If you're being judged by me you're in trouble, I retired from debate in 2018. Good luck!

First and foremost, debate is a communication activity. (This means that if you aren't 
clear or too fast, you better be watching me.) I believe the judge is an educator as well as 
a policy maker. This rules out certain things that I prefer not to vote for. Poems, music, 
dancing are uphill battles to win my ballot. If this is your primary strategy, then you 
should reconsider me as a judge. Debate for me is a policy discussion of the affirmative 
and resolution. 

My ideal debate would include T, CP, Politics, Several other disads, case turns, etc. 
My ideas on the K are that the link must be germane to specific plan action, which 
excludes Statism/Anarchy, Spanos etc. I often question why the negative is allowed to 
have ground "above the game board". Most critiques to me are just solvency takeouts 
that have a difficult time overcoming specific solvency of the aff. 

I tend to evaluate debates as a reductionist. The way I determine debates are as follows: 
1. Dropped arguments and their impact. Dropped arguments are given full weight. 
2. Procedural arguments (T, theory debates, etc.) 
3. Advantages versus disadvantage including probablity, time frame, magnitude, etc. 
Uniqueness is a primary argument you need to win to win the argument. 
I can't emphasize enough the value of being cordial and respectful in debate. Not only to 
debaters but also to judges. For some reason, debaters have evolved into arrogant and 
derogatory competitors. I will not think twice about docking speaker points for these 
infractions. 

As far as flowing, I flow on my laptop, which has some limitations which including my 
inability to type as rapid as some people attempt to speak. I find that I am evolving into a 
note taker, writing arguments instead of attempting to write out every single word that a 
debater attempts to say. Fairly often, debaters are making arguments that are fairly 
repetitive. (get the irony?) 

Reading evidence is not a primary concern for me. I read evidence for the following 
reasons: interest and cites, questions about the evidence and evidence comparison. Since 
debate is a communication activity, reading evidence defeats the purpose of debate itself. 
Debate is a game. I do not believe the ballot is ever used as a tool for change. That is 
about as disillusioned as believing that fiat actually means that the plan happens. 
Run what you are interested in, have fun with it and that should make the debate 
enjoyable for everyone. 

When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously

Do what you want.  I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

1. I like good debate. I have a justly deserved reputation for being a policy hack. These two statements shake out as follows: If you are a K debater, stick with what you do best. You're more likely to win and get good speaker points if you know what you are talking about. If you do both, I will be much happier judging a policy debate and consequently, will be much less hateful in my post-round. If you are a policy debater, don't run stupid arguments with bad evidence, because that's almost as bad as having to listen to a K debate. 

2. Like everyone else, I end up voting for arguments I don't like all the time, but here's my predispotions anyway. Consultation counterplans aren't competitive and running them makes you a cheater. Being topical is awesome. I highly recommend having a plan that (unironically and non-metaphorically) upholds the resolution. I'm not really a fan of competing interpretations, but often end up judging t/theory debates this way because another paradigm isn't presented or adequately defended. Calling T genocide is so patently offensive that I won't even bother to mock it more extensively. I'm generally okay with PICs, dispositionality/conditionality, agent cps, etc. I think the aff is a lot better off arguing that the nature of the counterplan justifies non-intrinsicness, "abusive" permutations, etc. (and then actually making said arguments) than asking me to reject a team because of abuse. Ks - ugh. Performance - blech. Making your personal story a voting argument - shudder. Debate is a game and I'll take the easy way out if I can, so unanswered cheap shots will be voted on. Fight the good fight: status quo solves + a disad or case turns = sweet. 

3. Other thoughts. An argument consists of claim and a warrant, so please make both. If you are running out of time, make the warrant because the claim can be inferred but not vice versa. A well-written plan is a thing of beauty, so try for some elegance. Pay attention to my facial expressions - if you can't interpret whether a particular grimace means I hate your argument or I can't understand what you're saying, just ask. I haven't reached Dallas-level comfort with talking to you during the round, but the feedback is certainly there for the taking. Be nice, unless being mean would be funnier. Most of all, please think globally about the debate, think about how arguments interact, and make "if, then" statements. Final rebuttals would be a lot more coherent if you thought about what the world would look like if you won all the arguments you're making

Cole Bender

Debate Experience:

Assistant Debate Coach, Liberty University (2011-Present)

Years Judging: 2008-present

Former varsity debater at Liberty University

-----------------------

ADDITIONS FOR SPRING 2015 (This section supersedes any subsequent, older part of my philosophy.)

The cliff notes version is: I'd prefer you speak conversational speed, my default assumption is that you have to have a reasonable chance of solving in order to have "presumption" on your side (not just .1%), stop powertagging / overclaiming / making arguments that violate all rules of reasoning and logic, and follow the rules of the sanctioning bodies of the tournaments you attend (which includes but is not limited to having a topical plan at ADA tournaments and addressing the resolution at CEDA tournaments.

I have substantial modifications to my judging philosophy that will radically change how teams pref me. I have listed the changes below.

CHANGES:

1. I will continue to flow, but I would like to hear debates at a conversational pace. I still believe in the existence of common sense and that most people have a sense of how fast “conversation pace” is, but in case you need more specific guidelines, the average conversation speed of speakers using the English language is 150-200wpm. A person not trained in college debate should have no difficulty hearing and processing each individual word being said during your speech. If you’re going too fast, I’ll ask you to slow down. If both teams refuse and go fast, I’ll still prompt you to slow down, but I’ll flow the debate as normal. If the neg intends to go slow, they need to inform the aff before the 1ac begins. If the one team goes slow and the other team goes fast, I’ll default to the slower teams’ arguments and evaluate the debate largely in truth over tech terms. Speaking too fast will impact speaker points because speaker points indicate the level of clarity, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of your communication, but it is not an automatic reason for me to vote against you.

2. I see the role of the judge as being a critic of argument. My threshold for what constitutes “making an argument” was already fairly high relative to the average judge. In addition to this, I think it’s the burden of the team making the argument to produce an argument that is minimally coherent, demonstrates some level of rational consistency, and avoids obvious logical fallacies. The net effect of this is that the rational strength of the argument matters, even if the argument is dropped. Tech still matters, but my calculus for argument is shifting some toward the direction of truth. For example, your advantages in your policy affs are not deductive arguments that yield logical certainty. Doing your plan is not the one and only policy that can stop the 3-4 guaranteed extinctions that will happen in the status quo. Likewise, for non-policy arguments, ‘X’ philosophical system is not the root cause of all violence, nor is a given resistance strategy the one thing that will lead us to utopia. Evidence quality, reasonable extrapolations from evidence, and warrants matter much more in front of me. I’d vastly prefer if teams who intend to debate in front of me would re-structure their arguments to avoid overclaiming / powertagging / general disregard of rationality. I’d also appreciate if you read the qualifications of your authors. Teams that make reasonable, smart arguments will be rewarded with speaker points, and, if their tech is close to as good as their truth, they will be rewarded with ballots.

3. My default position is that I do not think 1% risk is high enough to keep / shift presumption in your favor. You can argue otherwise, but absent an argument in the debate, this is my position. For example, in a policy debate, the affirmative has an obligation to read a plan that has a reasonable chance of solving before they have proven the resolution true (my default assumption is that reasonable means 5-10%). Similarly, if the neg reads a CP, then the risk of the net benefit has to be reasonable (5-10%) in order for presumption to shift in favor of the CP instead of the plan. For non-policy debates, it’s increasingly unclear what presumption does mean or even what it should mean. I tend to be easily convinced that the affirmative ought to at least defend that that something material be done to change the status quo.

4. I will be following the rules of the sanctioning bodies of any tournament I attend, and I will expect those who debate in front of me to do the same. All the remaining tournaments I’m attending are either CEDA or ADA sanctioned tournaments. You can see a tournament’s sanctioning on Tabroom. The CEDA rules are available here (http://www.cedadebate.org/) if you log in, and the most recent copy of the ADA rules is located here (http://www.liberty.edu/academics/communications/debate/index.cfm?PID=22660). I encourage all participants to familiarize themselves with the rules of the various tournaments they agree to attend.

A short summary of how this impacts non-topical affs:

For CEDA tournaments: the CEDA documents only indicate that the debate should be about the resolution. The minimum affirmative burden is therefore to discuss the resolution in some capacity and to affirm something in relation to the resolution. Obviously I can be convinced through a process of debate that the affirmative ought to do much more than this (standard topicality and framework is still a viable strategy). But I cannot be convinced by arguments in the debate that the affirmative can do less than this.

For ADA tournaments: the ADA documents indicate among other things that the affirmative must present a topical plan of action and that topicality is a voting issue. (I’d encourage negative teams to look at the section on critiques as well.)

I will not intervene to make an arbitrary decision that the aff has not met these burdens. The responsibility is still on the negative team to present an argument for their interpretation of the resolution and how the affirmative has not sufficiently addressed the resolution (CEDA) or fallen within it (ADA).

To be very clear, you can and should have a debate about what these rules mean and what their proper interpretation is. But for the purposes of the ballot I won’t evaluate arguments that the rules should not be applied.

----------------------------------

Addition for Decrim and Subsequent Topics:

I do not wish to see or hear any sexually explicit speech acts or performances, nor do I wish to see debaters in any state of undress. To clarify, speech acts that discuss sex, sexuality, and corresponding topics are fine in front of me. Speech acts or performances that simulate or vividly describe sex acts are not fine in front of me. If that statement isn't clear, either ask, or, when in doubt, presume in favor of caution. If you choose to speak or perform in such a way in front of me, I will ask you to stop and adopt a differnet strategy. If you refuse to honor that request, I will excuse myself from the debate for at least the duration of that portion of your speech but possibly the debate as a whole. If I have to leave the debate, I will attempt to get the tabroom to replace me. If this is impossible and I am required to sign the ballot, then the situation will likely result in a ballot for the opposition. This is a personal conviction about the types of acts I want to be exposed to as a judge and as a member of this community, and I ask that you respect it. This is not intended as a statement about how debate should look in general.

As a judge, I will try to balance the importance of allowing debates that might make persons intellectually uncomfortable with also allowing debaters to protect themselves from emotionally damaging situations. I believe that in some circumstances the competitors have the right to let everyone know if they are uncomfortable and they may take appropriate action to avoid witnessing/hearing things they find to be emotionally damaging.

Adrienne F. Brovero, University of Kentucky

Closing in on 30 years coaching
adri.debate@gmail.com

Please label your email chain subject line with Team names, tourney, round.

Your prep time does not end until you have hit send on the email.

❗Updated 3-27-24 - I am REAL serious about the highlighting thing below - many cards are literally unreadable as highlighted and if I find myself struggling to read your evidence, I will cease to do so.

❗This is a communication activity.❗

Clarity - Cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is, whether online or in-person.

Highlighting - Highlighting has become a disgrace. Highlighting should not result in anti-grammatical shards of arguments. Highlighting should not result in misrepresentation of the author's intent/ideas. Quite frankly, some highlighting is so bad, you would have been better served not reading the evidence. When highlighting, please put yourself in the judge's shoes for a moment and ask yourself if you would feel comfortable deciding a debate based on how you've highlighted that card. If the answer is no, reconsider your highlighting.

SERIOUSLY - LINE-BY-LINE. NUMBER.

If you like to say "I will do the link debate here" - I am probably not the best judge for you. I would prefer you clash with link arguments in each instance they happen, as opposed to all in one place. Same is true for every other component of an argument.

• Qualifications - read them. Debate them.
• Line-by-line involves directly referencing the other team's argument ("Off 2AC #3 - Winners Win, group"), then answering it. "Embedded" clash fails if you bury the clash part so deep I can't find the arg you are answering.
• Overviews - overrated. Kinda hate them. Think they are a poor substitute for debating the arguments where they belong on the line-by-line.

Things that are prep time:

• Any time after the official start time that is not a constructive (9 mins), CX (3 mins), rebuttal (6 mins), or a brief roadmap. Everything else is prep time.
• Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
• Asking for cards outside of CX time. ("Oh can you send the card before CX?" - that is either CX or prep time - there is not un-clocked time).
• Setting up your podium/stand.
• Putting your flows in order.
• Finding pens, flows, timers.

Debate like this: http://vimeo.com/5464508

MACRO-ISSUES
Communication: I like it. I appreciate teams that recognize communication failures and try to correct them. If I am not flowing, it usually means communication is breaking down. If I am confused or have missed an argument, I will frequently look up and give you a confused look – you should read this as an indication that the argument, at minimum, needs to be repeated, and may need to be re-explained. I am more than willing to discount a team’s arguments if I didn’t understand or get their arguments on my flow.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I have grown uncomfortable with the amount of profanity used during debates – do not expect high points if you use profanity.

Paperless/Prep Time: Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your un-clocked time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• Unless both teams instruct me otherwise, I will flow both teams.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX. I carefully check the 2AR for new arguments, and will not hold the 2NR accountable for unpredictable explanations or cross applications.
• I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. This doesn’t mean I always do. I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date, so do not expect me to always know what you’re talking about when you solely refer to your “Henry 19” evidence.
• I reward those who make flowing easier by reading in a flowable fashion (road-mapping & signposting, direct refutation/clash, clarity, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.). If you are fond of saying things like "Now the link debate" or "Group the perm debate" during the constructives, and you do not very transparently embed the clash that follows, do not expect me to follow your arguments or connect dots for you. Nor should you expect spectacular points.

Evidence:
• I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I pay attention to quals and prefer they are actually read in the debate. I am extremely dismayed by the decline in quality of evidence (thank you, Internets) and the lack of teams’ capitalization on questionable sources.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument it makes has been communicated to me (e.g. the card was mumbled in the 2AC, or only extended by cite, or accompanied by a warrantless explanation, etc.).
• I also don’t like reading the un-highlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team.
• I should not have to read the un-highlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument and a coherent thought. If you only read a claim, you only have a claim – you don’t get credit for portions of the evidence you don’t reference or read. If you only read a non-grammatical fragment, you are running the risk of me deciding I can’t coherently interpret that as an arg.
• I don’t like anonymous pronouns or referents in evidence like “she says” without an identification of who “she” is – identify “she” in your speech or “she” won’t get much weight in my decision.
• If you hand me evidence to read, please make clear which portions were actually read.

Decision calculus: Procedural determinations usually precede substantive determinations. First, I evaluate fairness questions to determine if actions by either team fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the aff or neg. Then, I evaluate substantive questions. Typically, the aff must prove their plan is net beneficial over the status quo and/or a counterplan in order to win.

MICRO-ISSUES
Topicality & plan-related issues:
• The aff needs to have a written plan text.
• It should be topical.
• T is a voter. Criticisms of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing.
• Anti-topical actions are neg ground.
• Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how nontraditional advocacies or demands are meaningfully different from plans, other than they are usually either vague and/or non-topical.
• On a related note, I don’t get why calling one’s advocacy a performance or demand renders a team immune from being held responsible for the consequences of their advocacy.
• In relation to plans and permutations, I value specificity over vagueness – specificity is necessary for meaningful debate about policies. However, please do not consider this an invitation to run dumb spec arguments as voting issues – absent a glaring evasiveness/lack of specificity, these are typically more strategic as solvency args.

Critiques/Performance:

Adjudicating critique or performance debates is not my strong suit. Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read very much in the advanced political philosophy or performance studies areas. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the critique turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff many years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the critique means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the critique to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the critique indict, with what impact on those harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the critique turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

I strongly urge you to re-read my thoughts above on “Communication” before debating these arguments in front of me.

Counterplans:

I generally lean negative on CP theory: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional, international fiat, agent, etc. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels – if the negative has to fend off multiple reasons the CP is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. “Do both” is typically meaningless to me – specify how. The status quo could remain a logical option, but growing convinced this should be debated. [NOTE THAT IS A FALL '18 CHANGE - DEBATE IT OUT] Additionally, another shout-out for communication - many theory debates are shallow and blippy - don't be that team. I like theory, but those type of debates give theory a bad name.

Other:

I like DAs. I’m willing to vote on stock issue arguments like inherency or “zero risk of solvency”.

Debated at James Madison for 5 years 
Currently- law student 
Third year judging at college level (but sporadically. Have had a long hiatus since I last judged)

Generally speaking, I am ok with any strategy. I ran both kritikal and straight up strategies as a debater and am comfortable with both. I think that debate is a valuable activity to foster specific argumentative skills and to spot issues and weaknesses in arguments. That means whatever biases or preferences I may list below are always up for debate. In general, I like to see specific applications of each position to the other team’s arguments. That means specific links and specific impact analyses will always win over generic extensions of arguments. 

That said, here are some preferences 

Topicality- I prefer to see competing interpretations. I am not sure how exactly I would evaluate a topicality round on reasonability, especially given my lack of knowledge of the topic at hand. That said, if you argue reasonability, make sure you have specific examples from the topic about why your aff is reasonable. Otherwise you are just playing Russian roulette on my general knowledge of the topic. 

Procedurals- Please make sure you deploy procedurals strategically. There is a high likelihood I will miss blippy procedural arguments and even if I do catch it, I am unlikely to pull the trigger on a small, underdeveloped argument. 

Framework- If you don’t talk about the topic, you are fighting an uphill battle in front of me. I will be very sympathetic to negative teams who are forced to debate affs who refuse to engage at least the subject matter of the topic. I think it destroys most of the practical benefits of policy debate. I do not have a preference on USFG/no USFG  or fiat/ no fiat. 

Kritiks- I am just going to copy paste what Sean said since he is such a smart guy ;) The more specific the links the better. A lack of a specific link will likely hurt your analysis later. Don’t forget about impact comparison. If it helps, I usually view most Ks like a CP and a DA debate. The alt is like a CP and the impact to the K is the DA that the alt claims as a net benefit. Alternative solvency should be highly interrogated by the affirmative (you wouldn’t allow a counterplan to solve the aff without a fight would you?). I generally think the alternative is the weakest part of a kritik but I will say that very good and specific impact analysis that turns aff impacts can still win you the debate. Permutations should be clarified by both sides. I will add that kritiks that are rooted in psychoanalysis tend to confuse me a lot more than most kritiks and that goes double for Bhaba. I probably would refrain from running those positions in front of me unless you can really dumb it down. 

Performance- As I stated above, I like policy debate. I think that the activity offers a plethora of really valuable skills that allow debaters to excel at life in the future. That said, I don’t think that all of the practices of debate are set in stone or even necessarily good. If your argument is that policy debate is bad all around, then I am not sure you are going to convince me. But you can certainly convince me that certain assumed frameworks of debate are disenfranchising. Also, just because you are a performance doesn’t mean you don’t have to win specific links or impacts. Make very clear what the role of the ballot, of my role as a judge and what your framework for analysis is. 

Counterplans- The Counterplan has to compete or else I won’t consider it. If it doesn’t compete, I default to the status quo for the neg. I usually think 2 conditional positions are ok, but as usual that can be debated. Once we have more than that, it starts to get a little more dicey. International actor fiat, multi-actor fiat, utopian fiat are all shady and you are fighting an uphill battle in front of me for those. 

Disads- Have a coherent story with real internal links, especially Politics. I am easily persuaded by good analytics against blippy, poorly thought out disad arguments. Innovative and interesting disads are always fun to listen to. 

Another section stolen from Sean’s philosophy:

 
Other preferences: 
1. Very important: be civil towards the other people in the room. 

2. If you are speaking, do so clearly. I will yell out a “louder” or “clearer” only once. 

3. Craft smart strategies from the beginning of the debate to the end of the debate. Carrying an ASPEC arg until the 2NR that is clearly a time suck is probably not in your best interest. 

4. Don’t steal prep. This is especially important in the world of paperless. Transferring YOUR files are part of YOUR prep if it is after your speech. It takes about 3 seconds to save a .doc file even if you are using an old computer. If you are stealing prep, then don’t be surprised if my timer is ahead of yours. 

5. An argument has a claim and a warrant. If you make/extend something that lacks one of those components, then that is not an argument. Just in case you didn’t know- an author citation is neither a claim nor a warrant (although it is very helpful in flagging an arg). 

6. Lastly, I will work my hardest to judge the round based on the arguments presented in the round. (Most) debaters work hard on this activity and I feel like I have an obligation to do the same from my chair. If you have any questions, then please ask. If I somehow learn some pearls of wisdom from judging that I forgot after this hiatus from debate or just in general never knew (more likely), this philosophy is subject to change. 

I have been judging debates for a long time now (21 years) and I think for the most part I am a significantly better judge now than I was 10 years ago. I’m probably not a better flow, but I certainly understand arguments a lot better and over the past few years I have worked hard to think about how I judge and what that means for you as a debater. Here is what I have:

I think that my role as a judge is twofold. First and foremost it is to decide who wins the debate. Debate is a competitive activity and that competition has the potential to bring out the best in all of us. When we work hard and engage the other team (in whatever way makes the most sense for you) then that makes our activity better, stronger and more inclusive. Second, I believe that I am an educator. Not in the way that come judges claim that they are the ones who possess some idea of the way debate should look. Instead I view it the same way I evaluate the work of the students in my classes. I want to know that the student worked hard on their assignment (hard work includes cutting cards, but it is certainly not limited to that) and that they have thought of the ways that the assignment interacts with the world around them. These two roles both compliment and contradict each other and I work hard to balance them as I adjudicate a debate.

Framing all of this (and everything that is contained below) is one overriding tenet. DEBATE IS FOR THE DEBATERS. If you are a director, coach or judge who thinks this is about you then you are in the wrong activity. This informs my judging in a couple of ways. First, I am looking for ways that each debater gets to debate in a manner that allows them to engage materials in the ways that they feel best fits their educational and competitive goals. That means that debaters who want to debate politics should have at least some debates that focus on those issues and debaters who want to focus on issues of debate pedagogy should have debates that focus on those issues should have at least some of those debates. I am not sure what the ideal debate world will look like, but as I try to answer the question of “What do you want debate to look like if your daughter decides to the debate?” I am sure that I am not smart enough to answer that question. However, I do know that I want students to feel as if they are empowered to make arguments that they are excited by and moved by and are not dictated by some myopic closed minded judge in the back of the room. I will do my best (although at times I am sure I will fail) to be open-minded and evaluate the debate in front of me.

