Sherry Hall, Harvard, Judging Philosophy, East Region
Judged multiple College rounds this year.

Please add me to the doc chain: hallsherry2@gmail.com

I view my role as a debate judge as a "critic of argument." This means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is to act as an educator grading a class presentation. But Collegiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting as a "referee" or official who keeps time, and resolves disputes over the "rules". In resolving debates that focus on the "rules" - is topicality a voting issue, are PICs legitimate, must the negative provide an alternative - I tend to evaluate those questions based on the impact that they have on education and competitive equity.

I consider clash against the opponent’s ideas as one of the most important standards by which to evaluate whether or not a particular argument or practice is “good” or “bad” for debate. I do think that for the activity to continue to progress, creativity in arguments and debating styles is a good thing that should be encouraged. I also think that teams which are employing innovations, such as a “performance is all that matters” strategy, will do better with me if the debaters can isolate what standards I should use to evaluate rounds in this new way, and/or what ground is left to the other team. A strategy or performance that leaves nothing for the other team to respond to undermines the goal of competitive equity.

I have a few theoretical preferences, though none is so strong that I cannot be convinced to set it aside despite the arguments in the round. I will list some of these preferences, but the debaters should keep in mind, that these issues still need to be argued, and the side that plays into my preferences, still needs to articulate the reasons why a particular argument should be accepted or rejected.
1. I strongly believe that if asked, the affirmative must specify who does the plan. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor, means that the affirmative gets to choose. The whole purpose of having a debate where the negative can clash meaningfully with the affirmative case is lost, if the affirmative can say what their plan does after they have heard the negative strategy.
2. Almost all negative teams these days reflexively declare that the counterplan is conditional. I have seen many rounds this year where that unthinking choice has cost the neg the round. If you have a legitimate reason for your arguments to be conditional and you are prepared to defend it, go for it, but I think it is a bad idea to say that your arguments are conditional when they don’t need to be – you just open yourself up to more ways to lose. My preference is against conditionality. For the same reason that I think the affirmative has to say what their plan does for the negative to meaningfully clash with that plan, the affirmative needs to know what their plan and case is being compared to, in order to effectively clash with the negative’s arguments. It is not enough that the negative will pick one strategy by the end of the round, because too much time has been wasted on arguments that are irrelevant. More importantly, the presence of a counterplan in the round changes how the affirmative answers disadvantages and case arguments. If the negative can drop the counterplan later in the round, the affirmative cannot go back and re-give the 2AC. I think that the debate is better if both sides clearly stake out their ground and their positions from the beginning and the rest of the debate focuses on which is better.

3. I have a mixed voting record in "race" and "identity" debates. I am open to the arguments that they deserve a place in debate. However, I am not familiar with a lot of the literature, and I can therefore feel a little lost understanding some of the vernacular. It is better to explain arguments rather than to rely on terms that I am unfamiliar with. I prefer arguments that have some nexus to the topic or the other team's arguments for the reasons I outlined above when discussing my feelings on clash.

In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round.
1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a “learning environment”. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence – loss and zero speaker points.
2. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents.

Congressional Debate

Content/trigger warnings: when using content/trigger warnings, contestants should ask why they need one in the first place. Rather than using graphic imagery to describe traumatizing issues, it is far more meaningful for contestants to explain the scope and scale of the impact of the root causes of the problem and how the legislation will either remediate or exacerbate the problem and its causes; that approach provides a safer space for all participants in the chamber. That said, any participant in a chamber should feel free to excuse themselves at any time if they are feeling unsafe or emotionally traumatized – without any judgment.

The nature of Congressional Debate is an intellectual exercise in analyzing an issue from a multitude of perspectives, which are threaded together through the clash of ideas, and moderated by parliamentary procedure. While its discourse intellectually functions as debate, it operates with sectioning chambers and comparatively evaluating students in the same manner as interscholastic speech rather than the binary nature of head-to-head debate entries. Of all the speech and debate events, it models a real world process as a way for students to engage one another in a truly authentic and dynamic manner. As someone who has been a part of shaping rules and standards in Congressional Debate for over two decades, I understand how comparative ranking allows me to take the full picture of how a student contributes both to the intellectual richness of debate, as well as the circumstances by which debate happens – parliamentary procedure. Hence, the focal point of arguments should be on how people are affected by potential passage or defeat of legislation.

