose .5.

Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

Put me in email chains or feel free to email me questions: JamieSuzDavenport@Gmail.com

I probably need to do an overhaul of my paradigm; it will likely not happen until I'm out of grad school. Seriously just AMA if it will help you going into the round.

Experience:

MPA-MSES @ IU Dec ’23, hoo hoo hoo Hoosiers. GA since '21. Please note this is an environmental science degree. I have a very low tolerance for climate denial or global warming good and would recommend not going for those args.

BA: IR, Fr, Arabic @ Samford, May ’20, ruff ‘em, CX and novice coaching

HS: LD in GA, ‘16

Misc

A note: I won't read cards unless instructed or seeking clarity (and if this is the case, I will be grumpy). All comments will be typed in the ballot and am open to questions immediately following the round and via email afterward. I do my best not to intervene or let personal biases cloud my judgment. I do have a deep appreciation for friendly competition and will generally be happier while giving out speaks or making decisions if I think the people in the round embodied that spirit. Conversely, am not afraid to have a come-to-Jesus meeting for unnecessary antagonism.

For eTournaments: I'll need a little more time than normal to adjust to your style of speaking/spreading because online anything gets tricky. Try to keep that in mind for your speeches so my ears can adjust. I'll default to having my camera on.

Zoom debate: PLEASE double-check your mic settings so that background noise suppression is not on. Zoom decides that spreading is background noise and it messes with the audio.

Overall:

Do what you want. I'm pretty go-with-the-flow and will try to adapt to what the round is versus making you adapt to me. The main thing to consider with me is my personal debate experience and potential knowledge gaps because of it. I'm not a great judge for high theory because I simply don't get it and it takes more explaining for me to understand and take it seriously (@ Baudrillard, semio-cap, etc.). There's some k lit that I'm not fully versed in but I try to keep current on major issues. Otherwise go nuts but make good choices.

2AR/NR: I more and more find myself telling debaters to tell me a story so I think I should put it in here. Whether you're going for a K, FW, DAs, extinction - whatever - start the speech telling me what your scenario is and why it's preferable to the other team. This is especially true if going for a perm or in a KvK debate, having a nuanced explanation clearly at the top of the speech frames the rest of the lbl and interactions you go for.

This was formerly organized by each event that I judge but that was getting unmanageable and ugly. If you have specific questions about anything event-specific or otherwise, just email or ask before the round starts.

Theory

Topicality/FW - I'll default that fairness is k2 education – if you want a different standard to be my primary metric, just tell me to do the thing. Might need more explanation of how I can apply the standard but that’s mostly for the atypical ones. Err on the side of over-explaining everything. Please please please explain your (counter)interp and what standards I should apply to favor yours - if there are a bunch of standards, which one do I evaluate first? Why? To reiterate: err on the side of over-explaining everything.

Fiat - I'll imagine it's real for policy v policy debates but more than willing to be sus of it, just tell me why.

Condo – dispo is an archaic interp and I think you can get better offense from other brightlines (2, what they did minus 1, etc.). I’ll vote on dispo but it’ll take more for you to win it than you need to do. Generally, think condo gets to its extremes when in the 3-4+ area, but new affs could change that yadda yadda, do what you want.

Other theory – whatever, just make the interp/counter-interp clear and tell me what to do with it.

RVI’s – please strike me or pref me real real low if this is your thing. I just don’t like it. This is one of if not the only hard-line I draw on content. They’re a time suck to play weird chess instead of engaging in the substance of the debate. Also, the majority of the time, horribly explained/extended.

Content

No huge preferences here

Cross-ex - I don’t flow cx unless something spicy grabs my attention and it’s usually obvious when that happens based on my reaction. Bring it up in a speech to remind me. Open cross, flex prep, is fine – I for real check out for flex prep.

Card clipping – you’ll lose. Might report it to tab/your coach if I’m feeling zesty that day.

Silliness

Love a good joke, wordplay, or reference. I currently am trying to incorporate “slay”, “yeehaw”, “gaslight gatekeep girlboss” and more into my regular debate vernacular. Feel free to also use these and I’ll at least laugh, maybe boost speaks, who knows – depends on how much of a silly goofy mood I’m in.

Congressional Debate:

I have judged and/or been parliamentarian at local, regional and national tournaments, including Isidore Newman, Durham Academy, the Barkley Forum and and Harvard. My students have found success at both the national and state levels.

POs- I default to you. Remember, your tone as PO has a big influence on tone of the chamber. Be efficient, clear and consistent and have fun.

