Tabroom.com

Harvard Debate Tournament

2013 — MA/US

All Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

David Arnett University of Kentucky 3 rounds

Jarrod Atchison Wake Forest University 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 4:02 AM EDT

Revised: 3/20/14

My first year judging at the NDT I had an important conversation with Dallas Perkins that still impacts my thinking about judging today. I expressed to him a bit of my anxiety about judging and the possibility of ending someone’s career. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said something to the effect of “People should ask two things when determining who the good judges are: 1- Do they try their hardest? 2- Are they willing to vote for the team that won no matter who they are?” Over the years I have found that these characteristics are simple in theory and sometimes difficult in practice. If I have the honor of judging you then I will most assuredly make a mistake somewhere, but I will strive to try my hardest and vote for the team that won no matter who they are.

How do I determine who won?

Rather than prescribing a set of argument preferences, I think it may be more productive to articulate my decision-making process because I think that we are at a moment where my preferences are not as important to me as helping debaters understand how I evaluate debates. Here is how I generally try to decide a debate:

1- I start by isolating the central questions of the debate: The second the debate is over I write a list of questions that I need to resolve. Sometimes I can do this without actually looking at my flows, but after I write the questions down I go back and check my flows to make sure I am not missing any major controversies. The key part of this stage is forcing myself to determine the issues that are essential to my decision versus things that *may* become relevant assuming certain teams win certain things.

2- Specific questions I tend to ask myself after almost every debate:

-Assuming both teams won all their arguments, who would win the debate?

-Is there a major execution error?

-Is there a team lacking offense on any given position?

-Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence?

-Is there significant argument interaction?

3- I determine which questions require reading evidence. Ross Smith taught me that starting with the evidence first can result in decisions that de-emphasize the important argument interactions that the debaters work hard at establishing during their speeches. There are lots of questions, however, where the quality of the evidence is an essential component of resolving a key question of the debate.

4- Dueling Banjos: After I figure out the issues that need evidence I create little duals on my flow between the relevant arguments in the mini-debate. It is helpful when I read the evidence or examine the arguments to think of it in terms of a mini-debate so that I don't get caught up thinking about the potential implications of the evidence or argument for issues beyond the part that I am trying to resolve. If I don’t do this then I can get lost down the rabbit hole.

5- Devil’s Advocate: After I answer all the questions I have come up with right after the debate, I play devil's advocate with myself two times. This is something that I learned from David Heidt. Basically, I write a mini-ballot for the team I think has won the debate. Something super short like "I vote AFF because I think the case impacts happen faster than the DA." Then, I pretend I am the other team and cross ex myself on the "what abouts?" I often end up determining that the "What abouts?" are good arguments that are just not in the debate. Sometimes, however, the "What abouts" force me to look at something I may have overlooked. I would say that 85-90 percent of the time I vote the way I wrote the RFD but sometimes I realize I was overlooking something important.

6- I isolate issues in the debate that "test my judge philosophy" so that I can tell the debaters after the debate that other judges may vote on X but my personal philosophy is Y because _____. Here is an example: at our district tournament a couple of years back I was on the bottom of a 2-1 when the 2ar forgot to go to a sheet of paper where the Neg had extended an argument that the status quo solved all the aff so vote neg on presumption. The other two judges thought it was bad and didn't vote on it. I am still at the stage of my judging career where bad arguments need to be called bad arguments. So, I voted neg and explained that the aff was winning the rest of the debate, but that in my view of the debate was decided on something technical. Inevitably, this happens about once a tournament.

7- Preventing the RFD that never ends: After I make my decision, I sit down and write the first 45-60 seconds of my decision out so that I can read aloud the short synopsis of how I voted. This is something I learned from Will Repko. For panel debates, I tend to write out a good chunk of my RFD just in case someone takes longer to decide and to ensure that I keep my comments concise. I have found that often times the debaters want to focus on the central question(s) of the debate and my ramblings about other things turns out to be less interesting to them.

8- The Triad: Sometimes it varies on the situation, but I try to give exactly three pieces of advice for both teams. Numbering the advice and limiting it to 3 helps me not wander around my RFD with random pieces of advice. I have found that the thing that really makes debaters angry is when I have voted against them and then flippantly say something like "you could have done X better" and the debaters freak out and say "Dude, this is my overview where I said X exactly like you just did!" The key to avoiding those interactions is for me not to venture into random musings on the fly.

9) Personal judging idiosyncrasies:

I usually decide any theory debate as an "option of last resort" for the team that needs it to win.

I usually decide a link debate first before worrying about uniqueness because of my belief that uniqueness is often a question of the direction of the link.

I usually wear head phones to try to minimize being influenced by other judges.

I usually go up to the debaters to call for cards and hand them a sheet of paper with list of cards I want so as to not influence the other judges. This isn’t as relevant if there is an email chain going.

I usually ask to go last (or later) if I am on the bottom of a big split (4-1) so I can get a sense of where I split with the majority of judges.

I usually go for a walk around the hall once before I come back and look at my whole list of questions and my thought process to make sure I am comfortable with it before I sign my ballot.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

Jarrod

Tyler Balding Western Connecticut State University None

Tim Barouch Northwestern University 4 rounds

Brett Bricker University of Kansas 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:22 PM CDT

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning

Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

Adrienne Brovero University of Mary Washington 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 27, 2024 at 4:53 PM EDT

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”.

Jeff Buntin Northwestern University 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 26, 2024 at 5:33 AM CDT

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Peter Cancro Kansas State 1 rounds

Peter P Cancro's Judge Philosophy:

Some quick background; I've been judging debates, albeit at the HS level, for over a decade (and averaging over 100 rounds a year for the last 5 years or so). Fall 2013 will be my first semester working with KSU, and thus judging on the college level.

That said, I don't really have much of a paradigm anymore. I'm willing to vote on anything for any reason. The only rules that are non-negotiable are the speech times and some degree of civility/professionalism, and adherence to all legal constraints applicable to the jurisdiction(s) in which the debate occurs.

I prefer not to call for or read evidence; it should be the debaters' job to articulate what the evidence actually says and contest its meaning.

Any other preference I could list here would be a "weak default", subject to change based on the content of the debate round and relevant argumentation within it. For example, in general, I will consider evidence more credible than a debater's assertions. As a weak preference, that could be overcome by a debater's arguments and warrants contending that thier particular assertion is more credible or true than a particular card in that debate (especially if this argument is made, a warrant is given, and the other team drops it).

Other than the above, and the classical advice "don't drop things", the best way to win debates in front of me is to "get underneath" whatever level of analysis of the debate your opponent is engaging in. For example, if no one is dropping anything, but are only clashing based on the tags of the cards, you could easily win by making claims about the warrants of the relevant cards. If the warrants are being contested, then you could either give empirical examples that demonstrate why your card's warrants are superior (more true or more applicable to the circumstances being debated).

I hope that gives you some sense of who I am as a judge, and wish you luck competing or coaching someone to compete in front of me!

Nate Cohn Georgetown 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2013 at 4:03 PM EDT

Nate Cohn
Georgetown University
November 2013

I will adhere to the Wake Forest speaker point rubric. This may result in higher points than I assigned prior to Harvard.

At this time, I am not revisiting the remainder of judge philosophy. I did promise as much, but, unfortunately, I have not found the time to complete my thoughts--which currently stand at about 3200 words. Moreover, the new philosophy did not promise any substantive revisions to my approach to judging, but a roadmap for teams who wanted to pursue a more realistic, accessible, and inclusive version of topical debate. In the interim, know that I strongly believe in the potential for debaters to contest many of the prevailing norms of policy debate, reduce the risk of unrealistic scenarios to the point of elimination, defend non-traditional forms of evidence, and argue about important questions of white supremacy, injustice, and inequality.

