Last changed on
Mon April 22, 2024 at 4:19 PM PDT
Hello, hello, and greetings! I hope you're doing well.
As fellow speech and debate enthusiasts, we share a unique connection within a devoted community. I deeply respect the dedication, time, and personal sacrifices you commit to excel in debate. I hold both the Donus D. Roberts Coaching Excellence Award and I am a first time Diamond Award coach. My journey in Policy Debate started in middle school, and today, I coach various debate teams, including the debate squad, moot court team, mock trial teams, and shark tank teams. This commitment has given me valuable insights into the demands of this activity. My background spans the financial world, law, and a strong passion for history. I have been actively involved in debate since 6th grade and coaching since 2012, maintaining my profound love for this distinctive pursuit. I've judge CX, PF, LD, BQ, Moot Court, Mock Trials, and High School Shark Tank Presentations. It's worth acknowledging that you've chosen to embrace a challenging endeavor that many may shy away from.
Nickname: My nickname is Judge Kinshasa, in a round, you can just call me "Judge".
Also, I am not responsible for your feelings. Win graciously, lose graciously. I have no problem giving feedback to ones coach, and my email is in the RFD for your coach to contact me for more information on my RFD. I'll use sharedocs on the NSDA platform so there's no need for any personal email to be exchanged among the rounds participants.
I don't disclose except in elimination rounds.
Let's dive into my judging philosophy by sharing how I look at the components of a debate:
1. Framework (Affirmative and Negative):
- What it is: A set of rules and principles that define the scope of the debate.
- What it is not: A case-specific argument or evidence.
2. Role of the Ballot (ROB):
- What it is: A statement explaining what the judge should prioritize when making their decision.
- What it is not: An argument against the opponent's case.
3. Plan (Affirmative):
- What it is: The proposed policy or action the affirmative team advocates for.
- What it is not: The entirety of the affirmative case; it's just one element.
4. Counterplan (Negative):
- What it is: An alternative proposal presented by the negative team.
- What it is not: A critique or disadvantage argument.
5. Topicality (Negative):
- What it is: An argument challenging the affirmative's compliance with the debate topic.
- What it is not: A critique of the affirmative's content.
6. Disadvantage (Negative):
- What it is: An argument showing the negative consequences of the affirmative's plan.
- What it is not: A counterplan or a critique.
7. Critique/Kritik (Negative):
- What it is: A critical analysis of the assumptions or ideology underlying the affirmative case.
- What it is not: A traditional argument based on evidence and impacts.
8. Cross-Examination (CX):
- What it is: A period during the debate where one team questions the other to gather information and make arguments.
- What it is not: A time for making speeches or presenting new arguments.
9. Rebuttal (Affirmative and Negative):
- What it is: Speeches aimed at refuting the opponent's arguments and reinforcing your own.
- What it is not: A time for introducing entirely new content.
10. Evidence/Contentions (Affirmative and Negative):
- What it is: Factual information and arguments that support your case.
- What it is not: Personal opinions or unsupported assertions.
11. Flowing (Judge's Role):
- What it is: Taking detailed notes of the debate to track arguments and make an informed decision.
- What it is not: Making decisions based on personal biases or emotions.
12. Time Limits:
- What it is: Strictly enforced limits for speeches and cross-examinations.
- What it is not: Flexible or arbitrary timekeeping.
13. Case Overview (Affirmative and Negative):
- What it is: A brief summary of your main arguments at the beginning of your speech.
- What it is not: A replacement for in-depth analysis.
14. Permutation (Affirmative):
- What it is: An argument that combines the affirmative and negative positions to demonstrate compatibility.
- What it is not: A standalone argument; it relies on other contentions.
15. Voting Issues (Judge's Decision):
- What it is: The key points or arguments the judge should consider when rendering a decision.
- What it is not: An exhaustive review of every argument made in the debate.
16. Cap-K (Capitalism Kritik) in Policy Debate:
- What it is: A critical argument challenging the fundamental assumptions and impacts of capitalism as a social and economic system.