As far as the round and debate within the round, consistency is important to me. The way you speak and vote on one piece of legislation should most indeed influence your position on similar limitation unless you tell me otherwise. Debate and discourse does not exist in a vacuum.

Acting/characterization is fine as long as there is a reason and has a positive impact.

Finding a balance of logos, ethos and pathos is important. Difficult to accomplish in three minutes? Absolutely. The balance is what gets my attention.

I'll be honest. I don't like when debate jargon leaks into the chamber. SQUO, affirmative/negative, counterplan, link/turn, etc. This event is it's own unique event with norms.

Additionally, Student Congress is not Extemp-lite. If you are trying for three points in a speech, how do I know what to focus on? If everything is equally important then nothing is important. Take a stance, go for the impact and make the balance between logic and emotional to persuade. Include previous debate points, elucidate your point of view and have fun.

I was an LD/Congress debater for three years (2016-2019) and mostly competed at local tournaments, but I have experience with bid/national circuit tournaments as well. I'm pretty much here because of a combination of nostalgia and an obligation to give back to an activity that gave me so much.

Some wisdom looking back:

Don't be afraid to take up space. What you have to say matters! That being said, you can be assertive without putting down your opponent.

Debate about what you care about! Do you care about women's issues? Climate change? Access to healthcare? Find a way to relate the topic to what you deeply care about. It will make research so much more interesting and will often result in unique arguments that can be strategically favorable.

Vestavia Hills '19

Berry College '22

she/her (they/them pronouns are ok)

Email: snelson001923@gmail.com Feel free to email me for whatever, my debate resources (though not many) are your resources. I'm always down to chat about science, medicine, and environmentalism :)

Online Tournaments: Speech docs are a must!! Even if you’re not spreading, I probably won’t be able to hear you as clearly as you'd like; I've heard plenty of rounds where someone was cutting out every few seconds.

I think defaulting to they/them pronouns for everyone in the round is a pretty good practice (but not a voting issue). If you prefer something else, let me know or put your pronouns in your tabroom profile.

Any argument that I deem racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, ableist etc. will result in an immediate drop. Debate and civil discourse often excludes the voices of disadvantaged groups, and arguments like these can further deter people of these groups from participating. I default to viewing the round as a microcosm of real public policy-making/discourse, so it should be a model of respect and tolerance despite the poor example set for us by current politicians.

Plagiarism or cutting cards in a way that changes their meaning (i.e. cutting out the word NOT from a sentence) will result in an automatic loss no matter what happened on the flow if I discover it. Less blatantly incorrect but still deceptive cutting will result in me not evaluating the card in the round and a possible reduction in speaker points. If you go for evidence ethics and lose it, I won't automatically vote you down, but I'll probably lower your speaks.

PF

I've only seriously debated PF at one (online) tournament, so take that as you will. I'm not 100% on the norms as far as what counts as a dropped arg (like how much you have to do on your own case in 2nd rebuttal), so I'll let the debaters set their own norms for these and tell me why making an argument at a certain point is abusive or not.

General Stuff:

Unless I'm told to do otherwise, I'll just evaluate under util. I'll have a high threshold to be persuaded to use another fw.

COLLAPSE AND WEIGH! I hate looking at a flow with 5 contentions where cards are pretty much at a deadlock and having to decide who won.

Evidence: Paraphrasing is ok as long as cards are available. If the entire round ends up being hinged on a card or two, then I might call for them before I write my ballot. If a team fails to present me or their opponents with a card within one minute of it being called for, I won't consider the evidence.

Long rant about progressive args:

It seems like PF is following the trend of other debate events in that is getting more and more tech. I've run Ks at an online PF tournament just for fun, but whether this kind of debate should become a norm in public forum is a difficult question to answer for me. For now, I'll set these standards:

Feel free bring up issues such as structural violence and even introduce framing that is not simply a "cost-benefit analysis", but I won't weigh it entirely before substance like "pre fiat impacts" usually are in tech rounds. If you don't read this and do run a K, I'll just weigh it like a contention and there will be a high threshold for me to weigh it first (it pretty much has to be completely conceded and extended cleanly). Also, I'll be more likely to evaluate Ks like set col, afro pessimism, fem, etc because I think that these are actually issues that policymakers should consider in real life. Ks like baudrillard or anprim won't get my vote in these rounds. I won't vote on tricks in actual PF rounds. I don't really see how tricks benefit policymaking skills, which is supposed to be the point of PF. For theory, I won't weigh theory that is frivolous or dumb (shoe theory, cough cough). If the violating school is not on the wiki, I will not evaluate disclosure interps. Running disclosure on teams that don't even know that the wiki exists is horrible for small schools. If there is clear abuse in the round (like running a plan or counterplan or some other arg that inherently limits your ability to respond, including Ks and tricks), I'll weigh theory against that pretty heavily because it's the only way to check back on that abuse.