------

The question for decision is whether the federal government should enact a topical plan. As a general rule, the modern “critique” is not an effective means for demonstrating that the plan shouldn’t be enacted. I am unlikely to vote for a critique if the affirmative checks the boxes and the negative doesn’t either mitigate the affirmative’s advantages to the point of elimination or read a counterplan that solves the whole case. In my view, the critique is at its most persuasive as a presumption argument.

I am not a good judge for presumption arguments.

Evidence plays a larger role in my decisions than it does for most other judges. I am willing and even eager to summarily disregard arguments supported by inadequate evidence, especially if those arguments are contested by smart indicts or analytics. Conversely, teams will generally be disappointed if they intend to overcome high-quality research with unsubstantiated framing or spinning.

Counterplans should compete off of a mandate of the plan. On the flip side, a counterplan isn't competitive if it can be interpreted as an example of the plan, nor can it include the possibility of fiating the enactment of the plan. As a result of the latter clause, I’m not convinced that “certainty” is a basis for competition, even if it’s plausibly winnable. The presence of topic-specific literature has precisely nothing to do with the competitiveness of a counterplan.

I’m not especially familiar with the intricacies of the energy topic—I’ve attended three tournaments and haven’t conducted significant topic-specific research. You should assume that I’m learning about your sophisticated counterplan competition or topicality argument for the first time, although I’ve been able to handle everything so far.

I have a liberal perspective on technique; as a general rule, I try and reduce the extent that technical errors short-circuit the rest of the debate. For instance, a team extending a theory argument must advance a coherent reason to vote on it, even if “voting issue” is conceded. I find it hard to punish the negative for dropping blippy assertions like “perm do the cp,” “perm do both, shields the link to politics” or "the disad's intrinsic, a logical policy maker can do both." None of these claims are meaningful absent additional, warranted explanation.

If the 2NR advances a counterplan, I’m not willing to revert to the status quo absent an explicit request from the 2NR. Since conditionality is logical, I'm usually willing to revert to the status quo, although the specifics of the debate could change my mind, like otherwise prohibitive time investment on a permutation.

Abraham Corrigan Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 9:28 AM CDT

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, acorrigan1@glenbrook225.org, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then Mrs. Corrigan got the GBS job & the rest is history!

David Cram Helwich Minnesota 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:07 AM CDT

David Cram Helwich
University of Minnesota
28 years judging, 20-ish rounds each year

Quick version: Do what you do best and I will try to check my dispositions at the door.

Topic Thoughts: We picked the wrong one (too narrow, needed at least sole purpose). Aff innovation is going to require NFU-subsets affs, but I have yet to see a good argument for a reasonable limit to such an interpretation. "Disarming" creates an unanticipated loophole. Process counterplans that are not directly related to nuclear policymaking seem superfluous given the strength of the negative side of the topic literature.

Online Debate: It is "not great," better than I feared. I have judged quite a few online debates over the past 3 years. Debaters will benefit by slowing down a bit if that enhances their clarity, avoiding cross-talk, and actively embracing norms that minimize the amount of "null time" in debates--watch for speechdocs and download them right away, pay attention to the next speaker as they give the order, be efficient in getting your speechdoc attached and sent, etc.

Evidence: I believe that engaged research is one of the strongest benefits of policy debate, and that judging practices should incentivize such research. I am a bad judge for you if your evidence quality is marginal—sources, recency, and warrants/data offered. I reward teams who debate their opponent’s evidence, including source qualifications.

Delivery: I will provide prompts (if not on a panel) if I am having trouble flowing. I will not evaluate arguments that I could not originally flow.

Topicality: I vote on well-developed procedurals. I rarely vote on T cheap shots. T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. Debaters that focus interpretation debating on caselists (content and size), division of ground, and the types of literature we read, analyzed through fairness/education lenses, are more likely to get my ballot. I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as a “definition”—intent to define is important, whereas proximity-count “definitions” seem more valuable in setting the parameters of potential caselists than in grounding an interpretation of the topic.

Critical Arguments: I have read quite a bit of critical theory, and will not dismiss your argument just because it does not conform to ‘traditional’ notions of debate. However, you should not assume that I am necessarily familiar with your particular literature base. I value debating that applies theory to the ‘artifact’ of the 1AC (or 1NC, or topic, etc). The more specific and insightful the application of said theory, the more likely I am to vote for you. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is vitally important, for both “policy” and “K” teams. Absent contrary guidance, I view ‘framework’ debates in the same frame as T—caselist size/content, division of ground, research focus.

Disadvantages/Risk: I typically assess the ‘intrinsic probability’ of the plan triggering a particular DA (or advantage) before assessing uniqueness questions. This means that link work is very important—uniqueness obviously implicates probability, but “risk of uniqueness” generally means “we have no link.” Impact assessments beyond shallow assertions (“ours is faster because I just said so”) are an easy pathway to my ballot, especially if you have strong evidentiary support

Theory: I will not evaluate theoretical objections that do not rise to the level of an argument (claim, data, warrant). Good theory debating focuses on how the operationalization of competing interpretations impacts what we debate/research and side balance. Thought experiments (what would debate look like if the neg could read an unlimited number of contradictory, conditional counterplans?) are valuable in drawing such comparisons. I tend to find “arg not team” to be persuasive in most cases. This means you need a good reason why “loss” is an appropriate remedy for a theory violation—I am persuadable on this question, but it takes more than an assertion. If it is a close call in your mind about whether to go for “substance” or “theory,” you are probably better off going for “substance.”

Counterplans: The gold standard for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I am more suspicious of multi-conditionality, and international fiat than most judges. I am probably more open to condition counterplans than many critics. PICs/PECs that focus debate on substantive parts of the aff seem important to me. Functional competition seems to make more sense than does textual competition. That being said, I coach my teams to run many counterplans that I do not think are legitimate, and vote for such arguments all the time. The status quo seems to be a legitimate voting option unless I am instructed otherwise. My assumption is that I am trying to determine the "best policy option," which can include the status quo unless directed otherwise.

Argument Resolution: Rebuttalists that simply extend a bunch of cards/claims and hope that I decide things in their favor do poorly in front of me. I reward debaters that resolve arguments, meaning they provide reasons why their warrants, data, analysis, sources etc. are stronger (more persuasive) than those of their opponents on critical pressure points. I defer to uncontested argument and impact comparisons. I read evidence on questions that are contested, if I want the cite, or if I think your argument is interesting.

Decorum: I believe that exclusionary practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner (intentionally engaging in hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist etc. acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.”

Use an email chain--establish one before the round, and please include me on it (cramhelwich@gmail.com) . Prep time ends once the speechdoc is saved and sent. Most tournaments have policies on how to deal with "tech time"--please know what those policies are. I do not have a strong opinion on the acceptability of mid-speech prep for other purposes.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Chris Crowe University of California, Berkeley 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 14, 2024 at 2:43 PM PDT

Chris Crowe

Cheyenne East High School, 1999-2002

University of Wyoming, 2002-2006

Coached Policy Debate for 15 years, including Cheyenne East, The Harker School, Westwood High School, University of Wyoming, UTSA, UC-Berkeley, Dartmouth College.

I am not judging as many debates these days, so I might not be "in" on some of the nuances in your debates, especially if you've had a particular debate many times.

I prefer you affirm the topic and can only think of having voted on "all limits bad" in a matchup of roughly equal teams once (in well over 1,000 debates judged). My opinion is that the best questionably topical affirmatives critique the negative's interpretation, not topicality more broadly.

