Experience: I've been debating in one form or another since 1999. First in HS, than as a CEDA/NDT debater for 5 years. I've been coaching debate since 2005, mostly policy, though not exclusively. I have ran, coached, and judged every type of argument in that time.

Style: It is possible for you to be correct about the wrongness of your opponents arguments, but still be polite towards them. Don't be a jerk. Nice people get better speaker points than rude people. If you are reading a theory argument slow down a touch to make sure everyone gets all the args.

Arguments: I really do not care what arguments you go for. Read what you are comfortable with and impact your arguments. I will typically revert to an offense/defense/disad/advantage to evaluate arguments (especially with theory args). If you want me to evaluate particular arguments different, just tell me. I much prefer for the debaters to control the parameters by which they would like me to judge them and then fiddle with the knobs and levers at their disposal to get the result they want.

Note: Don't assume that I know everything about the topic. Succinct explanations about content I may need to know to make an informed decision will also be rewarded with good speaks.

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**

I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:

1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.

2. more on that last sentence - i am uninterested and incapable of resolving debates based on questions of character based on things that occurred outside of the debate that i am judging. if it is an issue that calls into question the safety of yourself or others in the community, you should bring that issue up directly with the tournament director or relevant authorities because that is not a competition question. if you are having an interpersonal dispute, you should try resolving your conflict outside of a competitive space and may want to seek mediation from trained professionals. there are likely exceptions, but there isnt a way to resolve these things in a debate round.

3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.

4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.

5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.

6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.

7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.

8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.

9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.

10. keep track of your own time.

unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

Hey everyone. I've been in and out of debate for a while. That said, I have two immediate thoughts...

1. I don't have a ton of rounds on the topic. That means your case specific DA's/CP's may require a bit more explanation at the link level. 

and

2. My pen does not move nearly as quick as it used to. Zooming through your theory arguments will probably mean I will miss something/things will get out of order.

Now that that's out of the way, I debated four years in high school and another four years at Cal State Fullerton. I coached for a couple of years after at the high school and college level, but nothing too serious.

I see myself as an educator (and hopefully you teach me something as well) about an idea that you find important. That idea can include a plan text that affirms the resolution, it can be your favorite piece of postmodern poetry, or it can be strategies that engage in the liberation of oppressed folks. I think what's important is having a clear, warranted argument that is strategic and at least somewhat germane to the resolution.

I think the same is equally applicable to the negative. Give me a reason (any reason) to prefer your view of debate, your counterplan, or counter advocacy and you're golden. Clear impact comparison with instruction on how the judge should evaluate the round is what wins the debate.

Hostile debates/talking over others are the worst. So is not letting your partner in on CX. Yall have important stuff to say, find a way to say it so you win the debate round.

Oh, and have fun.

A few words on the current controversy that is dividing our debate community: It's sad. I'm not going to inflate my speaker points. But the problem of judge diversity needs to be addressed. I'm not sure how this controversy directly affects the non-circuit tournament judges I mostly judge. I usually think about who won the debate and why more than speaker points. Now I will pay more dilligence to how I assign speaker points.

Judge Bias: Things I default to... 1) Debate is an educational game. 2) Offense > Defense. 3) Tech > Truth. 4) Paper > Digital (I don't start prep for USB flashing and loading evidence.)

I think the essential part of any debate round is for both teams to negotiate the grounds, terms, and rules for the debate. It's up to you to frame the way I adjudicate the round.

Side note - learning is not a one way street. I develop as a critic and debater in every round I have the privilege to take part of, whether it's in the front or the back of the room. My philosophy of debate is not chiseled in stone and you may entirely change my approach on debate. I frequently change my judging philosophy after these influential moments. I'm neither a policy hack nor a k hack.

FW/Theory: My default view is that switch-side debate is good and the affirmative should defend the topical implementation of the plan based on the resolution. I usually err neg on most theory questions, including conditionality. "Reject the argument, not the team" is usually convincing. I will vote on dropped theory, even if it's stupid. For specific theory questions, please ask.

Topicality: T is my favorite argument. I love a good T debate. The neg can win on T in front of me as long they prove their interp is better for debate (education, fairness, limits, grounds, and so on), the aff doesn't meet the neg's interp, and the aff's counter-interp is worse for debate. I think competing interpretations is good. The neg doesn't have to win in round abuse (though it helps). "It's not what you do, it's what you justify" is convincing to me in the clash between real v. potential abuse. I don't think reasonability is a persuasive argument but I can be convinced otherwise. In my humble opinion, T is like pregnancy - you can't be reasonably pregnant; you're either pregnant or you're not pregnant.

Case: Case debates are the most enjoyable, especially if the neg runs a CP or K that solves parts of the case or contains case turns as an internal net benefit. Impact defense and internal link takeouts go a long way. Impact turns are a fun surprise!

Disadvantages: Read many of them. Disadvantages should have specific links to the plan, turn case, and outweigh the aff. Politics is cool!

Counterplans: I love tight and highly specific counterplans. PICs are sweet. Multi-plank CPs are fun. Word PICs are okay. Stupid CPs include but are not limited to conditioned CPs, consult CPs, and timeframe CPs.

Critiques: I enjoy topic specific critiques. The neg must win the critique comes first for various reasons (the critique turns case, the alternative solves case or impacts, ontology first, representations first, value to life, and so on). The aff should weigh the case against the alt, make perms, attack the alt, and deploy the alt-solvency double bind.

Impact Calculus: No derivatives or integrals necessary! In-depth analysis, NOT ONLY THE MAGNITUDE-TIMEFRAME-PROBABILITY DEBATE but also how these facets interact with the other team.

Speaker points: On a speed scale between 1-10 I am probably an 8. If I have a hard time flowing you it's usually a problem of clarity not speed. I will say "clear!" if I encounter this problem. I don’t mind if you are an aggressive debater but please don't be rude. Please be friendly pre-round, in prep, and post-round – otherwise it’s awkward.

Favorite Judges: My favorite people in the back of the room are Toni Nielson, Gordon Stables, and Kevin Kuswa. 

If you have any questions you may ask me before the round.

Leah Clark

*** Update: In light of our current political reality of fear mongering racists targeting ethnic groups as terrorists, either foreign or domestic, and the very real mortal danger to which that rhetoric leads, I will evaluate terrorism scenarios and impacts as tantamount to hate speech. Thus, expect me to vote accordingly... #debatenolongeragame

Howdy All,

Below are a few general guidelines that help me adjudicate, and by extension, help you debate in front of me:

I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.

Make it clear to me. If I have to call for cards (which I rarely do), unfortunately, that situation becomes open to my interpretation of the evidence (underlined, not underlined, context from what I know of the author—or don’t) and is never satisfactory for either party.

Ultimately, debate is an educational activity and a ton of fun! Please try to have a good time in a respectful, inclusive and meaningful way.

Topicality— I will vote on it. Such debates should be a clash between two competing interpretations and impacted. Tell me why I should prefer one interpretation to another. Saying ‘T is a voter for blah, blah, blah…’ won’t do much to convince me it is important to evaluate. Use answers on other flows to prove things like ground loss, in-round abuse etc. It is pretty unlikely that I will vote simply on potential for abuse.

Dis-Ads— every argument in the round should functionally operate, in its own way, as a disad-- specific link/internal link/imapct story is key and explain to me how it turns case.

Counterplans— I like ‘em. Win the net benefit, explain how it operates as a disad to the permutation, win answers to perm/theory.

Permutations-- Slow down! There are few things I hate more than tests of competition that unfairly morph by the end of the debate because nobody in the debate really caught the text/concept of the perm.

Explain to me what ideas or actions you propose testing and how it functions-- I do not buy glib perms like 'perm all non-competative parts of the alt'. Describe to me what that world looks like/how they are compatible.

Theory— Tacked on, unreasoned, un-warranted theory arguments will not be evaluated. I am happy to vote here but you have to do some serious work to make it impactful. Slow down—I want to catch your analysis!

Critical Arguments/the ‘K’—I really enjoy these debates, and truthfully where I focused my attention as a competitor--both on the Aff. and Neg. However, please do not operate under the assumption that I am familiar with your authors or your interpretations. Please be clear in identifying your links and implications. I especially dislike kritik debates that devolve into generic disads. Specificity is key and tell me a story! Always a good choice to slow down! Also a great choice, cut the jargon.

If your strategy when confronted with a critical argument is to rest solely on your Framework laurels, you will have a lot of difficult winning in front of me. I like to see arguments engaged directly— more on Framework….

Framework—Thus far, observing framework arguments, I am not a fan. I am not of the opinion that debate is the wrong forum and that arguments should, on face, be excluded. A more sophisticated argument, and one that I am definitely willing to vote for, is one that identifies how the argument operates as a disad to the K/critical case, provides impact comparison, and warranted analysis how they cant capture/access x advantage.

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

I believe debate should involve clash and should talk about the topic.  I can be swayed to vote for arguments that do not follow my own beliefs if the other team does not engage and does something bad that you prove to me in a round. 

I like T, but I am unlikely to vote for it if you do not keep all the components in the round and tell me more than "they didn't say voting issue."  This means you have to prove they have done something bad in the round or bad for debate in general.  "I ran this last round" is not a compelling defensive claim against predictability, though you can try it. 

Please explain cards you extend and also tell me the story. 

About me: I debated for 3.5 years, 2 of which were in Open.  I am NOT a debate coach anymore, so don't expect me to know what is going on- that is YOUR job to explain to me. 

I am studying Economics, but don't think that just means you want to run stats or econ arguments in front of me.  As with everything else, I need you to explain it- and if you make an error on an Econ argument, I will likely know it (though this wont be devastating every time, you can always come back to win the round!).

i was a kritical debater for three years. i enjoy most debates and can swing anything from straight up policy to some whack-a-do project/performance debates.

i want you to enjoy yourself and run what you're comfortable with. i have voted for t and f/w. i will disclose that i tend to require the neg to meet a greater burden for me to vote on t or f/w. this is so because from my perspective the abuse by the aff is often less than clear. if you wanna go for either arg, please do. just be clear on your interp, how the aff violates it, and what abuse is happening in-round.

good luck

Michael Eisenstadt, Ph.D.