LD

I started LD at my school really just so that I wouldn't have to debate with a partner, but I ultimately fell in love with all of the layers and intricacies of LD rounds. Stock rounds are fine; they're more accessible, after all. But really, I love the meta aspect of LD that allows us to take a step back and address the assumptions that shape the round and our world through kritiks or theory. Also, introducing layers just makes my job as a judge easier most of the time.

General (if you don't want to spend forever reading all of my ramblings, just read this section)

Quick Pref Guide:

LARP: 1

Theory (basic): 1

Ks (in the direction of the topic): 2

Trad: 2/3

Tricks: 3

Ks (identity, hostage taking, not intrinsic to the topic): 3/4

Phil: 4 (dumb it down for me)

High Theory: 5/strike

I'll weigh T>theory>K>case (this is pretty basic, there will be rare instances where this differs based on how bad the top layer was or if I'm persuaded that one layer has more out of round impacts).

Tech>Truth

Please give me an off-time roadmap and signpost! Taking a couple of extra seconds can be the difference between me voting on your argument and me not even being able to put it on the flow.

Speed: If you're spreading or basically spreading under the guise of "speaking fast", just be safe and make an email chain. That way, there's no question of whether I can clearly hear and evaluate your arguments. The last thing I want is to have to leave things off my flow because I couldn't understand what you were saying.

CX: BINDING!! But also, I think it’s kinda a weak arg if you use something vaguely implied in cross as a link.

On progressive args: Accessibility to debate is (believe it or not) pretty important. Lincoln Douglas in Alabama has been slowly dying (and limited to only a few schools), while other events (PF, Congress, IEs), have generally been doing pretty well. The reason for this is that LD is inherently less accessible; the layering permitted in LD rounds requires a lot of education and resources that many debaters do not have. LD is cool in that you get to run this obscure stuff, but the point of LD is to DEBATE, as it is called Lincoln Douglas DEBATE. If you're debating against someone who has less resources and had no means to learn how to respond to these args, running tricks or high theory is going to make for an extremely unproductive round. Being able to LARP debate is still a very important and foundational skill (even if it seems like it's not because it's usually the bottom layer). If you can't get a ballot in a LARP round in this context, then you probably didn't deserve it from me in the first place. If you make it so that the other side cannot engage, I'll dock your speaks (think like 26 max), and you can say goodbye to a speaker award or a good seed for break rounds.

LARP

I was a big LARPer in high school (really because I wasn't taught much outside of LARP debate and learned more about the other stuff as a judge). If you want to limit the chance of me screwing you over with my decision, a LARP round is probably the way to go.

In LD, framework is key. It tells me how to evaluate the round, so take time to explain why I should prefer your value/value criterion/ROTB and why your case fulfills it. I would prefer that your criterion has an author explaining why it achieves your value, but if it doesn't, I'll buy analytical arguments. I'll default to util until I'm given any other fw.

CPs: I loved running these and would pretty much have an obscure CP for every topic in high school. But, there is a difference between an obscure advocacy and an abusive one. I'm very likely to prefer theory if it's run well against a PIC or conditional CP.

Plans: If your plan does not maintain the original intent of the resolution or is extra-topical, I'll prefer good theory from the neg. Keep in mind that I'm relatively a stickler for topicality, but spec as long as it fulfills the res is fine.

Disads: Don't be sloppy with the links. Tell me why you o/w on magnitude/probability.

Kritiks

I think that Ks are a very important aspect of debate in that we get to dig deeper and question the underlying societal assumptions that inform public policy making and debate. I am more familiar some of the more common ones (capitalism, biopower, anthro, afro-pessimism, queer-pessimism, fem, security etc.) I'll also vote on hostage taking/satire if extended throughout as long as the other side doesn't point out a perf con (that's the biggest weakness I see in those rounds) or have a good turn etc. Don't assume that I'm familiar with some obscure K. If you want to run something that is not on this list, PLEASE ask me about it before round. This is basically me saying that it's your responsibility to make sure that I will be able to vote on what you read. Also, I'm probably not the best person to judge a K vs K round. Because I believe that it is the affirmative's duty to be topical, it'll be hard for you to make me evaluate some K affs, but if you've learned anything from reading this, I don't have a lot of black and white rules for how a debate should go. I'll ultimately weigh the round based on the rules that are established by the debaters, so see theory below.