I do not say "clear" if I think you are unclear. I just listen and take notes. It is your responsibility to appropriately communicate your arguments.

I am a skeptic by nature. Where I hear many judges comparing large risks of things, I find myself comparing low risks of things.

On Strategy:
"I'm ambivalent about the 'truth' of almost every argument, and I enjoy good debate no matter its substantive or ideological leaning. Unsurprisingly, I've seen both sides of the ideological spectrum debated superbly at times and miserably at other times, and I am far more concerned with judging whether or not you make your arguments well than where you fit along some pre-ordained spectrum of K---Policy. How I evaluate these debates depends entirely on how good you are, and has little to do with how leftist or right-wing you are. As utterly obvious as this is to me, somehow I think it gets lost in the mad dash for teams to stack their strike sheets with people they think are ideologically congruent with their preferences. But in case you're wondering, I went for everything as a debater."
-Josh Branson

As with everything, specificity and hard work are the gold standard. I’m much more interested in your updated case hit than whether or not you can read consult congress blocks.

If you are trying to persuade me to take some “leap of faith” beyond reason and rationality in order to make my decision, I cannot help you. I’m sure there’s a comet for you to hitch a ride on soon, but I’m not tagging along.

On Theory:
“'Reject the argument not the team' is frequently enough for theory debates unrelated to conditionality. It is certainly enough when the voting issue claim is just 'it's a voter for fairness and education' - that is a claim without a warrant and it is unlikely I will vote on that claim even if it is dropped (the debate world where random voting issue prolif took over substantive debating is not one I would prefer to return to). But having said that, you can might get me to vote on theory if you have a well explained reason to reject the team.”
-David Heidt

On Framework:
“The framework debate has gotten pretty stale, but I understand the utility of it. If you are going to talk about framework please play defense. I see far too many debates where the policy team wins that the other side kills debate, but the K team wins that policy debate is bankrupt. If either side did just a bit to disprove the totality of these claims, they would likely win.”
-Charles Olney

Everything Else:
"Even if...because...: Yeah, I ripped this idea off from Becky Galentine, I know, but I have yet to hear a more effective tool for rebuttals. You aren't winning everything. So it would behoove you to protect yourself by indicating why you still win even if your opponent should win some of their important arguments."
-Adam Symonds

-Evidence comparison > evidence reading.
-Dropped arguments are only as good as originally conveyed.
-Prep time stops when you save your speech, which you should announce.
-I don’t have a particularly good method for speaker points. Some arbitrary combination of aesthetics, strategy and style.
-I am unlikely to determine that something outweighs topicality.

-The link determines the direction of the link.

Kyle Deming University of Michigan 4 rounds

Updated: GSU 2018. Some parts are taken from my old philosophy, and some are new.

Put me on your email chains - kyle.deming7@gmail.com.

In descending order of importance, some notes about my judging:

1 - I do my best to evaluate arguments as they are debated rather than how I feel about them. All told, you are probably better off doing what you do well than radically adjusting your style to fit my judging. I have voted for many positions I find typically unpersuasive, either because they were not answered or they were answered poorly. I will likely continue this practice.

2 - Remember: I need to hear, understand, and flow your arguments. Most debaters would benefit from being slightly slower and clearer. (GSU 2018 note: I have not judged a debate since March 2017, so as a bonus, my flowing will also be rusty.) On a similar note, rebuttals should frame the decision: tell me the preferred metric for evaluating the debate, and tell me why you win. Teams that fail to communicate their position - either stylistically or substantively - will struggle to get my ballot.

3 - Evidence quality matters. Qualifications, recency, and other attributes of evidence can and do make a difference, and teams that highlight their relevance and relative value in particular situations tend to come out ahead.

4 - Severely under-developed arguments are frequently incomplete even when dropped and may merit new responses after being actually explained.

5 - Affs without "plans" have sometimes won my ballot, but all other things being equal, I tend to find topicality-style negative arguments persuasive, particularly when they emphasize the benefits of switch-side debate and research on a stable resolution. I am still susceptible to voting on dropped or mishandled arguments: when I have voted for deliberately nontopical affs, it is usually because the neg inadequately debated an impact turn or did not articulate an impact of their own.

6 - Negative teams going for K-type arguments against policy affs should explain their vision of the debate; if I am not deciding the round on the basis of whether the plan averts more harm than it causes, negative teams should tell me what to do instead. If it is not obvious, affirmative teams are in a good position to make straightforward framing/case-outweighs arguments.

7 - Speaker points mostly reflect the degree to which you contributed to your team’s chances of victory. Other ways to get good speaker points include reading coherent and well-researched strategies, calling on historical examples, making CX matter later in the debate. Some ways to hurt your speaker points include being unclear despite prompting, wasting dead time, stealing egregious amounts of prep, and being unpleasant in CX (rude, mean, or extraordinarily unhelpful). Debate should be competitive, but it should also be fun.

Kevin Diamond University of Rochester 4 rounds

***EDITED FOR 2013-2014 DEBATE SEASON on Oct. 15, 2013 ***

I am two years out of college. I qualified to the NDT my senior year and broke to octa-finals at CEDA. I was a novice in college and debated my entire time there, about 5 1/2 years (do to externalities beyond my control).

Overall, I’m open to any kind of argument. I debated primarily the kritik as the neg and both traditional and critical affirmatives. You don’t need to be 'afraid' to run anything in front of me; I’ll listen. But I’ll likely listen to whatever the other team has to say too.

Topicality:

I approve of it. I prefer debate that is located around the resolution. Consequently, I enjoy people trying to creatively interpret the topic with their plans and advocacies. And likewise enjoy people calling others out on said creativity.

I am a competing interpretations kind of guy. I am most persuaded by competitive equity as a voter but can be persuaded otherwise. I won’t be very open to reverse voting issues and impacting T as genocidal. I won’t vote you down but unless you have a really good reason, I likely wont be persuaded by it.

Framework:

I don’t *like* these debates, but I think they can be necessary. I also think they can be strategic and I appreciate a team willing to take the plunge. I find them useful to at least force the aff to scope out the intent and breadth of their “advocacy”. Again, I abide by competing interpretations. I can be swayed by the critical reasons to prefer moving away from resolution focused debate, but some part should be responsive to competitive equity as a standard.

CPs:

They are great! Please run them. I don’t think there is a specific type of CP you can or can’t run, just be prepared to defend your CP. I encourage creativity – this will obviously create some theory issues. Above all, don’t be afraid of argument here. I’m okay with the standard base of CP: PIC, states, XO, etc. I also love advantage CPs.

A word on Conditionality: I think having multiple conditional advocacy positions is good as long as its reasonable. I like neg flex and think it produces the best debates. But, hypo-testing is probably excessive, as are like 4 mutually exclusive Ks. Multiple worlds to a limit.

DA:
Link stories are good. And impact calculus is a premium here. Wish there was a better PTX scenario than debt ceiling but so be it. Again, would like creativity here. Ux can be interesting if there is analysis that contextualizes the minutia of cards rather than just a card dump.

Kritik:

I like this style of debate. I’m fairly well read in many schools of thought. I’m a fan of Zizek, obviously, Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault and feminism. But, please explain your position regardless with how well acquianted I may be. I think the alternative is the most important piece of this puzzle (though not 'necessary'). Please don’t ignore it. I want to know how the alt solves the harms in the link story. Next important is the link story. I’m interested not in the fact that the aff links but how severely they are culpable to the accusations presented by the links. Lastly, impact calculus, please!