So, as you are doing you judge preferences (or reading this for the first time five minutes before the debate starts) what does this mean you should do in the debate. Here are some guidelines: 

1. You should be able to explain why your framework meets two criteria. First, how is your framework related to the topic. I certainly don’t think that you have to read a plan or rely on traditional debate evidence or defend fiat, but I think you should be able to explain how you are related to the topic. Second, and probably more importantly, how is that relationship fair for both sides. Do both sides have the ability to engage meaningful issues under your framework? What does debate look like if your view of debate wins out?
2. I tend to be more flexible when it comes to the negative. I think that a negative framework that is not closely related to the resolution is probably more acceptable than a similar framework on the affirmative. Obviously clashing with the affirmative is more fun debate for me to judge, but not a necessary requirement for the negative. 
3. If you say “We can fit our arguments into this paradigm” then please pref me. I try to be as fair as possible in debates and I work hard to meet you on your terms. 

Argumentative Preferences: 

Negative Kritiks – I like Ks. The best Ks are ones that directly engage the affirmative. I am probably more liberal than most when it comes to what it means to “engage the affirmative”. I think that state bad Ks, language Ks and kritiks of the system can be argued to engage the affirmative (I could also probably be persuaded that they do not). 

Affirmative Kritiks – Similarly to my stance on negative Ks I think the affirmative Ks should have some relation to the what the negative says or to the resolution. I have voted on kritiks of the debate community, but these debates are much more persuasive to me when combined with some explanation about how the negative helps support or reify those norms. 

Topicality/Procedurals – I like T debates and other procedural arguments a lot. I think I am kind of a geek about the way the political process works so I tend to enjoy debates that ask questions about the way the system normally works. That being said these arguments are significantly better when accompanied by evidence to prove your interpretation. Additionally, I think the negative normally needs to commit significant time to these arguments if they want to win them. A 20 second T argument in the 2NR is unlikely to get my ballot. 

Theory – I am a hard judge to get to vote on theory. I tend to judge theory debates the same way I judge policy debates. You should win a link (they are a pic), an impact (pics are bad) and implications (why voting against them matters). When multiple theory arguments exist in the debate I often weigh the impact of each theory argument. 

Disads – Most DAs are pretty bad. Of course, so are most of your affirmative advantages. Debaters rely too much on evidence and do not spend enough time exploiting holes in the evidence. Try combining evidence with some smart analytics and your speaker points will be rewarded accordingly. 

Cplans – This is probably where I have the fewest dispositions. I don’t really have a stance about pics, agent cplans or the like. Cplans supported by specific evidence make me much happier than your super generic cplan strategy. However, I am equally likely to vote for either. 

Performance debates – See above. I tend to find performance debates interesting. If you are affirmative relate what you do to the topic. When you are negative contrast what you with what the affirmatives does. Warning: Explain the implications of your performance to me. What happens if you win the argument that traditional debate evidence is bad? Do they lose the debate for reading the evidence in the first place or do I just not consider that type of evidence? 

Speaker Points

I was rewriting my judge philosophy anyway before so this is really the only section that is a reaction to recent events. I had already adjusted my speaker points up this year as I tended to be below the average for teams on the bubble of clearing although I was above for many teams that were regularly clearing.

I’ll be honest. I am still not sure what I will do about speaker points. I am likely to have a lower floor than most (meaning I am more likely to venture into the 27s on a more regular basis). However, I believe that speaker points are a community norm and that I cannot pretend that my point exist in a vacuum. So I will do my best to figure out what the community average at a given tournament might be and adjust my points accordingly. I am still likely to deviate further from the average both in terms of lower and higher range points. Which means if the community average is a 29 you are still likely to see a few people in the 27s (teams that are going to be in the bottom quarter of the tournament) and probably quite a few points near 30.

This is the portion of my judge philosophy that I am least sure about is most apt to fluctuate. I will make sure I update often as things change.

Some other things: 

1. Evidence matters. Evidence matters a lot less than arguments. Slow down and think about how arguments interact. Using your evidence (or your opponents evidence) is likely to get you much higher points that reading more evidence.

2. I ask for all speech documents during the debate. I very rarely look at them during the speech (I normally only look at the plan or counterplan text). I do spend a considerable amount of time reading them during prep time and I make sure that when you are discussing a piece of evidence in cross examination (be clear about which card you are asking about). I find that asking for speech docs is a great way for me stay engaged during prep time and I feel it makes me a better judge.

3. It is your job to be clear. I will say clearer once. After that if you are still unclear and I miss arguments it’s your bad. 

4. Be nice – I hate people who are jerks in debates. I have been known to destroy your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents or partner. Debates are best when they are competitive without people being jerks. 

5. Every argument requires a claim, warrant and data. Which means arguments like “Perm: Do Both” mean little to me until they have some explanation attached to them.

6. Author names are not arguments – They are helpful in that I know what cards you think I should as for after the debate, but when they are not coupled with warrants from the evidence they are not very useful. “Davis 05” is not argument by itself. 

7. I work extremely hard in making my decisions because I know that as a debaters you work extremely hard as well. You can do lots of things to make my life easier so I do not have to do as much work. Things like if then statements and explaining the warrants behind your arguments will get you pretty far in my book. 

8. Don’t steal prep – Every second of prep you steal is a moment of my life I can never have back. And it’s cheating. I am fairly lenient about paperless debate, but just be cognizant of the fact that when you say you are done prepping or when you run out of time you should stop prepping.

9. Debate should be fun. If you are not enjoying yourself (and making the experience enjoyable for others) then you should spend your time doing something else. 

Thanks for listening let me know if you have any questions.

i will sit attentively listening to your cocauphony, it is only fair that you should first listen to mine:  

And on this beautiful ceremonial morning I want to talk to you about talking, that commonest of all our intended activities, for talking is our public link with one another; it is a need; it is an art; it is the chief instrument of all instruction; it is the most personal aspect of our private life. To those who have sponsored our appearance in the world, the first memorable moment to follow our inaugural bawl is the birth of our first word. It is that noise, a sound that is no longer a simple signal, like the greedy squalling of a gull, but a declaration of the incipient presence of mind, that delivers us into the human realm. Before, there was only an organ of energy, intake, and excretion, but now a person has begun. And in no idle, ordinary, or jesting sense, words are what that being will become. It is language which most shows a man, Ben Jonson said: “Speake that I may see thee.” And Emerson certainly supports him: “Man is only half himself,” he said, “the other half is his expression.” Truths like this have been the long companions of our life, and so we often overlook them, as we miss the familiar mole upon our chin, even while powdering the blemish, or running over it with a razor.

Silence is the soul’s invisibility. We can, of course, conceal ourselves behind lies and sophistries, but when we speak, we are present, however careful our disguise. The monster we choose to be on Halloween says something about the monster we are. I have often gone to masquerades as myself, and in that guise no one knew I was there.

Plato thought of the soul as an ardent debating society in which our various interests pled their causes; and there were honest speeches and dishonest ones; there was reason, lucid and open and lovely like the nakedness of the gods,
where truth found its youngest friend and nobility its ancient eloquence; and there was also pin-eyed fanaticism, deceit and meanness, a coarseness like sand in cold grease; there was bribery and seduction, flattery, brow-beating and bombast. Little has changed, in that regard, either in our souls or in society since; for the great Greeks were correct: life must be lived according to the right word–the logos they loved–and so the search for it, the mastery of it, the fullest and finest and truest expression of it, the defense of it, became the heart of the educational enterprise.

To an almost measureless degree, to know is to possess words, and all of us know how much words concern us here, at the university, in this context of texts. Adam created the animals and birds by naming them, and we name incessantly, conserving achievements and customs, and countries that no longer exist, in the museum of human memory. But it is not only the books which we pile about us like a building, or the papers we painfully compose, the exams we write, the calculations we come to by means of mystic diagrams, mathematical symbols, astrological charts or other ill- or well-drawn maps of the mind; it is not alone the languages we learn to mispronounce, the lists, the arguments and rhymes, we get by heart; it is not even our tendency to turn what is unwritten into writing with a mere look, so that rocks will suddenly say their age and origin and activity, or what is numb flesh and exposed bone will cry out that cotton candy killed it, or cancer, or canoodling, the letter C like a cut across an artery, the flow of meaning like blood; no, it is not the undeniable importance of these things which leads me to lay such weight upon the word; it is rather our interior self I’m concerned with, and therefore with the language which springs out of the most retiring and inmost parts of us, and is the image of its parent like a child: the words we use to convey our love to another, or to cope with anxiety, for instance; the words which will convince, persuade, which will show us clearly, or make the many one; the words I listen to when I wait out a speech at a dinner party; words which can comfort and assuage, damage and delight, amuse and dismay; but above all, the words which one burns like beacons against the darkness, and which together comprise the society of the silently speaking self; because all these words are but humble echoes of the words the poet uses when she speaks of passion, or the historian when he drives his nails through time, or when the psychoanalyst divines our desires as through tea leaves left at the bottom of our dreams.

Even if the world becomes so visual that words must grow faces to save themselves, and put on smiles made of fragrant paste, and even if we all hunker down in front of films like savages before a divinity, have experience explained to us in terms of experiences which need to be explained, still, we shall not trade portraits of our love affairs, only of ourselves; there is no Polaroid that will develop in moments the state of our soul, or cassette to record our pangs of conscience; so we shall never talk in doodles over dinner, or call up our spirit to its struggle with a little private sit-com or a dreary soap. Even if the world falls silent and we shrink in fear within ourselves; even if words are banished to the Balkans or otherwise driven altogether out of hearing, as though every syllable were subversive (as indeed each is); all the same, when we have withdrawn from any companionship with things and people, when we have collapsed in terror behind our talcumed skins, and we peer suspiciously through the keyholes of our eyes, when we have reached the limit of our dwindle – the last dry seed of the self – then we shall see how greatly correct is the work of Samuel Beckett, because we shall find there, inside that seed, nothing but his featureless cell, nothing but voice, nothing but darkness and talk.

How desperately, then, we need to learn it – to talk to ourselves – because we are babies about it. Oh, we have excellent languages for the secrets of nature. Wave packets, black holes, and skeins of genes: we can write precisely and consequentially of these, as well as other extraordinary phenomena; but can we talk even of trifles: for instance, of the way a look sometimes crosses a face like the leap of a frog, so little does it live there, or how the habit of anger raisins the heart, or wet leaves paper a street? Our anatomy texts can skin us without our pain, the cellular urges of trees are no surprise, the skies are driven by winds we cannot see; yet science has passed daily life by like the last bus, and left it to poetry.

It is terribly important to know how a breast is made: how to touch it to make a tingle, or discover a hidden cyst (we find these things written of in books); but isn’t it just as important to be able to put the beauty of a body in words, words we give like a gift to its bearer; to communicate the self to another, and in that way form a community of feeling, of thought about feeling, of belief about thought: an exchange of warmth like breathing, of simple tastes and the touch of the eye, and other sensations shortly to be sought, since there is no place for the utopia of the flesh outside the utopia of talk.

It can’t be helped. We are made of layers of language like a Viennese torte. We are a Freudian dessert. My dinner companion, the lady who lent me her smile, has raised her goblet in a quiet toast. It is as though its rim had touched me, and I try to find words for the feeling, and for the wine which glows like molten rubies in her glass; because if I can do that, I can take away more than a memory which will fade faster than a winter footprint; I can take away an intense and interpreted description, a record as tough to erase as a relief, since without words what can be well and richly remembered? Yesterdays are gone like drying mist. Without our histories, without the conservation which concepts nearly alone make possible, we could not preserve our lives as were the bodies of the pharaohs, the present would soon be as clear of the past as a bright day, and we would be innocent arboreals again.

Of course we could redream the occasion, or pretend to film our feeling, but we’ll need words to label and index our images anyway, and can the photograph contain the rush of color to my face, the warmth which reminds me I also am a glass and have become wine?

I remember because I talk. I talk from morning to night, and then I talk on in my sleep. Our talk is so precious to us, we think we punish others when we stop. So I stay at peace because I talk. Tete-a-tetes are talk. Shop is talk. Parties are parades of anecdotes, gossip, opinion, raillery, and reportage. There is sometimes a band and we have to shout. Out of an incredibly complex gabble, how wonderfully clever of me to hear so immediately my own name; yet at my quiet breakfast table, I may be unwilling, and thus unable, to hear a thing my wife says. When wives complain that romance has fled from their marriage, they mean their husbands have grown quiet and unresponsive as moss. Taciturnity – long, lovely word – it is a famous tactic. As soon as two people decide they have nothing more to talk about, everything should be talked out. Silence shields no passion. Only the mechanical flame is sputterless and silent.

Like a good husband, then, I tell my wife what went on through the day – in the car, on the courts, at the office. Well, perhaps I do not tell her allthat went on, perhaps I give her a slightly sanitized account. I tell my friends how I fared in New York, and of the impatient taxi which honked me through the streets. I tell my students the substance of what they should have read. I tell my children how it used to be (it was better), and how I was a hero (of a modest sort, of course) in the Great War, moving from fact to fiction within the space of a single word. I tell my neighbors pleasant lies about the beauty of their lawns and dogs and vandalizing tykes, and in my head I tell the whole world where to get off.

Those who have reputations as great conversationalists are careful never to let anyone else open a mouth. Like Napoleons, they first conquer, then rule, the entire space of speech around them. Jesus preached. Samuel Johnson bullied. Carlyle fulminated. Bucky Fuller drones. Wittgenstein thought painfully aloud. But Socrates talked … hazardously, gayly, amorously, eloquently, religiously … he talked with wit, with passion, with honesty; he asked; he answered; he considered; he debated; he entertained; he made of his mind a boulevard before there was even a France.

I remember – I contain a past – partly because my friends and family allow me to repeat and polish my tales, tall as they sometimes are, like the stalk Jack climbed to encounter the giant. Shouldn’t I be able to learn from history how to chronicle my self? “Every man should be so much an artist,” again Emerson said, “that he could report in conversation what had befallen him.” Words befell Emerson often. He made speeches on occasions like this one, and until his mind changed, he always meant what he said. Frequently his mind changed before he reached any conclusion. In his head his heart turned to look about and saw the other side.

Talk, of course, is not always communication. It is often just a buzz, the hum the husband makes when he’s still lit, but the station’s gone off. We can be bores as catastrophic as quakes, causing even the earth to yawn. Talk can be cruel and injurious to a degree which is frightening; the right word wrongly used can strike a man down like a club, turn a heart dark forever, freeze the feelings; nevertheless, while the thief is threatening to take our money or our life, he has yet to do either; and while Sadat and Carter and Begin talk, while talk mediates a strike, or weighs an allegation in the press or in committee, or considers a law in congress or argues a crime in court; while a spouse gripes, or the con man cons, while ideas are explained to a point beyond opacity by the prof; then it’s not yet the dreadful day of the exam, no one has lost their nest egg or filed for divorce, sentence has not been passed, the crime has not yet occurred, the walkout, or the war. It may sound like a balk, a hitch in the motion, a failure to follow through, but many things recommend talk, not least its rich and wandering rhymes.

Our thoughts tend to travel like our shadow in the morning walking west, casting their outline just ahead of us so that we can see and approve, or amend and cancel, what we are about to say. It is the only rehearsal our conversation usually gets; but that is one reason  we fall upon cliche as if it were a sofa and not a sword; for we have rehearsed “good morning,” and “how are you?” and “have a nice day,” to the place where the tongue is like a stale bun in the mouth; and we have talked of Tommy’s teeth and our cold car’s stalling treachery, of our slobby dog’s affection and Alice’s asthma and Hazel’s latest honeybunny, who, thank god, is only black and not gay like her last one; we have emptied our empty jars over one another like slapstick comics through so many baggy-panted performances we can now dream of Cannes and complain of Canada with the same breath we use to spit an olive in a napkin, since one can easily do several thoughtless things at once – in fact, one ought; and indeed it is true that prefab conversation frees the mind, yet rarely does the mind have a mind left after these interconnected cliches have conquered it; better to rent rooms to hooligans who will only draw on the walls and break the furniture; for our Gerberized phrases touch nothing; they keep the head hollow by crowding out thought; they fill all the chairs with buttocks like balloons; they are neither fed nor feed; they drift like dust; they refuse to breathe.

We forget sometimes that we do live with ourselves – worse luck most likely – as well as within. The head we inhabit is a haunted house. Nevertheless, we often ignore our own voice when it speaks to us: “Remember me,” the spirit says, “I am your holy ghost.” But we are bored by our own baloney. Why otherwise would we fall in love if not to hear that same sweet hokum from another? Still, we should remember that we comprise true Siamese twins, fastened by language and feeling, wed better than any bed; because when we talk to ourselves we divide into the self which is all ear and the self which is all mouth. Yet which one of us is which? Does the same self do most of the talking while a second self soaks it up, or is there a real conversation?

Frequently we put on plays like a producer: one voice belongs to sister, shrill and intrepidly stupid; a nephew has another (he wants a cookie); the boss is next – we’ve cast him as a barnyard bully; and then there is a servant or a spouse, crabby and recalcitrant. All speak as they are spoken through; each runs around in its role like a caged squirrel, while an audience we also invent (patient, visible, too easily pleased) applauds the heroine or the hero because of the way they’ve righted wrongs like an avenging angel, answered every challenge like a Lancelot, every question like Ann Landers, and met every opportunity like a perfect Romeo, every romance like a living doll. If we really love the little comedy we’ve constructed, it’s likely to have a long run.

Does it really matter how richly and honestly and well we speak? What is our attitude toward ourselves; what tone do we tend to take? Consider Hamlet, a character who escapes his circumstances and achieves greatness despite the fact his will wavers or he can’t remember his father’s ghost. He certainly doesn’t bring it off because he has an Oedipus complex (we are all supposed to have that); but because he talks to himself more beautifully than anyone else ever has. Consider his passion, his eloquence, his style, his range: “O what a rogue and peasant slave am I!” he exclaims; “now could I drink hot blood,” he brags; “to be or not to be,” he wonders; “O,” he hopes, “that this too too solid flesh would melt,” and he complains that all occasions do inform against him. For our part, what do we do? do we lick our own hand and play the spaniel? do we whine and wheedle or natter like a ninny? Can we formulate our anger in a righteous phrase, or will we be reduced to swearing like a soldier? All of us are dramatists, but how will we receive our training? Where can we improve upon the puerile theatricals of our parents, if not here among the plays and perils of Pirandello and the dialogues of Plato (among the many glories of the letter “P” – “peachtree” and “pulchritude,” “philosophy” and “friendship”), the operas of Puccini and the follies of the faculty?

If we think awareness is like water purling gaily in its stream, we have been listening to the wrong James, for our consciousness is largely composed of slogans and signs, of language of one kind or other: we wake to an alarm; we read the weather by the brightness of a streak on the ceiling, the mood of our lover by the night’s cramp still clenched in her morning body; our trembling tells us we’re hung over; we wipe ourselves with a symbol of softness, push an ad around over our face; the scale rolls up a number which means “overweight,” and the innersoles of our shoes say “hush!” Thus, even if we haven’t uttered a word, we’ve so far spent the morning reading. Signs don’t stream. They may straggle, but they mostly march. Language allies itself with order. Even its fragments suggest syntax, wholeness, regularity, though many of us are ashamed to address ourselves in complete sentences. Rhetorically structured paragraphs seem pretentious to us, as if, to gaze at our image in a mirror, we had first to put on a tux; and this means that everything of real importance, every decision which requires care, thoughtful analysis, emotional distance, and mature judgment, must be talked out with someone else – a consequence we can’t always face, with its attendant arguments, embarrassments, counterclaims, and lies. To think for yourself – not narrowly, but rather as a mind – you must be able to talk to yourself: well, openly, and at length. You must come in from the rain of requests and responses. You must take and employ your time as if it were your life. And that side of you which speaks must be prepared to say anything so long as it is so – is seen so, felt so, thought so – and that side of you which listens must be ready to hear horrors, for much of what is so is horrible – horrible to see, horrible to feel, horrible to consider. But at length, and honestly – that is not enough. To speak well to oneself … to speak well we must go down as far as the bucket can be lowered. Every thought must be thought through from its ultimate cost back to its cheap beginnings; every perception, however profound and distant, must be as clear and easy as the moon; every desire must be recognized as a relative and named as fearlessly as Satan named his angels; finally, every feeling must be felt to its bottom where the bucket rests in the silt and water rises like a tower around it. To talk to ourselves well requires, then, endless rehearsals – rehearsals in which we revise, and the revision of the inner life strikes many people as hypocritical; but to think how to express some passion properly is the only way to be possessed by it, for unformed feelings lack impact, just as unfelt ideas lose weight. So walk around unrewritten, if you like. Live on broken phrases and syllable gristle, telegraphese and film reviews. No one will suspect … until you speak.

There are kinds and forms of this inner speech. Many years ago, when my eldest son was about fourteen, I was gardening alongside the house one midday in mid-May, hidden as it happened between two bushes I was pruning, when Richard came out of the house in a hurry to return to school following lunch, and like a character in a French farce, skulking there, I overheard him talking to himself. “Well, racing fans, it looks … it looks like the question we’ve all been asking is about to be answered, because HERE COMES RICHARD GASS OUT OF THE PITS NOW! He doesn’t appear to be limping from that bad crash he had at the raceway yesterday – what a crash that was! – and he is certainly going straight for his car … what courage! … yes, he is getting into his car … not a hesitation … yes, he is going to be off in a moment for the track … yes –” and then he went, peddling out of my hearing, busily broadcasting his life. 

My son’s consciousness, in that moment, was not only thoroughly verbal (although its subject was the Indy 500, then not too many days away, and although he could still see the street he would ride on), it had a form: that given to his language and its referents by the radio sportscaster. Richard’s body was, in effect, on the air; his mind was in the booth “upstairs,” while his feelings were doubtless mixed in with his audience, both at home and in the stands. He was being seen, and heard, and spoken of, at the same time.

Later this led me to wonder whether we all didn’t have fashions and forms in which we talked to ourselves; whether some of these might be habits of the most indelible sort, the spelling out of our secret personality; and, finally, whether they might not vitally influence the way we spoke to others, especially in our less formal moments – in bed, at breakfast, at the thirteenth tee. I recognized at once that this was certainly true of me; that although I employed many modes, there was one verbal form which had me completely in its grip the way Baron Munchhausen was held in his own tall tales, or the Piers Plowman poet in his lovely alliteration. If Richard’s was that of the radio broadcast, mine was that of the lecture. I realized that when I woke in the morning, I rose from bed only to ask the world if it had any questions. I was, almost from birth, and so I suppose by “bottom nature,” what Gertrude Stein called Ezra Pound – a village explainer – which, she said, was all right if you were a village, but if not, not; and sooner than sunrise I would be launched on an unvoiced speechification on the art of internal discourse, a lecture I have given many times, though rarely aloud.