Performance/identity Ks are cool, but again I'd prefer that you in some way link your advocacy to the topic if you're running these on the AFF, but I won't gut check non-intrinsic K affs. Don't just go up there and read a story or say "because I'm ___ vote for me" (it has happened). Explain how my vote actually indicates a paradigm shift. Reading these well is probably one of the best ways to get high speaks from me.

If you're going for the K, the method will be under harsh scrutiny. I'm super sympathetic to charity cannibalism args against id pol Ks, especially if you don't identify with the group that is the subject of the K. Shouldn't have to be said but just... don't exploit people's suffering for the ballot.

Theory

I'm a lot better versed in theory than I am in Ks. I like it a lot more than most debaters probably, but that doesn't mean that I love friv theory. See below:

Theory serves as a check on abuse in the round and is also important in terms of setting norms for debate as an activity. Theory is not something that should just be thrown at any argument for which you didn't prep or used as a weapon to waste your opponent's time by forcing them to respond to it in the next speech. If your opponent goes for the RVI in those cases, I'll probably give it to them. That being said, I don't know why so many judges hate RVIs, but I'm often willing to vote on them to deter frivolous theory. If your opponent calls for competing interps, you'd better have a counter-interp because lack of one can easily become a voting issue. I don't really prefer education or fairness, so feel free to run either. I'm more likely to buy "drop the argument", but if initiating theory required you to drop other substance in the round, feel free to run "drop the debater". Spikes are fine; I don't love them because they're kind of abusive, so any response to them at all by the other side will require you to spend some actual time explaining why the spike is good for debate in your next speech.

Things I want to see eventually if I'm going to evaluate theory as the top layer in the debate:

-An interp stating what debaters SHOULD do (not what they should not do)

-A clear violation linking specifically to what your opponent read

-A couple standards listing problems that the abuse causes/exacerbates in the round and how this practice prevents fairness and/or education

-Voters/paradigm issues: Tell me WHY promoting fairness or education is a prereq to the rest of the flow. Tell me whether I should drop the debater or the argument (drop the debater needs some kind of justification for why this abuse requires a deterrent that severe). I default to reasonability if nothing is specified but have a low threshold for evaluating competing interps.

Interps that I'll be especially sympathetic to:

-Any T framework

-Spec Good/Bad (nebel)

-PICs bad

-Condo bad

-no Alts bad

-severance perms bad

-NIBs bad

Tricks

If you're running tricks and say "what's an a priori", minus two speaks.

Tricks are pretty much dependent on truth testing framing (trying to make tricks a voting issue with comparative worlds framing is dumb, don't do it), so they're not as infallible as they may seem. I'll be receptive to tricks, but if you're debating against someone who knows what they're doing, you'll probably just end up kicking them and you will have really just wasted your own speech time. I'm not a big fan of NIBs, but I can't say that I'm not partially here to be entertained, so if you make the round entertaining with tricks or just anything unexpected, that'll be reflected in your speaker points. At the same time, if you're a big school debater running these against a small school debater or novice who doesn't even know what they are, your speaks will be docked a bit (see LD general).

Speaks

+0.3 for running something fem

-0.5 for disrespectful expressions while your opponent is speaking (I see this a lot between partners in PF)

+0.2 for a good pun (limited to only one addition of 0.2 points, please don't make me cringe)

+0.4 for some (ACCURATE) chemistry explanation. This would be cool, but you'd also probably waste some time doing this if you're going for the ballot. If you just want speaks, this is an easy bonus. I have had someone take advantage of this once, and it made my day.

-0.5 if it's pretty clear that you have no idea what your cards actually say

-1 if you're a big school debater and try to tell a small school debater what's good for them

*See LD General about progressive args and speaks

Points can be added subjectively for how entertained I was by your speeches.

If you have any questions about what to run, feel free to ask me before the round.

Update for judging: Been out of debate for a while now, learning the topic lit as I go. This means be clearer on args for evidence or stuff like acronyms. Don't make the mistake of thinking I know what you know. That being said, if you're gonna spread start slower than normal and don't max yourself out.

Note for Online: Try and use a good mic if you can, and slow down on analytics. Send an email chain anyways (jaypatel26687@gmail.com)

I've done both national circuit and traditional debate, so I'm cool with either style. That being said, I do like circuit debate more. Be accommodating plz and don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. because that's bad and I will talk to your coach.

I'm cool with anything, run what you want and make arguments that you want to make. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible and on that note, I won't do work for you. If the argument is important, address it as such, if [x] is critical, tell me why. Impact and warrant out arguments, far too many debaters aren't doing this. AND PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WEIGH BETWEEN ARGS. Other than that, if you have specific questions ask me in round and I'd be more than happy to answer them.