Affirmatives:

I’m a fan of either policy or kritik debate. I’m interested in how the plan functions and how it specifically resolves the primary issues debated in the round. I think inherency is a pretty powerful argument, albeit “defensive.” Don’t really understand “underviews” most of the time, I would prefer specific advantages that would address the predicted criticisms or a bevy of impacts to outweigh whatever K you face. I prefer implementation and will be much impressed with an implemented K aff.

I’m a fan of the permutation, if used well. I do, however, believe it is a test of competition and perceive it as an argument about opportunity costs relative to the functionality of the CP/alt. I think it is a great tool for contextualizing key issues in the debate and framing your overall narrative and reason for me to prefer you. I think the perm is especially key against the criticism because usually those alternatives just don’t make much sense. Lastly, I’d like to hear what your interpretation is for “all non-competitive parts of the alternative”, for example, means in the context of the debate at hand.

I will end my overall “philosophy” with a quick note: please have fun and please enjoy it. And above all, please be courteous. You don’t have to be a saint, but you also don’t have to push the line. Respect one another!

Tiffany Dillard-Knox University of Louisville 2 rounds

Nick Donlan Dartmouth College 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 1, 2014 at 8:55 PM EDT

Updated: March 2014

I was a 2N at Dartmouth from 2009 to 2012. I read affirmatives with plans; some attempted to solve existential threats posed by nuclear war and climate change, and others attempted to remedy particular racist or heteronormative government policies. When I was negative, I enjoyed going for disads, impact turns, and kritiks. Some of my favorite judges as a debater were Eli Anders, David Heidt, Nick Miller, Matt Struth, and Stephen Weil.

I have no overwhelming predispositions towards particular arguments, but there are obviously some things you can do in front of me to increase your chances of winning and your speaker points.

1. Speaking at 85-90% of your usual speed and explicitly flagging and answering your opponents’ arguments are the two most important adjustments you can (and should) make. My enhanced understanding of your topicality/theory interpretation, counterplan text, permutation, etc. will likely benefit you much more than that extra “will pass” card will.

2. I prefer to make decisions on the quality of the debate over the evidence rather than the quality of the evidence itself. Please frame for me how I should view sections of the debate and how I should evaluate competing claims about evidence in terms of issues like source quality, recency, etc. I place a premium on reasonable arguments, even when uncarded, and have a certain threshold for unreasonable arguments, even when carded. Ideally, I would prefer all arguments to be both reasonable and carded, but if you are forced to choose, say (more) things that make sense if you don’t have (as many) cards about those things.

3. I care about author qualifications and source quality. I care about poorly highlighted evidence. I care about the alternate causalities listed in size 4 font. I care about what your author says in the rest of her article.

4. It's important, so I'll mention that you should be slow and clear again. Please be warned that if I have difficulty understanding you, I will not be inclined to piece together the debate on your behalf during my decision time.

5. Hard work and specific research will be rewarded. This does not mean I prefer "policy" arguments over "critical" ones. It does mean I would rather hear a case debate that goes beyond reading and extending impact defense along with your politics disad. It does mean I would rather hear a kritik which interacts meaningfully with the specifics of the aff's mechanism and/or advantages. I can be persuaded that threats in national security debates are inflated or even entirely constructed, but you will need to explain to me why the specifics of each 1AC advantage are flawed and what "serial policy failure" means in the context of the plan.

Topicality

Unless instructed otherwise, I view topicality in terms of interpretations and reasonable limits. These debates can often be frustratingly late-breaking. For the neg, your interpretation/violation needs to be clear and consistent throughout the debate. For the aff, be warned that I will take great care to protect the 2NR from unpredictable extrapolations of 1AR arguments. Providing a reasonable caselist for your vision of the topic and comparing impacts (i.e. legal precision outweighs aff innovation because...) will benefit you greatly.

T vs K Affs

I am generally skeptical of planless affirmatives with little specific connection to the topic, especially those which claim to affirm the text of the resolution but actually argue that the resolution is problematic in some way. To me, there seems to be a substantive difference between the war powers authority of the President and authority in the debate space, and affirmatives should be willing to defend a controversial change on one of the resolution’s issues (if not a specific “plan”). It's fine if you choose not to read a plan, but be prepared to articulate a) what the core controversy of the aff is, b) why the negative should be reasonably expectated to negate that claim, and c) specific offense against the "topical version" of your aff.

I find that the neg often has little problem winning a sizable link to their limits disad but comes up short in terms of impact calculus versus the aff impact turns. Ideally, you should have reasons why debating a limited version of the topic are good and explain how the skills your interpretation encourages might be able to resolve some of the aff's impacts.

I deeply want debate to be inclusive of different experiences, perspectives, and strategic approaches. I also know the frustration of trying to throw together a 1NC against these sorts of affirmatives. The team that carves out the most reasonable compromise between these goals has a very good chance of persuading me.

Theory

I am neutral towards most of these issues, though I must admit that using multiple actors in a counterplan has always struck me as unfair. That being said, if there is a solvency advocate in the literature for such a counterplan, I might be more easily persuaded of its legitimacy. Just saying "it's conditional" does not mean I will kick your counterplan on my own.

If your theory argument on politics is fewer than ten words, it likely is not a complete argument. If someone actually explained how "fiat solves the link" or what "vote no" really means, however, I am all ears.

Other

I try to flow cross-ex.

A few under-utilized arguments: no link uniqueness, counterplan links to politics, link turns the case, political capital theory is silly

If a team's disclosure on their wiki is poor, I could see this being a compelling reason to err aff or neg on some questions if instructed to do so. Relatedly, is there any reason in 2014 not to be open source? If you're one of the few remaining holdouts, now might be a good time to get on the right side of history.

Speaker Points

My points this year have ranged from 27.8 to 29.2, and I do not intend to change that range or to join the arms race anytime soon. I will not reward or punish you for reading particular arguments, but I will reward you for being intelligible and organized, using CX effectively (and referencing it during your speeches), making good strategic decisions, and demonstrating your knowledge of history, pop culture, and the topic.

Cat Duffy Georgetown 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 12, 2017 at 12:16 PM EDT

Cat Duffy

Michigan State/Niles North

Meta-Level: It's been several years since I've judged extensively so make sure you're clear. Explain your arguments/acronyms/short hand. I err towards offense/defense pretty heavily. The older I get the more persuaded by truth I am but technical debating still matters. Evidence quality is important, how you spin a piece of evidence is also important. Be nice. Prep time ends when the jump drive leaves the computer/you hit send on the email.

Topicality: Not my favorite debates. Please slow down -- if you go a million miles a minute I'm going to miss stuff. When extending T, contextualize your vision of the resolution through case lists of affirmatives that your interpretation justifies and those it excludes and impact why that division is important. Affs should read a counter interpretation or you’ll probably lose. Impact the standard you're going for and do comparative impact work.

Counterplans: I lean negative on most theory questions. The states counterplan is OBVIOUSLY theoretically legitimate. As is international fiat. Theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument except in the instance of conditionality. If you want theory to be an option please stop reading your pre-scripted blocks and actually do the line by line. I think the judge can kick the counterplan unless the aff tells me not to. I’m better for the aff on permutation/competition questions against counterplans that compete off of certainty/immediacy. If you're aff you need to quantify an impact to your solvency deficit.

Disads: Evidence comparisons are incredibly important. Comparative impact work is a must – don’t make me decide after the debate if the disad turns the case or the case turns the disad, odds are you won’t be happy with the result. Disads are the spot where 1AR sand-bagging bothers me the worst. If you call a thumper by any other name you’ll lose speaker points. Read uniqueness for your link stories. The politics disad is obviously overwhelmingly intrinsic. Vote no could probably be dropped twice by the negative and I still would not consider it a real argument. Other intrinsicness arguments require an answer, although not much of one.

