Last changed on
Sat February 6, 2021 at 4:13 AM EST
*** Scroll to bottom if I'm judging you for not policy events/Stanford***
***Short Version + General Notes - Policy Debate ***
Conflicts - Broome County Debate Alliance, GMU
I debated for five years for George Mason University
I do want to be included on e-mail chains if they happen, my e-mail is dwoodward92@gmail
I have very little knowledge/info on the college topic, will take time to catch up/get general ideas so explanations are appreciated.
More tech over truth, biases are below but unless you say something offensive good debating > my preferences. Read what you're best at.
Zoom/other systems of online Debate is hard, moreso because sometimes people have questionable internet quality, or questionable microphone quality- please do not go full speed as those issues can make understanding a bit harder than necessary.
ADA/Wake Addendum: My WiFi is not the best in the location where I usually can have a clear/quiet space to judge. As a result I usually will not have my camera on other than RFDs, and if my internet is particularly iffy I will simply not turn on the camera for the simple reason that camera on = better chance of my internet screwing up and DC'ing me mid 2NC or RFD (and noone wants that). As a result I don't care whether you speak with the camera on or off for speeches. Also please be loud, some mics aren't great and i'd rather me have to turn you down/you blow out my ears vs being unable to hear you.
Have questions? read specific sections below or feel free to ask/email me.
*** Don't troll in debates.*** IF you want to forfeit just tell me. Doesn't preclude off the wall strategies versus affs- if there's good faith involved points will be normalized. IF it's an obvious joke/waste of time then you + partner get a 15/15.1: If you make me laugh enough even after wasting that time then you'll get a 25/25.1 instead.
***End Short Version + General Notes***
***College Novice Division Specifics***
Still not fan of packet but if tournament mandates it then so be it
Still want people to be nice
Still ok with non topical affs in novice but keep them simple/to the point. general brightline for framework is MUCH lower than what it is in JV/Open debates.
Still giving full attention
***Topicality***
Always a voting issue- can't change this
T comes first. Aff could win theory/other arg comes first but unlikely
Competing interpretations generally better than Reasonability
Affs should have a counterinterp
***Counterplans***
I reward negative teams who correctly punish aff teams for lack of defenses to portions of their aff, or topic literature of alternatives to the aff, so things like "x portion of your plan is actually good/bad so do the rest of it other than the good/bad part." OR "the main author for your solvency advocate says do x thing instead, so do x".
I respect the hustle but do not reward teams who interpret this as "the aff doesn't have a congress/federal/immediate action key card" in the 1AC.
I don't kick the counterplan for the negative if extended in the 2nr
-this can obviously change IF Neg teams make the arg early (read not 2NR), likewise, if the aff doesn't say no judge kick/make the arg until the 2AR (and the neg did their diligence) then that's too late.
Theory specifics
Outside of perm theory, just about any theory argument can be a reason to reject the team.
Teams are too blippy on theory on both sides. For example, If the 1NC had 2 CP's and a K, or 2 CPs but one had 3-4 kickable planks, or 3+ CPs etc. and the 2NC response to condo is only "Neg flex, time/strategy skews inevitable, Reject the arg not the team" in 15 seconds then that is not sufficient. At that point I am hoping the aff goes for theory. Likewise, if the aff's 2AC to condo is a sentence long and has no warrants/specifics it feels equally irritating to watch blow up in the 1AR. Invest time on theory as needed.
New Affs/Start of season/End of season doesn't mean the neg gets to cheat excessively. Does mean i'm less sympathetic to aff theory but doesn't mean the neg gets 3 CPs with conditional planks and a K in the 1NC. This argument is not persuasive to me to answer theory arguments by the neg.
Specifics > generic, make your theory args/answers specific to the issue/round at hand, goes a long way on aff or neg.
Other thoughts on common args.
PICS - good, Word PICs less good than aff/topic specific ones.
Condo - in moderation is good, 2 Options is where the debate is 50/50. 3 is if the aff is new. More than that = no. Counterplans can have planks, but being able to kick the planks is bad.