Director of Forensics, California State University Long Beach

13th Year Judging College Debate | 18th Year Judging High School Debate

2014 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year | 2018 "Top Critic Award" at the Las Vegas Classic (UNLV) | 2019 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year

For questions of any kind, please e-mail me at: michael.eisenstadt@csulb.edu

Tournaments Judged This Season (2022-2023):

Updated 9-17-19

***I would like to be on the e-mail chain (m.stadt89@gmail.com, not my Tabroom e-mail).***

I will not necessarily read along with your speeches, but I would like to have evidence in the case that particular cards are disputed in cross-x and/or to make reading them after the debate concludes quicker.

This judge philosophy is just that, a philosophy. I think I have become more ambivalent to what your argument is over the years and more concerned with how you argue it. My job is to evaluate the arguments made in a debate, your job is to tell me why and how I should vote for them. Therefore, I think the following information is more helpful for you than me telling you what arguments I "like." This is your debate and not mine. Every day is #GAMEDAY and I will work hard when judging your debate, the same way I appreciated those who worked hard to judge my own.

An important meta-theoretical note: I believe in a 'healthy diet' of persuasion. I perceive there to be a serious problem with communication in competitive debate. Debates are won by important communicative moments (see below). Whether they are fast, slow, passionate, or hilarious, they must happen. I believe Will Repko has called these "Moments of Connection." Reading into your computer screen with no emphasis or clarity would make having such a moment extraordinarily difficult.

Debate is a communicative activity. This means that to win an argument a) I have to understand it and b) I have to hear it clearly enough to know it was there. At the end of the round, if we have a disagreement about something, usually a failure to achieve those requirements will be my explanation. Reading directly into your computer during your speeches and/or making no attempt at eye contact drastically heightens the risk of a miscommunication.

I am deeply concerned about the trend of evidence quality in debate. Teams seem to frequently read evidence that either fails to make a warranted claim OR that is highlighted down into oblivion. I think that a team who reads fewer, better (read: warranted) cards and sets the bar high for their opponents has a much better chance of winning their nexus/framing arguments.

Debate is what you make it. For some, debate is a game of verbal chess that is designed to teach them about institutional policy-making. For others, it is a place to develop community and advocacy skills for the problems and issues they face on an everyday basis whether at school, within debate, or elsewhere. I believe that one of the best things about this activity is that it can accomplish so many different things for so many individuals and it serves a variety of purposes. I think either or any of these approaches teach us the transferable skills debate can offer. No matter the arguments presented in a debate, I will always recognize this and will always support you for what you do. Over the years I have found myself voting fairly evenly for and against "framework" arguments because I will evaluate the arguments made in the debate itself. My ballot will never be an endorsement of one form of debate over another, it will very simply represent who I thought did the better debating.

Framework. In 1984, Dr. David Zarefsky famously argued, "the person who can set the terms of the debate has the power to win it." Generally, the 2NR that goes for "Topicality + Case D to Aff Impact Turns" is more likely to win in front of me than the 2NR who only goes for "State Good/Inevitable," though that is typically suitable defense on the case when the affirmative criticizes governmental action. The negative wins in front of me going for this 2NR strategy most often when it includes some combination of the following 3 arguments:

1. An interpretation supported by definitional evidence (that is ideally contextual to the topic). I am uncertain why negative interpretations like "direction of the topic" circumvents affirmative offense. These softer interpretations typically hurt the negative's ability to win the limits DA without much payoff. I have found that negative teams have a more uphill battle in front of me when the only term in the resolution they have defined is "United States Federal Government."

2. A Topical Version of the Aff and/or Switch Side Debate argument - I think of "framework" as the intersection between Topicality and argument(s) about how I prioritize impacts, which impacts should be prioritized, and what the best strategy for dealing with those impacts is. So, having a "counterplan" that plays defense to and/or solves portions of the case (and/or the impact turns) can be a good way to beat the affirmative. I find myself voting affirmative in debates where the 2NR did not address the affirmative's substantive offense (so, you did not respond to internal links to impact turns, address impact priority arguments, etc.). I also think this sets the negative up to make arguments about potential neg ground as well as a switch-side debate argument.

3. An impact - I have voted on procedural and structural fairness, topic education, and argument advocacy/testing impacts. Ideally, the 2NR will be careful to identify why these impacts access/outweigh the affirmative's offense and/or solve it. I think that debate is generally more valuable for "argument testing" than "truth testing," since the vast majority of arguments made in a debate rely on assumptions that "the plan/aff happens" or "the alternative/framework resolves a link."

Conversely, the affirmative should point out and capitalize on the absence of these arguments.

Presumption: This is a legal term that I think folks are often confused about. Presumption means that the affirmative has not met their burden of proof (sufficient evidence for change) and that I should err negative and be skeptical of change. Although a 2NR should try to avoid finding themselves with no offense, I am increasingly compelled by arguments that an affirmative who has not chosen to defend a(n) change/outcome (note: this does not mean a plan) has not met their burden of proof. For instance, an affirmative that says "the State is always bad" but does not offer some alternative to it has not overcome the presumption that shifting away from "the State" would be inherently risky. Of course, a framework argument about what it means to vote affirmative, or whether the role of the debate is to advocate for/against change factors into how I think about these issues.

Flowing: is a dying art. Regardless of whether I am instructed to or not, I will record all of the arguments on a flow. You should flow too. Reading along with speech docs does not constitute flowing. I am frustrated by teams who spend an entire cross-x asking which cards were read and requesting a speech doc with fewer cards. In the days of paper debate (I am a dinosaur to the teens of 2020), you would not have such a luxury. There are clearly instances where this is not uncalled for, but the majority of cases appear to be flowing issues, and not "card dumps" from an opposing team.

Permutations: I am almost never persuaded by the argument that the affirmative does not get a permutation in a "method debate." Permutations are mathematical combinations and all methods are permutations of theories and methods that preceded it. I could [rather easily] be persuaded that if the affirmative has no stable advocacy or plan, then they should not get a permutation. That is a different case and has a different warrant (affirmative conditionality). "Perm do the aff" is not an argument, it is not a permutation and says nothing about how a counterplan or alternative competes with the aff. I have also found that teams seem to have difficulty in defending the theoretical legitimacy of permutations. Although I would have an astronomically high threshold for voting on an argument like "severance permutations are a voting issue," such arguments could be persuasive reasons to reject a permutation.

Risk: I find that I am mostly on the "1% risk" side of things when a team has [good] evidence to support a claim. However, I can also be easily persuaded there is a "0% risk" if a team has made too much of a logical leap between their evidence and their claim, especially if the opposing team has also indicted their opponent's evidence and compared it to their own. This is especially true of "Link->Internal Link" questions for advantages and disadvantages.

Tech and Truth: If all arguments were equal in a debate, I would err on the side of truth. However, that is rarely (and should not be) the case. When there is not a clear attempt by both teams to engage in line-by-line refutation, one team tends to miss important framing arguments their opponents are making that undercut the "impact" of their truth claims. This understanding is distinct from "they dropped an arg, judge, so it must be true," since that is not a warranted extension of an argument nor is it a comparison that tells me why the "dropped argument" (how do we know it was dropped if we aren't debating line-by-line and making these comparisons? Could an argument somewhere else or on an entirely different sheet answer it?) should affect the way I evaluate other portions of the debate.

Other important notes:

A) I will vote for the team who I found to do the better debating. This means if your framing argument is "your ballot is political because _______" and I vote for you, my ballot is NOT necessarily an endorsement of that politics. Rather, it means you won your impact prioritization and did the better debating, nothing more, nothing less.

B) I do not want to preside over accusations about what has or has not happened outside of the debate I am judging. In these situations, I will always defer to the arguments presented in a debate first and try to resolve the debate in that fashion, since I am often not witness to the events that are brought up about what may or may not have happened prior to a debate.

C) I am ambivalent about argument selection and theory and am willing to vote against my own convictions. E.G. I think the Delay CP is 100% cheating and unfair but I will not credit a 2AR on that position that does not defeat the negative's arguments about why the CP is good/legitimate or I think conditionality is generally good but would still vote that it is bad if the negative is unable to defend their 1NC strategy.

D) I am unwilling to "judge kick" a CP extended by the 2NR unless they have explicitly told me why I should. The affirmative should, of course, contest the claim that I can always revert to the status quo in the event that a counterplan is insufficient/unnecessary.

DOF - Cal State Northridge 

Competed: 8 years. Critic: 14 years 

Last updated: 9-2-16 (Most recent update: General topic discussion)

I had originally said that my judging philosophy is “tabula rasa.” However, judging over the years has caused me to rethink that position somewhat.  I don't think anyone can actually be a blank slate.  So, instead, I have included some ways that I approach debate/debating that may be helpful for your style. 

I have noticed I have a hard time hearing debaters in rounds the last couple years, so you may want to go slightly slower than top speed or speak louder if possible during analytic arguments/long K tags if you want to make sure I get all of them. 

I tried to be thorough in this judging philosophy (so it is kinda long), but while I competed on the national circuit in college, I am mostly regional these days, so if I missed a question of current significance, please feel free to ask. I haven't judged a ton the last two years (2014-2016), and almost exclusively on the regional circuit, so I am probably less-versed than usual on trends in the activity. What this means for you is that if there is general agreement on the meaning/use/significance of a piece of evidence or a particular theory argument, I may not be familiar. This doesn't mean you shouldn't make/use it, but that you should probably warrant all of your claims and not rely on general community agreement as that warrant. 

Role of the Judge/My Preferences

I am an educator outside of debates and view myself as such within debates. I will do my best to comment on how to use our experiences together in debate as a learning experience. As such, don't work to change your style because you are debating in front of me.  I will still listen to any type of argument. I am as comfortable with politics/CP/case disadvantages as I am with philosophical discussions in critical and performance literature.

