Last changed on
Tue February 13, 2024 at 9:28 AM EDT
Hi all
-----Paradigm Starts here-----
Background:
Current Head Coach/ADoD? at Binghamton University (2021 - Present)
Debated/Coached for George Mason University (2009-2019)
-----Super short version 10 min before round-----
I always want to be on the email chain - email to woodward@binghamton.edu
I have judged or have seen pretty much every argument in debate at least once.
As a debater I mostly read policy arguments, but ended my career doing critical arguments. I was also a 2A and 2N at different points.
I prefer you do what you're best at- don't over adapt to me
Am a sucker for judge instruction -> If you tell me to evaluate in a certain way and the other team doesn't rebut it then I'm going to.
I require explanation - my understanding of K lit is better because I've been at Bing for a while now, but I still not super great at it. Assume you know your lit more than I will. Examples from the 1AC or historical examples go a long way. This also applies to policy things. I cut policy cards but that's not my main focus most of the time so I'm not gonna be super up to date on the latest meta shifts/counterplan acronyms.
Good analysis and explanation beats a card the majority of the time in front of me
Be polite. (This is different from being nice, but there is a cutoff point)
Have fun!
Would prefer that people slow down/go to about 90% of top speed. I don't think this matters for most debates but it would be appreciative. I will yell slow/clear as applicable.
Harvard HS Tournament specifically - Two things to note.
- I have read/judged/thought 0 about the HS topic- most of my time is focused on NDT/CEDA topic. I will need explanation and clarifications about jargon, arguments, etc.
- My limits for "acceptable" behavior in terms of how people should treat each other is lower than in college rounds.
-----You have time to read/more specific things-----
---Novice/JV---
Is the most important division. We should be doing what we can to help the division grow and new debaters to improve and feel welcome- the community depends on it.
The packet at this point is not helpful outside of providing evidence to programs who need it to help start their programs. It needs healthy reforms to make it a better educational tool. That being said I will not enforce packet rules after the first two tournaments, or in any division above novice.
I'm fine with novices learning whatever arguments they wish. I would prefer if novices did defend the topic, or if they took alternate routes to the topic they still defended topic DAs and were in a topic direction.
I am also not a fan of misinformation type arguments in novice. This doesn't mean hiding DAs or case turns on case, or an extra definition on T (because those promote better flow practices) This means arguments that are obtuse to be obtuse for no reason.
---Topicality---
Is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.
I am not persuaded by "norms" or "it's 1st/last tournament etc." style arguments. I do not need abuse to vote on topicality.
Competing interpretations is what I default to.
After Fall Semester/Wake- I feel even more strongly we have overcorrected and have made the Nukes topic entirely too small. I still have some limits when it comes to subsets of topic areas, but I can be persuaded that allowing a few more affirmatives is a good thing.
Going into Districts/NDT/CEDA thoughts - Still think letting the aff have subsets makes this topic more interesting but after hearing 2-3 debates on it, I am still 50/50 on this debate but my default leans aff, if both sides debated perfectly. I'm still down to hear the argument because I do think there's some room to convince me.
---Disadvantages---
DAs are good, turns case arguments are good, I think there isn't a ton of nuance here. My only 2 caveats are as follows.
I wish more teams would attack DAs on the internal link level-
Politics and Elections DAs are decent educational discussions and are strategic. But the current political system is so flawed it is hard to take the arguments seriously. I am very persuaded by arguments about why radicalism in our government has doomed the ability for it to function. (or arguments that explain why congress is in a terrible spot for legislation currently)
Elections/Midterms DAs, the closer we get to November 2024, the better the DA sounds in front of me. Interpret this as you wish.
---Counterplans---
They're good - but I reward teams for more specific reasons why the CP solves the aff vs no federal/xyz process good key warrant. I'm not a fan of no solvency advocate + just the CP text in the 1NC, but generally i'm cool with most counterplan ideas.
I don't judge kick the counterplan, it promotes neg terrorism. I can be persuaded otherwise, but outside of strong neg defenses, and/or a lack of aff response I will not give the neg the status squo if a CP is in the 2NR.
I default to reject the argument on theory. I can be persuaded most things could be a reason to reject the team, or gives leeway on other arguments. My standards for voting on theory even with this are somewhat high.
Conditionality in limited instances are good. That being said my cutoff is lower than most judges. The max before I start to err affirmative is 2 conditional worlds. If there is a new aff, i'm fine with 3. I do think more than 3 conditional worlds isn't needed. I also think kicking planks compounds and makes any conditionality arguments even stronger
---Critiques (When you are neg) ---
Judge instruction + framework is your friend. I usually compare the aff vs the alt in a vacuum, but when one team is telling me what to do, and one is not with this information this goes a long way into deciding my ballot. Sometimes good judge instruction can overcome technical drops. "Weigh the aff" is not an aff interp on framework. I think it does you a disservice unless the neg's interp is legitimately you don't get the aff without jumping through multiple hoops. I would prefer interps based on something more specific, whether it's extinction/impact based, or even better education towards an issue, or even the self serving ROB = best at fighting nuke weapons.