I have since asked a number of people, some from very different backgrounds, what shape their internal talk took, and found, first of all, that they agreed to the important presence of these forms, and that one type did tend to dominate the others: it was often broadcasting – never the lecture – though I once encountered a sermon and several prayers; it frequently took place in the courtroom where one was conducting a fearless prosecution or a triumphant defense; it was regularly the repetition of some pattern of parental exchange, a rut full of relatives and preconditioned response; the drama appeared to be popular, as well as works of pornography, though, in this regard, there were more movies shown than words said – a pity, both modes need such improvement; monologues such as Browning might have penned: the vaunt, the threat, the keen, the kvetch, the eulogy for yourself when dead; there was even the bedtime story, the diary, the chronicle, and, of course, the novel, gothic in character, or at least full of intrigue and suspense: Little did William Gass realize when he rose that gentle May morning to thump his chest and touch his toes that he would soon be embarked on an adventure whose endless ramifications would utterly alter his life; otherwise he might not have set out for the supermarket without a list; otherwise he might not have done that extra push-up; he might better have stayed in bed with the bedclothes pulled thickly over his stupidly chattering head.

Yet I should like to suggest (despite the undeniable sappiness of it) that the center of the self, itself, is this secret, obsessive, often silly, nearly continuous voice – the voice that is the surest sign we are alive; and that one fundamental function of language is the communication with this self which it makes feasible; and that, if the university has done its work, you are a bit nearer than you were before to being one of the few fortunates who have made rich and beautiful the great conversation which constitutes our life.

Everywhere here in this Quad, everywhere along the long lines of listening chairs – like a choir before bursting into song – there is the silent murmur of us all, our glad, our scrappy, rude, grand, small talk to ourselves, the unheard hum of our humanity; without which – think of it! – we might not be awake; without which – imagine it! – we might not be alive; since while we speak we live up there above our bodies in the mind, and there is hope as long as we continue to talk; so long as we continue to speak, to search for eloquence even over happiness or sympathy in sorrow, even if all that is left to us is the omitted outcry, Christ’s query, the silent shout: “My God, my God, why have you left me alone?”

One could probably gues when you look at me that I might be slightly more traditional than the regular run of the mill debate judge these days.  I would agree with your observation and reinforce that idea.  My flowing skills are not what they once were and that combined with the general incohrence of todays debates makes for tricky judging.  I have decided that I may start asking for the same downloads of your speeches that you provide the other team.  It seems to me that given that the render of the decision should be the one that has the best idea of what goes on in the debate that giving yor speeches to the judge might be good.  I certainly would prefer a clearly presented set of arguments but absent that reading them maybe better.

All of the above aside I prefer a compelling affirmative case that outweighs the disadvantages and if you counterplan you should have a compelling reason to vote for you other than the aff advantages.  I still believe that topicality is a legit argument and can be a round winner but I prefer a persuasive reason why there is a violation vs a bunch of whining on standards, etc.  Kritik arguments can be round winners if they a shown to be germane to the aff and have policy implications that are couched in the topic being discussed.  I do not prefer teams that sidestep the topic to discuss other things even if they are of critical importance.  Most debate should be topic centered.

I have been in  debate a long time and I think it is still one of the best things an undergraduate can do and so I will work as hard as possible to understand what goes on in any debate and hopefully make a defensible decision that is semi satisfactory to all concerned.

I debated high school policy for 4 years on the national circuit from 02-06.  I'm currently coaching with Rutger's university, 1st year.  

I'll vote on the issues the round revolves around. If you love the K or you're a performance team, do what you're good at and what you're comfortable with. This means establishing the role of the ballot is quite important, as is clarity and analysis.  I will vote on any well warranted argument, without preconception (to the best of my ability).   Again, this means clarity is paramount - if I do not understand you or do not hear an argument, it is likely I will not be able to vote on it.  

You should be aware that my background knowledge will vary depending on your type of argument selection, and your presentation should take this into account.  I'm most familiar with politics/current events and this is where my intellectual interests lie, my critical literature base is limited.  I enjoy critical debate however, just be aware part of focus should be on making sure I understand your criticism, not making the assumption that I have read your authors and know what you're talking about before the speech begins. 

Paperless Debate: I will stop prep when you tell me you are done and are jumping files.  I will not give you an inordinate amount of time to do this, it shouldn't take you more than 15 extra seconds to save the file to a flash drive.  

Hi All!

I know you all have a lot of prepping to do. So, I'll keep my paradigm short (and I don't have much to say).

Things that are good:

I'm fine with CPs, Disads, T/SPECs, Framework, Ks, etc. I'm fine with performance.

***Note: I was not a performance debater. So, there are things you might want to explain more to me.

Things that are bad:

Language that is sexist, abelist, racist, classist, homophobic or otherwise uncool.

One last thing to note: I think what you say in round (even if it's not in a speech) is probably binding (i.e. the other team can hold you accountable for it and/or speaker points will reflect it).

If you have any questions about this or anything else, please let me know!

marie.eszenyi@gmail.com

(919) 323-1353

Do whatever you do best.

I hate paperless. Do not waste time playing with each other’s flash drives, I will not be happy. Try to look up every once and while. It will help your speaker points. Prep stops when the other team has the jump drive.

I do think rules exist in debate: speech times etc. These rules do not set restrictions on content or curriculum. All of these things are up to the debaters.

Framework: If circular claims about predictability and fairness are how you roll, I am probably not the judge for you. If framework is based on comparative claims which construct the importance of differing roles for the judge/debate/space, I am fine for you. One caveat, I generally think the negative, when going for framework, is responsable for responding the content of the 1AC. That is to say, you should probably have some answers to the affirmative jive from the case which will be used to respond to your framework argument.

Disads: They are good; even better if they are intrinsic.

Critiques: These are the arguments I know the most about. I am familiar with most critical literature. I will do my best to exclude my background knowledge from affecting my decision. Just because I know a lot about criticisms does not mean you should go for the argument. DO NOT ADAPT TO ME. In many cases, your inability to properly articulate X author will only frustrate me. The more specific the link to the affirmative the better your argument will be. This also applies to affirmative answers to the author the negative is using. I do not think the aff has a right to a permutation on a criticism. This does not mean the aff cannot justify one, but that is where I start.

Counterplans: I really like case specific PIC’s. If the counterplan results in the entire plan it is probably unfair.

Please be comprehensible. I will not tell you to be clear, but I will be staring at you with a puzzled look.

I honestly do not know how much I give off in body language while you are speaking. As a general rule, you should pay attention to what your judge is doing.

I am not the best flow. I have a very good verbal memory. If I am not constantly writing things down this does not (necessarily) mean I don’t dig what you are saying. It may also mean I am thinking about what you are saying.

Please try to be interesting and funny. This will greatly enhance your speaker points and chances of winning.

Argument: claim (17) + warrant (50) + impact (2)

There is such a thing as zero risk of a link.

Debaters argue. Evidence does not. If you just list 25 authors, I will not read your cards. I do not want to read your cards. Persuade me.

I will probably not take too long to decide the debate; it’s not you, it’s me.

People I would like to emulate while judging: Dallas Perkins, Steve Pointer, Dan Fitzmier, Calum Matheson, Izak, McBride, Odekirk, Hester, Repko and your father.

Email me with questions: jewing4@lion.lmu.edu

Yes email chain: lincolngarrett49@gmail.com

https://www.debatemusings.org/home/site-purpose-judging-debates

AFF on T

NEG on conditionality, but even I have my limit (more than 3, no evidence for a bunch of them, combining them later in the debate, amending and adding 2NC cps). NEGs are less good at defending their egregiousness in my recent experience.

I will kick the CP if I think it is worse than the status quo. A neg team doesn't have to say "judge kick" and the AFF isn't going to convince me I shouldn't do this.

I reject the argument and not the team for most every other theoretical objection to a CP.

Will vote on K's. Will care about if the plan is a good idea even if the AFF can't physially make it happen.

Don't have to read a plan, but merely saying the res is bad and dropping stuff will lead to L's.

I am not in the market to award AFF vagueness or poor explanations of cases until the 2AR

Evidence quality outweighs evidence quantity.

2017 Update

Overview- I'm old-ish (is 31 old?). I've been around 15 yearsand seen/coached most styles of debate (K/Perforrmance/Traditional/HS/College etc). I flow. I'll read (the warrents of) your cards and they matter to me.I do policy advacocy in real lifeso if you tell stuff I know isn't true in the real world you better defend it really well.Do what you do best. Use logic andtry to use truth over tech. I belive in education and try to give good feedback.

Been out the game for 2 years. Don't assuming I know anything about the topic specific acronyms or reference to specific teams since 2014. I'm up to date on basic news on China and trade but wouldn't know whichspecific parts of that discussion are hot in the debate work.What is below is still true just more detail from older philosophies all of it is still true. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2012 Update

I'll speak mostly to the K on K debates that I seems to almost exclusively judge. I'm really over any sort of infatuation with ethereal po mo stuff some people might have thought I had in days gone by. I still try to judges these debates on the flow, but I do have biases that I can only check to a degree. I think bodies matter, probably a lot, and theories that seek to get beyond them or to find some way to say they don't really matter that much are subject to a bs tests that I find teams advancing these arguments have a hard time passing when they debate teams that talk about identity.

One good way to deal with this would be to stress a more traditional terminal impact like explination of why your K matters. Much of the frustration I have with the etherial pomo stuff is the lack of connecting to actual peoples lives, which you can do with a robust explanation of how your K effects peoples in direct, meaningful ways.

Also, frameworks matter...probably a lot. Don't drop someones framework text and you should probably have one of your own. I guess I'm saying I view implicit clash having less of an impact in these K on K (and I guess all) framework debates, because for me the frame determines how I view said clash, so please be explicit in your clash or else I'll end up using trying to use the other teams framework to try to evaluate your arguments. Neither you nor I want this.

I guess I'll say that as I grow older, I just tend even more toward truth over tech. I can appreciate a good, logical strat (I appreciate the logic of some of Northwestern's AT Towson strats for example) and I'll vote for things like this if either these strats don't have basic meta level logical flaws or if the other team fails to point those flaws out. But if the common sense answers are advanced forcefull , even a well executed, well evidence strategy would be in serious jeopardy. Mostly it seems to be counter advocates that spin some random obfuscatory story about how they solve a K/performance aff when it seems a few common sense arguments would seems to indicate that they don't are what make me write this. For example when someone runs an identity K of debate Aff and the 1nc is 4 off including framework and a word PIC and the neg claims the Word PIC solves the entire aff despite obviously linking to the K of debate norms. The only thing that drive more insane than a 1NC making these statements is a 2AC that fails to point out the contradictions in these statemetns.

Remember I do a lot of work thinking about everyday issues of activism and local politics in addition to all the theoretical critical theory stuff. That means I'm just not going to be as less likely to enjoy going deep into a theoretical discussion of psychoanalysis or Bataille unless that discussion can be communicated as being in relation in some way to the conditions of oppression which can't not be always already in my mind given the city I live in and the things I see there. Yes, the person is political, but the political is not ONLY personal, it's also historical and structural. Take that as you will.

Last things I'll say that people don't seem to get about me is that, in many ways, I'm really an old school debater. I did CFLs, I did extemp and student congress in high school and feel every debater should too, I read more of The Economist than Adbusters, and I still feel the true test of any debater is how they would handle a public debate. I like logical, intelligent debate no matter what the content is and I dislike hyper strategic, jargon filled, avoidance debate no matter what the content is.

Old Philosophy (Circa 2009)

Overview: I guess the best place for the to start this is by saying I have both debated for Whitman College and debated for and now am helping to coach Towson University. I have literally been deep in the trenches on both sides of this communities stylistic wars have both the knowledge and scars that come with that. First, I’ll say that despite being raised to view debate as a game, I with age have come to see the pedagogical values of the activity as more important. Performance, framework, T and theory arguments should be made with this in mind. Second, let me say that while I definitely do not see myself as unbiased on the question of performative/critical/ “straight up” debate (I tend to lean more critical/performative) I have extensive experience with traditional arguments and can be persuaded to vote for framework against performance teams. You have the best chance of winning in front of me if you do what you do best. I try to be tabula rasa, but I do so knowing it is imposable.

Performance: Never actually debated it in a competitive round, but have extensive experience researching it and teaching it. I feel that strong performance arguments take a clear stance on the resolution (why not to debate it, why its bad, do they affirm through metaphor, if so what is that metaphor, etc). They should also clearly articulate what debate looks like in a world where their performative framework is adopted and what ground the other team has to interact with their performance. The less the performance teams articulates clearly what stance they take the more persuasive traditional framework arguments become.

On the traditional side, I feel the fatal flaw of most framework strategies is failing to generate any offense in the Performative team’s framework. YES. you probably will not win in this ALONE, but if your solving SOME of their offense you can more easily win a residual risk of your offense. The key thing is to show how your framework arguments interact with the telos of their performance. If they wanna solve oppression, make specific arguments that traditional debate solves the type of oppression they isolate; don’t just read shivley. Also, if they say politics is funked up, don’t JUST say traditional policy debate key to policy making, say it’s key to a new, none funked up form of politics and thus recenter the debate on whether traditional policy debate feeds traditional politics or changes it. Problem is many framework debates don’t get deep enough on these kinds of questions. I have a predisposition to not vote performance down on fairness grounds, this does NOT mean I will check in on it if a traditional teams do a good job debating the substance of the performance, be it with a kritik or a well executed framework argument.

Kritiks- I have the most intellectual foundation in this area. I have read a decent amount of literature on many of the most common K areas/authors (a lot of CRT, afrocentric stuff, a lot Foucault, a lot of D and G, some zizek, some security K stuff, not as much straight Marxist stuff but some, not as much Fem but some,). I generally feel most at home judging these debates. Negs should isolate specific links to the aff, failure to do some means I am much more likely to check in for the perm. Like on performance I tend not to be very persuaded by theory args on the K (lack of specific alts text bad, PIKs bad, framework means discourse doesn’t matter, etc). Aff’s should be cautious when banking on their advantage scenarios, not because I’ll check in on fiat is illusory, but because I feel many affs mishandle the arg many k teams make the K indicts the methodology behind your impact scenario. Aff’s should be able to defend the ethics behind their advocacy and their discourse. This does not mean they can’t win case outweighs, just they don’t get t say ”we win framework their for K is essentially a non Unique disad”. I can be persuaded to vote for no value to life arguments if executed well, 90% are not in my opinion.

Theory /T-
I tend to like functional over textual compeition, but it seems like aff teams are too scared to go for theory so i end up voting on cps i hate a lot. This includes consult, process, etc. I also tend to believe that the aff should get the resolution as a bases to generate their solvency deficits and offense against the CP, so if your CP is non topical that will help in terms of theoretical legitimacy, even if its international fiat. This does NOT mean you can not win consult, agent or other cps are legit, its just you better have some good topic specific reasons its key on the resolution. Multiple conditional advocacies are questionable in my book, but again it seems to be inevtbale so i've found i've cared alot less about this than i thought i would. That said there is diffrence between one conditional k and one cp and 3 conditional cps + CAP. You can defend all of these things, I just tend to believe that if your gonna play the debate game, in 2010 negs have enough strategic options not to need some of the stuff I am seeing.That said, theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, not the team, and i generally dislike hearing big theory debates unless it's clear the aff has nothing else to go for.

On T I guess I believe reasonability is a powerful argument To win T for me on the neg against a performance team you’d have to make your T impacts interact with your larger framework arguments about the pedagogical value of the activity. Against a straight up team you’d have to articulate

a. specifically examples of ground abuse
b. why that ground is “good” ground in terms of debate quality and research base
and
c. why you have a resolution right to that ground.
Again, I have lots of experience with traditional competing interps views; I did a lot of T as a 1nr, but you have to win the impacts to T, not just the link.

DAs/CPs proper- Actually most of my debating was pretty straight up. A lot of politics in H.S., a lot of case, da, cp in college. Specific DA links to the aff are good, in depth case hits are even better. Impact calc is always key. Don’t just say your impact is big, say its bigER, fastER, MORE probable than your opponents and give evidence based reasons for this. As part of my maturation/indoctrination depending on who you talk to I am probably far more amenable that many in the community to vote on systemic impacts over nuclear war scenarios as long as the team running systemic impacts makes good defense claims (interdependence solves war, conventional war doesn’t escalate, etc). I general I give a LOT of weight to smart evidence or even analytical impact take outs to contrived advantages or disads, make these argument and GO FOR THEM as key parts of your impact calculus. I can imagine that I could be persuaded there is 0 risk of an advantage or da, but i never have been , probably because the teams good enough to do that are also good enough to never let themselves get put in the position where they had to go for this argument.

Evidence- Ev quality is a big thing for me, as is evidence utilization. I’ll read cards, but I’ll attempt to flow in a way that makes reading evidence (almost) unnecessary, and I will default to the team that does the better ev. comparison in round. Considering I flow warrants, I will be looking for teams to be doing the warrant comparison. Your 2ar/2nr should isolate the warrants in your evidence for me, otherwise I might/probably will be force to read cards and piece together the warrant comparison for myself which may lead me places you don’t want me to go. Also, it never cease to amaze me how many great cards are underhighlit and I see many debates where teams lose because they didn’t read enough of their good card. Also, I tend to take the best argument over the best source; just because something is peer reviewed or someone has a Phd does not mean that joe blogger goes away if joe blogger’s argument is better, epically in K debates where the intellectual framework of the status quo is being indicted. It is always good of course to have evidence that makes the better argument AND comes from a qualified source, so be sure to point out both.

TECH- I never debated paperless at Whitman but I’m very cool with it. Reading cards off laptop is cool just jump the other team the cards or give them the laptop so they can prep.

Blatent Contradictions- This is a pet peive of mine, but whatever. Tread lightly. YES, this means you, MR/MS I wanna run Cap K and Ptix DA with a econ impact...I AM talking to you. I do believe in some modicum, some VESTIGE of argumentative responsibility, and if the other teams concedes the double turn, you will almost certainly lose. Neg flex only goes so far...


Finally, I see civility as a key part of why I stay in the community. PLEASE, even if it’s a heated clash of civs debate, try to be civil to your opponent. I see K teams just as guilty of this as traditional teams, hell I probably help coach some, but still I feel this is key.

Taylor Hahn

Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Judging Philosophy 2016-7

Years judging: 9

My interest in the debate community (and why you should care):

My academic interests include the norms and practices of collegiate policy debate. This means that I am interested in your arguments, but I also care deeply for how various styles of argumentation affect the activity and our collective capacity for social engagement. What does this mean? 1.) I like good theory debate. This also means that I probably hate bad theory debate more than most judges because I consider shallow discussion to be failed potential. 2.) Your debate (all debate) is a performance. Don’t be afraid to play with your role. You don’t have to step outside of our argumentative comfort zones to debate in front of me, but don’t be afraid to engage new styles. This message is for debaters that are usually policy-centric as much as it is for kritik or performance-centric debaters. 3.) Norms and practices in the community are established through our individual discourse. Don’t be afraid to defend good debate / attack bad debate if you believe it manifests in the round.

My default style of judging:

Unless told otherwise I will view the round as a policy maker. That being said, I am very much open to alternative modes of analysis. In the world of a policy maker, I will judge the round based on the question of whether or not the plan is better than the status quo or a competing policy option. Any level of speed is fine, but please be clear. An articulate semi-fast speaker is far better than a speed superstar that I can’t understand. CX is binding and I flow it when necessary. I rarely called for cards. If one team does a far better job articulating warrants, I do not find it acceptable to discover the warrants of the opposing team on their behalf.

Topicality/Theory:

Under the policy making framework, I will also consider topicality a prima facie voting issue. If I should be considering topicality, fairness, etc. as undesirable (or genocidal) you will need to spend a good amount of time explaining why. In regard to theory, in-round abuse is not necessary to win as long as the potential abuse is clearly explained. Theoretical arguments should be as specific as possible in regard to both the argument and its relation to the topic.

Counterplans:

I’m fine with international/alternate actor CPs, but I’m open to theoretical objections against either. Fiat abuse is entirely open to debate, but I do believe that fiat is necessary and reciprocal. I am open to conditional/dispo positions, but enjoy and can be persuaded by theory arguments against either. The acceptability of multiple conditional advocacies is always open to discussion.

Kritiks:

I enjoy well-constructed kritiks, but clear articulation of the core philosophy is essential. I was a policy debater and coach policy teams, so you will need to catch me up on your literature. Kritiks should clearly explain what they mean, how they apply specifically to the plan, and why I should vote for them. Alternatives should be clearly defined (this is where most kritiks fail). Role of the ballot arguments are fine, but I need to know how they relate to debate as an academic activity.

An important caveat - I realized recently that I have never voted on the argument that there is 'no value to life.' I doubt that I could ever find this argument persuasive.

Non-traditional debate/projects/performance:

What you’re doing, why you’re doing it, and what it means in context of the ballot is essential. If you are promoting a project and are arguing that the ballot is a mechanism for change, I will need to know why and how this change might operate. I am persuaded by teams that simultaneously defend their own framework while engaging in the other teams’. Engagement is the key word here.

DA/Case:

Most good debates have an intense discussion on the case advantages and solvency. Case debate has been heavily under-utilized in the past despite being one of the most persuasive avenues for the neg. DA flows are generally more persuasive when cards and warrants are extrapolated rather than giving me tagline extension or a card throw down. Storytelling will win or lose you the round here.

Speaker points:

Have fun and enjoy yourself. It will help all of us.

Michael Hall - Updated 9/15/22

Liberty University

28 Years coaching

Upfront, you should know that I've only judged a handful of debates over the last two years and those were intrasquad practice debates Second, I've developed slight hearing loss that makes it harder for me to pick out voices when there's background noise.

For the email chain: mprestonhall@gmail.com

The comments below reflect how I'm likely to things left to my own devices, but I do my best to evaluate the debate on the arguments made in the round.

Theory: I am not tabula-rosa. Minimally, each argument should contain a claim, some support (evidentiary or otherwise), and an impact. That said, I do my best to minimize my substantive preferences and therefore find myself voting for positions I don’t particularly like. I attempt to use the decision calculus most persuasively advocated by the debaters.

Topicality: I tend to see topicality as a contest of competing interpretations. I probably vote on T more often than most judges and have no problem voting against "core affirmatives" when the negative has a superior interpretation of the topic. I'm most easily persuaded to vote on T when the negative team develop arguments based on a comparison of ground offered under each interpretation of the resolution. I tend to find in-round abuse arguments less persuasive as its hard to determine whether the negative should have a right to those arguments without first establishing a coherent division of aff/neg ground. I am usually more persuaded by arguments about the quantity and quality of affs allowed by each interpretation and the negative's ability to access a core set of negative arguments. Topicality is by nature exclusionary.