The K: Really not great for the K. When the aff wins vs. the K it’s typically on the permutation (the double bind gets me every time) and that at least some portion of the aff is true and has an impact. The negative wins going for the K by actually explaining why the link compromises affirmative solvency. Winning a link doesn't make the aff go away - you need to explain why the thesis of your K makes the affs impacts not true, or proves they can't solve them, etc. Explain the impact of winning the framework debate. An affirmative must read a topical plan and defend it.

Speaker Points: The following is largely taken from Carly Wunderlich and Ed Lee who said it better than I ever could.

Things that increase speaker points

1. Connections on central questions- slowing down and effectively communicating about guiding issues

2. Evidence comparisons – tell me why all the evidence you read actually matters. Otherwise I’ll decide after the round and we might not agree on what a piece of evidence says.

3. Clarity – I will call clear if you’re not. After that the points go down. I have no poker face – if I can’t understand you, you’ll be able to tell. Look up from the laptop and find out!

4. Strategic cross-x’s – make arguments instead of asking for the fourth time “where does your card actually say that?”

5. Technical proficiency - answering clearly all necessary arguments. Line by line is a lost art - particularly in the 2AC on case.

Things that decrease speaker points

1. Cross-reading, clipping- if there is an ethics challenge made I will stop the debate and evaluate it. If the person in question is found to be doing it they will lose the debate and receive zero speaker points

2. Tech fails- please be prompt and quick with tech things. In a world of decision times this is increasingly terrible.

3. (also borrowed from Ed Lee) Creating a hostile environment – Respect is a non-negotiable for me. It always has been. It is the primary reason I go out of my way to be civil and cordial to everyone I interact with. I know that there is no chance that we will have a productive conversation unless you are willing to speak to me in a way that acknowledges my humanity. I not only have that expectation for the way you communicate with me but the way you communicate with each other. It is not healthy for me or anyone else in the room to watch you verbally assaulting your opponent. If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors or the president of your university then you should not do it in front of me. I am more than willing to have a conversation with anyone about the where this line should be drawn. That conversation is long overdue.

Izak Dunn Arizona State 4 rounds

I feel that a new tabbing website calls for a new judge philosophy. That, and my other one was about to start kindergarten, so...

Some things have changed, some things have stayed the same. Looking back on my old philosophy, I could tell that it was the scribbles of youth and over-exuberance. There were many foundations that I would have liked to shake with that little document, but it is a rare occurance that anything written changes anything acted. And such a poorly written little document at that!

Some things you should know about me: I'm a philosophy guy. I've done all of my formal academic training in philosophy and the history of philosophy, and debate plus a few classes on the side are all I have in communications studies training. I tend to think that fact-value and fact-theory distinctions are bogus in practice but conceptually useful. So, for example, against an "ontology comes first" argument, I would much rather hear a defense of your ontology rather than an argument about why ontological questioning should subside in the face of mass death. Despite all this, I am a believer in the incommensurability of theories (paradigms?), so make your comparisons relevant--I'm a big sucker for elegance on this front.

I'm not big on offense-defense, especially on debate theory arguments. Thus I'm not particularly happy when someone banks a debate on "any risk of a _____" impact calculi. I'll vote on we-meets, too. Even worse than this quirk in the way I evaluate the logos of your claims is the fact that I'll let the ethos and pathos of your speeches play into my decision. I will let myself be "persuaded" by arguments, and though this sounds unfair, I think it is better that I am up-front about it rather than in denial. As much as anyone tries to exclude them, these factors play a role in every decision.

I no longer default to flowing you in paragraphs in Word. I used to do this because I thought that it would help me see through the way that the line-by-line obfuscates larger narratives and commitments in the debate round. Not a lot of people do the line by line effectively anymore, and I feel that this obscures larger issues in a debate round in a more fundamental way (bad line by line outweighs dangers of line by line-centrism). So now I'm out to help you figure out how to make the line by line work for you.

I will time your prep until the flash drive is out of your computer.

I will not disclose my decision until you update your wiki.

Without getting into too many specifics, I think that this pretty much covers what might make me different from the majority image of a policy debate critic. I would much rather discuss concerns or questions you have about the way I'll evaluate debates with you in person, so please feel free to approach me or email me questions.

izak

9/17/2012

New Pet Peeve (10/14/2012)

2ac says various things about the alternative throughout their speech. In the block, you say "Now onto the Alternative debate" and just say a bunch of stuff about the alternative. "Embedding" clash is not an excuse to forego comparison between arguments, and not going to the line by line is not license to not talk about your opponent's arguments. If this is your style of debate, you'd better make sure you are EXTENDING arguments (i.e., comparing them, arguing for them, deploying and employing them) as opposed to REPEATING the constructive that happened before you spoke.

If you do this in front of me, I'm going to set a very high bar for your speaker points. If you do not actually embed clash, you will not receive more than 27 points from me.

Not all of you are ready to "do" embedded clash. In fact, you've got to be pretty good at making discriminations about the line by line before you can decide on what does and does not count as a responsible or responive argument--in a way, it's a prerequisite to doing competent embedded clash.

Point Inflation Adjustment (11/8/2013)

After reading a lot about speaker points this year, I realize that I am way behind the times regarding point inflation. When I was a debater, "competent and winning" was a fast way to get a 27.5, which wasn't bad (wasn't great, but wasn't bad either). If I were "competent and losing", I usually got a 27 or a 27.5. Speaker points describing incompetence lived around 27 and below.

My scale to date has pegged "competent and winning" at a 28. This, of course, is just a baseline--I've definitely given points higher than a 28 to all four debaters in a round. But, as long as you aren't vomiting on yourself during your speeches and are making good enough strategic decisions to win the debate, I'll give you a 28.

It seems like I need to bump my points about half a point overall considering 5-3 teams are averaging about a 28.5. I'm going to try and give "competent and winning" a 28.5 starting at Wake, if only to prevent teams from preffing me in all of my educational glory from being unfairly penalized by my miserly nature.

Point Inflation Update (11/12/2013)

Two edits: (1) For Wake, I'll use their speaker point scale. It already seems pretty close to my inflation adjustment. (2) After Wake, I'm going to try and give "competent and winning" a 28.3. Seems to capture what teams that are winning just over half of their debates are averaging in 2013. Also, I used to have to work hard for my 28.5's and am besieged on all sides by a burning and childish need to feel better than all of you.

N. Kirk Evans Texas 4 rounds

Jonah Feldman University of California, Berkeley 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 6:26 AM PDT

I have not interacted with the college topic at all this year including judging, research, or anything else

I'm the Executive Director of the Bay Area Urban Debate League. I used to be the Director of Debate at the University of California, Berkeley. I debated at Oak Park River Forest high school and then the University of Michigan. I've been an assistant coach at Harvard, Texas, Dartmouth, and Northwestern.

Here are some tips I would give if I was coaching a team that was about to be judged by myself:

-Focus on quality over quantity. Debates almost always come down to 2 or 3 central arguments and the teams which can recognize those arguments and spend their time making sure they win those stasis points will generally fare better. I'm more likely to vote for a team making a smaller number of arguments that are well explained, with implications fully drawn out and comparisons made to the other teams arguments, than I am to vote for a team that makes a huge number of arguments with the hopes of getting the other team to drop some things. Dropped arguments matter, but only if you take the time to exploit the gap in coverage and make those arguments central to a coherent ballot.

-Author qualification seems to be more important to me than many other judges.