I will do my best to decide the debate how the debaters ask that I decide the debate. What I list below are my default positions, so absent any argumentation on the question, this is where I lean.  This does NOT mean you will automatically pick up my ballot if your argument is in line with my default.  If contested, you still need to win that your argument is true/relevant in the debate you are in, regardless of what I say here.  I often vote against my own preferences.  

While I will vote against my own preferences, I have found that I have the most difficulty removing myself from the debate with arguments that say people should be excluded from debates versus debating about the utility/agency/ability of perspectives that people speak from, within, or toward.

I agree that race, class, gender, ability, sexual identity, nation of origin, faith, and a host of other markers of identity have profound effects on our capacity to deliberate, discuss, engage in activism, or recognize, challenge, or otherwise engage our privilege. I see that as a starting point for discussion, not as a warrant to exclude someone from the debate. We participate in a communicative activity. I am happy (or at least willing) to listen to arguments about perspectives that should or should not be included. I will not tolerate arguments that suggest people themselves should be removed from the activity. 

Framework/Performance/The Res:  

I think that critical, philosophical, and performance based arguments are a valuable component to forensics - which means that I think that both the affirmative and the negative should be able to use critical arguments to generate offense.

Does that mean that I value critical arguments OVER more policy-oriented arguments? No. But what it does mean is that I  default to believing that affs should get to use critical advantages to weigh against disads, and that negatives should get to run criticisms against the affirmative.  

That being said, you can still have your realism good/PoMo bad debates versus the K. I have voted for “realism is inevitable – your K is idealistic and ineffective” about as often as I have voted for “your war impact claims are inevitable unless we criticize.”  

I think a primary problem in a lot of these debates is that there is either no in-depth discussion of method (despite using the words "our/their method"), which leads to (a) no clear articulation by the aff as to what an aff vote accomplishes if we aren't passing a policy - just because you say the words "role of the ballot" doesn't mean you have explained what that role is and/or (b) how the neg arguments turn the aff if they aren't tied to political action outside of the debate as an end goal.  Often, this results in a lack of clash where the aff says they don't need fiat, but don't say what they do need, and the neg says the activism the aff never really advocated will be bad activism.  Some clear discussion of method and function of the advocacy in the round will not only generate clash, but make the resolution of the debate far easier. 

It seems to be relevant to let folks know whether or not I read/have read critical theory for fun and/or profit.  I have done both.  My doctorate is in rhetoric, cultural studies, and gender studies, so I have read a fair amount of that literature.  That does not mean that I default towards this lit, or that I am any more likely to value it over other forms of argumentation, just that I am fairly well versed in it.  I actually don't hear as many disads as I would like.

My default position is that affirmatives have to defend the resolution. I do believe that topic specific education is good and finding creative ways to be topical stimulates critical thinking. I think it is entirely possible for affirmatives to be critical/perform and defend the resolution.  This year, we should be talking about whether it would be a good idea for the USFG to establish a climate policy to reduce emissions to some degree in the debate. Again, I have voted for aff teams that don't defend the resolution - this is just my default. 

Thus, framework arguments on both sides of the debate need to be well articulated and warranted with specific impacts for how I situate myself as a judge/critic/spectator/educator/policymaker. 

Topicality:  Interpretations must be well articulated, and voters well explained. Potential for abuse is potentially a voter – debate it out.  I enjoy well articulated T debates, but am often frustrated with the lack of comparison of impacts, or how standards/internal links relate to one another (i.e.: predictability v education).  If you would like to win my ballot on T, explain these types of things. 

Theory: I don’t lean one way or the other on theory (Dispo/PICS/etc). I do have a pretty low threshold for conceded theory arguments that are well articulated, and will vote on them if they are there. I will not vote on them JUST because they are there – that is the “well articulated” part. If you are going for theory, you should not be going top speed.  For contested theory I would say I have a medium threshold - not particularly high or low.

Disads: I don't tend to think there is 100% defense, but I also can be persuaded to substantially mitigate that risk through both evidence and analytics.  I often lament that there is no discussion of how the disad impacts relate to the case advantages. Generic links and turns can be made specific by analytics/discussion if well articulated - they can also be made irrelevant the same way.  Which is really just my way of saying you should actually debate the link instead of competing over who can read more 2 line cards that are plan-adjacent.  

Counterplans: See disads and theory.  I think artificial competition is an argument that has more utility than is currently being used.  I also think that permutations should be accompanied with a text and more nuanced than "do both", but if the neg let's the aff get away with it, so be it.

General in-round/deciding issues:

Paperless/Prep: While a great idea, paperless debate tends to annoy me. Consider this the "get off my lawn" section of my philosophy.

I think debaters rely too much on the document jumped to them, and not enough on the debate as it is occurring.  I won't be following along on the viewing computer or e-mail chain - I still think it is the debaters' responsibility to speak to me as a critic.  

I also run your prep time until the document is prepared, and we are only waiting for the other team to be able to access your speech - so if that is e-mail/Dropbox link sent, or jump drive is out of your computer, your prep time is running until you have finished preparing and are able to speak.

As a general rule, I don’t read very much evidence. I tend to read more evidence in out rounds, though not by much  I flow parts of the evidence, and listen for warrants. I think it is the debaters’ job to explain what their evidence says. Merely extending a cite will be ineffective. If you demand that I read all of your evidence after the debate, I almost certainly won’t. I usually call for cards when (a) there is a dispute about what the evidence says (b) I don’t believe the debaters are explaining the evidence/interpretation/plan text correctly (c) there is evidence on both sides of a question that is explained by both teams and I need to resolve it or (d) I want cites. 

Similarly, evidence is good, but so are well articulated analytics.  I think we rely too much on having cards for arguments instead of making smart, well reasoned arguments for why something is or is not true. 

Interactions between debaters, and between debaters and their arguments:

I can’t stand people being rude or overly obnoxious in debates. If you are too rude or combative, dismissive of the other team, their argument, or their attempts to engage your argument, or generally discriminatory in approach or intent (racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, ablist, etc) I will adjust your speaker points accordingly.

Tech v truth:I am not totally flow centric - if an argument is answered in the debate, but not necessarily on the particular line that the original argument was made, I will tend to give it to you.  However, that presumes that you have articulated such a response.  While I don't keep a strict hi-tech flow, I will also not connect the dots for you.  If your evidence/analytic answers an argument elsewhere on the flow, or responds to a class of argument (e.g.: Perception links), say so. 

Speaker Points:

UPDATED: 12/30/14: After reading other people's philosophies doing prefs for the swing, it appears I have a view of speaker points that is quite out of step with the average. I have adjusted the following section accordingly.

I view speaker points similar to how I view grading. Doing what you are supposed to do on an assignment is a B/B- depending on quality. Doing what you are supposed to in order to win a debate is in the 28 range. Doing work above and beyond what is needed to win is in the 28.5 range, and truly superior work is in the 29 range. Arguments that win, but do so as a result of the other team's failings, or ignoring a reasonable request for accommodation or inclusion may not result in "reject the team", but may result in a 27 or lower. 

Hi everybody, I debated at San Francisco State University for a few years then coached at Pepperdine for 2 years during my masters program. I’m down for all arguments; I would prefer a smart analytical argument to speed-reading arguments you don’t understand/can’t explain. Debate’s supposed to be educational and fun so do your thing and don’t be rude or say mean things. 

Judging Philosophy - Winter 2017 

Assistant Director of Forensics, California State University, Northridge

Competed: 4 years (Was mostly a 2A. Debated novice, JV, and open). 

Coached/Judged: 4 years (Policy, LD, some Parli).

Email evidence exchange? Sure! robertloy5@gmail.com

General stuff…

I care about the knowledge produced in debate rounds. This means rounds should be educational and include an intellectually stimulating conversation. I also value competition, strategy, and research in debate and believe these things are necessary to achieve understanding and growth. 

With that said, I’m open to forms of argument that help us become better people. Although I believe plans should affirm the resolution, I also value creative affirmatives that challenge problematic norms in the debate community. Take what you will with that statement. 

Paperless debate has been a hindrance in some of my rounds. Thus, I’d prefer you take the time to organize your files and dropbox strategies when you’re in front of me. I usually keep time pretty closely as to help the round run smoothly, but I do have one rule regarding paperless debate: I run prep until the document is prepared and you’re able to speak. This means prep stops as soon as your flash drive is out of your computer or a dropbox link has been sent. Don’t hold up the round, please. 

I’m not the best with speed-reading anymore. Please slow down. 

I also don’t call for cards unless I need to clarify something myself. It should be the debater’s responsibility to explain the internals and details of arguments. 

Also, have fun. That's also pretty important too. 

 Specifics…

Framework/Resolution debate: I have no preference between policy or critical/performance debate. I look for impact comparison, clarity, and clash. Don’t assume that I’ve read your authors (I might have read them, but that’s not the point). I do think, however, that the plan should affirm the resolution, whether that be done through traditional or creative/critical ways. 

Topicality: I especially pay attention to well explained interpretations and violations in this area. Speed usually hinders my ability to understand these things, so slow down when you’re reading this. I actually like T since it makes my job easier (proven abuse is an easy win in front of me). 

Disadvantage: All parts of a DA matter in this area. I look for strong links and big enough impacts to vote on. This means comparing AFF impacts is crucial here to prove this risk. 

Counterplan: These arguments are useful in improving clash and competition, thus perm debate is also crucial to enhance this competition. I don’t care for a list of “perm do both…” arguments if they’re not explained well. 

Theory: I look for a well explained and in-depth discussion here. Don’t just read your blocks, explain and make connections for me. If a theory argument is dropped and uncontested, it’s the responsibility of the other team to tell me why this matters. I won’t vote on theory just because it’s there. 

Note: I'm open to any clarification or elaboration on my judging philosophy. Just ask before the round! 

