Last changed on
Wed April 7, 2021 at 10:20 AM CDT
About Me: I'm an attorney with a court of appeals. My job is basically to draft opinions in civil and criminal appeals for my judge. I competed in CX debate for 4 years. I also competed in DEX, FEX, and most drama categories at some point. I went to nationals in CX. I was the 2012 Oklahoma CX District, Regional, and State Champion.
TL;DR: I consider debate to be a game, which to me means two things: (1) I will not do your work for you, so tell me why you win; and (2) I will consider and vote on abuse-type arguments if you give me a good reason to do so. I prefer when debaters' arguments are intellectually consistent throughout the round.
I judge extemp using the standards on the ballot, which identifies several broad categories for evaluation. I score each category 0-10 and add up the total score. I also add a category for entertainment value, which I use only as a tie breaker. Highest score wins.
FOR ALL DEBATES:
In your last speeches, you should always make a big-picture argument why you should win the debate. If you can't tell me why should win, you probably shouldn't. I will not vote for a side solely because an argument was dropped or unanswered. The team making an argument has a continuing responsibility to explain (1) why it is true and (2) why it matters. If your opponent drops an argument, you may note that failure to respond and extend the argument through, but you should still make an argument that you're right and that I should care. For example, if an affirmative has two reasons why universal child care helps the economy, and the negative provides two reasons why universal child care is bad for the economy, and the aff never answers the negative's points, the negative still needs to explain why their two points are more persuasive than the aff's two points. The fact that the aff didn't respond gives your points more weight, but only if you say so.
FOR ANY DEBATE WITH CARDS:
Remember that I am judging how persuasive your argument is. Cards can provide some support for your argument, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a winning argument. Unless the card is providing hard data, all it proves is that someone said something that you are now saying. It may be more or less helpful, depending on its credibility. For that reason, I AM NOT PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENT, "WE HAVE A CARD, AND THEY DON'T, SO WE'RE RIGHT." Always justify the reasons why your argument is correct. If you can't explain your argument, I won't accept it. AND PLEASE DO NOT REFERENCE CARDS BY THE AUTHOR/DATE. Reference the claim (Heg is good/bad, universal child care works/doesn't work, Space Force good/bad, sneezing to the left causes nuclear war, whatever). I may have missed the author or not cared enough about the argument to write it down.
I'm also not a fan of judge intervention. If you feel that your opponents have been dishonest or have provided an incomplete card (either with text missing or an incomplete citation), make that argument in your speech, tell me why I should care, and I will review the card after the round if necessary. The only other circumstance where I will read cards after a debate is if the debaters dispute their contents. Please do not ask me to read a card after the round if you did not read it during your allotted speaking time. I will not read it, I will consider that an attempt to increase the amount of your speaking time, and I will dock your speaker points.
FOR PF DEBATES:
I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and I expect your final speech to contain an explanation why you should win. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts. I don't mind speed as long as you are clear; I hate speed if you're bad at speed.
FOR LD DEBATES:
I prefer traditional framework, with clear contentions and sign posting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts (and please name these clearly).
If you run counterplans (I guess counterplans are a thing in LD now?), remember that the neg's job is to negate the resolution. If your counterplan gives me no reason to reject the resolution, or if the aff makes a persuasive argument that adopting the resolution and the counterplan is possible (a perm, in policy debate), I probably won't vote neg on the counterplan.
FOR POLICY DEBATES:
You should slow down (a little) for taglines, authors, and important quotes in your cards. If you maintain a constant speed throughout your speech, I (and any other judge) will likely miss something.
Although I generally will let the debaters establish their own rules for the debate, here is some information on my voting history:
One-Off Negs: I typically do not vote for negative teams who make no effort to respond to the affirmative. If you ignore the 1AC, you'll probably lose. I emphasize "probably" because I have begrudgingly voted for one-off negs when the affirmative has responded poorly.
Topicality: Topicality debates should focus on standards and voters, which should be specific to your definition. In the past, I've voted negative when they've shown that the affirmative plan falls outside any definition that is fair, predictable, and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of topics. In those rounds, the negative has shown (1) their interpretation is reasonable, (2) the affirmative falls outside that definition, and (3) the affirmative's interpretation is unreasonable/bad for debate. I have never voted neg when they use a definition that is too restrictive (e.g., only x is topical) or when both teams have reasonable definitions. In other words, when the negative's argument came down to "our definition is better" rather than "our definition is good and their definition is bad," I have not voted negative on topicality.
Kritiks: If you feel confident in your Kritik, I will listen to it like any other argument. In my view, a winning Kritik is pertinent to the affirmative case and/or the resolution in general and has a clear, feasible alternative. If you run a K with an argument (CP, DA, etc) that contradicts the K, I won't like you. To be honest, I've rarely voted neg because of a K, mostly because negative teams tend not to run them well. If you don't understand the Kritik well enough to explain it, don't run it. Tip: If you've run a K to throw the other team, you've probably thrown yourself as well.
Counterplans: I've voted negative on counterplans that are competitive with the affirmative case and are mutually exclusive from it -- that is, counterplans that prove we should not adopt the resolution. I've never voted negative on a topical counterplan. That said, you are welcome to try.
Theory: Because debate is a game, I'll entertain theory. In the past, I've voted on theory only when one team has demonstrated that their opponent's strategy/argument is so abusive or unfair that it functionally derails the debate. I've voted aff on theory when the negative functionally ignores the 1AC and begins a new conversation. I've never voted negative on theory, but I've considered it when deciding whether to accept or reject a perm to a counterplan.