-Generic theory arguments like conditionality bad/pics bad do not have a very high success rate in front of me, but that doesn't mean that theory arguments are a lost cause. If the other team is doing something out of the norm sketchy, like fiating lots of different actors at multiple levels of government or getting fast and loose with international object fiat, then I may be strongly on your side. As with all things, the more contextual it is the better.

-Framework for Kritik Affirmatives: I am a good judge for you if you are defending a course of action that has some clear connection to the resolution, but does so in a new or creative manner that is distinct from traditional policy debate. I am not a good judge for you if you have no, or only a tangential, connection to the resolution and are largely relying on impact turns to framework while eschewing questions of debate logistics.

-Framework for Policy Negatives: I am a pretty good judge for you if you can articulate a well defined conception of the developmental goals that debate training should be providing for debaters with an explanation of how the mechanics of debate you are supporting connect to those goals. I am not a good judge for you if you believe that the best way to impact framework is to say "debate is a game." Yes, of course debate is a game, but it is a game with an educational purpose. If you think debate is no different than checkers or league of legends than you have a very myopic view of debate that I find profoundly insulting to what I have spent most of my life working on. Questions of fairness, limits, and predictability are all very important, but should be thought of as internal links and not impacts in and of themselves.

My judging should be fairly straight forward on most other issues. Like everyone else I have varying opinions on the quality of all sorts of arguments (example: link determines uniqueness makes no sense to me at all) but none of that should have a decisive impact on your strategic choices. Feel free to email me at jonahfeldman@gmail.com if you have more specific questions or would like additional feedback on a decision.

Matt Fisher Northwestern University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 14, 2020 at 2:28 AM UTC

Matt Fisher - Northwestern University, Glenbrook North HS
Updated: November 2020

Background

I debated for four years in high school and then four years in college. After that, I coached both high school and college debate for three years. I have not been involved in the activity since 2015, but I'm looking forward to judging rounds at 2020-2021 Chicago Debates tournaments.

Paradigm

I wrote the following list back in 2011:

- Clarity is underrated/undervalued

- Talking fast is not the same as true speed; true speed is measured by the number of arguments that the judge thinks the opponent has to answer.

- Debaters should combine technical proficiency with big-picture argumentation

- Extension of evidence/arguments must include an extension of the warrants - not just the taglines

- Specificity of arguments matter - no matter what the argument (links for a K, topicality violations/standards, theory interpretations, etc.)

- Impact comparison is essential - especially in the final rebuttals

- Evidence quality matters - a lot. Logical, intelligent analytics can beat bad, unwarranted evidence. Evidence comparison is a must.

- I'm not a good judge for 'cheap-shot' theory arguments or specification arguments because I think they detract from the educational merit of this activity

- I like well-researched, case specific strategies (who doesn't?)

Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. I think both sides should strive to prove why their interpretation could sustain a yearlong debate topic - more than a self-serving/tricky violation (or counter-interpretation). Teams should back-up their interpretations and standards with evidence.

Critiques:

- the viability of the alt seems to frequently be under-debated

- 'no value to life,' 'extinction inevitable,' 'ethical d-rule,' etc. are all meaningless phrases by themselves --- they must be explained/compared to the other side's impact framing

- specificity of link matters

- historical comparisons are useful (*please* don't take this to mean that I want to hear how every aff replicates the logic of the Holocaust or Vietnam)

- specificity of the impact matters

Framework:

Affs should probably have plans; those plans should probably be related to the topic/USFG action. I could (obviously) be persuaded otherwise, but that is certainly my default. I'm not an 'auto-win' for 'policy' teams vs. 'non-policy' teams --- if you (policy team) cannot persuasively argue why the (non-policy) aff should engage in policy debate, you will probably lose my ballot.

When debating critiques...make sure that the resolution of the framework debate - if it's in your favor - actually helps you win the debate. Far too often, framework debates seem like useless distractions that don't really advance the ball for either side (that is, if you win FW, how does that affect the other side's arguments?).

If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

Daniel Fitzmier Northwestern University 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:27 AM CDT

Hello -

I haven't updated my judging philosophy in a while and thought this was a good time to do so.

I'll try to be fair; I think I am a good listener; I have a good attention span, but a prosaic memory. My flow looks good from far away. Up close it is another thing altogether. It really depends on how unclear the speaker is. I feel like I can't hear as well as I used to and have asked people to repeat themselves more than I did ten years ago.

If you asked me to be candid, I'd say I think the Aff should present a topical plan. For both strategic and doctrinal reasons.

I find that in a close debate I often spend most of my decision time assessing evidence quality on the most important issues. My favorite debaters over the years have tended to be excellent when it comes to introducing arguments about how one ought to interpret the key evidence in the debate. That said, I tend to come to my own conclusions about evidence quality when left to my own devices. I'm happy to do so because I value research & information competency.

I don't disagree with any of the things I've said in previous judge philosophies, except perhaps that I find it easier to vote Aff on conditionality than I used to. I don't think I've ever said this in a judge philosophy, so I might as well now - I strongly think resolutional meaning should precede, but not occlude, limits - insofar as it is a criterion for thinking about topicality. Last couple of points, I can be stingy about what I consider to be a complete argument. I don't like to vote for things that I don't understand, and I am probably a better judge for debaters that have studied and worked on arguments that I have a deep working knowledge of.

I have not judged any debates on the 2015-16 topic.

All things considered, assuming any of the above sounds objectionable, I'd prefer the dignified anonymity of your strike to the alternative.

Best of luck at the 2016 NDT!

Jordan Foley Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM EDT

Background

4 years of policy debate in high school at Little Rock Central

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

Currently, I am a first-year graduate teaching assistant in Wake Forest's communication department.

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

I have very few preferences for how you go about making the argument that you would like to make in the debate. I truly do love the process of argumentation itself more than the ins and outs of any particular argument. Although there are some obvious ones I may be more familiar with I think the general principle that Link + Impact = Argument is true and that your argument will work better if it is tied to a broader strategy you plan to deploy against the argument you are facing. That being said, there can be a level

In my time as a debater, I could pretty squarely be considered in the ‘traditional policy’ camp. I read (and often went for) topicality and framework arguments against teams that did not defend governmental action on the aff. I still find many of the arguments surrounding these positions to be very persuasive, but my voting record does illustrate my openness to alternative styles of argumentation as well.

In my short time as a judge in college policy debate, I have continued to find myself in new ‘judging dilemmas’ that I had never previously considered. A lot of the fault lines that come up in rfds have rested on a few issues that I will mention before getting into some of the other aspects of my judging philosophy

Basically, I have a small set of data to work with but I do think that there are two notable patterns in many of the decisions I have given so far. These areas of argument encompass a lot of the difficulty I have when resolving debates during rfd time and will help you understand where I am coming from when evaluating some arguments. Not all encompassing, for sure, but absolutely things to keep in mind.

1. 1. Clarity of interpretation

This is a pretty blanket category, but I think it helps articulate a major frustration I have when. Whether it is a topicality/framework interpretation or an analytical argument about how a judge should evaluate or weigh certain impact claims, I often find myself wishing one team would provide a more vivid description their interpretations of how certain arguments should function within debate rounds.

In framework debates, the clarity of your ‘interpretation’ of what debate and/or the ballot is/does is just as important as making sure I understand your counterplan text. If the other team controls this interpretation via a lack of clarification of adequate elaboration then the other team essentially controls what your counterplan does. If they control my understanding of what your counterplan does, they will make it link to their DAs and win. Control what your evidence means to me and how I should read it in light of broader link/impact claims.