Quick list of what debate I'm good at judging:

1 - LARP/Trad

2 - K (like the generics (i.e cap, biopower, fem, etc...))

3 - Theory/T (Run it if you want, but just know the more frivolous it is, the more I'll lower my threshold for responses)

4 - K (the less known ones are fine, but you're gonna have to explain the warrants and links a lot more and I mean A LOT more, if I can't understand the K or its implications in round, I won't vote on it. I don't want to discourage you from it, but be wary.)

5 - Trix (I've run them and I know what they are and can evaluate them, I just don't like to)

How to get high speaks:

Be clear, be funny (work in a good South Park reference and I'll add a point)

"If you are clearly better than your opponent and it is obvious that you are winning the round, please, dear lord, do not use all of your speech time just because you have the time- win the round and sit down so we can have a discussion and make it more educational than just you repeating conceded arguments for 13 minutes." ~ Stephen Scopa

How to get low speaks:

Be a dick

The Long Version (written while I had absolutely many, many better things to do)

Trad

- Unless you have some weird framework links/implications 99% of trad rounds end with util v util frameworks where far too much time is spent. If you realize you have the same or even similar framework as your opponent, it's fine to drop a framework. I feel like people don't really know this, but it saves time for you.

- Substance > V/VC Debate

LARP

- CPs, ADV/DAs, Plans, PICs, etc. this is my bread and butter and what I used to do a lot of while I debated.

- These rounds are won with good evidence AND good analysis, one will not cover for the other, but that being said Evidence > Analytics

- WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH WEIGH

- Be smart in your rebuttals, proper time allocation and a good collapse are key

- I'll listen to impact turns, use them well

Kritiks

- I'll likely have some familiarity with the lit base (refer to the examples above) but don't assume I know everything. It's your job to make things clear for me. If I can't understand it, I won't vote on it

- Contextualize the links to the aff, generic stuff like "state bad" isn't horrible, but just put the effort in and find a specific link

- ROB v FW weighing is super important here, win this you'll probably win the round

Theory/T

- Defaults: Competing interps, drop the debater, rvis, fairness and education are voters

- The more frivolous the shell, the lower my bar for responses (imo just use a good reasonability dump and the shell should lose every time)

- Send counter interps/interps, and slow down for standard names

- Do some standard weighing please

- Paragraph theory is lame :(

Trix

- Ehhhh..... I don't want to judge this, but I will if I have to

- Make sure all your stuff is delineated and just admit to what you're doing (it's easier on all of us) instead of being shifty is cross

- Extensions are gonna have to be really good, explain the implication of x spike in the speech and make sure you're slow enough that I can flow it

RAP Paradigm:

Clash. Most importantly, I value clash rather than distracters or debate "theory." For all forms of debate, clash is essential; beyond initial presentation of cases, "canned" or pre-prepared speeches are counterproductive. It's much more helpful to pay attention, and react, to your opponent's arguments than to be writing your next speech during the round.

Evidence. I prioritize proof. Therefore, I value evidence over unsubstantiated opinion or theory, and I especially value evidence from quality sources. Be sure that (i) your evidence is from a quality source, (ii) your evidence actually says what you claim it does, and (iii) you are not omitting conditions, limitations, or contrary conclusions within your evidence. Please do not present evidence from biased sources, e.g., don't quote from Osama bin Laden or Fox "News."

Delivery. I debated back in the day when delivery mattered. Persuasion is still key, so if you are monotone, turn your back, or never bother with eye contact, your speaker points will likely suffer accordingly. You may speak quickly, but you must be clear, particularly with contentions. Eye contact and a well-organized, well-documented case are much appreciated. Always bear in mind that you’re trying to persuade the judge(s), not your opponent(s) or your computer, and focus accordingly.

Weighing arguments. I don’t weigh all arguments equally. You can spread if you want, but the decision will go to the team that carries the majority of the most-substantive issues with greater impacts. I appreciate public-policy arguments (vs. theory), especially if they relate to law (e.g., the Constitution), economics, international trade (e.g., the WTO), international relations (e.g., the UN or international law), or government policy.

Organization. This is essential. Off-time roadmaps are okay. I try to flow carefully. Please structure your case with numbered/lettered points and sub-points because this is not only easier to follow but also better for you. When refuting arguments, please cross-refer to your opponent(s) case structure (preferably by number/letter) and be very organized for me to keep track. When refuting an argument, don't waste time by repeating it extensively and thereby reinforcing it.