States - I don't like it but if it's applicable to the topic/theory debate then have at you
International Fiat - I like these CPs but get how they're kinda absurd, depends on topic
Process/Agent CPs - depends, XO/Courts/Congress/Conditions isn't bad if there's topic lit. Con-Con, Consult, Delay isn't great in front of me.
Neg should get fiat
Aff stuff
Read above. I want you to go for theory to punish the neg for questionable CP practices. This does not mean I want you to go for theory IF you are winning on substance, but it's an option.
Solvency deficits go a long way as does good permutations
CP specific offense definitely gets you some speaker point boost.
***Disadvantages***
Not much to say, turns case args are good, i'd prefer beefing up one impact scenario vs reading a bunch more in the block (unless impact turn debate etc.)
Midterms/Politics: I will vote on it. At the same times these DA's have made very little sense/haven't been a thing since 2010 except maybe SKFTA/sometimes debt ceiling. Logical arguments based on current events are super persuasive in front of me. I'm not saying don't read midterms/politics in front of me but analytics about gridlock/current congressional problems (they're in a recess currently, etc.) are more persuasive than you'd think.
***Critiques/Critical Affs***
This used to be really long, but since i haven't done as much research/reading/judging on recent college (and HS topics) i've decided to shorten it. Those who've had me judge/know me nothing's really changed but this is the TL;DR version.
Explain yourself, all of it, do not assume i've read your lit, even if i've judged your aff 4-5 (or more times)
Do what you can justify/what you do best, I am down for K affs.
Not great for post modern things, but well explained args are good args.
Framework is a fine/acceptable argument. I think Ground/Limits are a bit more persuasive than portable skills args personally but however you want it to work then do it.
If you're aff vs a K, defend your aff/and what your specific method/solvency issue is. Offense is always good and needed.
Affs should probably do something and be in the general direction of the topic (or have good reasons to do neither of these things)
Any specific ?'s please email or ask before rounds.
***Other Notes***
I dislike embedded clash
Clarity over speed
Don't clip- if you think someone is clipping/cheating, have audio evidence. Round will stop. if accused is guilty, they get a 0, the loss and everyone else gets average points. If accused is innocent, team who made the challenge gets a 0 + loss, others get averaged speaks.
Be nice, we have to see each other for 4-5 years, being nice is not being a doormat, similarly, being sassy is not the same as being hostile.
I don't take time for prep unless it's blatantly being stolen. And at that point i'll start running the clock without telling you. so don't steal prep.
I like spin over evidence dumps. explaining your evidence and the warrants clearly and in a way where it sticks with me helps. Spin will beat a card unless the quality difference is massive.
I don't read cards unless necessary. It makes me question my decisions/RFD's in ways that I later question how I determine debates. I feel more secure when debaters take the time to not only explain the warrants and arguments within the evidence to persuade me why I should prefer them. If the debaters make it part of the debate with a warrant larger than just "read the cards at the end judge", I'll happily read them or if it is a vital point to determine the debate. I am less happy if I am forced to read cards because the original presentation was not clear or comprehensible.
Not Policy/other debate Events - READ HERE FOR STANFORD -
TL;DR if reading in 5 minutes, I'm fine with whatever you want to do, just explain it.
Don't be mean
Don't say or do racist/sexist shit in rounds, will cost you speaks and ballots
I vote on the flow, most of my background both in competition/coaching is in policy (Coached a couple of, did PF in high school but at this point I am not current/up to date on most trends in PF at the moment)
As long as you are clear I do not care about speed, however anti-speed arguments in LD/PF are more persuasive than in policy depending on skill level and situation
Most of my evaluation and decision-making for rounds is based on the flow/line by line, I find that usually technical drops or good impact calculus is the easiest way to win my ballot in round.
Explanation is key. Generally the easier you make the round for me in terms of making arguments understandable/clear, the easier it is for me to vote for you.