- What it is not: A traditional policy argument focused on specific policy proposals or impacts.
17. Settler Colonialism in Policy Debate:
- What it is: An argument that critiques the historical and ongoing processes of colonization and displacement of Indigenous peoples.
- What it is not: A case-specific argument or a traditional policy debate contention.
As your judge, this represents my approach to evaluating debate rounds and how I assess arguments within them. The following offers further insight into my judging philosophy and perspective.
1. Communication Rule:
- Rule: No communication is allowed between teammates or judges during the debate round to maintain fairness and integrity.
- Consequences: Violating this rule results in immediate removal from the room; failure to comply leads to team disqualification.
- Purpose: Strict enforcement deters interference and ensures adherence to fair competition rules and guidelines.
2. Focus During Rounds: I take judging seriously and maintain a laser focus during rounds. No social media or phone distractions for me – I'm all about the debate!
3. Debate Strategy: Also, please look at the judge, not at your opponent. I appreciate well-structured arguments and expect respectful conduct. I don't favor profanity, yelling, or ad hominem attacks. I’ll give one warning, and if the violation continues, I’ll end the round, and have no issue conversing with your coach about the matter. If your strategy relies on divisive or disrespectful arguments, I'm not the right judge for you.
4. Role of the Aff: Remember, the Aff plan isn't the debater; you are. Address your opponents as "Neg" or "Aff" or “Opponent to maintain professionalism.
5. Counterplans and Solvency: I prefer Neg to run a Counterplan (CP) because attacking solvency without addressing the problem isn't convincing, and doesn’t make the CP a better option, and in essence the Neg says that their either isn’t a problem to solve, or the problem isn’t big enough to solve.
6. Flowing: I'm a meticulous judge who highly appreciates well-structured flow sheets as they enhance my ability to assess the round thoroughly. My preference is to manually record my notes on paper because typing on a laptop keyboard can be distracting for debaters. I actively encourage teams to maintain their own flow sheets, not only to enhance their skills but also because I might refer to them to ensure no critical arguments are overlooked.
7. Engagement: Engage with me, the judge, as you present your arguments. Spreading is fine, though I prefer you do not, but clear and effective communication is key. If you’re spreading to get as many arguments as possible in to trick your opponent to drop arguments, you’re just reading, not making an argument in support of your position. I don’t vote based on dropped arguments.
8. Questions in Cross-X: Meaningful questions are more valuable than questions for the sake of it. Avoid open-ended queries and be respectful.
9. Clash:
- Explanation: Clash is the central battleground in policy debate, where debaters engage in direct argumentative confrontation.
- Importance: Effective clash demonstrates your team's skill in challenging your opponent arguments, influencing my decision beyond exploiting dropped points. Please don't debate based on winning by dropped arguments, win the debate utilizing clash.
- Strategy: Strategically use clash by presenting strong arguments, addressing your opponent's contentions, and highlighting weaknesses. It showcases argumentative prowess and critical thinking.
- Outcome: Clash quality significantly impacts my decision, making it a crucial skill for winning policy debates.
10. Defense versus Offence: In policy debate, "defense" challenges the opponent's case, while "offense" advances the negative's position. Winning the debate requires strong defense to undermine the affirmative and effective offense to persuade me. Debaters balance these elements, adapting to my preferences for a strategic advantage.
11. Debating Off-Topic in Policy Debate:
- Warning: Stick to the resolution's scope for meaningful debates. If your strategy is to not debate the topic outside of a K-Aff, I'd advise that you stay on the resolution and or the topic.
- Issue: A problem arises when debaters go off-topic, using unrelated strategies and tactics.
- Concerns: This hinders the educational value of debates, straying from the critical analysis of policy proposals within the resolution.