Resolutions. Please debate the resolutions. Thought has gone into these and their specific wording. Regardless of the form of debate, I prefer that students debate the resolution, and I am not a fan of “Kritiks,” “Alts,” or the like. Whatever the rubric or euphemism, if they relate specifically to the topic, okay, but if they are generic or primarily distractive, I may disregard them. In any event, they are no excuse for failing to deal with the current resolution, for failing to clash with the other side’s specific arguments, or for failing to organize your own points with a clear structure.

Ridiculous rulemaking. Please spare me any “observation” or “framework” that attempts to narrow the resolution or to impose all of the burden on your opponent(s) (e.g., “Unless the other side carries every issue, I win the debate”).

Other pet peeves. These include: not standing during speeches, not using all of your time (particularly during speeches but also during questioning) answering for your partner, claiming that you proved something without reading evidence, claiming evidence says something it doesn’t, rudeness, speaking faster than you can organize thoughts, failing to clash, forgetting that debate is ultimately about persuasion, debating during prep time (or after the round has ended), or asserting without specificity that "We won everything" or "They dropped everything," etc. Also, avoid hyperbole: not every issue leads to “global thermonuclear war”.

Feedback. Some students find my feedback very helpful. Even if you don’t, it’s not a time for arguing against the decision or for being disrespectful, which is counterproductive with me.

Questioning. If you want to improve as a debater--at any level--the biggest bang for your buck is to prepare effective questions. Yes, that means having a list of sequential questions prepared in advance, based on anticipated arguments; you can clash by selecting from among these as well as developing additional questions in round.

My background. I was a Policy debater who also competed in Congress, Extemp, and OO. I’ve coached PF primarily and judge L-D predominantly. I am an international business attorney and former law school professor, with a background in Economics and experience working on Capitol Hill. I also teach and tutor AP courses such as History and ELA as well as SAT (Reading/Writing); words matter.

The above thoughts apply to all forms of debate. I judge a fair amount, primarily PF and L-D. (I try not to judge Policy because I still value persuasive delivery; exchanging cases is no substitute for that.) Below are some thoughts specific to those types of debate:

PF—

--I prefer line-by-line refutation. I am not a fan of dropping or conceding arguments. I do not appreciate attempts to reduce the debate to “voters,” ignoring other arguments. This is particularly inappropriate when done during your side’s three-minute speech.

--No “scripted” speeches after the initial presentations of cases. Clash is key.

--Framework is optional, not essential. It may not be used to narrow the resolution.

--Even though you are not required to present a plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

--Do not waste my time, and try to extend yours, by overindulging in asking for evidence.

--I'm not a fan of "frontloading," and it makes no sense whatsoever to do so in the 2AC when your side is the first to speak.

--Remember that “There is no presumption or burden of proof in Public Forum Debate”.

--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.

L-D—

--I am not a fan of abstract philosophy. Any philosophical presentation must be tied specifically to the resolution and not presented in a generic vacuum. The trite pain/pleasure quote is seldom on point and time better spent elsewhere.

--I don’t necessarily weigh framework over contentions. In fact, quite the contrary.

--Your value and criterion should work with your contentions. Ideally, in discussing the relative merits of each side’s framework, explain specifically why your choice is more relevant rather than relying on a circular “chicken and egg” analysis (e.g., “My value comes before her value”).

--Leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in the Neg Constructive for refutation; not doing this is the biggest reason why Negs lose in L-D. Likewise, I'm not a fan of "frontloading" in the 1AR anyway, and do so at your peril unless you leave plenty of time (e.g., 2 1/2 minutes or more) in that speech for refutation.

--I flow crossfire and highly value pointed, yes/no-type questions; if your opponent is giving a speech rather than asking a question, you may politely interrupt.

--Even though you are not required to present a formal, detailed plan, that can’t be used as a knee-jerk response to all arguments or questions concerning Solvency or Topicality.

I've competed in all forums of debate and most of the individual events, but I spent an overwhelming majority of my time in Lincoln Douglas. I have degrees in international affairs and economics, and am currently in a master's program for data analytics. I am happy to walk through any questions you have after the round and enjoy giving detailed RFDs to help debaters perfect their arguments.

General preferences: I value both traditional and progressive debate, and tend to enjoy a blend of the two more than just one over the other. I prefer quality over quantity, so don't just throw evidence at me without analysis.I judge solely off of what is said in round during speeches. I suggest you give me voters if you want me to pick out something specific, but major arguments and key points are up to my discretion. I generally vote on impact calculations and am pretty strict when it comes to links to your impacts, so make sure you're clear about those.