Director of Policy Debate @ Stanford University; Director of Debate @ Edgemont Jr./Sr. High School

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

Misunderstanding Tech over Truth: Those three words hurt my soul because they've become to only symbolize that a dropped argument is a true argument in most circles; however, it should symbolize that well-done technical debate overcomes the truthful nature of any argument. I want to see you technically execute an argument you've spent time learning and understanding and I'm willing to listen to any argument that shows me this was done. This is significantly different from "I will listen to anything."

Research->Knowledge->Execution: That's the order! I love when students do a lot of column A to make column C easy.

Clarity Trumps: Speed is irrelevant to me. I've been doing debate for a quarter-century and I've judged people at various speeds. The most important part of the debate is clearly communicating ideas to an audience. I speak very fast, so I realize it's inevitable; however, if you're not understood then nothing you do matters. Remember, what you think you said is not always what the other person hears you say.

Policy Debate: What happened to strategies? The trend is to read 3-4 counterplans in the 1nc, rather than debating the case. Fewer off-case positions, with more time invested in debating the case, is usually a more successful strategy to create pressure on 2a's helping you win more ballots.

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

I want to see the best version of you debating! As you can tell my opinions on PF have changed dramatically in the past six seasons; however, I still enjoy judging debates when you're trying your best!!

Theory: I'm totally uninterested in PF theory. It's underdeveloped, not well explained, and has no foundational basis in the activity.

Evidence: If the tournament doesn't adhere to a specific set of evidence rules, I will default to NSDA evidence rules. Paraphrasing is allowed unless otherwise prohibited, but must follow the rules.

I will no longer ask for cases or cards before the debate. I do expect that if a piece of evidence or a card doc is requested that it can be produced in a timely manner. To expedite this process, I will allow the other team to prep during the transfer time for a card doc to be sent to the other team unless it's specifically prohibited by the tournament.

Wiki: I don't look at it. My personal preference is that teams would disclose if the other team asks but I am not policing these conversations. I personally believe that understanding the arguments you are debating (if they've been read before) produces better debate; however, am uninterested in listening to a debate about disclosure being good or bad unless something unethical was done during the disclosure process.

2017-2018 PF TOC Update: April 23rd, 2018

As you can see I used to have a very strong leaning towards how evidence needs to be presented during a debate. I've backtracked pretty substantially on this point. Therefore, I won't ask for your case ahead of time. However, I do still prefer evidence that is directly quoted and cited according to the rules of the tournament we are at. I do not like paraphrasing and will only accept paraphrasing as a logical argument to be made in the round and will not credit you for reading a qualified author.

I know a lot about debate, arguments, and the topics you are debating. I have an extremely competitive set of students that are constantly talking about the topic, I tutor students around the world in PF, and I generally like to be educated on the things that students will debate in front of me.

Beyond what I've said above, I'll give you an additional piece of advice: If you would strike Stefan Bauschard or Amisha Mehta then you'd probably want to strike me. I tend to fall somewhere in between where they are at in their philosophies.

Last but not least, I don't intend to steal your cards...we have more than we can use...however if it means you'll throw me up on a Reddit post that can get over 100+ responses then maybe I'll have to start doing it!

**Disregard the section about asking me to conflict you if you feel uncomfortable debating in front of me since I've judged minimally and don't have any experience judging any of the teams in the field more than once therefore, it doesn't apply to you**

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

HS Public Forum Update: This is my first year really becoming involved in Public Forum Debate. I have a lot of strong opinions as far as the activity goes. However, my strongest opinion centers on the way that evidence is used, miscited, paraphrased, and taken out of context during debates. Therefore, I will start by requiring that each student give me a copy of their Pro/Con case prior to their speech and also provide me a copy of all qualified sources they'll cite throughout the debate prior to their introduction. I will proactively fact-check all of your citations and quotations, as I feel it is needed. Furthermore, I'd strongly prefer that evidence be directly quoted from the original text or not presented at all. I feel that those are the only two presentable forms of argumentation in debate. I will not accept paraphrased evidence. If it is presented in a debate I will not give it any weight at all. Instead, I will always defer to the team who presented evidence directly quoted from the original citation. I also believe that a debater who references no evidence at all, but rather just makes up arguments based on the knowledge they've gained from reading, is more acceptable than paraphrasing.

Paraphrasing to me is a shortcut for those debaters who are too lazy to directly quote a piece of text because they feel it is either too long or too cumbersome to include in their case. To me, this is laziness and will not be rewarded.

Beyond that, the debate is open for the debaters to interpret. I'd like if debaters focused on internal links, weighing impacts, and instructing me on how to write my ballot during the summary and final focus. Too many debaters allow the judge to make up their mind and intervene with their own personal inclinations without giving them any guidance on how to evaluate competing issues. Work Hard and I'll reward you. Be Lazy and it won't work out for you.

NDT/CEDA Update: I'm getting older and I'm spending increasingly more hours on debate (directing, coaching, and tabulating at the HS and College level) than I used to. I really love the activity of debate, and the argumentative creativity being developed, but I'm slowly starting to grow hatred toward many of the attitudes people are adopting toward one another, which in turn results in me hating the activity a little more each day. I believe the foundational element of this activity is mutual respect amongst competitors and judges. Without this foundational element, the activity is doomed for the future.

As a result, I don't want to be a part of a debate unless the four debaters in the room really want me to be there and feel I will benefit them by judging their debate. I feel debate should be an inclusive environment and each student in the debate should feel comfortable debating in front of the judge assigned to them.

I also don’t want people to think this has to do with any single set of arguments being run. I really enjoy academic debates centered on discussions of the topic and/or resolution. However, I don’t prefer disregarding or disrespectful attitudes toward one another. This includes judges toward students, students toward judges, students toward observers, observers toward students, and most importantly students toward students.

As I grow older my tolerance for listening to disparaging, disregarding, and disrespectful comments from the participants has completely eroded. I'm not going to tolerate it anymore. I got way better things to do with my time than listen to someone talk down to me when I've not done the same to them. I treat everyone with respect and I demand the same in return. I think sometimes debaters, in the heat of competition, forget that even if a judge knows less about their lived/personal experience or hasn’t read as much of their literature as they have; the judges, for the most part, understand how argumentation operates and how debates are evaluated. Too many debaters want to rely on the pref sheet and use it to get judges who will automatically check-in, which is antithetical to debate education. Judges should and do vote for the "worse" or "less true" arguments in rounds when they were debated better. Debate is a performative/communicative activity. It's not about who wrote the best constructive only. It's about how teams clash throughout the debate.

Therefore, as a result, I will allow any person or team to ask me to conflict them if they feel uncomfortable debating in front of me or feel that the current system of judge placement requires them to prefer me since I'm a better fit than the other judge(s). I won't ask you any questions and won't even respond to the request beyond replying "request honored". Upon receiving the request I will go into my tabroom.com account and make sure I conflict you from future events. I feel this way you'll have a better chance at reducing the size of the judge pool and you'll get to remove a judge that you don't feel comfortable debating in front of which will narrow the number of judges available to you and might allow you to get more preferable judges. My email is brian.manuel@uky.edu. Please direct all conflict requests to this email.

2014-2015 Season Update: September 2, 2014 (The gift that keeps on giving!!)

The following are not for the faint of heart!

Some days you just can't get ready in the morning without being bothered. Then you just need to be cheered up and it fails or someone threatens to eat your phone.
However, when it's all said and done you can at least sleep having sweet dreams.

**On a more serious note. Dylan Quigley raised a point on the College Policy Debate Facebook group about what "competition" means when people are judging debates. Therefore, I'll go with this answer "Because this is an emerging debate with no clear consensus, I would encourage judges to let the debaters hash out a theory of competition instead of trying to create one for them. I think in an era where students are taking their power to mold the "world of debate" they debate in it is especially important for us judges to *listen* to their arguments and learn from their theories. No shade towards the original post, I just think it's worthwhile to emphasize the relationship between "new debate" (whatevs that is) and student's ability to create theories of debate on their own instead of choosing a theory that's imposed on them." However, in the absence of these debates happening in the round I will default to a traditional interpretation of "competition." This interpretation says the neg must prove their alternative method/advocacy is better than the affirmative method/advocacy or combination of the affirmatives method/advocacy and all or part of the negatives method/advocacy. Also in these situations, I'll default to a general theory of opportunity cost which includes the negative burden of proving the affirmative undesirable.

2013-2014 Season Update: December 25, 2013 (Yes, it's Christmas...so here are your presents!!)

If you love to debate as much as Sukhi loves these cups, please let it show!!

If you can mimic this stunt, you'll thoroughly impress me and be well rewarded: Sukhi Dance

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

Also, why cut cards when you can have sick Uke skills like these and these!!

To only be shown up by a 2-year-old killing it to Adele

Finally, we need to rock out of 2013 with the Stanford version of the Harlem Shake by Sukhi and KJaggz

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

Instead of forcing you to read long diatribes (see below) about my feelings on arguments and debate practices. I will instead generate a list of things I believe about debate and their current practices. You can read this list and I believe you'll be able to adequately figure out where to place me on your preference sheet. If you'd like to read more about my feelings on debate, then continue below the fold! Have a great season.

1. TKO is still in play, and will always be that way!

2. You must win a link to a DA - if you don't talk about it I'm willing to assign it zero risk. Uniqueness doesn't mean there is a risk of a link.

2a. "Issue Specific Uniqueness" IS NOT a utopian answer to all affirmative arguments.

3. You must defend something on the aff - by doing so it also implies you should be able to defend your epistemological assumptions underlying that advocacy.

4. T is about reasonability, not competing interpretations. This doesn't mean every affirmative is reasonably topical.

5. Debate should be hard; it's what makes it fun and keeps us interested.

6. Research is good - it's rewarding, makes you smarter, and improves your arguments.

7. "Steal the entire affirmative" strategies are bad. However, affirmative teams are even worse at calling teams out on it. This means they are still very much in play. Therefore, affirmatives should learn how to defeat them, instead of just believing they'll somehow go away.

8. There are other parts to an argument other than the impact. You should try talking about them, I heard they're pretty cool.