I require a bit of explanation. My critical knowledge is better than it was in the past but you are more likely to know your argument more than me. Empiric examples, applications to the affirmative, etc are all useful and persuasive.
Go for tricks, if the aff messes them up then it's a valid strategy, I don't think you need the alt alone if you're winning a sizeable enough impact + link for a case turn type of argument
But do what you do best, I do genuinely like any presentation or idea for argument, as long as it's explained clearly and developed before the 2NR.
--- Critiques (When you are aff) ---
I prefer affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic and do something, or if they do neither have a good justification for doing otherwise.
Defend your arguments and be strategic. IF your 1AC is saying Heg + Prolif, it does not make sense to go for the link turns. This doesn't mean don't make the arguments if it's what you've prepped for but think about what your aff is designed to do and don't shy away from impact turns or alt offense.
Framework is viable and a decent strategy in front of me. I default to Limits > Fairness > Skills based arguments. Another thing from being at Bing is I am slowly leaning towards Fairness is more of an internal link vs an impact alone BUT I can be persuaded otherwise. I am also fine with impact turn debates but not having defense on neg framework standards (Or case defense to the aff) is pretty devastating and a problem for the team without said defense.
Something I have noticed as a pattern for lots of the framework rounds I judge is that not having defense, or at least references/cross applications that can be clear to answer terminal impacts on either side is usually something that can be a round ender. I find that I am somewhat persuaded by 2NR/2ARs that go for conceded impact scenarios on framework/affirmative answers to framework. Outside of heavy framing articulations this is usually hard to overcome.
When resolving a clash debate (most of my rounds) I think my preference is Case specific strat > Framework > Cap unless that is your specific thing you do.
Case should be in the 2NR in some way or fashion. I am willing to vote on presumption or case turns alone.
Critical teams should think hard about if they want to defend DAs or not. I'm not sold one way or the other, but i do get a bit concerned if the 2AC says they'll defend the deterrence DA, but the 1AR/2AR drastically doesn't apply (unless the neg doesn't read a link)
---Misc---
Speaker points are weird and rough at the moment. I don't want to keep people from breaking however. My speaks guidelines end up looking like this for varsity. This may adjust due to trends at all levels.
Nationals
Speaker award - 29.3
should/can clear - 28.7
Regional
Speaker Award -29
Should clear - 28.6
I adjust for division, but IF I give a student in JV or Novice a 29+ I believe they could debate a division up and succeed.
I don't like trolling - if you do not want to debate, simply forfeit, or have a discussion/pursue other methods of debating. IF you read an argument with the sole plan of being disruptive or trolling a debate you get a 15. IF you're funny you get a 25.
Don't cheat- I have fortunately only had to resolve this in 1 round. But if you accuse someone, round ends and will not restart. We don't have that many rules in debate, we should follow them, especially the rules about academic honesty/evidence.
Be polite- doesn't have to be "nice" but generally we shouldn't make rounds overly hostile for 0 reason. We will see each other multiple times over the next few years. There is a cutoff for being snarky and being a jerk.
---Other Events---
I am a policy coach. I have spent the vast majority of my time coaching and preparing things in policy formats. I will flow, I evaluate my decisions based on that flow. I believe the best debaters are ones who both prove their side of an issue is the most effective, and have combatted the opposing side effectively. I will never determine a round solely based on presentation, decorum or speaking style unless something problematic happened to where coaches/tab have to be involved.
LD - i've judged maybe 40 LD rounds in my life (if being generous). I still am shaky about value criterions, I will have done 0 topic research. If you do LD like it's mini policy I am prob very good for you. Disclosure is virtually mandatory. I have heard explanations from LD'ers about theory. My gut is if it's something like counterplan competition or conditionality it is fine. If it's something frivolous or ridiculous I am not great for your speaks or chances to win the ballot. But do what you do best. I don't believe in RVIs
PF - I did PF in 2007-2009 while in high school. I coached a team in PF in the spring of 2021. I generally vote on and will flow. I will heavily follow judge instruction. Disclosure theory is a very persuasive argument and I think evidence practices are egregiously awful for PF. Paraphrasing, and only sending links for evidence is not acceptable for evidence. It must be in a format that is easily accessible and reviewable by both teams AND should be provided before the speech. I'm very flexible on most things, Evidence and disclosure I am not.
Other formats- have 0 experience but will take notes and evaluate based on the rules given.