Counterplans: I enjoy debates with creative counterplans tailored to specific affirmatives. The affirmative should be prepared to defend the entirety of the plan, and plan inclusive counterplans are one way of making them do so.

I’ve found myself voting against conditional counterplans a little more often in recent years, which I attribute to the quality of the negative’s defense of conditionality rather than a change in my CP leanings. If the negative justifies the conditional nature of the counterplan, other theory arguments are reasons to reject the counterplan not the team.

The text of the counterplan and all permutations should be written out. Trying to win a perm that doesn’t include all of the plan or that contains action not contained in the plan or counterplan is nearly impossible.

Kritikal Debate: I've found myself becoming much less dogmatic about the need for affirmatives to have topical plan texts. I don't know if I can pinpoint why, but I think it's partially due to conversations with various Liberty coaches and debaters and partially due to my own reading interests gravitating more toward critiques of the enlightenment and religious critiques of capitalism. I can certainly be persuaded to vote negative on framework but debaters should no longer assume it’s a hard default.

I don't think much has changed about the way I evaluate negative K strategies. Like any other part of the negative strategy, the more you tailor your link arguments to the affirmative in question, the more likely I am to find your arguments persuasive. Likewise, an overview that details how the kritik turns the affirmative’s solvency, outweighs the case, etc. would be more helpful than several more impact cards.

Style: Given what I wrote in the first two sentences, this is section of my philosophy almost certainly the most important for you remember during the debate. Things you should know in descending order of importance: (1) I am a better critic for those who collapse the debate in the block and 2NR than for those who go for most of their 1NC arguments into the 2NR. (2) I am a better critic for debaters who emphasize clarity over speed. I’ve found this to be especially true in paperless rounds where everyone in the debate except for the judge is reading along with the speech doc. Again, my hearing isn't what it used to be making the need for clarity even more important. I’ll give you verbal and nonverbal signals if I can’t understand you. (3) I have come to the conclusion that the more evidence I read, the less my decisions have reflected the arguments made by the debaters. As a result, I try to read fewer cards after a debate and am more easily persuaded to see a debate through the lens that allows me to do so. (4) If you think an argument is important, find a way to set it apart from the rest of the debate.

Prep time: Prep time stops when the speech doc is emailed.

2022 Update- I am not longer actively coaching debate. Please do not assume that I know a lot about the topic, have any idea what some other school's aff is, or have strong feelings about what obscure topic wordings mean. 

Allison.c.harper@gmail.com. - Put me on the chain please. I will not follow along with the doc or read cards I don't think are necessary to make a decision but spelling my first name is annoying and this was buried near the bottom of my philosophy.

Here are a few ways that I think my judging either differs from others or has changed with online debate:

1) I flow and do not open your speech documents during your speeches. That means you need to try to present arguments in a way that is flowable.  Make sure tags are clear. Answer arguments in an order I can follow (such as the order in which they are presented). Add structure and signpost.  Avoid reading giant analytical paragraphs without breaking things up. Avoid jumping around the flow arbitrarily or reading blocks in places where they dont belong.  Doing these things make sure that I not only have a record of what you said, but helps me understand how you think what you are saying applies/responds to your opponents arguments.  When you don't do these things, you increase the odds that I misunderstand what you think you have answered.

2) Make comparisons.  I read less evidence during and after debates than other judges. I start my decisions by looking at my flows, deciding what the key questions are, resolving things that I can, and only then look at evidence.  Make comparisons between your warrants, quality of evidence. Draw out the interactions for me rather than forcing me to do these things for you. I see that as intervention, but the way that many debaters give rebuttals these days sometimes makes it impossible to decide without that intervention. I would much rather let you do the comparing.

3) I am not in the cult of big impacts/try or die. You need to solve for something. Your counterplan needs a net benefit. I can be convinced to vote for low risk, but presumption and zero risk exist. Not everything needs a card. Smart analytics can knock down the risk of some pretty silly arguments.  If the other team does have evidence of sufficient quality, however, a card to the contrary would go a long way.

4) I don’t think I am a bad judge for the k if you debate the k technically, especially on the neg. I am not great for any argument if you are overly relying on an overview to get things done, are speaking in paragraphs without considering flowability, or are addressing components of the debate in ways that ignore the line by line. I am better for specific links and alts that I would be able to explain back to the other team what they do based on the explanation you offered in the round.  I think 90% of the time spent on “framework” when the neg reads a k is a waste of time by both sides. The neg gets links to what the aff said and did. The aff gets to weigh the implementation of the plan. Unless another way of thinking about this is presented and dropped, this is how I end up evaluating the debate anyway. I am less of a fan of critical affirmatives that are not topical, do not relate to the topic in a significant way, etc. In K aff vs framework debates, the aff is helped if I can understand what reasonable ways the negative could anticipate an aff like yours and reasonably respond to it.

5) I would rather you make link arguments to kritiks about assumptions that the other team has made during this debate rather than ask me to evaluate something that happened other debates or outside of debates. Other debates had judges who rendered their own decisions. If there are serious concerns about a debater's out of round behavior, please take that to their coaches or tournament administrators. 

6) Process debates are boring. They might be necessary on some recent topics, but they are so boring on topics where there are great disads. They would be better with some evidence that suggest this process ought to exist/be used, even better if there are cards about the topic or aff. For example, I am far more into con-con about a constitutional/legal question than con-con to withdraw from NATO. But really, wouldn’t it be cool if we picked debate topics that were actual controversies? Wouldn’t it be cool if topics that had some controversy were limited in a way that makes some sense?

7) When you steal prep time, you are stealing my decision time. Please don’t. If you are making changes to your speech doc (deleting analytics, rearranging blocks, combining multiple docs into one, etc) you should have a prep timer running. Sending a doc is fine outside of prep but should be done efficiently, especially if you are debating at the varsity/open level. Refusing to start CX until you have a marked copy is also a big waste of my time unless you are planning to ask questions that are affected by these markings. I have yet to see that happen, so let's get on with it.

8) In online debate, you MUST make an effort to be clearer. NSDA campus makes you sound like a robot eating rocks. What was passable on classrooms.cloud doesn’t cut it on campus. I should be able to understand the body of your evidence, distinguish tags from cards, etc. I do not open speech documents when you are speaking. I need to be able to hear and understand you.

9) It is much harder to pay attention to online debates. This isn’t your fault. It is a feature of the format. I have found cross-ex in particular difficult to follow and keep in focus. People talking at once is really rough online, and I appreciate attempts to limit this by keeping answers reasonable in length and not cutting off reasonable answers. I will do my best in every debate to give you every bit of attention I have, but it would help me if you would forefront cross-ex questions that might matter to your strategy. Asking the other team what they read is cross-ex time.

Old Philosophy- I don't disagree with this:

I think I am a relatively middle of the road judge on most issues. I would rather hear you debate whatever sort of strategy you do well than have you conform to my argumentative preferences. I might have more fun listening to a case/da debate, but if you best strat or skillset is something else, go for it. I might not like an argument, but I will and have voted for arguments I hate if it wins the debate. I do have a pretty strong preference for technical, line by line style debate.

I am open to listening to kritiks by either side, but I am more familiar with policy arguments, so some additional explanation would be helpful, especially on the impact and alternative level. High theory K stuff is the area where I am least well read. I generally think it is better for debate if the aff has a topical plan that is implemented, but I am open to hearing both sides. To be successful at framework debates in front of me, it is helpful to do more than articulate that your movement/project/affirmation is good, but also provide reasons why it is good to be included in debate in the format you choose. I tend to find T version of the aff a pretty persuasive argument when it is able to solve a significant portion of aff offense.

I don’t have solid preferences on most counterplan theory issues, other than that I am not crazy about consultation or conditions cps generally. Most other cp issues are questions of degree not kind (1 conditional cp and a k doesn’t seem so bad, more than that is questionable, 42 is too many, etc) and all up for debate. The above comment about doing what you do well applies here. If theory is your thing and you do it well, ok. If cp cheating with both hands is your style and you can get away with it, swell.

I have no objection to voting on “untrue” arguments, like some of the more out there impact turns. To win on dropped arguments, you still need to do enough work that I could make a coherent decision based on your explanation of the argument. Dropped = true, but you need a claim, warrant, and impact. Such arguments also need to be identifiable in order for dropped = true to apply.

It’s rarely the case that a team wins every argument in the debate, so including relevant and responsive impact assessment is super important. I’d much rather debaters resolve questions like who has presumption in the case of counterplans or what happens to counterplans that might be rendered irrelevant by 2ar choices than leaving those questions to me.

I try my best to avoid reading evidence after a debate and think debaters should take this into account. I tend to only call for evidence if a) there is a debate about what a card says and/or b) it is impossible to resolve an issue without reading the evidence myself. I prefer to let the debaters debate the quality of evidence rather than calling for a bunch of evidence and applying my own interpretations after the fact. I think that is a form of intervening. I also think it is important that you draw out the warrants in your evidence rather than relying on me to piece things together at the end of the debate. As a result, you would be better served explaining, applying, and comparing fewer really important arguments than blipping through a bunch of tag line/author name extensions. I can certainly flow you and I will be paying attention to your speeches, but if the debate comes down to a comparison between arguments articulated in these manners, I tend to reward explanation and analysis. Also, the phrase "insert re-highlighting" is meaningless to someone who isn't reading the docs in real time. Telling me what you think the evidence says is a better use of your time

I like smart, organized debates. I pay a ton of attention and think I flow very well. I tend to be frustrated by debaters who jump around or lack structure. If your debate is headed this direction (through your own doing or that of the other team), often the team that cleans things up usually benefits. This also applies to non-traditional debating styles. If you don’t want to flow, that’s ok, but it is not an excuse to lack any discernible organization. Even if you are doing the embedded clash thing, your arguments shouldn't seem like a pre-scripted set of responses with little to no attempt to engage the specific arguments made by the other team or put them in some sort of order that makes it easier for me to flow and determine if indeed arguments were made, extended dropped, etc.

Please be nice to each other. While debate is a competitive activity, it is not an excuse to be a jerkface. If you are "stealing prep" I am likely to be very cross with you and dock your speaker points. If you are taking unreasonably long amounts of time to jump/email your docs or acquire someone else's docs, I am also not going to be super happy with you. I realize this can sound cranky, but I have been subjected to too many rounds where this has been happening recently.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Thoughts on Pf and LD:

Since I occasionally judge these, I thought I should add a section. I have either coached or competed in both events. I still have a strong preference for flow-centric debate in both activities.

-You may speak as quickly or slowly as you would like. Don't make yourself debate faster than you are able to do well just because I can keep up

-You can run whatever arguments you are able to justify (see policy debate section if you have more specific questions)

-Too many debates in these events spend far too much time debating framing questions that are essentially irrelevant to judge decisions. Those frames mean little if you cant win a link. If you and your opponent are trying to access the same impact, this is a sign that you should be debating link strength not impact strength. Your speech time is short. Don't waste it.

-Make useful argument comparisons. It is not helpful if you have a study and your opponent has a study that says the opposite and that is the end of the argument. It is not helpful if everyone's authors are "hacks." With complicated topics, try to understand how your authors arrived at their conclusions and use that to your advantage.

-Stop stealing prep. Seriously. Stop. It is not cute. Asking to see a source is not an opportunity for your partners to keep prepping. If a speech timer or a prep timer isn't going, you should not be writing on your flows or doing anything else that looks like prepping. I see this in a disturbing number of PF rounds. Stop

-Give a useful road map or none at all. Do not add a bunch of commentary. A road map should tell a judge what order to put pieces of flow paper into and nothing more. Save your arguments for your speech time.

-Paraphrasing is bad. Read quotations. Send out ev in carded form ahead of time. If you are a varsity, national circuit level competitor, you should have figure out efficient ways to manage allowing the other team to review your evidence.

Name: Bary Hausrath

Institution: University of Richmond

Position: Coach

Years coaching: Since 2002 

Here are some predispositions I have, as well as a few tips for earning better speaker points (if that’s your aim).   I am a policy person by training, so I default to a policy-making framework and you should NOT assume that I have read your authors before the debate.  But I’ve grown a lot over the years and at this point, I genuinely try my best to be down for whatever.  

Words matter.  How we engage in this activity and treat those engaging in it with us matters.  

This is an activity that can be educational and fun. It is possible to be an effective advocate and a courteous, good-humored competitor.  Respect your partners and your competitors and treat them with dignity.  This means, among many other things, not talking unnecessarily loudly during other people’s speeches and not dominating your partner’s CX just because it’s open. 

Paperless: when you say you are “ready,” I expect you to have your speech jumped and for you to be ready to give your roadmap.  

Framework: The false dichotomy between policy and criticism is an unfortunate development over the years, and debaters who tell me how to bridge the gap get better speaks. I am not fond of pre/post-fiat distinctions that artificially separate thought, speech, and action. An aff can be a good idea and a bad idea on multiple levels at the same time.  You need to have a well-articulated framework that does more than simply telling me to evaluate your arguments first. However, framework is only one piece of the puzzle – I prefer to vote on substance.  Your role of the ballot arguments do not effect how I view theory and T unless you explicitly label them as a priori and subsequently win the argument on the line by line. 

Theory: My "don't be an a-hole rule" applies to theory debates too.  If the neg has more than one advocacy and does not make any arguments to the contrary, I tend to default to the position that the aff should have the option to go for a permutation (it’s not just a test of competition if the neg gets more than one potential advocacy).  Further, in the absence of a CP that is explicitly dispositional or conditional out of the 1NC, presumption goes aff.

No matter what the issue, a coherent, impacted interpretation/story is better than a bunch of line-by-line wins that don’t mean much in the big picture. On the other hand, I’m somewhat flowgocentric, so don’t be lazy on the line-by-line: if you drop a clearly labeled, articulated voter or gateway issue without excuse, you will (in almost all likelihood) lose.  

Evidence: It’s generally good, but not necessary. I don’t read cards unless you make me. I only read evidence to determine the weight I will give it (and the dependent argument) in the round. On the other hand, evidentiary comparison will get you better speaker points, and can make or break a round-winning argument. I won’t do a bunch of cross-application and other work the work for you just because you told me to read a card that happens to answer an argument you also happened to repeatedly drop or fail to explain (so don’t get lazy and just tell me that I “have to read” “all the ___ cards”). If you have a lot of evidence from one author, clearly delineate which card you mean. 

Impact analysis: It’s important, but don’t neglect the rest of your argument (e.g. the entirety of your story, not just the impact level).  

Topic-specific and Stylistic crap: This is your debate, not mine. I like the good surprises of creative arguments, and I LOVE a good case debate.

P.S. MPJ sucks.

The topic

Short story:   I’m no longer a good judge for you if you don’t want to defend the topic on the affirmative, as I have come to believe the increasing tendency of teams to avoid topical debate is eroding the value proposition offered by policy debate.  I am willing to try to strike myself from judging teams who deem this problematic.  gwdebate.hayes@gmail.com 

Longer story:  I returned to debate believing that I should give a fair chance to the various approaches, styles and formats.  Since my return, and over the last year in particular, I’ve come to the conclusion that although debate in all of its forms has value, the value proposition offered by research-based, extended preparation debate—as compared to other, less costly forms of debate—is severely eroded if we are unable to establish a focal point for our research that divides the available literature and arguments with some semblance of fairness.  I also believe that teams can use topical affs to access most of the issues they’d like to talk about and that learning how to do this is valuable education.

If affirmatives are making an attempt to defend the topic, I am generally lenient on T, particularly if the Aff accesses important topic education that is otherwise being ignored. 

Plan focus

I have a strong tendency to assume that the plan is the focus of the round.  If you are on the negative, it is essential that you explain how your arguments—particularly your critical arguments—relate to and are a reason to reject plan.

The rest

Win an argument.  Convince me it's the most important thing in the round.

Treat your opponents with respect.

Try to speak in complete sentences.  

I like clever Affs and counterplans that demonstrate a sound grasp of policymaking.  

I like debates that mirror the discussions in the literature, and that might be heard outside of the debate community.

I dislike the notion that different rules of logic and evidence apply in debate as opposed to every other professional and academic forum with which I'm familiar.  

Overall: I think that debate is a game, the greatest game ever in fact, and room for clash is very important. I put more emphasis on arguments that are better explained, and will not automatically vote on a cheap shot unless they are fully explained. If you win on a cheap shot I will probably dock your speaker points. Comparisons of specificity of evidence, probability, timeframe or magnitude are always good, even in critical debates. I will read evidence if it is contested and the quality of evidence may play a role in my decision because I believe the research aspect of debate is very important and should be rewarded. That said, I do also appreciate teams that are able to be creative with evidence and control how it is interpreted through CX and their speeches. If you have really good evidence that you want me to read after the round, use its name in your last rebuttals so I can easily call for it.

DAs: If your evidence is terrible, it probably undercuts the probability of the DA so spend more time explaining it, perhaps with historical and other examples. Even if the evidence is terrible, I think Affs need to find a way to generate offense or mitigate and outweigh.

CPs: I really like CPs and tend to reject the argument, not the team on theory debates. That said, I think that CPs in general are becoming increasingly abusive so a significant time investment by the Aff on theory could be persuasive.

Kritiks: I ran a lot of generic K’s so may not be as familiar with the literature for topic specific ones. Specific links are important and I think permutations (just tests of the competition) spun right can be very powerful. Floating pics are questionable and other alterantive theory arguments are useful. I happily listen to framework although please explain the implications of these versus the K. Please, please, please do not attempt to be as vague as possible with the alternative and hope to win. A critical Aff relating to the topic will always be better off than one that does not. 

Topicality: Affs should generally be topical. I don’t particularly enjoy topicality debates because they get blippy but am pretty sure that any case can be proven untopical. Case/argument examples on both sides really help add depth to the argument. 

Spec Args: I don’t  mind them but plan to invest a lot of time in these arguments if you want to win my ballot unless the other team drops something important.

Updated: March 29, 2016

Experience: This is my 10th year coaching collegiate debate.

Position: Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Communication

Education: BA, Pittsburgh. MA coursework, Wake Forest. MA, University of Iowa. PhD, University of Iowa.

I have been involved in debate for 18 years.

An argument involves a claim, data, and some line of reasoning that connects the data to the claim. This data could be something taken from the correlates of war, it could be something taken from a political performance, it could be spoken word. I'm not in the business of sorting between these various bits of data and their relationship to claims. That's your job as the debater. Explaining to me the impacts in the debate, their relative importance, and how they interact with one another remains vitally important in every debate. Magnitude, probability, all that. Those are metrics that matter whether the debate is about various nuclear wars in the Middle East or fighting racism domestically.

I have primarily spent my time this year as a coach cutting policy cards. I have various and sundry familiarities with a lot of critical literature, keep up with the caselist more or less. My scholarly interests are not coterminus with my voting record. I tend to reward teams that privilege clarity of argument, have a well organized approach to the issues present in the debate, and those who innovate within the framework of the opportunity provided by the debate. Essentially, if you defend reducing military presence and have a novel, well-thought out interpretation of what that means that diverges from the conventional understanding, I am a good judge for you. If you are just grabbing some cards about a K you love and mention the resolution in passing, I am less good. 

I have some common notes here about things that tend to happen:

1. If you want to "escape capture of the line by line", I may not "get" that unless you are particularly good at doing so. This is just a warning based on my track record as a judge.

 2. Many framework/T debates posit two competing values: on the one hand, a fair and predictable debate community, and on the other, the set of practices/people/institutions to whom violence is done in the name of this debate community. Whats remarkable to me is how often the LINK to the former is often taken as the end of the story, with the goodness of debate taken to be an enthymematic given. Similarly, the "trained incapacity" of debaters to clearly weigh how a certain kind of structural or ideological violence is more important than the debate community's smooth functioning is befuddling to me. DONT ASSUME I KNOW WHAT YOUR TERMINAL IMPACTS VALUE IS. You need to make very clear why, if I'm put in the position of deciding between an opportunity cost of either preserving the debate community as a predictable/fair space or combating pernicious forms of societal injustice, I should prefer the one over the other. It seems simple, but trust me, you've got to do it.

4. . What sort of citizens is debate crafting? What interests do they have, and what attitudes towards the world are we trying to inculcate? These are meta level questions relevant for debates about framework, topicality, theory...

5.  What you want to do as a debater matters more than what you think you should do to appeal to me. Aside from some basics (answering arguments, going either in line by line or in some organized fashion that makes sure you don't drop things, weighing impacts, being clear) you should probably not futz with your content really. Those triangulating moves often don't pan out.

6. LISTEN to the other teams argument. Respond to it in a way that appreciates the difference in how debaters process arguments and how judges process arguments. Don't assume you and the panel share priorities: you aren't the same people. You have to communicate the importance of the values and content of your argument.

Other things

Topicality/Theory: I have grown to like topicality debates a lot more as I get older. contextual evidence: good. arbitrary definitions: bad. Also, for pete's sake, topicality/theory debates are really hard to flow. Slowing down a little on these will make my flow a lot better. Theorywise, I can list things I think are suspect: states, multiactor fiat i.e. Lopez, consult. But really, it doesn't matter. I haven't seen anyone go for theory in front of me in ages. I respect capable theory debaters not only for that talent but also because it gives them a powerfully abusive arrow in their strategic quiver.  Conditionality seems more or less ok. You could change my mind on something, or easily persuade me in a given debate to vote for something I don't really agree with. I ran agent counterplans and the states counterplan more than any other argument by about a billion, so I know how the game is played. Most judges just hunger for excellence. If your excellence is an artful destruction of the states CP on a theory argument, go for it.

 performative contradictions: i do think if the neg engages in some wacky reps, but makes a similar reps K against the aff, that it begs the question of why the aff can't just kick the advantage. Also raises some clear questions about the alt solvency if we're talking about an "unflinching paradigmatic analysis" or some such when the 1NC had contradictions...i have never understood why "negation theory" means you can just do what you want.

Embedded clash: its about the only way to give a top tier 1AR, but also about the only way to give a total catastrophe of a 1AR that no one can follow. If you can do it, and do it well, you'll be the master of your domain. Caveat: If you are trying to do this while working from the speech document and not the flow, yeeesh

Just debate. Some of the best speeches I have ever seen were based on a simple premise (The aff doesn't understand how deficits work, these Baudrillard cards don't make any sense, etc) and so you shouldn't be afraid to stake on a debate on a really salient point. I think there are a number of debates a tournament I see where the arguments being made are so (conceptually) unclear that a team which simply said as much would benefit substantially. 

I make audio recordings of every debate and I don't take kindly to clipping.

Finally, lets all try our best to debate our best, to compete, and to work hard. Our competitors honor us with their work and arguments. We honor them by taking their arguments seriously.