9. Your affirmative should have advantages that are intrinsic to the mechanism you choose to defend with the aff. Refer to #6, it helps solve this dilemma.

10. Have fun and smile! The debaters, judges, and coaches in this activity are your lifelong friends and colleagues. We are all rooting you on to succeed. We all love the activity or we wouldn't be here. If you don't like something, don't hate the player, hate the game!

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

An additional caveat that was discussed with me at a previous tournament - I believe that the status quo is always a logical option for the negative unless it is explicitly stated and agreed to in CX or it's won in a speech.

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

So after talking to Tim Aldrete at USC, he convinced me that I needed more carrots and fewer sticks in my philosophy. Therefore, I have a small carrot for those debaters who wish to invoke it. It's called a T.K.O (Technical Knockout). This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you've solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, a strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate. If a team chooses this path and succeeds, I will give them 30 speaker points each and an immediate win. If the team chooses to invoke this but it's unclear you've TKO'd the other team or in fact choose wrong, you obviously will lose and your points will be severely affected. Who dares to take the challenge?

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

I am currently the Assistant Coach @ Lakeland/Panas High School, College Prep School, and Harvard Debate. I’m also involved with Research & Marketing for Planet Debate. This topic will be my 14th in competitive debate and 10th as a full-time coach. Debate is my full-time job and I love this activity pretty much more than anything I’ve ever done in my life. I enjoy the competition, the knowledge gained, and the people I’ve come to be friends with, and likewise I really enjoy people who have the same passion I have for this activity.

I last posted an update to my judge philosophy a number of years ago and think it is finally time I revisit it and make some changes.

First, I’ll be the first to admit that I probably haven’t been the best judge the last few years and I think a majority of that has come from pure exhaustion. I’ve been traveling upwards of 20+ weekends a year and am constantly working when I am home. I don’t get much time to re-charge my batteries before I’m off to another tournament. Then while at tournaments I’m usually putting in extremely late nights cutting cards and preparing my teams, which trades off with being adequately awake and tuned in. This year I’ve lessened my travel schedule and plan to be much better rested for debates than I was in previous years.

Second, since my earlier days of coaching/judging, my ideology about debate has changed somewhat. This new ideology will tend to complement hard-working teams and disadvantage lazy teams who try and get by with the same generics being run every debate. Don’t let this frighten you, but rather encourage you to become more involved in developing positions and arguments. When this happens I’m overly delighted and reward you with higher speaker points and more than likely a victory.

What is the difference between the two arguments and why is that important?

The method you use to do this does not matter.  The key word is argument.

I do value research and evidence in debate.  I also value clash and on point refutation.

Good Luck!

SECTION 1: OVERALL REFLECTION ON THE TYPES OF DEBATES I LIKE AND WHY

I came up as a high school debater and coached at a high school when I was in college instead of actually debating, so many college debate people don't know me. I came from a region which hadn't competed on the national circuit and my partner and I were the first local team to go to the TOC. I have judged many high school policy debates over the past ten years. I've recently begun coaching and judging in the realm of college debate as well. I like judging debates and I'll do my best to give you a thoughtful decision and constructive feedback. I'm very comfortable judging any speed or style of debate.

Being a policy debater made a big difference in my life in terms of what I eventually came to study and to do with my life. My intellectual concerns center on decolonial thought and Africana philosophy. Teams that share these or related concerns will probably be more successful in front of me. I do agree that there are certain issues that present themselves as prior questions to determning the best course of action for the United States government to take. These issues are perhaps summed up in as those three areas that Lewis Gordon contends tend to be the focus of African Diasporic philosophy: "(1) philosophical anthropology, (2) social transformation and freedom, and (3) the metacritique of reason." This is to say that all else being equal I do strongly prefer debaters that have something to say about (1) What it means to be a human (and what it means to be a debater), (2) How changes in our world ought to be pursued (from the perspective of those whose freedom is significantly constrained, rather than the perspective of those whose freedom is the telos of existing arrangements), and (3) What it means to engage in communication and argument. I don't take it upon myself to dictate that these concerns be utmost to the debaters I judge. I have no problem judging a 'good old-fashioned policy debate' between two teams focused on concerns within that realm. I have judged about three such debates for every one 'non-traditional' debate I've had the pleasure of adjudicating, and don't object to this being the case. But if you want me to vote for you, particularly in those sorts of debates repugnantly termed "clash of civilizations" debates, taking these concerns into account by focusing your arguments on contestations within these realms - as opposed to concerns about why it is good to devote the activity solely to debating the efficacy of US action - will improve your ability to win and receive good speaker points substantially.

As a debater I was successful on the technical side of things, but I do wish I had devoted more rounds to exploring personal experience and performative approaches. I tend to be sympathetic to teams that pursue these approaches, though not to the point of discounting the other team's arguments. I like to see debates where the neg arguments engage the content of the 1ac and try to compete on that level to a significant degree. I think that when one team discusses personal experience in a significant way, the other team is missing out, both pedagogically and argumentatively, by not responding in kind. Teams that seek to reject the other team's performative approach and not embrace the performative elements of their own debating won't do as well in front of me as those that rise to the challenge. By performative, I am merely building upon the idiom most used in discussions of the activity (though the term is one wrought with difficulties and paradoxes like its cousin, the kritik/K) to describe the approach of debaters who prioritize persuading me by what they do in communicating their arguments more so than in merely the (artificially-separated-from-form) content of their arguments alone. In parallel to this, though, teams that reject the aff's policy approach by philosophy/theory alone without an engagement at the level of why the aff's policy proposal might be a bad idea won't do as well in front of me as teams that integrate attacks on the case into their K. I am likely to ultimately vote negative in a debate where the aff still might be a good idea when the neg presents a better idea, but clashing at the level of how the aff's idea might fail - even if not guaranteeing the aff's failure in the way a conceded extinction DA with 100% probability would - remains an effective way to show the relative desirability of the neg's position.

Passion, humor, and thoughtfulness are things I find pretty important in debating successfully. Debaters who persuasively convey, with precision and emphasis, the key reasons why they should win the debate will tend to have higher speaks and an easier road to winning my ballot, and this becomes more acute in the 2nc and the rebuttals. Debaters whose arguments demonstrate they've reflected on the arguments of both sides, rather than reiterating their main points and hoping it will all work out, are much more likely to impress me. I do appreciate funny debaters and debates where people are enjoying themselves and employing some form of mutual respect as opposed to indifference or antagonism.

These are the major concerns that shape how I judge a debate. Sections 2 & 3 will provide more specific notes on how I like to see certain things done. Be forewarned that a) these sections are not extremely important for you to read before I judge your debate, so you can skip ahead to your prep work if that seems a more reasonable priority, and b) I have attempted to lay them out so you can jump around, so some of the statements are redundant with things said in other parts of this paradigm.

SECTION 2: REFERENCE NOTES ON MAJOR ISSUES

(Speed) No problems keeping up, though slowing down to persuasively emphasize what you are winning is a good thing to do. No problems with teams who want the debate to be slower, and will tend to give them the sort of leeway they require. If you're the faster of the two teams I certainly don't mind you using your speed to win the debate but if you can be flexible in that regard to improve the overall quality of the round your speaks will probably reflect that positively.

(K vs. Policy, Neg Strats) The debates I enjoy the most tend to be those where both teams have some sort of sustained engagement with critical theory(/ies), but this is not a precondition for the debate being good in my eyes. The neg strategies I like the most tend to be those that engage what the 1ac said. If one side initiates a relatively more performative approach to the debate, I will tend to view both teams through a performative lens. I do enjoy good policy debates. I also enjoy good critical arguments. I also enjoy good performance based debates. I think the best negative strategies always include some form of disadvantage, case turn, and case defense, though the sources for and articulations of these can venture well outside the mainstream. You might be able to win on an argument that discourse unrelated to the policy at hand should be rejected, but it will always help you to contextualize your criticism by talking about how it would manifest in the imagined world of the plan. I am also sympathetic to aff arguments that negative performative contradictions cut against the neg's alternative solvency and bolster the ability of a permutation to solve the neg's alternative.

(Plan Focus) I think that negative ground in debates should be inclusive of a variety of elements of the aff, not solely the plan text. If you feel otherwise, pref me lower. Then again, affs that can defend why only the plan text is salient will often win in front of me because their arguments are better on that question, so you might want to pref me higher than others who are more inclined to disregard those arguments.

(Orientation to Issues and Literature) I do an awful lot of reading that is historical and philosophical; teams who are over-reliant on evidence whose epistemology they cannot defend might not do as well in front of me. Teams with a strong knowledge of epistemological dynamics who can utilize that knowledge in the debate will tend to do better in front of me. I am enthusiastic about argumentation that critically addresses systems of power relating to coloniality, racism, gender, and sexuality. I am knowledgeable about many of the major currents in philosophy, particularly existential philosophy, post-structuralism, and dialectical analysis. If you prefer judges who tend to ignore these sorts of issues, you probably should not pref me highly.

(Post-Round Work) I read evidence on parts of the debate that are close and on parts of the debate where the 2nr and/or 2ar extensions are citation-heavy where the specific warrants in the cards will impact how. I will tend to read un-highlighted parts of the card to provide feedback to the debaters and occasionally in order to make it possible to interpret the part that is underlined. If you want a judge to do all the work for you, I'm not the one for you. If you want a judge who will help you get by exclusively on tag-line extensions and under-highlighted and/or poor evidence, I'm not the one for you either.

(T) I enjoy topicality debates. I tend to be neg leaning on questions of predictability and ground and aff leaning on questions of limits. If you lose topic-implied ground in the debate and their interpretation makes it hard to predict crucial elements of the aff, you can feel pretty safe about going for T in the 2nr. If you do a good job of defending why your counter-interpretation causes good debates in a predictable way, I'll probably be willing to vote aff even if you make the neg research more cases.