Spreading: I want to see a good debate. If you find you're backing your opponent into a corner, don't continue to beat them down by spreading. I don't believe this is a healthy behavior in general and is certainly not conducive to education through debate. For this reason, I discourage all out spreading in LD. LD is about analysis and application of evidence which is hardly done properly speaking at 1000 wpm, but I will be able to understand you.

Cross ex: I don't flow cross ex (or pay attention to it at all), so if you say something that you want me to pay attention to, you need to repeat it in a speech.

Affirmative Burden: I believe the affirmative has the burden of proof. Normally (not always), I will vote neg if the affirmative does not prove the resolution regardless of the negative argument.

Things I shouldn't have to say: If you are rude, mean, or personally attack your opponent in any way, you will lose the round and I will report you to the tournament director and your coach.

UPDATED: 2/15/2024- California Round Robin

Quick Tips:

-Please be clear- No exaggeration my eardrums are nonexistent. I'm like half deaf.

-Over explanation> Blips- I understand your arguments, I just haven't judged them enough to make extrapolations for you.

-Send analytics too- Its ethically shady to not. Debates are won by the better debater, no the better trickster. Also, see tip 1.

Paradigm Proper

TL;DR: Check Bolded

GENERAL STUFF:

I wanna keep this relatively simple, so: Hi, I'm J.D. Swift. I am a former competitor and former coach of Holy Cross School, currently an Assistant at The Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men (New Orleans, La). I'm too old to use this platform as an ego boost so I won't bother re-putting my qualifications, accolades, etc. I have either judged, coached, or competed (or done all of the above) in nearly every event under the sun, so I'd call myself pretty familiar.

My resting face may not prove it, but I am always approachable. If you have any questions about stuff before or after around, and you spot me, please don't hesitate to have a conversation, its why I still do this activity.

For Everyone:

+ I do not tolerate any forms of: racism, transphobia, homophobia, xenophobia, or ableism. This activity is special because it is the most inclusive activity that I know of. This space actively works to include all members of society and I will not stand for any tarnishing of that. I do not believe that you will be any of those things, but if it happens in round, I will stop the debate, give you a loss with the lowest possible speaks, and have a conversation with your coach.

+ I prefer an email chain, please add me:jdswift1028@gmail.com

+ I prefer to disclose. You won't be able to adjust from round to round if you don't know exactly how you won or lost a round. That being said: if any competitor in the round would prefer me not to disclose, I will not.** I also don't disclose speaks, that's just kinda weird to ask **

+ On Postrounding: I'm absolutely down to answer any and all questions as long as time permits. I take pride in the notes I take alongside the flow to give back to debaters. However, if you begin to challenge my decision, or (yes, this has happened before) you get your coach to challenge me, you can finish postrounding with the empty chair I left behind.

+ I know you care about speaker points. I don't give a whole lot of 30s (you can fact check me on this) so if you get one from me, I will be speaking high praises to others about your stellar performance. 2 rules of thumb for if you have me as a judge: 1. Make the debate accessible, 2. Let your personality shine through. No, I won't clarify on what those things mean. ;)

+ My face is very readable. This is semi-intentional. If I'm confused, you will see it. If I'm impressed, you will see it.

+ If you don't see me writing, specifically if my pen is obviously away from the paper/iPad (usually palm up) and I'm just staring at you, then I'm intentionally ignoring your argument. (I only do this when you are clearly over time, or if you are reading new in the 2)

+ In terms of intangibles such as: Your appearance, dress, how you sit or stand, etc. I do not care at all. A wise man once said: "Do whatever makes you comfortable, I only care about the arguments." -JD Swift, (circa 20XX)

For Novices:

+ I hate information elitism, meaning, if any jargon or terms in my paradigm confuse you-- please, please, please ask me for clarification.

+ Debate is a competitive activity, but it is foremost an educational one. If you see me in the back of the room, please do not feel intimidated, we as coaches and judges are here for y'all as competitors.

For LD & Policy:

+ Run whatever you like, please just explain it well. If you don't trust your ability to provide quality warrants on an argument, do not run it.

+ Please extend full arguments, most importantly the warrants. Not just impacts, Not just card names, but all of it.

+ No amount of signposting is too much. The more organized you are, the better I can give you credit.

+ Speed does NOT impress me. I can hang, but if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, I won't strain myself trying to catch the argument. If you want to go fast, go for it, just make sure you're clearly distinguishing one argument from the next, and that your tags and authors are clear.

+ Please do not reread a card, unless the card is being re-read for a different purpose(re-highlighting, new warrants, etc.). You're killing your own speech time.

+ If an argument or concession is made in cross, and you want credit for it, it has to show up in speech. I'll listen out for it, but if I don't hear it, in speech, it didn't happen.