WWACD.

2016 NDT Update:

The NDT will be my first tournament of the season. Two points you might be wondering: 1) topic familiarty, 2) current thoughts on judging:

--Very familiar with the literature, and pretty familiar with the arguments teams have been making and the core strategies. I'm not familiar with any argument norms that have developed. Takeaway: You don't need to teach me about the topic, but might have to teach me about your T or CP competition argument, and the year's arg trends that make an argument seem logical or terrible to you. Please use c-x and frame your arguments appropriately.

--As I reflect on judging debate, I think the single most important factor to me is the credibility of the debater. It's why I find well-researched, technical arguments so persuasive, but why I'll also vote on a counter-intuitive argument if the debater has complete ownership over it -- both of those signal the debater's credibility. Likewise, if I watch an unprepared debater extend the perfect strategy without any in-depth knowledge of why the strategy works, I won't find that strategy very credible -- your argument is great, but you as a debater are a joke...The point is: whatever your strategy is, you'll be more likely to win if you demonstrate you own that argument and your opponents are out of their depth. Evidence comparison, focused, in depth and technical cross-exs, having evidence supremacy and specificity, clarity in both your speed and in your description of args, etc. are all factors here -- but they matter in relation to that overarching goal. Whatever your path to victory is, own it and who cares about the rest. Now, this big picture issue in no way substitutes for winning that technical debate and the line by line, but it sure will influence how I resolve those more granular issues.

---Philosophy (2010)

General Thoughts

-Debate should be characterized by hard work, well-researched strategies and clash.

-Debate is a communication activity. Both speaker points and the weight arguments have in my decision may be affected by how those arguments were communicated. Incoherent introduction of arguments undermines those arguments persuasiveness.

-Evidence: Smart arguments win. The minimum standard for a relevant argument is a claim, warrant and impact. Smart and intuitive analytic arguments can easily meet this threshold and evidence often doesn't meet this threshold. Evidence that is over-highlighted may not constitute “evidence” in any meaningful definition of the term.

-Execution: High quality evidence can significantly impact my decision, but cannot substitute for poor debating. I keep returning to my flow throughout making a decision and am very paranoid about making a decision that does not reflect the debating in the final rebuttals. As a result, there are very few rounds where I made a decision that one team’s evidence quality overwhelmed another team’s argumentation in the final rebuttal. However, a reason for this trend is that debaters have, to their detriment, rarely made appeals to evidence quality. When debating on a particular issue is very close (generally because arguments are contested in a good debate, or because debaters are just making contrary assertions in a bad debate) I often resolve that debate through evidence quality.

-Offense/Defense: Its a useful way to conceptualize arguments and strategy, but sometimes over-emphasized. Every team needs offense to win a debate, but teams don’t necessarily need offense on every flow to win a debate. I’ve always been confused by the negative argument that the aff cannot win because they don’t have offense on a disad—their offense is the case. Win your stuff beats their stuff and I’ll vote for you.

-Risk: It is very unlikely that there is literally “no risk” of an argument, but I can persuaded that the risk is so low that a rational policymaker should consider the risk negligible. Often, the phrase “only a risk” is code for “we don't have a real answer to their arguments,” the phrase simply begs the question what degree of risk.

-Default: Is the topical plan preferable to the status quo or a competitive policy option. This default could be changed, but that is likely an uphill battle.

-Mishandled Arguments: As a judge, I vote for a team. I vote for an argument. For example, if the affirmative drops a disad, I don't vote on "the aff dropped the disad;" I vote for the disad, which was not answered by the aff. I think this is more than a semantic distinction. If a team drops an argument you should not just say, "they dropped X" and move on. You should couple that with some minimal extension of the argument and its impact for how the arg should influence my decision.

Argument-Specific Thoughts

-Topicality—I enjoy smart, well-researched topicality arguments and dislike topicality arguments disconnected from topic research. Negatives will be best served by winning the affirmative interpretation is unreasonable. Reasonability is not “T is not a voter”—the aff needs to prove that their interpretation solves most of the neg’s offense and explain a disad to voting for only a slightly better interpretation. A case does not become topical by being run throughout the year. In round abuse is a stupid standard.

-Counterplans—Net-benefits should be net-benefits—the fact that a plan links more to a net-benefit is not enough if the CP is sufficient to trigger the link, unless the negative made arguments on how to evaluate link thresholds. Affirmatives should impact their permutations in the 2AC to explain why it makes the CP not competitive or they have not yet made a complete argument (“perm do the CP” isn’t a complete argument, “perm do the CP-it’s a way the plan could be implemented” is). If the 2NR goes for a counterplan I will only evaluate the plan vs. the counterplan unless the 2NR explicitly makes an argument that I can and should evaluate the status quo if the CP is not competitive or the best policy option.
-Theory—
---I increasingly think that affirmatives would be well-served attacking the competitiveness of counterplan's that change a non-mandated process of the plan's implementation. For agent/international counterplans, I'm often unsure why these are relevant to my decision-making.
---Interpretations on theory debates are generally arbitrary and unhelpful unless they provide a coherent view for debate practices.
---Conditionality is likely good, but unconstrained conditionality might be excessive.

-Disadvantages—Explain what your turns the case arguments are--do they solve the case or take out case solvency (this is relevant to how I view "try or die" arguments). I don’t think that "controlling" the link creates a risk of uniqueness and vice versa, but do think that the link is more relevant to the overall risk of the disad. A politics disad presents an opportunity cost to the plan if there is a coherent link and internal link story.

-Critique Stuff
---Plan-less affirmatives—I am *very*unlikely to be persuaded that these are fair. I also think it’s worthwhile to learn how to improve government policymaking. Even if a team doesn’t read a plan, it makes sense to me that you can debate the merits of their advocacy and its affects, and that those consequences shape whether I should or should not endorse that advocacy.
---Critical affirmatives—I don’t see much of a distinction between policy and critical impacts. If you say your plan is good for x, y and z reason, then you should be able to win in front of me. I don’t have much of a disposition on the substance of these affs.
---Critiques—Critiques that seek to disprove the plan and apply their general theory to the specific causal claims made by the 1AC are great arguments, and shockingly rare.

-Things to be aware of
---Specification arguments need to demonstrate that the topic necessitates debate of specific implementation questions to have a complete and educational discussion of the plan for me to vote on them.
---Stock issues. They still exist. I will vote on presumption if there is a negligible risk of the case, or if the case is not inherent. Presumption goes to less change. Burden of proof is on the team introducing the argument.

I am a graduate student of Communication at Pitt, currently coaching Towson, debated at Dartmouth

Paradigm writing is the worst.  It's also a farce. 

I see debate as a performance, and I vote for the better performance.  That performance can include any number of kinds of arguments.  A performance has stakes for an audience both immediate and abstracted elsewhere.  That performance should involve the endorsement (or no) of a certain politic.

I tend to evaluate debates based on comparative advantage, unless told to evaluate competing methodologies, or unless (in the context of performance debate usually) the debaters seem to think we all agreed that they are debating "competing methodologies."

Debate how you can, the best you can. 

Swag is good.  Complexity. Concretization.  Examples. Comparison. 

I don't tend to call for evidence, since it often overdetermines how I then piece together the debate.

I'm probably understanding your kritik, but it means I also probably have a higher threshold for what you must articulate.

For the time being, I will not be using my AA speaker point policy.

Judd D. Kimball, Assistant Coach, University of Mary Washington

Article I. Communication Approach to Debate 
Section 1.01 The following are brief explanation of what I envision when I think of the highest quality debate. These are items that can factor in both positively and negatively for you in my determination of who did the better debating. 
(a) A primary goal should be to present your ideas and arguments in a communicative fashion. What factors influence the effectiveness of your communication? 
(i) Rate of Delivery. You should not present ideas at a rate that interferes with the effectiveness of sharing those ideas with another human being. You must analyze your audience to determine the rate at which they can absorb ideas, and you must evaluate (fairly) your own abilities to speak rapidly which not losing clarity/enunciation or normal tone inflection that signals the beginning and ending of sentences, and is critical to judges understanding concepts and ideas, not just individual words. 
(ii) Clarity/Enunciation. Each word should have a beginning and an ending. Each sound should be pronounced, and not mumbled through. 
(iii) Interpretation/Tonal inflection. It is a personal belief that the way we normally communicate with other people involves a lot of vocal interpretation and tonal inflection. It’s a way to communicate phrases and ideas, rather than just leaving each word hanging out by itself, merely surrounded by other words. With interpretation the audience has an easier time comprehending, understanding the processing the idea, as they don’t have to put the sentence together from the individual words, and then discover the meaning of the phrase or sentence themselves. Interpretation, by my definition, is the attribute of communication that helps provide understanding to the audience of the ideas being presented through the way the ideas are presented. It has been my experience that most debaters are very interpretative speakers when they are not debating from prepared scripts. It is during this time that the communication skills you have honed since you began talking are on display. Yet when it is time to read evidence, or a prepped theory block, they shift communicative gears and start just reading each individual word, rather than presenting ideas for the consideration of the judge. I am very unlikely to read evidence after the debate if it was not read in a comprehensible manner, or the warrants and reasons of the evidence were not discussed as being important ideas. 
(b) A primary focus of your speeches and cross-examination period should be information sharing. This goes beyond your personal motivation to communicate with the judges, and includes a responsibility to present your arguments in a fashion that facilitates your opponent’s comprehension of your position. 
(c) Clash. You should seek to create class in your debates by interacting with not only your opponent’s tag lines, but with the warrants for those claims. In essence, clash is explaining to me why I should prefer/believe your arguments over your opponents. In order to effectively do that, you must be making comparisons that take your opponents argument into account. You must clash. 

Section 1.02 Effective implementation of these points will most likely result in higher speaker points, and a greater understanding of your arguments by me as a judge. That will help you in winning the debate, as I will hold the other team responsible for answering your arguments, and if they fail toy,your superior communication will be a determining factor (as a process) of your victory. 

Article II. Debate Evaluation 
Section 2.01 I recognize objective standards and processes are probably impossible, as the subjective creeps into everything, I just desire and strive for objectivity. 
(a) I have a default judging perspective, which evaluates the net benefits of a policy proposal, and answers the question of whether the government should take a particular course of action. I prefer a framework which strives to include as many voices and perspectives as possible, and provides a framework in which different perspectives can be compared, contrasted and weighed. I like my decision to be grounded in the arguments made in the debate. I strive not to bring in “baggage” with me, though I recognize the final futility of that effort, and I will make every effort to explain my decision by reference what was actually communicated in the debate 
(b) If you wish the debate to be evaluated from an alternate perspective, you will need to provide a well-defined set of criteria for me to apply when evaluating and weighing arguments. The question of controversy needs to be defined, and discussed in order to provide me the necessary framework to avoid subjectively deciding the debate. Now mind you, I don’t mind subjectively deciding a debate, just be prepared to be frustrated by my statement that I can’t explain why I voted for a particular position, just that that was what I wanted to do at that moment of time, or frustrated by the fact that what I voted on wasn’t an argument or part of the debate that you had a chance to answer. That will happen when I find myself stalled out in the decision making, finding no way to decide other than adding in factors that were not included or discussed in the debate. 

Section 2.02 I find questions of autonomous action and personal belief difficult to decide in the context of debate competition. I have found myself perplexed by arguments advanced on the basis of exercising personal autonomy, and then be expected to evaluate them without the inclusion of my opinions, my autonomy, in the process. This is difficult when I find that my personal approach to life contrasts with the approach to individual decision making advocated by one team. If the ballot is my endorsement of your idea, then I would be denying my own autonomous position by being constrained by debate conventions of judging (i.e., you did a better job against the opponents objections, but I wasn’t persuaded to change my personal beliefs). Defining your framework for debate evaluation with this in mind will ease my difficulty. I have been close to taking the action of including my position on the question, in the last few debates I’ve had when this situation arose. Questions of Autonomy and personal belief are difficult questions for me to resolve 

Section 2.03 I will be very resistant to deciding debates where the character of the participants is the foundation for the decision. I do not like to cast judgments on people and their behavior without having gathered as much information as is possible. I do not feel that in the high pressure competition of debate is the best forum for investigating those issues, or in seeking to engage the other individual in a dialogue about their behavior. Am I totally unwilling to decide a debate on such a question? I’m not willing to say that either. But I would have to be convinced that not only was this an egregious act, but that malevolent intent was involved. 

Article III. Other Issues: 
Section 3.01 Topicality I think topicality debates hinge on the question of whose interpretation provides for a better debate topic/experience. If your violation and argumentation does not provide an answer to that question, then figure the answer out. You must also be sure to be complete in your argumentation about why the affirmative violates your interpretation. Do not leave issues of plan interpretation vague, or hinge your argument on a vague cross ex question or answer. Make clear and concise arguments about why the affirmative plan doesn’t meet your interpretation. 

Section 3.02 Counterplans. I’ll evaluate any counterplan presented. I begin from a bias that "net benefits" is the most meaningful competition standard, and perhaps only standard. But you can argue other standards, and you only have to defeat your opponent’s arguments, not mine. As to other theory questions with counterplans, it will depend on who does the best job defending/indicting a particular theoretical practice used in the debate. 

Section 3.03 Kritiks I need to understand what you are saying from the beginning on all arguments, but especially these. Please communicate your ideas to me when you present this type of argument. I won’t go back later and try to figure out what you were arguing about. I need to know what the affirmative does that is bad, and why it is bad enough that I should either vote negative, or not affirmative, or however I should vote. 

Section 3.04 Debating and Evaluating Theory Issues. Theory issues are difficult to evaluate, because they are a yes/no question. If you wish to win a theory objection, you must deal with all of your opponent’s defenses, and provide reasoning explaining why a particular theory position is destructive to quality debate. This is not meant to scare you off of theory debates, just to encourage you to be thorough and complete when discussing this issue. 

For the email chain: kozakism@gmail.com

I am the former founding Director of Debate at Rutgers University-Newark and current Speech and Debate Coordinator for the Newark Board of Education.

I do not have any formal affiliation with any school in the City of Newark. I represent the entire district and have been doing nothing but competing, teaching, coaching, and building debate for the last 22 years. I have judged thousands of debates at almost every level of competition.

I am in the process of rewriting my judge philosophy to reflect my current attitudes about debate better and be more helpful to competitors trying to adapt. The one I have had on tabroom is over ten years old, and written in the context of college policy debate. I apologize to all the competitors in the many rounds I have judged recently for not being more transparent on Tabroom.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate arguments as you tell me.

I will keep a slightly edited version of my old philosophy while I work on my new one, as it still expresses my basic feelings about debate.

If you have questions about my judge philosophy or me before a tournament, please email me at ckozak@nps.k12.nj.us.

You can also ask me any questions prior to the debate about any preferences you might be concerned about. Good luck!

Old
.................................................................
My judging philosophy/preference is simple. Make arguments. That includes a claim, a warrant, and why your claim matters in a world of competing claims. I don't have an explicit judging "paradigm," and to say that I am a tabla rasa is naive. I am going to split the difference and just explain to you what kinds of arguments I am familiar with.

I debated the K for most of college. I value nuanced Ks that are well-explained and applied to a specific context. I like original thinking in debate and will try to adapt to any performance style you wish to present in the round. Just be aware to all teams when debating framework on these issues that I do not consider appeals to "objective rules" persuasive in the context of determining debate norms. Debate is a rare activity in which students can define the conditions of their education. I take this aspect of debate very seriously. This does not mean I am hostile to "policy debate good" arguments; it just means that I am holding both teams to a high standard of explanation when evaluating framework arguments.

I was mostly a traditional policy debater in high school, so I am very familiar with the other side of the fence. I love an excellent straight-up policy round. Give me all your weird counterplans and ridiculous disad scenarios. I am a current events junkie and find that form of debate extremely valuable. I enjoy speed; but I have a hard time flowing quick blips analysis (who doesn't?). If you just make sure you pause for a breath or something between arguments, I will get everything you need me to get on my flow.

It may sound like I have a lot of "biases," but I do honestly try to evaluate arguments exactly as debaters tell me to. These preferences mostly come into play only when debaters are not doing their jobs.

Avoid having to adapt to me at all, and just tell me what you would like my preferences to be, and we will be good.

I welcome you to ask any specific questions you may have about my philosophy before the debate, considering I don't have much of an idea about what to put in these things, as I found most judge philosophies deceptive as a competitor.

Dylan Kristufek

Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Stock issues: Please be inherent, please have solvency, and I prefer a plan text. If the neg has warranted evidence that you don’t meet the first two requests, I have no issues voting neg on presumption. Plan texts are nice. They give the debate more stability. I’ll listen to you if you don’t read one, but I’ll have a lower than normal threshold on voting on you being abusive if you shift throughout.

Flowing: I do it. I think it is the greatest thing I ever learned to do. I will be consulting my flow at the end of the debate, so don’t try to tell me something is there when it wasn’t.

Speed: Great if it’s clear. I will yell “clear” once if you are not. If the lack of clarity continues, I will stop flowing. In that case, see above.

C-X: I will flow it. I find it extremely underutilized in debate. I feel C-X is mostly binding, but if you misspeak and correct yourself, I will take note. Be polite in C-X. Angry people are not appreciated and speaker points will be reflected here.

Topicality: Treat it like any other part of the debate. It needs a uniqueness (what the aff does wrong), a link (the abuse that happens in round), an impact (how me voting neg is important), and a voter. You cannot win without all of these things. I prefer reasonability here. T is never a reverse voter and it is not genocidal. Be as specific as possible here. Label clear abuse in round. Furthermore, education and fairness are very bland losses in round, but if you make them more specific (i.e. topic specific education or can label specific ground losses) then you have a better chance of winning my ballot here.

A/I/O SPEC: If you do it, do it well. I’m not a fan of underdeveloped SPEC debates. I have a high threshold here, but if you do the work, you can win.

Disads: I’ll be disappointed if you don’t run one (unless you are a K team). I think disads are the bread and butter of the debate community and good offense generated from one is important to win. Pull out specific warrants to make winning my ballot easier. Post-dating on uniqueness is important, but not complete round winner.

Counterplans/Theory:  I expect a CP to have a net benefit in order for me to vote for it. Theory debates here tend to get very confusing here, but can be strategic if teams take the time to develop it. I’ve been the debater who has run blippy arguments, and they tended to lose (unless unaddressed). I’ve also been the debater who has spent hours developing theory blocks and practicing creating theory in round on the fly, and that’s when I started to win. Aff: Don’t be afraid to go all in on theory when you know you’re losing. It’s a legitimate strategy and underused in my opinion. I default condo good, but I can be convinced if you are specific (i.e. conditional multi-actor fiat bad or conditional international actor fiat bad). The more specific you are and the better you address and impact their specific theory arguments, the more likely you are to convince me.

Kritik/Framework: Once upon a time, I feared the K more than anything else. Now, I really enjoy the extra level of complexity it adds to the game. However, “With great power comes great responsibility” –Uncle Ben. You need to do work to make me understand where the philosophy fits in with the real world. I need in depth explanations of why you outweigh the case. I will most likely understand your K, but it’s up to you to make me care, and to prove the link. Generic links make me very sad when it comes to K’s. Anyone can read a generic link and generate some offense, but I prefer specificity if possible.  When it comes to Framework, it is not a round winner, but rather how I evaluate the round. I start as a policy maker, but I can be flexible. Clearly explain to me what I should be, and why I should be it. Offense on framework will be a reason I default to your framework, not a reason to vote for you, understand that now (unless you have a performative reason, in that case, see below). I can see the usefulness of K’s, but I prefer a policy alt if possible. An alternative of any kind is necessary, and it can easily be a voter if you shift your position throughout, but that’s the other team’s job to do. Language K’s are a good reason for me to think the other team is composed of rude people, so speaker point penalties will be dealt out, but not usually a reason to vote them down.

Performance: If this is your jam, then go for it. I tried being slightly performative with Heteronormativity a long time ago, but I wasn’t stellar at it. I have seen Towson do it well, and Louisville has done it well too, so don’t be afraid to try. However, I feel that sometimes teams are too afraid to debate teams like this on a framework level and often underperform.  Both sides of this type of debate should be clear and concise to win my ballot. Additionally, telling me how to vote is very important, and you really need to sell why voting for you is important. I don’t tend to favor the performance, but if that’s your thing, don’t be afraid to run it in front of me.

General other notes: I am the supreme master of prep time and other times, so when my timer goes off, that is when times end. Be polite and kind to one another, speaker points will reflect. I like paperless, but efficiency will be best.  Final note, have fun. Remember, debate is just a game. We are all here to learn and to enjoy ourselves. I’ve seen too many people take debate far too seriously, and they were not the people I wanted to be around. Just be chill and make friends. The best way to learn is from each other, and that best happens when we are reasonable to one another.

You’ve got questions? Ask.

Debated at James Madison University for 5 years
Currently- policy analyst on the Hill (DC), and assistant coach for JMU Debate fall 2010-spring 2015
Judging at the college level since: 2010-2011

Short Version:

As a debater, I ran a wide variety of args mostly based on their strategic value and, to a slightly lesser degree, based on my personal interests. Just remember that in front of me, you should try to a) win a link, b) win an impact to that link, and c) argue why that impact is important. If you don’t do that, then you will probably require me to do a lot of work to figure out how to evaluate the round. Also, claims need warrants- otherwise you're just wasting your breath (even if the other team drops this "arg").

I usually evaluate my decision based on the flow and typically do not to call for much ev for review purposes. Usually if I do it's because a) I'm personally interested in the arg/ev cited or b) scouting. If you are already doing a good job comparing the claims, warrants, assumptions, etc. of your ev versus the other team then that is likely to deter me from intervening with an ev review. It's largely up to YOU to tell me why your ev is good/better than your opponents'. 

Longer Version:

Here are a few other biases and assumptions that I will bring to the debate, but these are obviously open to revision based on the arguments in the round and my ongoing experience as a judge.

Topicality/Procedurals- You need to flesh out why your interpretation is best for debate *and* prove why the abuse committed by the opposite team justifies a ballot in your favor (i.e., you need more than just a link). For T, I will try to evaluate based on competing interpretations. Affs can and should still make the actual reasonability argument (hint: this does NOT mean the blindly subjective, “heyyyy, come on judge…”) as an answer to an arbitrarily limiting neg interpretation. Theory args need a clear link, and should be impacted on why they have skewed the debate to the point that it has created an irreversible strategic disadvantage. Lastly, if you're one of those fast-talkers and you start off with T in the 1NC/2AC, please take the first 10-15 secs at about 75% speed so I can adjust and catch how the other team is cheating/how you aren't.