(Framework) Non-traditional affs are neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad; the traditions themselves are historically shaped and have changed frequently. I'll vote neg on theory arguments if they're won, but winning these arguments on either side requires a philosophical engagement with substantive ideas. If there's a problem with the logic of the topic that is articulated by the aff, and they win that debate is a good space to try to shape our education in order to address that problem, I'll be willing to vote aff. You are better off making a topicality argument about the specific mechanisms in the topic, other than USFG/Resolved, that the aff's critical approach doesn't allow the neg to deal with, rather than making a generic USFG framework argument. I have heard the state action good/bad debate plenty of times and am not necessarily interested in hearing it much more, though if it's all you've got and you execute it perfectly I'll vote for it. You're better served addressing the substance of the aff and using T arguments about what other mechanisms in the topic mean or imply (i.e., financial incentives and restrictions on the Energy Production topic or infrastructure investment on the Transportation topic) in order to argue that the aff's non-USFG-centric approach hurts your ability to negate because of the mechanisms for exploration it uses rather than because the non-USFG focus itself is bad for debate.

(CP Theory) I sometimes enjoy counterplan theory debates, but rarely find PIC's or conditionality to be abusive, and am disinclined to vote negative because a 2ac argument was abusive. I enjoy theory more when arguments are substantial. If you like making well-thought out theory arguments in the 2ac and devoting significant time to winning them in the 1ar, I'm a good judge for you. If you like blowing off theory arguments on the neg I'm not a good judge for you.

SECTION 3: REFERENCE NOTES ON TECHNICAL AND IDIOSYNCRATIC ISSUES

-Arbitrary "counter-interpretations" annoy me. The worst is "Only our case is topical." I'll only vote on that one if the 2ac warrants it and the neg block doesn't substantively answer it. "Their interpretation plus our case" is very nearly as bad. On T, define and interpret the words in the topic. On debate theory debates, arbitrary counter-interps are more reasonable and necessary but still not desirable. If the neg reads three conditional counterplans and two conditional critiques, I'm not super inclined to buy your "they get three condo CP's + ONE condo K" or "2 condo CP's + 2 condo K" counter-interps. Affs should probably either defend that unconditional neg positions are good, that the neg only gets one conditional position to read, or that the neg must make a (non-artificially) competitive position in the 1nc dispositional so the aff gets to turn it. I am kind of a fan of the 1nc having a dispositional CP or dispositional critique and still getting to read other conditional positions since the aff can straight turn the one dispo position to solve the skew arguments. This entails, though, that the dispositional position be something with a clear link to ground staked out in the 1ac with a net benefit that is not along the lines of "plan plus."

-Artificially competitive neg positions annoy me. Plan plus CP's are no fun to watch. Floating PIK's where the neg's author would disagree with the aff but the neg doesn't want to have to defend that the plan's a bad idea are no fun to watch. Dig in your heels on the neg and debate something substantive. PIC's that exclude an actual component of the plan are pretty good for debate. Critiques of aff discourse that don't require me to conclude that the aff plan is bad but that show that it might be bad because the aff's method or discourse or evidence depend on flawed assumptions are pretty good for debate. Defending status quo on plan action is good for debate.

-The less Eurocentric, or normatively white/masculine/heterosexual/wealthy your assumptions are, the more likely they are to persuade me. The specificity of your scenarios on the Hegemony debate is not likely to overwhelm your opponent's claim that your authors collectively are miseducated.

-Fast debate is probably good enough that there's no point in me being a crusader for slower debate. Still, team's that emphasize key points are good, and that may tend to involve slowing the debate down on crucial points. Also, structured 2ac arguments are more likely to help you win than a laundry list of blippy arguments. I'll do more work for affs whose 2ac arguments have a coherent structure than those who merely expect me to get every argument, no matter how long or warranted, on my flow accurately. The 2ac on off-case positions and the 1nc on case will tend to dictate how I flow the debate, so emphasize structure in preparing those parts of the debate. An emphasis on structure includes having numbers and subpoints that go in order.

-Aff predictability of neg arguments is rarely a compelling standard. If I were aff I would predict that any discourse I use in the 1ac might be critiqued by the neg. If I were aff I would predict that the neg might run a PIC that excludes part of the plan, including more abstract parts like the immediacy and stability of its implementation. That is to say, I would predict arguments like Referenda, Consult, Sunsets, Conditions, Delay. That being said, if you make an argument that a type of CP or K is bad for debate and the neg shouldn't go for it because they deny the aff access to predictable ground, I'm happy to vote aff on the theory debate. Failure to predict a neg position isn't a reason to reject it, but the position itself denying the aff the ability to generate predictable offense is. If the timeframe of your aff can't outweigh the net benefit to a Consult CP, then you should probably research impact turns to the net benefits of consult counterplans.

-I like strategies that aim to demonstrate abuse on theoretical positions, which generally speaking means that if you run a T argument in the 1nc it will be more compelling if the 2ac answers on a different position demonstrate how the plan(/advocacy) text shifts the terrain of the debate in such a way that arguments you can reasonably expect to win on are kept at bay. Likewise, if a counterplan is abusive, deploy the arguments that are structurally coupled with your 2ac abuse argument.

-If your cross-x questioning gives you great ground, try taking it. It is exhausting to see 3-4 rounds in a tournament where the 1ac says terrorism, the cross-x of the 1ac clearly establishes that the terrorism discourse is impossible to define but overtly Islamophobic, and then the 1nc reads a very generic criticism and terror talk is never fleshed out. The more you can pull out the most relevant argument, the better.

Jump time is not prep time.

I have not judged on this topic, and have limited topic familiarity.

[This paradigm is from 2012, but mostly still pertinent.]

Debated at: University of Minnesota

I hesitate to do work for one side or another to fill in any blanks; I usually vote for the team that allows me to write the easiest and most reasonable ballot. My flow is the most important factor in my decision, followed by evidence. Uncontested or mishandled impact comparison is where I find myself deciding many debates, be they theory/T, DA, or performance debates. Offense is good.

On style: No preference. I reward good evidence, especially if used strategically. I readily discredit poor evidence if the other team accurately identifies it. As a debater and coach, I am very familiar with many styles of debate, and you are probably best off staying within your comfort zone. I will never frown upon quickness, but I will only flow what I can hear.

On policy arguments, generally: Offense is key, which means that turning the case or turning the disad will matter a lot and likely earn a win.

Disads are typically made more salient with more specific links. I tend to think that the negative cannot read too many cards in the block, but needs to start explanation early on, as well.

Counterplans usually solve the case enough, and counterplan theory is not where I prefer to settle any round. That being said, offense against counterplans is the most important thing an affirmative can do.

On the K: I like a good K debate. Debates should focus on what is the fundamental function of my ballot. Negatives get away with absconding fairness very easily because affirmatives mishandle a lot of stupid and/or important arguments. Permutations won't get very far without a foothold on the framework debate--I think that unless the affirmative can justify any consideration of their plan in the first instance, it's wasteful to even try. Disadvantages to the alternative are a superior answer to kritiks, as they tend to discredit consideration of the alternative as well as the framework.

I expect that negatives present a clear alternative/method argument, and be able to tie the impacts directly to the affirmative's argument. What my ballot does also matters: is an intellectual endorsement or rejection an important consideration? Why should I or shouldn't I evaluate the alternative as a counterplan with a framework screen?

Drawing on history for convincing examples is a good tactic.

I don't want to watch an awful, rehashed clash of civilizations debate. If the neg can't read defense against the 1AC, or if the aff has only generic K-toolbox answers and can't engage the neg's argument, then you need to learn more.

Topicality: I do not hack for topicality, and have a higher threshold than some. I prefer that the debate be about the affirmative, but I will not refrain from felling a team for overstepping the resolution. I have voted for Topicality before, but still believe that negatives need to do a better job articulating the importance of fairness. Specific examples of what one interpretation allows or prohibits, as well as the importance of ground, is almost a precondition for me to sign my ballot negative. Don't shy away from T, just have a good list of affirmatives, and do a good job of explaining how fairness accesses education.

Some 2A's tend to hustle through T blocks too quickly to flow.

Never been a fan of "The A/OSPEC" but I will gladly vote on it if the 1AR is a faceplant.

Theory: Of paramount importance in a theory debate is framing the contest as a question of different interpretations. I tend to decide theory debates as I would questions of advantages or disadvantages. Fairness questions, as explained above, are most persuasive to me when attended (in rebuttals) by a host of specific reasons and/or examples. "Multiple conditional worlds lets the negative run abusive strategies" is like a 10% on the Convincing scale, but "multiple conditional worlds justifies running contradictory arguments to trip up affirmatives, like running Red Spread and the Security K at the same time" is probably going to make me care a bit more. If a debate must come down to theory, I would much rather that it be on a larger objection, rather than a piddling and trivial argument. Not that I won't vote on "no neg fiat" or "solvency advocates bad"--I would just prefer to watch golf, and that's saying something.

Very much conditional predispositions I have on theory: "Test in, test of", quality of education is good, really small PICs are annoying, some predictability can help reinforce depth, _good_ solvency advocates are sometimes a reasonable basis for predictability.

Other:

• Dropped arguments get full weight (unless they clearly have no bearing in the round--I won't drop a team on "multiple conditional worlds bad" if there are no conditional worlds).
• I don't give that many verbal or visual cues, and if you think I am carrying a sour expression, it is most likely just how my face normally looks. It is up to you to monitor your own debating.
• Cross-ex is a good time to get links and justify theory arguments that you may make.
• Past coaches: DCH, Phil, Eli Brennan.

I have not been around debate for over 6 years and judge one or two tournaments a year.  I'm not really sure what my paradigm is anymore, but here are a few pints that might help you when doing your prefs or if I do end up being your critic.  

1. I only judge 1 or 2 debate tournaments a year my flow and my hearing won't be used to the super fast robotic delivery that top POLICY debaters are known for.  If I am not keeping up,  I will let you know.  

2. I have voted for plans, counterplans, interpretations, FW, T, performances, alternatives, permutations, presumption, theory and even on a SPEC argument once or twice.