Role playing is a mindset that goes beyond simply "playing a part" as a member of Congress. Debaters should understand how issues impact constituents, citizens, residents, and the global community alike, and who and what should be prioritized at any given time and why. Members of Congress represent demographically and geographically diverse constituents as well as serve our country at-large. Therefore, debaters should consider how they frametheir advocacy and avoid such possessive phrasing as "our low-income Americans" to make blanket statements about entire groups of people, rather than describing circumstances for which they do not have personal experience (see first section, above). I highly recommend the Conscious Style Guide for guidance on appropriate language when discussing marginalized communities, and that debaters consider their own privilege when they address the nuanced issues in constituencies most vulnerable within problems addressed by legislation.

Organization and clarity: contestants should briefly seize attention in a memorable and meaningful way by connecting to the issue at-hand without trivializing it. Previews are inconsequential and waste time in a brief, 3-minute speech; rather, points should be signposted, and connect to a central, unifying thesis beyond just "supporting" or "opposing" the legislation at-hand. Speeches should be easy to follow, articulately crisp, and plainly explained, without needless jargon. Contestants should be concise, dynamic, and nimble with their language, and not repeat the same filler phrases and "debate-speak." Effective clarity also means avoiding unnecessary delving into "debate-speak," where a student uses such filler language as "take you at your highest ground," rather saying, "if your central intention is..." Other examples of concision alternatives filler phrases:
• Say "argued" instead of "came up here and said"
• Say "consider" instead of "we can look to"
• See "understanding" instead of "seeing as how"
• Omit "we can see that"
Finally, be elegant. Say "defeat" a bill instead of "fail.""Move the previous question, don't "motion to the previous question." Correct phrasing goes a long way toward demonstrating command of language in a linguistic activity utilizing the framework of parliamentary procedure.

Evidence: contestants should support arguments with cited, credible sources warranted to their own analysis. They should indicate a firm analytical understanding of the legislative/policymaking process, and the efficacy and jurisdiction of government agencies in addressing issues.

Impacts: speeches should explain how people are affected by policies and positions. Practical application and pragmatic interpretation is much more relevant that theoretical musings on an issue. Rhetoric should show sensitivity to people whose identities may differ from their own; a speech may address issues that impact real people, and shouldn't conjecture lived experiences for which the legislator may not have a personal frame of reference. Contestants should avoid overusing terms like "constituents," and consider as a national-level legislator, how policies impact both their own theoretical constituents, residents throughout the United States for whom their policies will impact, and for international relations – global citizens beyond the U.S.

Advancing debate: each speech should exhibit how it fits within the flow of debate on given legislation:

Authorship/sponsorship speeches should outline the problem, its causes, and why the legislation at-hand solves or mitigates the problem and its causes. The background is more important than the legislation itself, as we can all read the bill. I want to know the why behind the solvency.

First negative speeches should establish ground for the opposition to the legislation: why it exacerbates the problem and its causes, fails to address them effectively, or creates new or worse conditions.

Constructive speeches, often the first 4-6 speeches in a debate, should indicate a sound understanding of how legislation is introduced to solve/address a problem and its causes, deeply investigating important issues with detailed evidence.

Rebuttal speeches should defend a legislator's advocacy, extend complementary arguments by colleagues, and/or refute the opposition – acknowledging how those arguments are being built upon or fall short. As debate on legislation moves forward, there will be more extension and refutation and fewer constructive arguments. This is where a contestant can be nuanced with their advocacy, connecting arguments that respond to others with their own, unique ideas.

Crystallization speeches should come at the end of debate on legislation and summarize and weigh impacts to distill the debate to central voting issues and why one side wins over the others, and subsequent speeches on the same side should either explain why a preceding crystallization was premature/incomplete, or advance it further in a more sophisticated manner. Crystallizing prematurely, at best shows a lack of restraint and understanding of the "big picture" of the issue; at worst, it shows an impatient desire to weigh the debate before all the elements have had time to be explored rhetorically.

Questions should be substantive and carefully selected to help advance debate beyond superficial questions that are mere "gotchas." The dynamism of Congressional Debate requires legislators to respond within the flow of debate, so all speeches after the authorship/sponsorship speech introducing legislation should be more extemporaneous/spontaneous in nature. Exchanges should be a courteous give-and-take.

When to quit: it is entirely unimportant to me whether each contestant in a room speaks on each legislation; I'd rather debate stay fresh and dynamic than to get stale and mired in rehash because there's nothing new to say (and rehashing thoroughly debated arguments will negatively impact your ranking severely). I also place a higher premium on quality over quantity of speeches given -- as long as a contestant still stays active in questioning and other facets of a round.