Framework- If you are setting up a non-traditional framework for the debate space and role of the ballot, then just make sure that it is explicit and consistently mentioned throughout the round. When it comes to clashes of framework style, I generally think that races to the middle are probably easier to defend, compared to absolute assertations such as "the state is always/never good" - particularly given the wording of this year's legalization topic. In any case, I'll hold FW to the same standards as T/Procedurals: if the other team is running an abusive arg/FW, then you need a clear link, a significant impact, and a explain why your impact matters more.

Performance- I am fine with these as they meet the impact burden I listed at the top. This does not mean you have to win an orthodox impact, per se, but I should know what I am voting for. If you have an unusual interpretation for the role of the ballot, you better drive that point in and why that’s important too. Performance affs should meet the framework note that I mentioned above (i.e. performance affs shouldn't just ignore the resolution).

Disads- I hope yours have internal links. If not, then they might fail to pass my main criteria for evaluation, above. The risk of a DA can be reduced to practically zero, such as, but not limited to, the case that the Neg drops a major argument (ex. a no link).

Kritiks- The more specific the links the better. A lack of a specific link could hurt your analysis later. Don’t forget about impact comparison. If it helps, I usually view most Ks like a CP and a DA debate. The alt is like a CP and the impact to the K is the DA that the alt claims as a net benefit. Alternative solvency should be highly interrogated by the affirmative (you wouldn’t allow a counterplan to solve the aff without a fight would you?).

Counterplans- Counterplans should compete, if not then they go away. If none of the neg counterplans compete, then the neg, as my default, reverts to defending the status quo. Conditionality is debatable, but probably okay in most situations.

Permutations- I generally defer to the belief that they are just tests of competition, absent any specific discussion in the round. Two times when advocating the perm *might* be okay: a) if a 2NC kicks a flow, says the perm is “just a test of competition” and that gets debated out for the rest of the round b) if there is some sort of reps/rhetoric key argument flowing around it is used strategically. A time when it is not okay: new advocacy in the 2AR.

Other preferences:
1. Very important: be civil towards the other people in the room.

2. If you are speaking, do so clearly. I will yell out a “louder” or “clearer” only once. I try to keep a good flow, but if I don't hear something you say then I'll probably not take it into consideration when I review my flow. PAPERLESS TIP: It really helps if you angle your laptop away from the line of sight between me and you. It is so much easier to hear your speech if the computer is tilted 45 degrees or so away from your face. Plus, looking straight at the cute stickers on the back of your laptop screen for 15 minutes is not exactly charming.

3. Don’t steal prep. If you are stealing prep, then don’t be surprised if my timer is ahead of yours.
PAPERLESS PREP: I’ll stop your normal, 10-minute prep timer when your files are transferred to a viewing/opponent’s laptop.

4. An argument has a claim and a warrant. If you make/extend something that lacks one of those components, then that is not an argument. An author citation is neither a claim nor a warrant (although it is very helpful in flagging an arg).

5. I generally think debate is good, in the grandest sense as an advocacy and critical-thinking based activity. It will be hard to convince me that “debating is bad.” However, this is not an endorsement of the norms and procedures of policy debate, specifically. Those norms are always up for, well…debate.

6. One last thing about "dropped args." Speaking from judging experience, crucial dropped args on both sides (ex. FW) in some rounds make it difficult to have a non-interventionist decision one way or another. I originally evaluated this dilemmas by punishing the team that make the first drop, but now I think it's most proper to just weigh the better arg that IS extended. 

7. Don't assume that I am familiar with the literature base that you are reading from. I believe this is consistent with my previous recommendations on "explaining your arg." Even though I have been actively involved as a coach, I am not cutting cards like I did as a debater. Thus, I may or may not be as familiar with the topical literature base, critical literature, etc. 

8. On speaker points: Here is the guide that I try to reference each round. FYI: this is the scale I have already been using. So this is mostly for transparency purposes rather than to signify a change in my judging practices.

I obviously reserve to right for some subjectivity, based on a number of other performance measures in the round (e.g., cross-x, humor, civility [or lack thereof], clarity, etc.). H/T to Shree Awsare, who I copied and pasted this scale from:

• < 25 (< 50): You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale.
• 25 (50): You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech.
• 26 (60): You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents.
• 27 (70): You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims
• 28 (80): You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers.
• 28.5 (85): You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish.
• 29-29.9 (90-99): You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, you were hilarious (or if you aren't funny, you somehow connected with me as a judge and made me want to care), and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.
• 30: Life changed.

Jim Lyle 
Director - Clarion University 

Constraints: UMW

Shirley 2013: I intend to follow the suggested speaker point guide posted by WFU as best I can. 

General Statement 

1. I see debate as first a competitive activity, and second as an educational activity. Allow me to clarify. I love the educational aspects of debate, but the thing I love the most is that we get to use education in the context of a game. I find myself most interested in the preservation of debate as a fair, competitive activity for both the affirmative and negative teams. If protecting the competitive dimension of the game isn’t our priority in considerations about how debate should operate, then we should all stay back at our respective schools on weekends and discuss these issues on Saturdays in college libraries with other interested people and save the expenses associated with traveling to debate tournaments. 
2. I also love that the game allows us to play with a lot of arguments that might remain out of reach of institutional policymakers. Debate is an activity that allows us to play with more controversial positions, and advocate ideas that can not be articulated elsewhere. This teaches people how to argue on a host of fronts, and develops/enhances critical thinking skills. 
3. I think I am in the same place as a number of judges regarding evidence quality. This is never an issue in the round and the consequence is that teams get away with a slew of claims being advanced by unqualified authors. Additionally, there are a number of instances where a smart argument can beat a card but teams don't bother. 

Topicality 
1. It’s a voting issue. 
2. The key to debating topicality for me is the ability of both teams to concretize their arguments with examples of affs/arguments that allowed and/or disallowed by a particular interpretation. The team that does a better job demonstrating the effect of an interpretation on the game generally probably is gonna win the argument. 
3. Competing Interpretations vs Reasonability. I’d guess I’d say I’m a fan of reasonability. I say that because I generally see all T debates as a question of what is the most reasonable interpretation, and between the aff and the neg we have two…which compete. “Do vs. justify” just doesn’t make much sense if both sides are willing to allow the specific aff in question to be topical. 

Theory/CPs 
1. Most of these debates tend to go for the team seeking to not lose on theory simply because the debates are too fast and too jargon-laden. 
2. The number of debates where fairness is the end-all-be-all on Theory Issue A and education is the end-all-be-all on B is bewildering. What may be worse is that this is never called out. 
3. I think affirmative teams are cowardly lions on theory. 
4. I think conditionality is good and presume the counterplan is conditional. Logic says stick with the status quo if both the cp and plan are bad ideas. Does this mean all conditionality is off the argument table? No. Multiple conditional advocacies may have issues. Certain types of counterplans run conditionally may be problematic (i.e., a conditional consultation counterplan)… Advocating the perm also seems logical. 
5. Think some PICs legitimate, some ask key questions about the desirability of the affirmative plan. Think agent CPs are legitimate, however, I think affirmatives tend to let the negative get away with a lot more in fiating things for counterplans. If we are gonna use fiat, it needs to be reciprocal and predictable/real world for both sides. For instance, if it can be proven that acting on “x” is out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then perhaps the negative (or affirmative) doesn’t have right to that action (unless the opposition is given an equal use of fiat). Think we are asked to evaluate things from the perspective of the federal government. Not a fan of multiple-agent counterplans (i.e., CP has states and federal government act). Don’t like object fiat. Don’t care for international fiat. Specific solvency evidence does wonders in helping justify a particular counterplan, and if it’s from an affirmative solvency author then you get what you deserve. 
6. “This justifies severance perms”….then do it. Reciprocity is good. 

Cross-Examination 
1. Still flowing it. 
2. I “check-out” during the prep time and although I hear things, and may remember them, I will not go back and add to the “flow.” So, use CX strategically. 
3. I generally hate flowing the CX because debaters undervalue it. 

Critiques and so forth 
1. I view myself as a policymaker. I view the question for the debate to be whether or not the plan is a desirable policy option given the status quo and competitive alternatives. 
2. Does this mean I exclude the K? Maybe. Maybe not. I would argue that it doesn’t exclude the K, but rather shapes how I understand the K and how you need to frame the argument. 
3. You can argue that I shouldn’t evaluate as a policymaker, but I will evaluate the consequences of the non-policymaker mode versus the policymaker mode of evaluation. 
4. I “understand” the argument that the K is a “gateway argument” that has some if/then-thing going on when it is run with a bunch of DAs and CPs but am not sure why the AFF doesn’t get to access impact turns to the K when the K is kicked. I guess I am saying that I find it a bit confusing that the K operates somewhere in between DA world and CP world and that this creates potentially interesting, but generally unexplored, lines of argumentation. 
5. Performance. See above. Odds are that if you are a performer, I’m not the judge you want. 

Paperless 
1. I think prep time ends when the debater pulls the flash-drive out of the computer and says they are ready to jump it to the other team. I understand there are some tech issues to still be worked out but this is one issue that shouldn’t be a problem (especially since Whitman 3.0, I and I believe Synergy, have functions that allow for speeches to be saved automatically to the jump drive). 
2. I think paperless teams need to have a viewing computer available for the other team. I have no problem if the other team doesn’t wish to use the viewing computer but think it needs to be available. That said, I personally don’t get the “can we jump it on our own computer” phenomena. Why create a risk of being exposed to a virus? 
3. What if a paperless team reads additional cards in a speech that are not in the initial document? At the end of the speech, the paperless additions should be immediately jumped over. The paperless team should have to use prep for this. 
4. What if a paperless team jumps a file with 100 cards and basically forces the other team to find the evidence read? Not acceptable. 

Presumption 
I’m sure this is a little odd to see in here for most of you but I must admit that I am historically a bit of a neg hack and a large part of this is based on my willingness to vote on presumption. If there’s no clear advantage to doing the plan a tiny risk of a DA seems to be enough to say “don’t chance it.” I guess my point is that I prefer a well-developed advantage over 3 under-developed advantage. 

Delivery 
1. Be clear. 
2. I tend to let people know if they are being unclear, unless I can’t see your face. If you can’t look at me, I can’t let you know when you’ve lost me. 

Got questions? Ask. 

Two caveats on how I approach a debate round: 
First, I approach debate tournaments such that they matter. I try to make sure that I am prepared so that I may coach and judge effectively. I will do my best to be rested, fed, and sufficiently caffeinated. 
Second, what follows are merely my habituated ways of thinking about debate. They are debatable. They are my presumptions entering the debate but may be altered through persuasion. The following categories are just heuristics. 

How to Win: 1. Compare, compare, compare. Compare everything: Evidence, qualifications, impacts, plan v. counterplan, interpretations of the topic, plan v. alternative, evidence dates, arguments across flows, etc. 2. Be strategic, no matter how you debate. Take risks, make concessions, and think about the strategy of the round. Think about how arguments interact with each other across the flows. 3. Have fun. 

Flowing: I start the debate with the assumption that I should flow in our community’s traditional manner and that the flow matters. Despite objectivity being impossible, I try to work within those limits. I do try to flow everything, it is harder the less clear you are. I generally give feedback on whether or not I am following; sometimes what I think about your argument may be apparent. 

Evidence: I value good evidence. I generally do not call for evidence unless I am asked to do so. Asking me to look at evidence requires extension of that evidence beyond a tag and cites. I also generally call for evidence that is in contention. I do not over-determine the role of evidence. I just as equally like smart arguments, maybe even more. 

The Topic: This is a special category. I think the topic, like debate, matters. I think this topic is very interesting given its timing and urgency. I am eager to learn and hear you debate it. Do not assume I know it all; please debate with care when drawing out intricate details. 

Theory: I generally default negative on most theoretical controversies with the exception of topicality and conditionality. I think unmitigated conditionality may be too much; I am more comfortable with some interpretation of a limited conditionality. 

Topicality/Framework: Topicality seems to be about competing interpretations, if you play that game. I think Affirmatives should defend affirming the resolution and defend that affirmation throughout the debate. That said, I think the affirmative has some flexibility with what affirming the topic means. But that is not reason to do anything on the affirmative; I think there should be limits. Those limits are debatable. I also generally think that because the negative has so many options and we have had a lot of experience and exposure to different arguments that the negative should have plenty to say in their tool box. Framework arguments can be persuasive if couched better. I think these arguments should be framed according to what the educational, political, ethical or other advantages or disadvantages to role-playing in one world versus another. Frame your argument better than the last sentence, please. 

Counterplans, Disads, and K’s: Oh my! Whatever, they may be just different tools in the toolbox. 

Performance: All of debate seems to be performative. See the above. 

Two notes: 
1. I am not sure how I feel about the trend of reading two conditional counterplans in the 1nc. My hesitation is multiplied when you are also kritiking, leaving the status quo as an option and the two counterplans (and their net benefits) are treated as separate. Or if you read one counterplan with 13 conditional plan planks. 
2. I tend to keep a running clock during the debate. 

Alex McVey - Director of Debate at Kansas State University

Yes Email chain - j.alexander.mcvey at gmail

Online things - Strong preference for Camera On during speeches and CX. I'm willing to be understanding about this if it's a tech barrier or there are other reasons for not wanting to display. But it does help me a ton to look at faces when people are speaking.

If I'm physically at a tournament and judging a debate with one online and one in-person team, I'm always going to try to be in the same room as the in-person team, if the tournament permits. Within those parameters, Zoom teams should let me know if there's anything I can do to make myself more present for them in that space. I respect what online debate has done to increase access for some teams, but I value in-person connection with debaters too much to go judge from an empty classroom or hotel room.

I flow on paper. I need pen time. Clarity is really important to me. I'll always say "clear" if I think you're not being clear, at least 1-2 times. If you don't respond accordingly, the debate probably won't end well for you.

I tend to be expressive when I judge debates. Nodding = I'm getting it, into your flow, not necessarily that it's a winner. Frowny/frustrated face = maybe not getting it, could be a better way to say it, maybe don't like what you're doing. I would take some stock in this, but not too much: I vote for plenty things that frustrate me while I'm hearing them executed, and vote down plenty of things that excite me when first executed. All about how it unfolds.

The more I judge debates, the less ev I'm reading,  the more I'm relying on 2nr vs 2ar explanation and impact calculus. If there are cards that you want me to pay attention to, you should call the card out by name in the last rebuttal, and explain some of its internal warrants. Debaters who make lots of "even if" statements, who tell me what matters and why, who condense the debate down to the most important issues, and who do in depth impact calculus seem to be winning my ballots more often than not.

Debating off the flow >>> Debating off of speech docs (ESPECIALLY IN REBUTTALS). I'd say a good 25% of my decisions involve the phrase "You should be more flow dependent and less speech doc dependent." Chances are very little that you've scripted before the debate began is useful for the 2nr/2ar.

My experience and expertise is definitely in kritik debate, but I judge across the spectrum and have been cutting cards on both K and Policy sides of the legal personhood topic. Run what you're good at. Despite my K leaning tendencies, I’m comfortable watching a good straight up debate.

Don't assume I've cut cards in your niche research area though. I often find myself lost in debates where people assume I know what some topical buzzword, agency, or acronym is.

Theoretical issues: Blippy, scatter-shot theory means little, well-developed, well-impacted theory means a lot. Again, pen time good.

I have no hard and set rules about whether affs do or don't have to have plans. Against planless/non-topical affs, I tend to think topicality arguments are generally more persuasive than framework arguments. Or rather, I think a framework argument without a topicality argument probably doesn't have a link. I'm not sure what the link is to most "policy/political action good" type framework arguments if you don't win a T argument that says the focus of the resolution has to be USFG policy. I think all of these debates are ultimately just a question of link, impact, and solvency comparison.

I tend to err on truth over tech, with a few exceptions. Dropping round-winners/game-changers like the permutation, entire theoretical issues, the floating PIC, T version of the aff/do it on the neg, etc... will be much harder (but not impossible) to overcome with embedded clash. That being said, if you DO find yourself having dropped one of these, I'm open to explanations for why you should get new arguments, why something else that was said was actually responsive, etc... It just makes your burden for work on these issues much much more difficult.

Be wary of conflating impacts, especially in K debates. For example, If their impact is antiblackness, and your impact is racism, and you debate as if those impacts are the same and you're just trying to win a better internal link, you're gonna have a bad time.

I intuitively don't agree with "No perms in a method debate" and "No Plan = No Perm" arguments. These arguments are usually enthymematic with framework; there is an unstated premise that the aff did something which skews competition to such a degree that it justifies a change in competitive framework. Just win a framework argument. That being said, I vote for things that don't make intuitive sense to me all the time.

I like debate arguments that involve metaphors, fiction, stories, and thought experiments. What I don't understand is teams on either side pretending as if a metaphor or thought experiment is literal and defending or attacking it as such.

A nested concern with that above - I don't really understand a lot of these "we meets" on Framework that obviously non-topical affs make. I/E - "We're a discursive/affective/symbolic vesting of legal rights and duties" - That... doesn't make any sense. You aren't vesting legal rights and duties, and I'm cool with it, just be honest about what the  performance of the 1ac actually does. I think Neg teams give affs too much leeway on this, and K Affs waste too much time on making these nonsensical (and ultimately defensive) arguments. If you don't have a plan, just impact turn T. You can make other defensive args about why you solve topic education and why you discuss core topic controversies while still being honest about the fact that you aren't topical and impact turn the neg's attempt to require you to be such.

RIP impact calculus. I'd love to see it make a comeback.

RIP performance debates that actually perform. My kingdom for a performance aff that makes me feel something.

Affs are a little shy about going for condo bad in front of me. I generally think Condo is OK but negatives have gotten a bit out of control with it.  I'm happy to vote for flagrant condo proliferation if the neg justifies it. I just don't think affs are making negs work hard enough on these debates.

Negs are a little shy about making fun of 1ac construction in front of me. Ex: K affirmatives that are a random smattering of cards that have little to do with one another. Ex: Policy affs where only 2 cards talk about the actual plan and the rest are just genero impact cards. I feel like negative's rarely ever press on this, and allow affirmatives to get away with ludicrous 2AC explanations that are nearly impossible to trace back to the cards and story presented in the 1ac. More 1nc analytical arguments about why the aff just doesn't make sense would be welcome from this judge.

In a similar vein, many affirmative plans have gotten so vague that they barely say anything. Negatives should talk about this more. Affs should write better plans. Your plan language should match the language of your solvency advocate if you want me to grant you solvency for what is contained in said evidence. I'm going to be trigger happy for "your plan doesn't do anything" until teams start writing better plans.

Debaters should talk more about the lack of quality the other team's evidence and the highlighting of that evidence in particular. If you've highlighted down your evidence such that it no longer includes articles (a/an/the/etc...) in front of nouns, or is in other ways grammatically incoherent due to highlighting, and get called out on it, you're likely to not get much credit for that ev with me.

Be kind to one another. We're all in this together.

bethmendenhall@gmail.com

**I have not been involved in debate competition since 2015 - I am currently an Assistant Professor of Political Science and Marine Affairs**

Experience: 3 years of lay-style high school debate + 5 years/550 rounds of fast college debate (at Kansas State, primarily the 2A) + 2 years of part-time coaching (JMU) - also the 2011 CEDA National Champion and Debater of the Year

Normative commitments: I fundamentally believe that debate is and should be an educational activity. I care deeply about its continued existence. Encouraging participation is also important to me.

Cards vs Speeches: I think I'm a pretty decent flow. I find myself calling for cards less than other judges. Generally I only do so to resolve a close, single-issue but many-card debate (like politics uniqueness) or to resolve a dispute about the content of a card. I believe the warrants should be in your speech, not just on the laptop you hand me after the round.

I evaluate debates through an offense-defense paradigm. You must have offense to win.

Theory: I don't have a lot of experience participating in or evaluating theory debates. I don't have any particular aversion to conditionality or various types of CPs/Alts, though I think there is a strong argument to be made against many types/statuses. Go for theory if you need/want to, but don't think I'm going to enjoy it. Make sure you have an interpretation.

Topicality: Yes, please. I enjoy procedural debates about the meaning of the resolution, and will carefully flow a technical T debate. I would like to say that I'm open to debates about whether T is a voting issue, but I'm not sure what "reasonability" means other than "evaluate our competing interpretations based only on in-round abuse." I think T is fundamentally a debate about competing interpretations, your job is to tell me how to evaluate/compare interpretations. I don't think this makes me a "T hack" - I typically defended borderline Affs in the 2AR.

DAs: Don't read a DA without all the internal links - I'm not going to spot you any part of your story, because I hold DAs to the same logical and evidentiary standards as a 1AC advantage. I like, understand, and have experience with politics DAs. I think the direction of the link is more important than the direction of uniqueness - in other words, if you DEFINITIVELY win a link turn but lose UQ, the DA goes away.

CPs: Love them, think they're strategic. I ran a lot of PICs (word and otherwise) in my day, and enjoy the intricacies of a good CP debate. If you don't have specific solvency, don't just assume you can co-opt the Aff's. Explain how their solvency ev supports your advocacy too/better. If the CP has equal solvency to the Aff and no net-benefit, I vote Aff. Net-benefits can be pretty small though and still count.

Kritiks: Not much personal experience running them, but I'm familiar with all of the common Ks. More unusual stuff needs to be carefully explained to me. A big pet-peeve of mine is the giant, beautiful, repetitive and inefficient 2NC K overview - stop that! When I evaluate a K debate, three things are of primary importance: (1) whats the role of the ballot? (2) are there any epistemology/ontology issues that suggest I should ignore some aspect of the debate? (3) Does the alternative solve the K impact?.

"Critical"/"Performance" arguments: Not much personal experience running them, but I think they serve a very valuable function in the debate and human community. Some of my favorite, most educational debate rounds were against critical teams. I am open to non-resolutional debate, but I appreciate explicit explanation of WHY and HOW I am supposed to engage with the debate in a particular way. Self-serving role of the ballot's are hard for me to understand - if the ROB is "vote for the team that is best " that seems to me like an impact and/or solvency question. Shouldn't the role of the ballot be something that both teams could be evaluated by? This is something I'm still working through.

Debate about debate: yes - it's good for our community and its good for you. BUT - I'd like some guidance from the debaters about how I compare a critique of community practice with a critique of USFG policy - does one take priority? how do I compare them? It's hard for me to weigh arguments about the community with arguments about the USFG without some metric, so please provide me with one!