3. There is judge intervention in every round. Making the judge intervene so it benefits you is for you to figure out.

4. If you aren't winning the thesis of your argument, why does the line by line matter?

5. You don't need to win every argument to win a debate. If you try to win every arg, you probably need more coaching. I know some really good coaches that do private tutoring.

6. If my RFD doesn't make sense, it is probably because I was confused during the round.   If you do #7, I will probably not be confused.  

7. "We are winning the (insert argument here) which wins us the debate. Even if they win (insert opponents arg here)....." is probably a good way to win most judges ballots.

8. I am pretty obvious with my nonverbals. Sometimes even verbal.  I've been known to stop a round or two in extreme situations.  

9.   I don't mind answering questions after the RFD, but please don't debate my decision because it won't change and you probably won't see me again anyway.  If I happen to be judging at a tournament it is probably because I am there to catch up with friends that I have not seen in a long time.   I know this is important to you, so I'll work hard to listen and evaluate all your arguments and to provide a coherent explanation as to why I voted the way I did.  

10.  Try to have fun and make everyone laugh.  I can guarantee that I can make you laugh..... or cry if you want :). 

General - I think that debate is a game and you should be able to use the arguments you want to win the round. With that said I believe that the Aff should defend the political ramifications of their plan and that plan should probably involve the USFG. Critical affs should not discount (ignore) the DA, if your plan, advocacy, goal, whatever would be bad for the world if implemented I don’t want to support it with my ballot.
K stuff – The k is part of a stagey to win debate rounds and even one I used as a debater. I really like good K debate BUT I often don’t think links are specific enough and I often find that teams just assume I know what they are talking about…both of those things are bad and will likely mean that you will lose the debate round. If I have to hear another debate between two "K" teams that both avoid doing anything so they do not link to the K I might have to scream. With that said always assume I have not read the same critical literature that you are reading. Explain it to me.
Speed - I don't care if you go fast or slow but I will tell you to slow down if you are going to fast. Theory: if you want me to vote on it you might want to slow down so I can get it all down.
Evidence - I like to call for evidence but did not that much last year...lets see if energy will be a better topic. I will not call for cards unless they are clearly extended in the last speeches and not as just a block (extend the link, extend the 5th fleet advantage) I will also evaluate source qualifications and would like it if your card said anything close to what you have tagged it.
Theory - It’s just like any other argument, make smart arguments. To be honest I am not a big fan of potential abuse and I think T is about competing interpretations. You should have some kind of offence against theory arguments, not impact turns like T is genocide, but counter interpretations, counter standards and so on. I love when teams put theory on the rest of the pages in the debate round ie. Perm theory, C/P theory, and so on but I often find the reject the argument not the team compelling. RVIs are dumb arguments that novices and new JVers like to make.
Rebuttals – If you have deployed a good strategy and have executed it the debate should come down to the last two speeches. Make sure you are really explaining your arguments in these speeches; tell me why you won and the other team lost. If you are going to go for theory I think that you should either be going for something you can win in under a minute or you should be spending all six minutes on it. Too often in D1 debaters fail to have a rebuttal strategy…don’t be that debater…its all about big picture debate, making smart choices, seeing the connections between different flows and explaining your arguments.
Last thing - Don't be mean to the other team, there is a big difference between making someone look dumb and making someone feel dumb. If you have a habit of doing this you will lose speaker points. D1 specific: it’s a reality in our district that JV and open will often be collapsed and too often open debaters just run over the new JV teams. I get it you want to win and you have the next round on your mind but that is not excuse for beating up on those who are new to JV. Win, I am not saying that you should not try or have a good debate round just try to remember what it was like when you made the jump…lets encourage new debaters to stay in the activity and not push them away by bring rude in and out of debates.

2007 – 2008 add-on: I have taken the following from Sue Peterson’s judging philosophy
“Explicit material in debate - Although I am for free speech, I am also a strong advocate for creating non-hostile environments in educational settings. I believe debate is an academic activity that uses the classroom as a laboratory, but it is still a classroom and I am still an educator. Therefore, I am inclined to disallow material in debate that I would disallow in my classroom experiences. I believe that you can discuss certain things without using explicit sexual descriptors and/or explicit language. Although this has not been widespread in debate, I feel its important to let people know that I will consider a request from the opposing team (or from me) to stop the use of explicit material/language to be a signal of discomfort on their (or my) part, and deserving of respect. In the end, if you are going to make such arguments, it is probably a good idea not to prefer me. And if you have me as a judge, I consider this a statement of my discomfort with this material and hope that you would respect that and change your approach.”

Just make smart arguments!

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Updated 9/8/18

I am now primarily judging NFA-LD.

PARLI: If you have me as a parli critic, know that it is not my strength nor my favorite style of debate. I just think that referencing evidence with no ability to check the accuracy of your reference makes it difficult to evaluate conflicting arguments, but I will do my best. Having well-warranted arguments beyond just a source (so explaining the warrant, not just naming the source and claim) will help your efforts. I can flow pretty fast debate, but without evidence, the arguments sometimes come fast and furious and I can't write or type that fast, so slow down a bit if you want everything on my flowsheet at the end of the speech.

BOTH PARLI AND LD:

As far as argumentative preference, performance debates are not really my cup of tea. I like critical arguments and I'm relatively familiar with the literature, but if you are going to "use the topic as a starting point" on the affirmative instead of actually defending implementation of your plan, I'm probably not going to be your favorite judge. But, I think claiming some methodological advantage to a certain plan is fine and the negative is free to critique it up if they so choose, as long as they in some way specifically engage the affirmative's arguments (usually better if it is the affirmative's arguments and not just the resolution or the status quo, but that is debatable).

I do not enjoy nasty debates where people ad-hom each other, yell at each other, or otherwise argue instead of debate. I think debate should be enjoyable for both the debaters and me -- so be nice and have fun. And if your opponents are not nice, don't get sucked into the evil...maintain your composure.

Rebuttals are key. Make sure you take the time to explain your arguments, how they should be impacted in the debate, how they compare to the other team's.

LD:

I am no longer inclined to read much evidence, but if you want me to read evidence because of it being a focus of controversy in the round, identify the evidence by author AND warrant - not just author. I want to know WHAT to read and WHY I'm reading it. I prefer to hear the evidence and hear the explanations and vote on that because debate is about oral argumentation. So, I won't read anything unless I feel like I have to in order to be fair to both sides in the debate.

I am not prone to vote on "this is a rule" unless it is well-warranted. I get that LD has rules and I believe there are reasons for those rules, but I also believe that debaters should be able to articulate those reasons in a round in order to win on those arguments. So, if you are going to make arguments about what should be excluded in a round, be sure to provide warrants other than "its a rule". I am open to debaters asking others to speak more conversational in rounds as that is part of this activity's unique appeal, but I do think that you should be reciprocal - so don't ask for someone to slow down (or yell slow/clear during their speech) and then speak fast in your own speech.

I love a good T debate. Most pre-round questions seem to focus on in-round abuse and competing interps, so I will say here that I think both those arguments are things that can be debated out in the round. I don't HAVE to have in-round abuse, but I'm open as to why I shouldn't evaluate Ts that don't prove it. My default is competing interpretations, BUT if the affirmative is obviously topical under the negative's interpretation and explains such, I don't think they HAVE to have a counterinterp.

If you have any other questions, let me know before the round begins!

whatever you choose to argue, be passionate about it.

my threshold for T is really high.  The last argument I want to vote for is T, but I will for purposes of inround abuse/ground arguments, or a compelling argument about future abuse.  In order for me to be convinced of in round abuse T must clearly be the predominant argument in the 2NR, and it needs to be impacted.  I don't want to vote on T for the sake of T, articulate the impacts to convince me T truly comes first.  

framework there needs to be strong articulation of the impacts of choosing to debate/not debate a certain way.  The debate space is what we make of it, I am not moved by tradition.

I hate myself when forced to vote on a k that is not clearly explained.  Running a k for the sake of confusing an opponent is pretentious and unhelpful to advancing education for everyone in the round (myself included). Understand and articulate the ramifications of the issues discussed by your authors.  Do not take those issues lightly. Do not bastardize the life work of your authors.  If you can't explain to me or to the other team how your alternative functions I'll do my best not to vote on it (as an alternative to the squo no, as a case turn yes) 

basically, impacts are just as important to me on T, framework, and theory as they are on case, disadvantage, k 

keep the debate space meaningful, respectful, and engaging.  I'm a single parent of five children, I hear enough petty bickering at home, I'd prefer not to hear more of it in round

most of all thank you for sharing this incredibly rewarding learning experience with me and for keeping me connected to and inspired by the importance of this activity 

I see debate as a space for knowledge production, where we can use our ideas about the world to transform the world or make it a better place. The debaters get to decide what the debate should be about, be that a plan text or a critical approach to the topic. There are various approaches to the resolution and I am open to listening to your particular approach. You should advocate an approach that engages/attempts to engage the resolution.

That in mind I will provide a disclaimer, do not say evil things for the sake of competition, that approach is not persuasive at all! By evil I mean saying that genocides are good/necessary or that rape is ok, this extreme is not one that will persuade me to vote for you.

Framework

NEG- If you are going to go for framework make sure that the rebuttals contextualize the framework debate to the affirmative. Specificity in these debates goes a long way because often times framework is a blanket extension of standards with no explanation as to how the 1AC in particular causes the impacts.

AFF- If you are answering framework make sure you address their interpretation or provide a counter interpretation for the debate. Alf's should attempt to address the resolution, but if you dismiss the resolution I expect there to be a defense of a non-topical approach.

Good Luck and Have Fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to email me @ jntterodriguez@gmail.com

12 years in policy debate. CSU Fullerton.

Quality over quantity

Im open to whatever just give me something substantive to vote on.

K: I don't know all the literature out there and even if I do I expect explanations and I expect you to make it reasonably understandable for your opponent. I like the wild, the unexpected, the innovative.

FW: I like critical AFF's in general but I think FW is important too. Try to keep it organized for me. Framing becomes super important.

CP: Take your time articulating that cp text to me.

DA: If uniqueness is in question I hope you take some extra time clarifying it for me in the last speech.