+ Not a fan of petty theory at all. If there is real, round impeding abuse, I'll vote on it in your favor. If the theory argument is petty, I give RVI's heavy weight.

+ I don't like tricks. This is not a forum for deception.

+ If you're gonna kick the alt on the K, and use it as a disad, please articulate why the disad is a sufficient reason to not pass the plan.

FOR PF

+ Framework is important, otherwise I believe topic areas get too broad for this format. Win your framing and then use that to win your impact calculous. That's the fastest way to my ballot.

+ I have little patience for paraphrasing. If you want credit for evidence, read the card and give context.

+ I hold PF to the same evidence ethics and standards as Policy and LD.

Most importantly: please have fun; If what you are doing is not fun then it's not worth your time.

Judge Philosophy

Name: Lisa Willoughby

Current Affiliation: Midtown High School formerly Henry W. Grady High School

Conflicts: AUDL teams

Debate Experience: 1 year debating High School 1978-79, Coaching High School 1984-present

How many rounds have you judged in 2012-13: 50, 2013-2014: 45, 2015-2016: 25, 2016-17 15, 2017-2018: 30, 2018-19: 30, 2019-20:10, 2020-21: 40, 2021-2022: 35, 2022-2023:6

send evidence e-mail chain to quaintt@aol.com

I still view my self as a policy maker unless the debaters specify a different role for my ballot. I love impact comparison between disadvantages and advantages, what Rich Edwards used to call Desirability. I don’t mind the politics disad, but I am open to Kritiks of Politics.

I like Counterplans, especially case specific counterplans. I certainly think that some counterplans are arguably illegitimate; for example, I think that some international counterplans are utopian, and arguably claim advantages beyond the reciprocal scope of the affirmative, and are, therefore, unfair. I think that negatives should offer a solvency advocate for all aspects of their counterplan, and that multi-plank cps are problematic. I think that there are several reasons why consultation counterplans, and the States CP could be unfair. I will not vote unilaterally on any of these theoretical objections; the debaters need to demonstrate for me why a particular counterplan would be unfair.

I have a minor in Philosophy, and love good Kritik debate. Sadly, I have seen a lot of bad Kritik debate. I think that K debaters need to have a strong understanding of the K authors that they embrace. I really want to understand the alternative or the role of my ballot. I have no problem with a K Aff, but am certainly willing to vote on Framework/T against a case that does not have at least a clear advocacy statement that I can understand. I am persuadable on "AFF must be USFG."

I like Topicality, Theory and Framework arguments when they are merited. I want to see fair division of ground or discourse that allows both teams a chance to prepare and be ready to engage the arguments.

I prefer substance to theory; go for the theoretical objections when the abuse is real.

As for style, I love good line-by-line debate. I adore evidence comparison, and argument comparison. I am fairly comfortable with speed, but I like clarity. I have discovered that as I get older, I am very comfortable asking the students to "clear." I enjoy humor; I prefer entertaining cross-examinations to belligerent CX. Warrant your claims with evidence or reasoning.

Ultimately, I demand civility: any rhetoric, language, performance or interactions that demean, dehumanize or trivialize fellow debaters, their arguments or judges would be problematic, and I believe, a voting issue.

An occasional interruption of a partner’s speech or deferring to a more expert partner to answer a CX question is not a problem in my view. Generally only one debater at a time should be speaking. Interruptions of partner speeches or CX that makes one partner merely a ventriloquist for the other are extremely problematic.

Clipping cards is cheating. Quoting authors or evidence out of context, or distorting the original meaning of a text or narrative is both intellectually bankrupt and unfair.

There is no such thing as one ideal form or type of debate. I love the clash of ideas and argumentation. That said, I prefer discourse that is educational, and substantive. I want to walk away from a round, as I often do, feeling reassured that the policy makers, educators, and citizens of the future will seek to do a reasonable and ethical job of running the world.

For Lincoln Douglas debates:

I am "old school" and feel most comfortable in a Value/Criterion Framework, but it is your debate to frame. Because I judge policy frequently, I am comfortable with speed but generally find it is needless. Clarity is paramount. Because of the limited time, I find that I typically err AFF on theoretical objections much more than I would in a policy round.

I believe that any argument that an AFF wants to weigh in the 2AR needs to be in the 1AR. I will vote against new 2AR arguments.

I believe that NEG has an obligation to clash with the AFF. For this reason, a counterplan would only be justified in a round when the AFF argues for a plan; otherwise a counterplan is an argument for the AFF. The NEG must force a decision, and for that reason, I am not fond of what used to be called a 'balance neg.'