Speaker points: if there's a tournament distribution guide thing, I'll follow that. Otherwise: 29+ is excellent, 28-29 is really good, 27-28 is decent, 26-27 suggests you need a lot of work, and below 26 is a punishment for something inappropriate or offensive. I will say that I consider speaking STYLE more than other judges might - smart argumentative moves are part of my speaker point evaluation, but I also care a lot about speaking with clarity, passion, and persuasion. More speed =/= more speaker points. Creative presentation is encouraged.

ATTENTION NOOBS: One thing that really bothers me is stealing prep time - unless a timer is running (for a speech, CX, or either teams' prep) you should NOT be talking, reading, writing, or prepping in any way.

ATTENTION CARD CLIPPERS: I have no tolerance for cheating, because this community relies to a large degree on trust. I need video or audio to prove that a violation has occurred, and I need the argument made by the other team, but if card clipping is proven I will punish it harshly.

As a Black thinker a radical Muslim, a revolutionary militant and Kritical theorist, i may be your favorite or least favorite person to see in the back of the round. I believe that debaters have the unique positive capacity to dictacte their own terrain of political engagement.  I really don't like to interject myself or other preconcieved conventions into the dynamics of political contestation unless im given some special role. With that said it is up to debaters to clearly meta-frame their arguments and justify their position. On default, I will vote for whatever team does the best debating and or finds the best criteria whereby which I can discern complex associations between various types of arguements. As a guideline, I vote on impact calculus. I hate debate rounds when both teams do a great job but fail to give any comparation between the weight of their impacts in comparison to their opponents. It makes me have to do more work than I want to in order to account for nuances in you and your opponents arguements and or scholarship. All that aside, all of Western thought and its discontents are up for grabs. Clash of civilization debates are just as welcolme as straight up critical or straight up policy debates. Justify your position, be prepared to adapt to your opponents strategic choices and have fun, leave the complicated evaluation to me; but know that I do have a soft spot for critical positions adressing complex social historical issues such as race, class and gender or positions centered on nuanced appropriations of philosophy

Please include me in your speech doc thread. My email is johnfnagy@gmail.com

If I am judging you online, you MUST slow down. I will not get all of your arguments, particularly analytics, on the flow. You have been warned.

I enjoy coaching and judging novice debates. I think the novice division is the most important and representative of what is good in our community. That being said, I opposed and still oppose the ADA Novice Curriculum Packet. It's an attempt by some in the community, who don't even have novice programs, to use the novice division to further their vision of what debate "should" look like. I don't like that.

I really like judging debates where the debaters speak clearly, make topic specific arguments, make smart analytic arguments, attack their opponent’s evidence, and debate passionately. I cut a lot of cards so I know a lot about the topic. I don’t know much about critical literature.

Framework debates: I don’t enjoy judging them. Everyone claims their educational. Everyone claims their being excluded. It’s extremely difficult to make any sense of it. I would rather you find a reason why the 1AC is a bad idea. There’s got to be something. I can vote for a no plan-text 1AC, if you’re winning your arguments. With that being said, am not your ideal judge for such 1AC’s because I don’t think there’s any out of round spill-over or “solvency.”

Topicality: Am ok with topicality. Competing interpretations is my standard for evaluation. Proving in-round abuse is helpful but not a pre-requisite. If am judging in novice at an ADA packet tournament, it will be very difficult to convince me to vote on topicality. Because there are only 2-3 1AC's to begin with, there's no predictability or limits arguments that make any sense.

Disadvantages: Like them. The more topic specific the better.

Counterplans: Like them. The more specific to the 1AC the better. Please slow down a little for the CP text.

Kritiks: ok with them. I don’t know a lot about any critical literature, so know that.

Rate of Delivery: If I can’t flow the argument, then it’s not going on my flow. And please slow down a little bit for tags.

Likes: Ohio State, Soft Power DA’s, case debates

Dislikes: Michigan, debaters that are not comprehensible, District 7 schools that cut and paste evidence from other schools and present it as their own without alteration. Do that in front of me and I might vote against you automatically.

Ana Nikolic
- I graduated in 2011 from Emory, where I debated for four years. I work full time in energy policy now in DC and have done a fair amount of research on the topic so I have a pretty high level of topic knowledge.

-I don’t have a problem with speed, as long as you are comprehensible and I can understand you. I will likely tell you if I can’t. Or make angry and/or confused faces at you.

-I probably fall in the camp of tech over truth – dropped arguments, no matter how dumb, are hard to ignore. But, even if an argument it dropped, it still needs to meet the basic threshold of an argument - claim, warrant, and IMPACT. Just extending the tag “PC low” with zero explanation of why that means I can’t vote for the DA does not meet this threshold. Dumb/cheap shot arguments can probably be dismissed in little time with just a few smart arguments, but I won’t make the arguments for you if you don’t make the time to do so in your speech.

-When I debated, I was a politics, disads, case, impact turns, and CP debater. This is not meant to imply you should do the same, but rather these were my favorite types of arguments to debate and now to judge also. However, at the end of the day, I would rather listen to a good debate than debaters trying to adapt to my preferences, so do what you are comfortable with.

-DAs: Read them. Make impact comparisons. Make turns case arguments. Tell me why I should favor uniqueness vs. link in this scenario (this applies to the aff just as much).

-CPs: I am very persuaded by “Perm Do the CP” against consult/condition/any CPs that compete off the process of the plan and not the mandates. Condition CPs I could be persuaded are competitive, assuming there is specific evidence to deal with competition/perm and there is a clear net benefit. Aff specific PICs with internal net benefits are awesome.

-T: Topic specific T arguments are great, just keep in mind that I am not a full time debate coach and probably have not spent at much time thinking about these arguments as you have.

-The K: Anyone who knows me will tell you I never ran kritiks, but that does not mean you should change your strategy and run a politics DA you downloaded from a high school camp file before the round. I am more than willing to vote on a kritik, but your explanation might need to change in front of me vs. someone who only ran the K. Turns case/alt solve the aff/impact comparison – all necessary. Dropped framework arguments are hard to ignore, so they definitely need to be answered by the Aff (however it probably won’t take much to convince me to let you weigh the Aff).

-The “K Aff”: I prefer to listen to the big stick policy aff with tons of advantages. But, definitely understand the utility of the small/k aff, and ran a small aff with a systemic advantage most of senior year, not because it was my favorite argument but because it was strategic. So read the aff that’s most strategic for you, not the one that will entertain me the most. That being said, its going to be very had to convince me that your aff doesn’t have to be topical. Or that extinction doesn’t outweigh just about every other impact.

-Theory: Conditionality is good. Two conditional CPs are probably okay, but I could be persuaded either way. Cheap shots, not very persuasive.

-Offense vs. Defense: Offense is obviously great, but good defense can definitely mitigate a DA/Advantage, so it’s not always necessary.

I've been the Director of Debate at the US Naval Academy since 2005. I debated at Catholic University in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Put me on the doc thread: danielle.verney@gmail.com. Please use the wiki as much as possible!

Four things I hate--this number has gone up:

1. WASTING TIME IN DEBATES--what is prep time? This isn't an existential question. Prep time is anything you do to prepare for a debate. That means when it's start time for the debate, everyone should be READY TO START--restrooms visited, water gathered, stand assembled, doc thread started, timer in hand, snacks ready for your judge (jk). Any of these things that need to happen during a debate are technically prep time and thus should probably happen either during your prep or the other team's prep. The 2:15 decision deadline is an unequivocal good because it makes me 100% more likely to get a reasonable amount of sleep at night which makes me a better judge/coach/administrator/human, but y'all need to get better at managing your time to make it work.

2. Elusiveness (especially in Cross-Ex but during speeches too): “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. Taking your questioner on a goose-chase for the answer to a simple question is not. Pretending you don't know how the plan works or what it does or that there are a whole bunch of ways it MIGHT happen is not persuasive to me, it just makes it look like you don't know what's going on. Answer the counterplan; tell me it's cheating--I'm one of the like 5 judges in the community who believe you.

3. Debaters who get mad that I didn’t read their one piece of really sweet evidence. If you want me to understand the warrants of the evidence and how they compare to the warrants of the other team’s evidence, maybe you should talk about them in one of your speeches. Read less bad cards and talk about the good ones more--tell me how your one good card is better than their 12 bad ones.

4. Rudeness. Don’t be rude to your partner, don’t be rude to the other team, and DEFINITELY don’t be rude to me. Excessive cursing is frowned upon (louder for the people in the back). Conversely, if you are nice, you will probably be rewarded with points. Entertain me. I enjoy pop culture references, random yelling of "D7", humorous cross-x exchanges, and just about any kind of joke. I spend a LOT of time judging debates, please make it enjoyable, or at least not uncomfortable.

Performance/Ks of Debate:

I’m going to be painfully honest here and say that I don’t like performance debate or critiques of current debate practices. I’m also going to state the obvious and say that I really like policy debate. Why? Well, I guess it’s the same reason that some people root for the Yankees over the Red Sox—I’m evil. Actually, it’s because I think there are a lot of specific educational benefits to traditional policy debate that you can’t get anywhere else. There might be a lot of educational benefits to performances, but I think that you can get those benefits from doing other activities too, which isn’t necessarily true of policy-style debate. If this makes you want to strike me, I heartily encourage you to do so.

HOWEVER--the opposing team would need to advance those arguments to win the debate. Do I think status quo debate is good? Yes. Will I vote on "debate is good" without that argument having been made? No. If the opposing team concedes the framework debate or doesn't advance "status quo debate good" as their framework arg, I'm not going to vote on it, obviously; the debate would proceed as agreed to by both teams. I have judged these debates before and have voted on the arguments in the round.

Kritiks:

Whatevs, if it’s your thing, you can do it in front of me. I’m pretty smart, which means I attempt to avoid reading post-modern philosophy as much as possible, and the only languages I currently speak with any level of fluency are English and Pig Latin. This means you should probably SLOW DOWN and find a convenient time to define any words that are Greek/German/made up by an aging beatnik. The problem I have with most Ks is that they have totally sweet, awesome impacts but there’s little link to the aff (or no harder link to the aff than to the status quo), so maybe that’s something that both the aff and neg should work on in the round. I really prefer Kritiks with alternatives, and I prefer the alternative not be “reject the plan”.

Counterplans:

I think lots of counterplans (consult, international actor, conditions, etc) are probably cheating. As a director of a small school, I don't have a huge problem with cheating if you can defend it and do it well. I wouldn't make this the "A strat" for me if you've got other options, but I appreciate that there sometimes aren't any and I promise not to throw things or set the ballot on fire if you've gotta roll with it.

Not to sound like a grumpy old person (though I am) but I think conditionality run amok is hurting debate. I'm probably okay with 1 CP, 1 K, and the status quo as an option until the 2nr (test the rez from a variety of standpoints, etc). Any more than that and you're pushing my buttons. I'm about as likely to "judge kick" a CP for you as I am to kick a winning field goal for the Steelers (not gonna happen).

Disads:
There’s nothing better than a good disad. What do I mean by a good disad? Well, it should have a pretty clear, and ideally pretty specific, link to the affirmative. It should also (and here’s the part lots of debaters forget about) have some form of internal link that goes from the link to the impact. Aff—if the neg doesn’t have one of those things, you might want to point it out to me.

If your disad makes my internal BS-ometer go off I'm gonna tank your points.


Topicality/Other Procedurals:
I don’t evaluate T like it’s a disad, which I think is the current fashionable thing to say, because unlike lots of people, I don’t think your aff advantages can outweigh T in the way that the aff could outweigh a disad. So I don’t focus as much on the “best” interpretation—if the aff interp is good but not as good as the neg’s, the aff will probably win in front of me. This means I think the neg really needs to focus on the ground and limits debate—here is where you can persuade me that something is really bad.

I think topics are becoming more broad and vague, and understand negative frustration at attempting to engage in a debate about the plan's mechanism or what the plan actually does (often the very best parts of a debate in my opinion). I feel like I can be fairly easily persuaded to vote against a team that just uses resolutional language without a description of what that means in a piece of solvency evidence or a cross-examination clarification. I think neg teams will need to win significant ground loss claims to be successful in front of me (can't just roll with agent cps key) but I think I am more easily persuaded on these arguments than I have been in the past.

Tom O’Gorman – Mary Washington 2018 Update
Navy Debate Husband for 9 years, CUA debater for 4 years – D7 for life!

TLDR: DAs, Ks, T, most CPs fine. Non-T affs should strike. Be nice. Not super uptight about paperless prep, but don’t abuse it. Yes, I would like to be included on the email chain – my email is tomogorman@gmail.com

D7 2019 update: I think I am fine with the ESR CP if its just a policy shift/plain XO (e.g. declaratory NFU), and less fine with it when teams start attaching planks to make it more permanently binding (e.g. OLC opinion). I think Affs should justify that the Prez should not have power to make XYZ decision rather than merely Trump's XYZ decision is bad, but Negs are definitely headed towards stealing ground if they have the Prez surrender the power to make decisions rather than simply change the current decision (this also seems to have real tension with the flex da which is usually, and oddly, the net benefit). Obviously, has to be debated out - but these are my current leanings.

ASPEC:

Normally, I would be fine with USFG but given the 2018/2019 topic is specifically whether the other branches should restrict the executive branch I think you need to do more on this topic. Ideally you would just spec Congress or the Judiciary and be ready to answer the CP. At minimum you should be willing to spec which you will defend unless the Neg runs a Congress/Judiciary CP - and then if the Neg does so I think perm do the CP is a debatable position.

I do think the Neg needs to set this up in CX (or pre-round questioning when I am in the room). I don't think the loss of pre-round prep is abusive - the aff is either a statutory or a judicial restriction - prep both.

CPs:

I am skeptical of the ESR CP, it feels similar to object fiat, but I haven't had enough rounds with it to be sure. see update up top

I am idiosyncratic in that I think advocating perms even if the Neg kicks the CP seems reasonable. Many of the warrants for condo good would also apply to advocating the perm. I am open to being persuaded that perm is just a test of competitiveness; therefore the Aff cannot advocate it (and if Aff states its only a test this is all irrelevant). But, if contested, a warranted argument would need to be made for that position. If no one makes a statement one way or another until the 2AR, I am going to let the Aff do it and feel about as sympathetic to the Neg as if the Aff had never asked the status of the CP (i.e. not at all)

I highly prefer CPs that have specific solvency advocates and net benefits that reference topic literature. I am skeptical of CPs that rely on very generic solvency advocates and/or compete entirely on generic disads (usually politics) Nonetheless, I more often than not end up voting with the Neg in CP debates because theory is so poorly developed by the Aff. Most theory blips are warrantless and question begging (in the pedantic original sense, e.g. to argue the CP steals your ground assumes the conclusion that it was your ground which is the argument being contested). I would much prefer 2-3 actual sentences to 5-6 blips. Attempting to contextualize the CP's theoretical legitimacy in light of this specific topic is extremely desirable.

As to Condo, in general I am fine with the sort of ad hoc norm we have developed of up to 2 CPs/Ks (total - not each) and the squo, and less fine as the number of conditional advocacies increase beyond that (or if they start developing strong contradictions between eachother)– but that’s just biases – willing to vote either way. To me, by default, Condo means that if you are extending the CP/K in the 2NR you are stuck with it. If you want me to judge kick I need you to tell me so explicitly earlier in the debate. I hear "status quo is always an option" as 2NR has option to kick the CP, not as judge can kick after 2AR. So be even more explicit than that if you mean judge kick is an option.

Disads:

Disads are good. Usually consider the link debate more important than the uniqueness debate, but both matter. Try or die is usually a way of saying we are losing. Debaters would do well to a) question terminal impacts more (particularly since the internal links at the nuke war/extinction level are often highly tendentious and b) leverage the lower levels more. Stopping one patriarchal practice almost certainly does not stop all patriarchal practices. Likewise while it possible that an act of nuclear terrorism sparks WW III and extinction, its also very likely that cooler heads in the major powers prevail and while there is some war its more like Afghanistan + Iraq than WW III. This doesn’t mean I don’t like big impacts, it just means I am more likely to see them as increasing the risk of the terminal impact by a percent or two than directly causing then end of days, and, therefore more grounded systemic impacts can trump them. War, recession, oppression, environmental destruction et. al are all bad things even if humanity survives. Given all this I am most likely to care about probability as an impact framing device and put it before magnitude or timeframe.

Flowing:

I am an ok flow, but I definitely cannot flow author names I may not be familiar with at high speed. If you refer to something later as the X evidence without extending the warrant of that evidence as well I may have no idea what you are talking about; therefore extend evidence by more than author + year.

This includes in CX. I do not follow along in the speech doc, and generally do not even look at it until after the debate is over. You need to make what you are talking about clear to someone who is not looking at the evidence at the time you are talking.

Framework:

I am not sure what this means anymore it usually means one of the following.

Aff is Not T and/or reads a T plan text but doesn’t defend implementation of that text; therefore Vote Neg. I agree – and am strongly biased in this – you should probably make the T component explicit.

Ignore the DA/K, its irrelevant/unfair – I am not likely to believe the strong version of this argument, instead take as your starting point the next option and frame your arguments to outweighing instead of excluding.

The K o/w the DA/Advantage (and vice versa) – awesome, guidance and impact framing is central.

Kritiks:

The key issue for winning a kritik debate on the negative in front of me is the link debate. Good negatives will be able to identify specific cards, phrases, concepts of the Aff and re-contextualize them in the context of the K. Big K overviews are often unhelpful to me as they spend too much time on the general story of the K and too little time on the link or specific answers to the K alt is meaningless/utopian. K Affs are great as long as they are topical.

Overviews:

Bad overviews highlight the speaker’s team’s impact and mumble something about timeframe, probability and magnitude, but basically skim over everything the other team will go for. Good overviews compare the speaker’s team’s impacts directly with the other teams. Best overviews highlight the key arguments and their interactions that determine each sides impacts and why that means the speaker’s team wins. (Example: bad overview - CP solves 100% of case and DA is the biggest impact in the round. Good overview – Even if there is a solvency differential to CP its small and DA o/w b/c xyz. Best overview – there is at best a small solvency differential to the CP b/c we are winning argument X. The risk of the D/A is high b/c y and their responses don’t address that. Risk of D/A o/w solvency differential b/c Z.) I am a better judge for people who narrow things down and tell stories rather than go for a lot of arguments.

T:

Team Reasonability – although for me that means that there is a presumption in favor of the aff counter interpretation, and that it is a Neg burden to prove the Aff’s interpretation bad – not merely not as good as the Neg’s interpretation.

Yes, you do have to be topical in front of me. Some leeway on creative counter -interpretations, but that does not mean topic as metaphor or free word association. Resolutional is another way of saying not topical.

ADA packet thing; I have seen people say that unlikely to vote on T because packet affs are obviously predictable. This makes negative sense to me. The Packet is intended to teach arguments including T (hence why the T files were included). So I don't see why that would be a persuasive answer at all. Happy to vote on T even if Aff is well known, in the packet or on the wiki, if the Neg wins the line by line.

DR. SYDNEY PASQUINELLI

• Director of Debate @ Wayne State University
• Program Director of the Detroit Urban Debate League
• BA- Wayne State University
• MA - Wake Forest University
• PHD - University of Pittsburgh
• she/her
• email chains: wayneCXdocs@gmail.com

Stylistics:

- I like debates with a lot of direct clash and impact calculus.

- I am very flow-oriented, and I often vote on based on "tech over truth." In other words, I like debates where teams debate LBL, and exploit the other team's errors and use technical concessions to get ahead strategically.

- I really dislike tag-teaming in CX, especially when the result is that one person dominates all the CXs.

- I don't usually read along in the speech docs during your speeches, because I like to stay true to the flow.

- I would appreciate if you sent me compiled card docs at the end of the round.

Default Voting Paradigm:

- If the aff is net beneficial to the status quo, I default to voting aff unless the negative wins another framework.

- If the neg wins a substantial risk of a DA, which has an external impact that outweighs and turns the case, the affirmative is probably going to lose my ballot. The 1AR can't drop "turns the case" arguments and expect the 2AR to get new answers.

- If the neg wins a substantial risk of the K, which has an external impact and turns the case, the negative still has to win an alternative or a framework argument (to take care of uniqueness), and beat back the perm.

- The perm which includes all the aff and all or part of the CP/Alt is a legitimate test of competition. If the neg proposes a framework to exclude perms, it has to be very well-justified, because I see the role of the neg is to win a DA to the aff as it was presented.

- Severance perms are not a reason to vote aff - if the aff is abandoning ship, this signals to me a neg ballot.

Topicality / Theory:

- I do not default to competing interpretations on framework or topicality. Winning that AFF could've started the round debating within a net-better "competing model" does not fulfill the role of the negative, which is to disprove the desirability of the aff.

- I think topicality is a question of in-round debatability. If you win that the aff was so unpredictable, vast, conditional and/or a moving target, and thus made it implausible for you to win the debate, then I will vote for T as a procedural issue. (A TVA or a net beneficial model is not a substitute for doing the work to prove their model is undebatable).

- Theory is also a question of in-round debatability. If you win that your opponent did something theoretically objectionable, that made it impossible for you to win this debate, I can see myself voting against your opponent. This includes excessive conditional worlds. I want to reiterate here that competing interpretations don't help in theory debates - procedurals are a yes/no question of in-round abuse.

Update: WFU 2013: I will use the speaker point scale provided by WFU and encourage others to do the same. 

Updated: September 2012

1. Be comprehensible. Aside from it having a huge impact on how I assign speaker points, I’m far more likely to vote for arguments that I can understand.

2. I don’t think my predispositions will be that relevant in many theory debates. I could envision a scenario where I vote on conditionality bad, but the way it is typically advanced (‘you make the 2AC too hard’) is usually unpersuasive to me. I’m aff-leaning on competition issues involving counterplans that result in the full enactment of the plan or PICs about things that the plan doesn’t explicitly commit to, but this probably shouldn’t effect your decision to go for one if you think you are winning the theoretical issues.

3. If the neg reads a conditional CP, I will consider the status quo as an option if I conclude that the CP is worse than the plan absent explicit instructions from the other team. This is a default setting that can easily be overcome if the aff makes arguments about why the neg has to explicitly choose in the 2NR, but that’s what I’ll do if no one says anything. Obviously, if the neg says ‘we’ll only go for one policy’ as an argument to defend conditionality, then I will only consider the option they select.

4. “Perm-Do the CP,” “A logical policy maker can do both,” “fiat means the plan doesn’t cost capital,” “voting issue for fairness,” etc. are not complete arguments and do not require a negative response until the argument is developed. All of those claims could be winners in certain circumstances, but that doesn’t obviate the need to make complete arguments in the 2AC. Generally speaking, I’m ok with new arguments in a lot of situations. The one exception is if the 2AC omits a genre of argument (doesn’t perm, read a link turn, etc.).