12. Non-Voting Issues Clarification:
- To provide clarity, my primary focus in evaluating the debate is on the affirmative plan's capacity to effectively address the specific problem outlined in the resolution, rather than on the persuasive aspects of a speech. Therefore, arguments centered on topics such as "the blacks" "white supremacy," "whiteness", "anti-blackness," "anti-women," "anti-white," "anti-religion," "bias arguments," "oppressed communities," "marginalized communities," claims that "America is racist," or assertions that "everything is racist," including the use of racial slurs within a round, are not voting issues to me, essentially, they do not constitute decisive factors in my decision-making process. Racial slurs use din a round will result in a round being ended and a vote against the team that used it.
- For example, when examining the Fracking resolution for the 2022-2023 season, it was common, and understandable for debaters to discuss the impact of fracking on marginalized communities. While the affirmative plan may directly address the issue of fracking, it does not automatically prove how the plan will directly alleviate the marginalization of these communities. Essentially, fracking is banned, yet the marginalized community remained marginalized, and that is a great opportunity to show how the plan could improve the marginalized communities mentioned in the round. Otherwise, such arguments do not significantly influence my judgment in the debate.
It's essential to note that my perspective is not rooted in censorship yet know that what I listed are not voting issues. I vote on what's and desire to maintain relevance to the resolution's specific context. Behind the numbers are real people, treat them as such, not a prop used to win a round. If you require further clarification on this matter, please feel free to ask me before the round.
I don't like theory arguments as it's a theory, not a fact, and facts are what I vote on, not theory.
Essentially, it comes down to which solves the problem that the resolution addresses; the Aff Plan or the Status Quo.
13. Perm Do Both: "Perm Do Both" must be supported by a clear, persuasive explanation of how the affirmative plan and negative counterplan can work together effectively to solve the issue without conflicts. Mere mention of "Perm do both" without a well-reasoned narrative won't be enough. It should demonstrate how these actions complement each other and why this integrated approach is the best way to address the problem in the debate, presenting a compelling case for choosing both proposals over separate considerations.
14. Evidence and Warrants: In debate, assessing an author's credibility extends beyond qualifications. It's about ensuring their expertise aligns with the specific argument being made, as even experts can make unsupported claims. Debaters must evaluate qualifications, relevance, and argument consistency to ensure evidence is credible and directly supports the warrant. Showing how the author supports your teams position increases your chances of winning a round.
15. Falsifying information: Request: Debaters should refrain from fabricating information during a round, particularly when it involves inventing financial figures, historical facts, law, or other details. I'll know it.
16. Prep Time: I don't allow prep time for cross-X. If an tournament has stated to judges that there is an allotment of time for tech issues, that will be kept to the second.
17. Selling Your Position: Persuasion is key. Convince me; speed isn't everything.
18. Speakers' Points: I base these on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, good clash, and respectful conduct.
20. A Respectful Environment: I maintain a respectful environment and expect respect from all participants. No profanity, ad hominem attacks, or disrespect is tolerated. I'll give one warning, if it continues, it's an automatic disqualification, and I'll convey the reason in my RFD, and with the disqualified team's coach.
21. No Direct Messaging During Rounds: If I suspect messaging, I'll ask to see your computer screen. Messaging during rounds is grounds for an immediate disqualification.
22. No Bias: I judge impartially.
23. Reason for Decision (RFD): I provide constructive feedback to help debaters improve. I’ll share what debaters did well, and what each debater should work on to improve as debaters. I've seen instances where my feedback was applied in subsequent rounds. Remember, I'm available for questions and discussions during the tournament, and it's a good idea to take notes during feedback sessions to make the most of them.
Thank you for the privilege of judging your round. I want to remind you that as debaters, you are an integral part of a truly exceptional and dedicated community. As we embark on this tournament together, let's keep in mind the essence of our shared purpose: to engage in meaningful and thought-provoking debates. So, let's make this tournament memorable and engaging for all involved because, at the end of the day, we are here to debate and celebrate the art of discourse. And best of luck to you in the future on your journey in speech and debate.
Thank you very kindly,
Mr. Dibinga - Chota