T: I like topicality in theory but the I dislike how they sometimes play out. If you want me to vote on a standard it should have in round abuse or generally some well warranted reasoning. Dropped blippy arguments are not persuasive to me.

Judge Philosophy for Orion Steele

Experience - I debated for Millard West High School for 3 years, then I debated for the University of Redlands for 4 years. Finished in Quarters at the NDT in 2004 and 2005. Since graduating from Redlands in 2005, I have coached at the University of Redlands, San Francisco State University and Cal State Fullerton. I have also taught at various high school camps around the country. I hold a law degree and a masters degree in Human Communication Studies. After coaching at St. Vincent De Paul High School, I worked for several years as a coach for the Bay Area Urban Debate League. After that, I began teaching full time at San Francisco State University. i currently teach debate at SFSU, City College of San Francisco and USF. I am also currently the director of forensics at University of San Francisco.

General Thoughts - I love all kinds of debate, from traditional debate to wacky crazy debate and everything in between. In general, you may make any argument you want when I am your judge, but I think you should have a warrant (a “because” statement) for any argument you make. If you can explain why an argument is good and/or important, then I will evaluate it. I promise you that I will listen to everything you say in the debate and try as hard as I can to evaluate all of the arguments fairly. Education, Fairness and FUN are three important values that I care about deeply. Debaters that make the round more fun, more fair, and more educational will be rewarded.

I’m sure you probably want specifics, so here we go:

Topicality - Go ahead. I will pull the trigger on T, but it is easier for the Neg if they can demonstrate in round abuse. I will obviously vote on T if you win the debate on T, but it will make me feel better about what I’m doing if you can show in round abuse.

Disads - Love em. Try to explain how they turn the case.

Counter plans - Love em. Beat the Perm/Theory.

Theory - Will vote on theory, but will rarely vote on cheap shots. If you think you have a good theory argument, defend it seriously.

Kritiks - Love em. The more specific the K, the better for you. In other words, explain your concepts.

Performance - Go ahead. I have been profoundly inspired by some performance debates, and encourage you to think about creative ways to speak. If your style of argumentation combines form and content in unique ways, I will evaluate the debate with that in mind.

Framework - An important debate tool that should be included in our activity. I will admit I have some proclivities about specific framework arguments (Aff choice in particular is a vacuous argument that I won’t vote for), but if you win on Framework then I will vote for you.

Bias - Of all the arguments that I am exposed to on a regular basis, I probably have the biggest bias against conditionality. I do not feel good about multiple conditional contradictory advocacies and I do not believe there is such thing as a conditional representations kritik. If you have a conditional advocacy, and the other team adequately explains why that is unfair or bad for debate, I will vote against you on condo.

Overall, one of the coolest parts of debate is seeing how radically different approaches compete with each other. In other words, I like to see all kinds of debate and I like to see what happens when different kinds of debate crash into each other in a round. If I am your judge, you should do what you like to do best, and assume that I am going to try as hard as possible to think about your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

FINAL NOTE
I would just like to use this space to say that I am VERY disappointed in the judge philosophies of some other people in this community. I have been in college debate land for a while, but I am taken back by the number of high school debate judges that say “do not pref me if you make x argument” or “I think debate should be about policy education and I will not consider anything else”. Your job as a judge is to listen to other people speak about what they want in the manner they want and make a fair decision. You are doing a disservice to debaters and hurting the educational value of our activity by removing yourself from debates where you may feel uncomfortable. You are never going to learn how to deal with inevitable shifts in the direction of our activity if you never open your mind to different arguments and methods.

Currently Assistant Coach for Sac State 
Open Debater for 4 years at West Point (2004-2008) 
High School Debate in TX (2000-2004) 

Run what you want and persuade me why you win. Speed (with Clairty) is fine.

Kritiks: Like any aspect of debate, framework and the flow are paramount. Persuade me why your framework is the lens that I should view the round through. On the substantive level, make sure you understand the K and can explain how the K operates in the world of the alt. to solve those bad, bad impacts. 

Non-traditional debate: I am fine with non-traditional forms of debate such as performance if you can articulate your methodology, why your method is better for debate, and how your advocacy solves for those bad, bad harms. 

Disads: Impacts of the DA is best viewed against the impacts of the Aff. You must give me a clear impact story. If you don’t go for it, please take the time to kick out of them cleanly. 

Topicality: My default is that topicality is about competing interpretations of the resolution. Prove that yours is more net beneficial and provide an impact and you win the debate. I think of this as an evaluative tool for discerning T debates and it applies to non-traditional aff's as well. Spec args are fun also. Remember voters or impacts to your standards, so use them! 

Theory: Good technical proficient theory debates are fun…but can get messy. The flow is your [necessary] friend, so use it to your advantage! 

When I am judging a debate I always feel like it is more important to evaluate the arguments made … ANY argument made as opposed to inserting my own personal opinion in the mix. As such, debate to learn and debate to have fun. 

I hope our round together will be an enjoyable one. To that end, manners and ethics are very important to me and will be incorporated in assigning speaker points. I find the best debaters can balance their desire to win with healthy amounts of humor and humility. Given the work involved in this activity, I do hope that you enjoy your competitions. 

Good luck! 

After a decade, I’ve now finally decided to update my philosophy. I’ve found that nothing I could say about each of the main argument categories would be particularly relevant because of one simple fact - my ultimate preference is to evaluate the round in whatever way you tell me to. I’m not saying you can call me a “tabula rasa” judge, if people even use that phrase anymore…I’m saying that my goal is to intervene as little as possible in the debate.

-I find myself evaluating every argument in a debate as a disad. This is obvious for actual disadvantages, counterplans, etc but for me, it's also true of theory, framework, and topicality. Did you read framework against a critical race aff? Then you likely have a predictability disad and a fairness disad against the aff’s framing of how debate should be. Did the neg read a conditional CP, K alternative, and insist the SQ is an option? You probably have ground and fairness disads to the CP/K. In those instances, you HAVE to make an impact argument that makes sense. Exclude the aff, reject the CP, reject the team…whatever. I will compare those impacts to the impacts the other side has (flexibility, education, etc.). It’d be a lot better if you did the comparison for me. If you don't, I will read into everything and make a decision for myself.

-Otherwise, debate like you want to debate. I no longer find myself voting against framework all of the time or voting for the K vs policy affs that are going for framework against the alt. I probably have voted the opposite way more often in the last year.

-Lastly, I flow but I also want to be on the email chain (cturoff@headroyce.org). I'm actually trying to model what you are supposed to be doing...flowing the speech and looking at the evidence the team is reading once I've written down what they said ALOUD. If you do this, guaranteed 28.9 or better (which is high for me). If you actually flow AND you are funny and/or efficient at line-by-line and/or making a ton of smart arguments while covering everything, guaranteed 29.5 or better (which is outrageous for me).

------------------------------Online Debate Update------------------------------

My computer setup is way better in my house than on the road. I have incredibly fast internet and multiple screens. But it's not enough to be able to flow full speed debates over Zoom without issues. Please keep that in mind. A few things will help, if you so choose - send out your full speech doc, not just your cards so I can follow along (I'm still going to flow what you say out loud but will cut you a bit of slack in the form of looking at your speech doc to fill in holes) and slow down on theory and analytics (I'm flowing on computer and not paper at home which is both faster in some respects and slower in others).

Assistant Director of Forensics, Pepperdine University

General

A couple of years ago I repositioned myself in my relationship with debate, geographically and literally. This was an active choice to genuinely integrate my identities as a debate coach, mother, advocate, educator and partner. This only relates to you in that this choice is fairly clearly reflected in my judging philosophy, most directly under the “critical” section. After a recent CEDA one of my debaters asked me if I’d let my daughters grow up to be policy debaters. Unexpectedly, yet without hesitation, I said: NO. I didn’t want to have that answer. But I still do.

I’m not sure how I change that sentiment immediately, but I’m sure that it starts by being here to listen to the voices, the arguments of the debaters; to know what y’all want and need this activity to look like. This philosophy is my imperfect attempt to communicate that to you.

Specifics

Counterplans & Disads

I love a specific, creative strategy and that includes counterplans. I think it’s fair to say that I lean neg on cp theory, but don’t take that as license to favor generic/abusive strategies over specificity and creativity. I’m ok with conditionality and PICs generally (love specific PICs – solvency advocates, net benefits we don’t hear every year…) but I sympathize with the aff when the neg runs multiple CPs or CPs in the block.

Much like my thoughts on CPs, I enjoy creativity and specificity. I spend a fair amount of time talking about/cutting politics cards, and I enjoy listening to those debates. I think that impact calculus usually doesn’t happen early enough or sufficiently, beyond the tagline blurbs spewed out at the top of 2ncs/1nrs (“nuke war outweighs, that’s our X evidence”). Solid impact debating can save/win debate rounds.  Side note: Case debates are appreciated, undervalued and under-utilized.

Critical Debate

Like CPs, I prefer these arguments to have specific links and a tangible alternative. I’m ok if that link is something like our orientation to particular issues in the topic, a practice of the community, language, framing, etc., and the alternative is a method of resistance (or something in that vein). I appreciate arguments that are supported by scholarship and articulated as germane/responsive to the resolution and/or the other team’s argument(s). I think there are myriad ways in which a person/team can respond creatively.

Topicality

Slow down on T for me. I probably default to “Eh, you’ve got some ground” more often than people (who like T debates) like. I will listen to your T argument and evaluate it however you tell me to (or win that I should). The first sentence is just full disclosure. People often have this as a “/framework” section and I guess you can largely apply my sentiment re: T to those fw debates. If your fw argument is more exclusively about the way we orient ourselves to debate, you should probably see my philosophy re: critical debate.

Other Stuff

I don’t want to be in your email chain or sent a slew of cards I don’t ask for at any point. This is nothing against you. I just want to focus on evaluating the arguments as I hear them, as we create them in this space. I will call for cards if something is unclear and I feel it’s my fault OR if the debate is close on an issue.