5. I vote neg on the K occasionally. I tend to evaluate these debates the same way I evaluate policy arguments. This means you are best served by winning your impact, debating about the plan, and making arguments about why the alt solves the case instead of attempting to convince me that I should ignore the aff because they had a problematic representation or because fiat is not real.

6. I prefer that the aff defend a topical plan.

About me:

Director of Debate at George Mason University.

Please add me to chain: japoapst@gmail.com

11/26/2023 Speaker Point Update:

I will be utilizing the Regnier speaker point scale

5+ Random Things that Annoy me:

1. Hostility - I am too old, too cranky, and too tired to hear undergraduate students treating opponents, partners, or me like trash. I literally can't handle the levels of aggression some rounds have anymore. Please just stop. Be community minded. You are debating another person with feelings, remember that. Opponents are friends on the intellectual journey you are having in debate, not enemy combatants. Give people the benefit of the doubt and try to practice grace in rounds.

2. Debaters who act like they don't care in debates. If being a troll or giving some performance of apathy about debate is your shtick I am absolutely not the judge for you. Debate is a privilege that many individuals do not have the ability to participate in due to lack of collegiate access or financial well being, and I think we should treat the opportunity we have to be in this activity with respect.

3. Multiple cards in the body of the email.

4. Yelling over each other in cx - everyone will lose speaks.

5. Interrupting your partner in cx - I am seriously close to saying I want closed cx, I am so annoyed at how egregious this is becoming. I will deduct speaks from both partners.

6. Extending Cross ex past 3 minutes. I will actively stop listening in protest/leave the room. Anything past the 3 minutes should be for clarification purposes only.

7. Wipeout, Baudrillard, Malthus, Con Con CPs, Strike 'x' country CPs, trivializing the holocaust, reading re-prints of books from 1995 but citing it as the reprint date, fiating mindset shifts.

Topicality:

The nukes topic is great for the negative and I do not think I will be persuaded on sub-sets arguments against NFU. This topic is too small give the aff a break.

If cross ex actually checked for specification questions (i.e. "who is the actor" - and they tell you "Congress") - that is the only argument the 2ac needs to make against a 1NC spec argument.

NOVICE NOTE: I think it is ridiculous when novices read no plan affs - do whatever you want in other divisions, but these kids are just learning how to debate, so providing some structure and predictability is something I think is necessary. I err heavily on framework in those debates for the negative in the first semester.

Theory:

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. I genuinely do not know how I lean in condo debates. Some rounds I feel like the amount of conditional positions we are encouraging in debates is ridiculous, others I wish there were more. Open to being convinced in either direction.

Counterplans:

Are awesome. The trickier, the better. I’m okay with most of them, but believe that the action of the CP must be clearly explained at least in the 2NC. I don’t vote on something if I don’t know what my ballot would be advocating. I shouldn’t have to pull the CP text at the end of the round to determine what it does. I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff (if you can defend theory though, this doesn’t mean don’t read them). Also, I think that perm do the cp on CPs that result in the plan can be rather persuasive, and a more robust textual/functional cp debate is probably necessary on the negative's part.

**Delay and consultation cp’s are illegit unless you have a specific solvency advocate for them. Agenda DA Uniqueness cp’s are too – I’m sorry that the political climate means you can’t read your politics strat on the negative, but that doesn’t mean you should be able to screw the aff’s strategy like that. Have other options.

Important CP Judge Kick Note: I always judge kick if the negative would win the debate on the net benefit alone. However, I will not judge kick to vote on presumption. Going for a CP forfeits the negative's right to presumption.

Disadvantages:

Wonderful. Disadvantages versus case debates are probably my favorite debates (pretty much every 2NR my partner and I had). I love politics disads, however, I can be very persuaded by no backlash/spillover answers on the internal link – in so many situations the internal link just makes NO sense. I think there is such a thing as 100% no link and love thumper strategies. Like elections DA's - not a huge fan of impact scenarios relying on a certain party/candidate doing something once they get in office. Think shorter term impact scenarios are necessary.

Kritiks:

2023 update: For the past several years my work with Mason Debate has primarily focused on research and coaching of our varsity policy teams and novices. I am not keeping up with the K lit as I was a few years ago. Please keep this in mind. Everything below is from a few years ago.

I wrote my thesis on queer rage and my research now focuses on a Derridian/Althusserian analysis of Supreme Court rhetoric - but that does not mean I will automatically get whatever random critical theory you are using. Due to who I coach and what I research for academics, I am most familiar with identity theories, biopower, Marxism, any other cultural studies scholarship, Baudrillard, Derrida, and Deleuze. If your K isn't one of those - hold my hand. I think the most persuasive kritik debaters are those who read less cards and make more analysis. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line/tied into the case debate. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it structured. Unless your kritik concerns form/content - be organized.

Note for policy v K regarding the "weigh the affirmative or nah" framework question - basically no matter how much debating occurs on this question, unless the affirmative or negative completely drops the oppositions' arguments, I find myself normally deciding that the affirmative gets to weigh their aff but is responsible for defending their rhetoric/epistemology. I think that is a happy middle ground.

Critical Affirmatives:

Nukes note: I think the affirmative should *at least* defend that the US' reliance on nuclear weapons for military policy is bad. Some type of critique in the direction of the resolution. Inserting the word "nuclear" or "weapons" into your aff is not enough of a topic relevant claim imo. In general, I believe affirmatives should defend some universalized praxis/method and that deferral is not a debatable strategy.

Overall Framework update: Procedural fairness IS an impact, but I prefer clash key to education. I find it difficult to vote for impacts that preserve the game when the affirmative is going for an impact turn of how that game operates.

Generic Case Update: I find myself voting neg on presumption often when this is a large portion of the 2nr strategy. I recommend affirmatives take this into account to ensure they are explaining the mechanism of the aff.

I find judging non-black teams reading afro-pessimism affirmatives against black debaters an uncomfortable debate to decide, and my threshold for a ballot commodification style argument low.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable). I enjoy critical methods debates that attempt to develop a praxis for a certain theory that can be broadly operationalized. For example, if you are debating "fem rage" - you should have to defend writ large adoption of that process to give the negative something to debate. It is pretty difficult for a negative to engage in a debate over what is "good for you" without sounding incredibly paternalistic.

Overall Sound:

I am partially deaf in my left ear. It makes it difficult to decipher multiple sounds happening at the same time (i.e. people talking at the same time/music being played loudly in the background when you are speaking). I would recommend reducing the sound level of background music to make sure I can still hear you. Also means you just have to be a smidge louder. I'll let you know if sound level is an issue in the debate, so unless I say something don't let it worry you.

Flowing:

I love flowing. I do my best to transcribe verbatim what you say in your speech so I can quote portions in my RFD. I do NOT flow straight down, I match arguments. I most definitely WILL be grumpy if speeches are disorganized/don't follow order of prior speeches. If you ask me not to flow, the amount I pay attention in the debate probably goes down to 20% and I will have mild anxiety during the round.

Your Decorum:

Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent. This includes anything from ad homs like calling your opponent stupid to super aggressive behavior to your opponents or partner. Speaker points are a thing, and I love using them to punish jerks.

My Decorum:

I am extremely expressive during round and you should use this to your advantage. I nod my head when I agree and I get a weird/confused/annoyed face when I disagree.

<3 Jackie

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

Debated at Catholic University from 2001-2005, judge for the US Naval Academy 2011-2014.

Some general thoughts about how I judge debates:

I try to evaluate debates based upon the persuasiveness, logic, and clarity of argument by each team during their speeches. I'm unlikely to read cards after the round unless I absolutely need to see them to resolve the debate.

I flow all speeches on paper (and take notes during cross-ex) unless both teams ask me to not do so. Questions asked during prep time are essentially a courtesy and I do not consider them to be “on record.” You probably can get a sense of if I am following a speech based upon whether I am taking notes or if I appear to be searching or flipping over paper. If you see a look of confusion on my face -- I'm probably not following, but it's also the case that I tend to have a resting confused face throughout most of life.

Thoughts on how I most often evaluate specific issues:

Topicality - I think the affirmative needs to be topical. I don't find the argument that other substantive or procedural arguments should come before T to be persuasive, nor do I consider T to be a reverse voting issue. I tend more towards the “reasonableness” view of topicality.

Case debate/framework arguments - I default to evaluating whether the aff is a comparatively advantageous advocacy to the status quo. I assume that the status quo is an option for the negative and could be persuaded to vote on that presumption. If you propose a different framework, I tend to consider whether I understand what each team is asking me to do to compare and resolve arguments before weighing which one is "better." 

Theory debates - I place the burden on the team making a theory or procedural argument to demonstrate what practice they find objectionable, why it's objectionable, a proposed remedy, and the reasons why their proposed remedy is appropriate.

Counterplans -  They need to compete with the aff, and the burden rests with the neg to demonstrate competition. I find counterplans based around clear solvency evidence comparative to the aff to be most convincing.

Disads - They need a unique link and a logical internal link to the impact. A shockingly high number of debates involve disads with evidence that was obviously not written in the context of the long chains of assumed internal links that go uncontested. I am willing to assess low or zero risk to a disad if it doesn't link to the aff, or where there is no clear support for assumed but unstated internal links. Terminal impacts of many arguments aren't all or nothing - there may be many smaller but unstated intermediate impacts. It's very helpful when teams explain the argument in more concrete terms than simply whether there is X% risk of something large, abstract, and terrible.

Critical arguments - I find critical arguments most persuasive when they are germane to the aff case (when neg) or to the topic (for K affs) without needing long chains of logical inferences and where there is a clearly explained alternative/solvency mechanism.

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Terrell Taylor

Debated at Mary Washington from 2007-2011

Debate is an intellectual activity where two positions are weighed against each other. A part of this is making clear what your position is (plan, cp, alt, advocacy, status quo etc.) and how it measures up against the other team’s position. Arguments consist of a claim (the point you want to make), warrant (a reason to believe it), and an impact (reason why it matters/way it functions within the debate). Evidence is useful when trying to provide warrants, but is ultimately not necessary for me to evaluate an argument. Debates get competitive and heated, but staying polite and friendly and remembering that the name of the game is fun at the end of the day makes for a more enjoyable experience for everyone involved.


Disads/Case and Advantages

These arguments should be stressed in terms of a coherent story of what the world looks like in terms of the status quo, affirmative plan or alternative option. These positions should be attacked from a variety points including the link and internal link chain, impact and uniqueness level. When it comes to link turning, my default thought is that uniqueness determines the direction; if you have an alternative understanding that is particular to a scenario, be sure to explain why it is that the direction of the link should be emphasized or what have you. Impacts should be compared not only in terms of timeframe, probability and magnitude, but in terms of how these issues interact in a world where both impact scenarios take places (the popular "even if.." phrase comes to mind here). Also, keep in mind that I have not kept up with the trends in disads and such within the topic, so explaining specifics, acronyms and otherwise is useful for me. I prefer hearing case specific scenarios as opposed to generic politics and similar positions. This does not mean I will not vote for it or will dock your speaker points, just a preference.



Counterplans and Counterplan Theory

Counterplans should be functionally competitive; textual competition doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me (see later section on theory). I think that perms can be advocated, but am more than willing to hear reasons why they shouldn’t be and why that is a bad way to frame debates. When it comes to agent counterplans, I tend to think that topic specific education should trump generic presidential powers or judicial independence debates. Consult and condition cps just make the logician inside my head painfully confused (not sure why a reason to talk to X country is also a reason why the plan is bad). International fiat is suspect to me, and I tend to think that limiting the discussion to US policy (including its international relevance) is a good thing.

All of this being said, I am open to voting for any of the above arguments. These are merely my general theoretical leanings, and I will certainly flow, listen to, and evaluate arguments from the other side.


Topicality

I haven’t seen many debates on this topic, so if a debate comes down to T, don’t be surprised if you see me googling to find the resolution to check the words. In general I think Topicality is important for two reasons. One is the general reason that most people think it’s good, being that we need to be prepared/have set limits and parameters for debate. The second is that I think each year presents an opportunity to gain in depth education on an issue, even if it's not a policy perspective of that issue. I feel that competing interpretations is generally the default for T, but I am open to defenses of reasonability and in fact, think that there are cases where this is the best means of evaluation. Standards should be impacted in terms of education and fairness, and the debate should come down to the best internal links between the standards and these terminal values. If you are the type to critique T, your critique needs to come down to these terms (education and fairness). RVIs don’t make sense to me. If you want to take the challenge of trying to make one make sense, be my guest, but it’s an uphill battle.


General Theory

As mentioned, I am not wedded to any particular frame or “rulebook” for debate. Part of the beauty of debate to me is that debaters get to be both the players and referee. As such, I enjoy theory and think that such discussions can be fruitful. The flipside to this is that most theory debates devolve into tagline debating, shallow and repetitive arguments, and a race to see who can spit their block the fastest. These debates are 1) hard to flow and 2) not really a test or display of your ability so much as a test of your team’s theory block writer. I reward argumentation that is clear, comprehensible and complete in terms of theory debates, and urge debaters to these opportunities seriously.

I’ve laid out most of my theoretical dispositions in the counterplan section. Conditionality to me is like siracha sauce: a little bit heats up the debate, too much ruins it. I don’t know why three or four counterplans or alternatives along with the status quo is key to negative flex or good debating (one is good, two is ok). Also, if you want to use a status other than conditional or unconditional, (like the imaginary “dispo”) you should be ready to explain what that means. Again, I think that it is okay to advocate permutations as positions in the debate.

In terms of alternate frameworks for the debate (i.e. anything other than policy making) I’m honest when I say I’m not extraordinarily experienced in these areas as I’d like to be. I’ve seen a decent few of these debates and think that they provide some nuance to an otherwise stale activity. That being said (and this is true for all theory positions) you should try and weigh the educational and competitive equity benefits of your position versus the other teams proposed framework the debate. I debated for a squad that saw framework as a strategic and straightforward approach to most alternative forms of debate, so those arguments make sense to me. On the other hand, especially when it comes to arguments concerning structural issues in society/debate, if argued well, and with relevance to the topic in some way, I am willing to listen and evaluate.

Critical arguments (Kritiks/K-affs)

Much of what I just said applies here as well. I had the most success/felt most comfortable debating with these types of arguments as a debater (I did, however, spend most of my career debating with “straight-up” affs and disads that claimed nuclear war advantages). I studied English and Philosophy in undergrad and am pursuing a MA in English with a focus on critical theory, so there’s a decent chance that my interests and background might lean more towards a topic oriented critique than a politics Da.

I will avoid following the trend of listing the genres of critiques and critical literature with which I am familiar with the belief that it shouldn't matter. Running critiques shouldn't be about maintaining a secret club of people who "get it" (which often in debates, is construed to be a club consisting of the critique friendly judge and the team running the argument, often excluding the other team for not being "savy"). In other words, Whether I've read a great deal of the authors in your critique or not, should not give you the green light to skimp on the explanation and analysis of the critique. These debates are often about making the connections between what the authors and literature are saying and the position of the other team, and hence put a great burden on the debater to elucidate those connections. A shared appreciation or research interest between a team and a judge does not absolve you of that burden, in my opinion.

I agree with many recent top tier collegiate debaters (Kevin Kallmyer, Gabe Murillo, etc.) that the difference between policy and critical arguments is overstated. An important piece of reading critical arguments with me in the back of the room is explaining what your arguments mean within the context of the aff/da. If you read a no value to life impact, what about the affs framing makes it so that the people involved see their lives differently; if the critiqued impact is a merely constructed threat, reveal to me the holes in the construction and explain how the construction came to be. Doing that level of analysis (with any argument, critical or policy) is crucial in terms of weighing and relating your arguments to the other teams, and engaging in a form of education that is actually worthwhile. This probably entails removing your hypergeneric topic link and replacing with analysis as to the links that are within the evidence (and therefore, the assumptions, rhetoric, methodology, so and so forth) of your opponents. In terms of vague alts and framework, I have mixed feelings. The utopian fiat involved in most alts is probably abusive, but there is something to be said for making the claim that these arguments are vital to thorough education. On the framework question, gateway issue is probably a poor way to go. I don’t understand why the fact that your K has an impact means that you get to suck up the entire debate on this one issue. Instead, a framing that opens the door to multiple ways of critiquing and evaluating arguments (both on the aff and the neg, or in other words, doesn’t hold the aff as a punching bag) is preferable.


Performance

I didn’t do a whole lot of handling with this genre of argument, but have debated semi-frequently and enjoy the critical aspects of these arguments. I think that there is a difference between the type of critical debater that reads a couple of disads along with a K and case args, and a team that reads a indictment of the topic or reads narratives for nine minutes. If you read a poem, sing, recite a story or anything of that nature, I will be more interested in observing your performance than trying to flow or dictate it on my flow (my reasoning for this is that, unlike a speech organized for the purpose of tracking argument development and responses, I don't think flowing a poem or song really generates an understanding of the performance). More importantly, framing should be a priority; give me a reason why I should look at the debate through a certain lens, and explain why given that framing you have done something either worth affirming your advocacy. I think that these types of debates, especially if related to the topic, can be fruitful and worthwhile. Performance affirmatives should try to find some in road to the topic. If your argument is pervasive and deep enough to talk about, I generally think it probably has a systemic implication for the resolution in some way, even if that doesn’t manifest as a topical plan or even agreeing with the resolution.

For teams going against performance strategies, Framework based arguments are options in front of me. A good way to frame this argument is in terms of what is the best method to produce debates that create the most useful form of education, as opposed to just reading it like a procedural argument. I do think it is important to engage the substantive portion of their arguments as well, (there are always multiple dimensions to arguments of these forms) even if it happens to be a critical objection to their performance or method. Many policy based strategies often want to avoid having to engage with the details involved, and in doing so often fail to rigorously challenge the arguments made in the debate.


Good luck, and have fun. I spent a great deal of my debate career stressing out and losing sleep, instead of experiencing the challenge and fun of the activity; Enjoy your time in the activity above everything else.

In general, I prefer specific argumentation to generic. This mostly applies to theory
debates. Basically, any number of generic arguments will not overcome a few specific
and well-linked arguments. This will actually save time in most cases for the debaters as
they can make fewer arguments that actually have some relevancy to the argument at
hand. When I read cards it is usually because there is a debate about
the evidence. This doesn’t mean that you repeat a name in the last rebuttal, it means that
there is some debate about the relevancy or validity of the evidence.
Theory: See above about specific argumentation. Also consider that I probably am
slightly affirmative leaning on “abusive” counterplans. I think that the negative in
general has the burden of defending the theoretical justification of the counterplan. I
believe that, when questioned, the negative team has to justify the theoretical argument
they have presented, NOT the ability of the negative in general to make theoretical
arguments (e.g. negation theory isn’t even an argument, don’t even waste your breath).
Topicality: I believe an illustration of ground lost or preserved for either side’s
interpretation is the best way to evaluate topicality debates. This, I suppose, is pretty
obvious but I think it is important to remember and not lose focus on the importance of
the ultimate impact of topicality and how the standards and definitions relate to a good
division of ground. A side note, I, in general, look rather unfavorably on things like generic A-spec.
There are times when these should be used, but as a generic fall back strategies they will not go far with me.
Policy issues: I evaluate arguments to the best of my ability as they are presented in the
debate. I hope to evaluate the impacts as they are presented in the debate but when the
debaters do not provide this option I will fall back upon a risk/impact calculus. This does
not mean that the largest impact always wins. This means that likelihood of a risk along
with magnitude will determine the weight of the argument. In general, I don’t think that
saying the word “extinction” grants you the largest impact in a debate. I think a real
evaluation of the impact scenario and its effects will do much to overwhelm catch phase
impact assessment.
Critical arguments: There isn't much inherently different about critical arguments vis-a-vis other arguments that makes me evaluate them differently. Specificity is always going to be better especially on the link level as I think links to the system or links of omission are about as useful as they would be to any other debate argument. To make things easier on me, I would suggest that you phrase the arguments in terms that I am better able to understand, i.e. link, impact, alternative. Also
I would not operate under the assumption that I understand the specific authors or arguments you are making without an explanation.

Above all, debate to your strengths. If that is a K, go for it. If it's DA and case, go for it. My paradigm should not determine your strategy, it should inform your decision-making and issue-framing.

I place a high value on evidence quality. If the evidence doesn't back up your argument, then it is just your argument. I also won't give you credit for all the awesome warrants your evidence makes, if those warrants aren't made and extended in speeches.

Specifics:

 T - I'm fine with T, just give me a very clear picture of what the topic should look like including a caselist. If you exclude a whole section of the topic (Cyber, etc) then your interpretation is probably not very good. I have a reasonability-lite outlook on T. In other words, even if you win I should use competing interpretations, you need to clearly we an impact to your T argument. I probably won't vote for you if your interp only limits out one more case than theirs, if your interp only gives you the link to one more DA, or if you don't clearly articulate the terminal impact to your standards. Just saying "explodes limits" without telling me what kind of cases they allow, giving me an idea of how many that would be, and telling me *why* a limit is needed, is probably not going to win my ballot. You may think this is a high threshold, but I don't think it's any different than what judges require in a disad debate: impact calculus.

CP/Theory - I'm a fan of specific counterplans. I'm ok with generics, but they have to be debated well and I probably won't love your CP if you don't have a card that is at least mildly related to the aff (not just the topic). For theory, there is nothing that I WON'T vote for and nothing that I WON'T vote against if theory is debated well. Conditionality is good (anything over 3 advocacies is stretching it), but I'll vote that it's bad (I really prefer in-round impacts here). PICs are great. Anything that does the entire aff is suspect.

Case/Disads - By far my favorite thing to watch, you will get higher points in front of me if you debate case well (whether they have a plan text or not).

Kritiks - I'm fine with Ks, even though I didn't read them all that much when I debated. The more specific your link arguments are and the more you explain the interaction with the case (particularly impacts), the more likely I will like the argument and be willing to vote on it.

Affs should be topical, but I'm open to non-traditional conceptions of what it means to be topical. Having said that, I think predictability, limits, and clash are very important, and I definitely lean neg on T against affs without plans.

An argument needs to be complete for me to vote on it. This means that if you read a bad DA with a nonsensical link, I will not vote on it even if it is dropped.

Be relaxed, be confidence, and you will do well in front of me.

2.  The specificity of your impact scenarios, solvency claims, and link arguments is underestimated as an offensive tool.  I find many kritiks and generic CPs to be vulnerable to a simple comparison of the uniqueness of the link/net benefit to the specificity of the affirmative’s solvency/advantage claims.