Delivery: given the dynamic nature of exchange of myriad perspectives in Congressional Debate, debaters – especially those after the author/sponsor and first negative – should be more extemporaneous and spontaneous in their delivery, referring more to bulleted notes and their flow of the debate than reciting from a word-for-word manuscript. I don't care if a student transitionally walks between points (obviously, that doesn't/didn't happen in online debate and it's certainly not real-world); what matters to me is that the student engages their peers and judges through an appropriate projection of their voice, dynamic intonation and pause to convey meaning, meaningful eye contact, vivid facial expression, and natural gestures for emphasis.

Parliamentary procedure: rules of order exist to provide fairness and an opportunity for participation in sharing ideas before majority rules. Through a lens of accessibility and inclusivity, procedure should never be used by legislators to manipulate for personal advantage; rather, those students who advocate for fairness to others demonstrate the spirit of fostering involvement by others. This applies to all students in the room, and how they utilize procedure within a round, and includes decorum of using honorifics, third person references to others, and professional courtesy over snarky demeanor. This is especially important during questioning periods. Also, remember: recesses are a temporary reprieve from active debate, but the round is still happening.

Presiding officers: a PO whose priority is uplifting others in a fair, efficient, and transparent manner exhibits the values expressed in the "parliamentary procedure" section above. They are mindful of different schools and regions and do whatever they can to share and balance recognition, beyond those with whom they are most closely associated. I really appreciate when POs share some type of live document that shows how they are tracking precedence and recency of both speeches and questions. Effective POs should avoid needless phrases, such as "seeing as how..." and instead simply say, "those opposed (or 'in favor'), please raise your placards." Further, such elegant language shows command of procedure, such as "the ayes have it and the motion (or bill) carries," or "the noes have it and the motion (or bill) is defeated."

Tripp Rebrovick

Director of Debate, Harvard University.

BA, Harvard; PhD, Johns Hopkins

Please put harvard.debate(at)gmail.com on the email chain, but see note 1 below.

Updated January 2021:

The first thing to know about me as a judge is that I take overviews in the final rebuttals very seriously. The team that correctly identifies the critical arguments for each side will generally win, even if they have problems elsewhere on the flow or if I have other reservations about the argument. In other words, most of the time, the team that gets my ballot has done a better job of (a) identifying the most important arguments in the debate and (b) persuading me that in evaluating those particular arguments I should believe them. Similarly, I've found that in most of my decisions I end up telling the losing team that they have failed to persuade me of the truth of their most important argument. Occasionally this failure of understanding is due to a lack of clarity on the part of the speaker(s), but more often it is due to a lack of detailed explanation proving a particularly significant argument to be correct.

As a judge, I am usually skeptical of anything you say until you convince me it is correct, but if you do persuade me, I will do the work of thinking through and applying your argument as you direct me. It is usually easy to tell if I am persuaded by what you are saying. If I’m writing and/or nodding, you’ve probably succeeded. If I’m not writing, if I’m giving you a skeptical look, or if I interrupt you to ask a question or pose an argument I think you should answer, it means I’m not yet convinced.

In close debates, in which there are no egregious errors, I tend to vote for the team that articulates a better strategic understanding of the arguments and the round than for the team that gets lucky because of a small technical issue. My propensity to resolve arguments in your favor increases as you communicate to me that you understand the importance of some arguments relative to others. I am usually hesitant to vote against a team for something they said unless it is willful or malicious.

A few other tidbits:

1. I will not read the speech doc during your speech. The burden is on you to be comprehensible. Part of me is still horrified by this norm of judges following along.

2. If what you have highlighted in a card doesn’t amount to a complete sentence, I will most likely disregard it. Put differently, a word has to be part of a sentence in order to count.

3. CX, just like a speech, ends when the timer goes off. You can’t use prep time to keep asking questions or to keep talking. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to alt use time.

4. Please number your arguments. Seriously. Do it. Especially in the 1NC on case and in the 2AC off case.

5. Pet Peeve Alert. You have not turned the case just because you read an impact to your DA or K that is the same as the advantage impact. For example, saying a war with china causes poverty does not mean the DA turns a poverty advantage. It simply means the DA also has a poverty impact. In order to the turn the case, the DA must implicate the solvency mechanism of the affirmative, not simply get to the same terminal impact.

6. [Since this situation is becoming more common...] If the affirmative wins that conditionality is bad, my default will be to reject conditionality and make any/all counterplans unconditional. Pretending that the counterplan(s) were never introduced is illogical (they stay conditional) and solves nothing (the affirmative can't extend turns to the net benefit).