This is as true for topicality as it is for any attempt at a theoretical discussion of a how people/groups/nations/states act in a particular context in relation to a topic disad or sociological criticism. Debates often hinge on these questions and when they are poorly fleshed out, many other issues that have time invested in them become far less relevant and much more of the debate’s deciding factors will be up to my interpretation of the interaction of arguments and not yours which is a dangerous place to be in a verbal argument about very complex complex and interwoven concepts

2. 2. Articulation of comparative significance –

This is related to the first, but I find myself in a lot of debates where I give the following rfd: “ultimately, I had a lot of reasons to vote against the other team, but not a lot of reasons I should be voting for you”

Whether it’s a 2ar without enough impact calculus or a 2nr who doesn’t do justice to the alternative/cp solvency evidence they are extending, many of my decisions seem like they fall in this category. Debaters from both teams do a moderate to excellent job of executing their core argument but fail to rhetorically distinguish and compare their core arguments from the other team’s position.

I try reward debaters not only engaging with the argument they are debating on their own terms (our ‘x’ evidence answers this by saying ‘y’) but also engaging with the language used by their opponents and the evidence they read to make comparative claims. Controlling my interpretation of a piece of evidence from the other team will usually get you further than perfectly explaining your own.

As a judge, I view my role to be an educator, not a competitor. I have argument preferences and professional academic interests that certainly expose me to different literature bases in both debate and non-debate research, but I try to maintain as open of a mind as possible to arguments outside my comfort zone. It is unavoidable that certain vernaculars (critical and policy alike) that I am too unfamiliar with to make the judgment calls that are required when one of the above two things are done poorly.

Odds and Ends

I will likely be flowing on my laptop – I do this for a few reasons. First, I type faster than I write so I genuinely believe that my flow is more accurate and more importantly, readable. Secondly, I do it because I do not like to have my head down looking at my flow during your speech for extended period of times. I like to watch speeches because I think that aesthetics of giving a speech are important. Timely gestures to emphasize main points are just as relevant as the white foam you've developed on your mouth 4 minutes into your speech and I like to be able to get a more full picture of your speaking style. At times, this tendency can cause you to think I am awkardly staring at you too much - please do not read too much into this because I am honestly trying to soak up the full force of the way you make your argument in additions to technical, content related questions.

There is a decent chance that I request speech documents prior to speeches using electronic evidence. I am still experimenting a bit with this, so its application will not be entirely consistent but I think it is useful for two main reasons. First, it helps deter and catch card clipping – which I will discuss in more detail below. Secondly, it drastically reduces the amount of decision time dedicated to transferring evidence at the end of a debate. I do not ever intend, however, to have a debater feel like the choice to call for speech docs was in any way motivated by the debaters as individuals or the perceived reputation of a squad in general. I am honestly a young judge trying to find my norm, so please bear with me on this issue.

I very much value my decision time after debates are over. If there are flashing issues between teams or extended bathroom breaks before speeches, I will become frustrated if the time delay starts approaching the 10-15 minute range. More judging time = better decisions = better debaters.

Conditionality – fwiw, I have not had many decisions that come down to this argument but I will say that the gulf between the 1ar and the 2ar explanation of their position is usually the pivot point in the debates I have had come down to this issue.

Card clipping – I take this matter pretty seriously and will not hesitate to assign a loss and zero speaker points for verified violations. I am very hesitant about unilaterally halting a debate where neither team has brought the issue up, although I have never faced an egregious case that I have had such a visceral reaction (or any reaction so far, really) that would make me do that. But, if someone does make a challenge, an audio/video recording is essential.

Do not speak into your laptop – lower whatever you are speaking from in order to make eye contact and let me see your mouth move. For some reason, this has become a massive pet peeve of mine. In the past, I have prompted speakers to change where their podiums are situated, but I don’t think that should be my prerogative during a debate so please be mindful of what you look like to me when you are speaking.

Speaker Points – I have consistently given between a range of 27.5 and 29. I have given very few 29+ but quite a lot of 28.2-28.6’s. Here is a rough rubric based on my perception of what I have given out so far.

Below 27.5 – major mishaps likely occurred, these can be things like offensive language or disrespectful behavior but certainly glaring strategic miscues and/or speech delivery issues that substantially affected the content of my decision will put you in this camp as well.

27.5-27.9 – Excessively mediocre. Speech delivery issues were likely a component, but these scores I find myself giving more to people that seem are far too underprepared with the evidence and arguments they are deploying. Debaters who normally receive these speaks from me have received a lot of advice about reaching beyond buzzwords and taglines as well as evolving their arguments more generally as the debate progresses.

28-28.4 – This category, for me, has encompassed many of the teams that are on the ‘bubble’ and some of the lower-middle teams that exhibit a fairly coherent grasp of their argument strategically, there is normally some delivery issue associated with the lower end of this spectrum.

28.5-28.7 – This is about what you should expect if I find you to have a solid speaking style and a strong grasp of the arguments you are forwarding. There is usually a point in these debates where this debater does something notably awesome rhetorically or strategically but that lacks a sustained follow-through the rest of the debate. There are flashes of brilliance, but consistency is a key distinction between this category and the next one.

28.8-29.2 – If you get these speaks, you are likely a debater who excelled in not only their grasp of their own arguments but demonstrated a consistent ability throughout the debate of making smart strategic and rhetorical decisions. You were likely incredibly clear as a speaker and are debating at a very high level in terms of balancing word choice, time management, and quality evidence choice in addition to sustained comparative evaluation of key arguments in the debate.

29.3+ - Not going to lie, the likelihood you receive this or higher is exceedingly low. It takes not only what was mentioned in the above category but also requires a level of sophisticated argumentation that makes me feel like you were a top 5 speaker in that debate and/or that I could reasonably see you in quarters or better based on that performance.

For all of these categories of speaker points: landing solid jokes, being colloquial and respectful of your opponents, and the perception that you are truly enjoying yourself all have the potential to place a light, but impactful finger on the scale when I am assigning these points along this rubric.

If you every have any questions about any of this philosophy or a specific question about a debate I judged/watched (even if you did not participate), feel free to shoot me an email: folejm13 AT wfu DOT edu

Seth Gannon Georgetown 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 13, 2015 at 4:30 AM PDT

With this update, I hope to better match my theory of judging to my habits in practice.

I have found myself nearly obsessed with specific, substantive engagement between the two teams — and increasingly frustrated when one team sidesteps opportunities for well-evidenced clash between arguments in favor of generic, all-purpose positions or supposed trump cards that set aside the majority of the debate. The team at fault — given its responsibility to respond — is often the negative, and on some topics I vote aff at a dizzying clip.

Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have â€‹canceled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debateâ€‹ and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum.

Of course, many of the best strategies answer the ultimate question in your favor even while conceding great quantities of your opponents’ arguments. Elegant debating — specific, substantive engagement at the level of what matters — will be rewarded. For instance, a counterplan that solves the aff advantages (relieving you of the responsibility to disprove them), if it competes with the specifics of what the aff is advocating, is an ideal example of substantive engagement.

Unsurprisingly, questions of â€‹link and â€‹competitionâ€‹ interest me greatly. This is our vocabulary for measuring clash. Before determining what’s most important, I determine what’s relevant.

A final note: You will do far better on theory arguments if they inform my decision rather than making it for me. Maybe that means “rejecting the argument.” Maybe that means getting a ruling from me along the way: I am happy to pause the CX for a 30-second intervention on agent specification or conditionality, and we can use the remaining 90 minutes for an entertaining and educational debate.

Lincoln Garrett University of Kentucky 4 rounds

David Glass Hire 4 rounds

Justin Green Wake Forest University 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 9:07 AM EDT

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

I plan to clap when the round is done; your effort is appreciated!

Argument Defaults

Preference - The good ones about the topic. Most of my research is on the policy side, but lucky to interact with great debaters and coaches across a wide spectrum of approaches for many years.

Topicality - Yes offense first; defense is essential. Impact turning or going just with reasonability without a quality counter-interp rarely wins.

Policy Aff v the K - Specificity is crucial for both sides. It's rare that I don't consider both the effects of the plan and the scholastic/rhetorical choices including the interactions between the two. Aff's should be prepared to defend the claims made in the 1ac. Winning the world is ordered by an oppressive structure is not enough.

CP Theory - Legitimacy of process CP's increases with more specific advocates. Some conditionality most likely OK - go beyond 2 or 3 or 2nc CP out of impact turns to do the opposite of the 1nc impact; less likely to be ok.

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

- Articulate when reading! There has been an increasing trend in debates I watch where syllables are consistently muddled or skipped. I'll yell clearer. If I yell it twice know that you are in the danger zone.

- Cross Ex Matters! and it has a time limit – I listen, flow, and those who reference answers from the CX are likely to get higher points. When the timer goes off, it's judge prep even if the two teams decide to continue the CX during prep time. If the two side agree on something when a judge is not there "ex. neg agreed they could kick planks or part of the alt"...please fill me in.

- Smart Analytics exposing flaws can go a long way. Internal link chains and neg K alt solvency are two of many places where this can potentially be effective.

- Quality of Evidence+Quality of Explanation+Quality of comparison=weight of argument

- 2 Tips for last rebuttals beyond impact calculation - Give your partners credit explicitly. Acknowledge where the other side might be correct, but why that is not enough.

Just in case it happens, some strong defaults....

- No shenanigans policy - I expect a 2v2 debate. No three person teams, no one person taking all the speech time, please don't ask for something besides a debate to determine a winner, etc. Two people speaking in the same speech, ok if part of a pre-scripted performance early in the debate. In subsequent speeches, only one person's words count.

- If you ask for a 30. Your speaker points will likely have a 3 in it; 3 will most likely not be the first number. If both you and your partner are asking for a 30, you are playing a dangerous game given the previous sentence.

- Hard to imagine myself voting on elements not related directly to an argument made in the debate (coin flips, previous debates, what their coach did, how someone interacted outside the debate, initials at the end of the card, month of the year). Verified blatant false disclosure of more than a card or two and could be a voting issue.

- Evidence ethics. Yes, follow AFA, ADA and CEDA guidelines. And also, not really trying to vote on: whether the citation includes date accessed, initials of the card cutter (or who cut the card), if there were accidental exclusions of the text that had no material effect.

ENJOY!

LaToya Green Wake Forest University 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM UTC

3 years in the Debate-Kansas City Urban Debate League

5 years at Emporia State University

3 time NDT qualifier (1 first-round bid)

NDT octofinalist

CEDA semifinalist

Currently- Director of Debate at Cal State Fullerton

I engaged exclusively in what most people called “performance debate.” As a debater, I made similar arguments on both sides of the debate and interrogated what was perceived to be a “topical” discussion from year to year. The arguments consisted of a criticism of “policy debate”, how it functioned, how it impacted particular people, and the implications it had for the people involved in the debate itself. The crux of our arguments investigated performance and methodology, especially in regards to the relevance of those things inside of the debate space. I want to know why what you do is good for debate, as well as for the people/policies impacted by your plan. I say this to let you know the extent and limitations of my technical debate skills and to give you an idea of the debate(s) I am familiar with and the debate(s) I’m not.

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained.

Theory: I’ll vote for it. HOWEVER, I don’t like theory debates that are just blocks or are just spew downs. I like the line by line debate on theory and for the debaters to slow down. I WILL vote on dropped theory arguments- so you better answer them (even if the perm is a test you still need to answer severance).

Disadvantages: I’ll vote for it. Just like the kritik explain your scenario and how it links to the affirmative and we are good.

Topicality: I believe that topicality is about competing interpretations. However, I can be persuaded that topicality is not a voting issue and that normative reasons to vote do outweigh. But in order to win these issues there has to be considerable time spent on these arguments not just blips. I do not necessarily believe all affirmatives have to have a plan text, however, I do believe that you should be able to defend the lack thereof. Again, it is not what you do or do not say, it is what you justify. Affirmatives, if you don’t have a plan or don’t defend the consequences you should have reasons why you shouldn’t have to defend those issues.

A few pieces of advice:
1) Slow down. My ears are not calibrated to the rapid delivery of policy debaters.

2) Read less cards. I think much of what gets read in debates is unnecessary and is usually never even analyzed. I will read cards at the end of the debate only in order to be helpful in my post-round discussion. I prefer to watch and evaluate close readings of evidence rather than the fly-by argumentation that passes itself off as debate. Furthermore, debate for me is about more than empty words, gestures, and actions. It is not only what you say/do. It is also what you justify. That matters more to me than a bunch of random cards you read to fill time.

3) Don’t rely on being tricky or attempting to “out-tech” the other team. In doing so, you will likely out-tech me and your tricks will go unnoticed. I take notes, detailed notes, on every speech but I don’t flow in the conventional manner of lining up argument-for-argument in columns. There is obviously a minimum of technical skills one needs to compete in debate. If a team does not address an entire position or an important nuance emphasized by their opponents then it is unlikely that they will win. For the most part, however, nobody will be “out-teched” in the debates I judge. I will evaluate the debate where it happened rather than where it didn’t happen. This is not merely a personal preference but is, more importantly, a pedagogical intervention on my part designed to force debaters to strive for narrative coherence in grasping and articulating the holistic flow of the debate.

4) I am here to be persuaded. This is a communicative activity. I am not computer, I am a living, breathing person. Pathos+Logos+Ethos=speaker points. I am NOT a point fairy however, I CAN make it rain.

I feel that everyone should know, or at least have an idea of, what their epistemological presuppositions are and be prepared to defend them. Everyone should be prepared to articulate their vision of what debate is and what it could and should be. Also, I think everyone should have a theory of the relationship of debate to the wider institutional landscape. If you feel prepared to deal with these questions in a thoughtful way then you should take me on.

Aaron Hardy Northwestern University 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:57 AM MDT

It's been a number of years since I've been an active coach or judge, so keep that in mind if your arguments rely on super deep background knowledge about the current year's topic. That said, I've judged many, many hundreds of debates in both college and high school, including the final rounds of most major college national tournaments; I'll work my hardest to keep up.

Meta Stuff

1) I think debates should be about the topic. This sentiment applies equally to affirmatives that don't want to discuss the topic and negatives that try to avoid clashing with the affirmative.

2) I am committed to the value of switch-side debating. I do not confuse my personal ideological beliefs with the educational value of an activity where we learn argumentation on complex issues.

3) I think that your choices about debate should reflect the value of hard work, not take shortcuts to avoid research, clash, or nuanced argument.

4) Technique matters more than the truth, but the closer your arguments hew to reality, the more likely they are to be persuasive.

5) Evaluation and comparison of your research materials is an intrinsic part of my judging. It’s the only grounded and non-capricious way to adjudicate clash.

6) Offense/Defense – The debate is a math equation, and I try hard to solve it in a consistent fashion. Never underestimate the power of introducing 0 or infinity as a term in the equation – there’s a universe of difference between 99 and 100%. It’s to your benefit to guide my decision with explicit evaluation frameworks.

7) Alternate use time if debaters ask unanimously

8) Impact defense is underrated, especially against particularly silly impacts. I’m also sympathetic to arguments related to relative impact evidence quality – a 6 word Mead card doesn’t constitute an argument.

9) CP competition – As a general guideline, I think CP’s shouldn’t contain a world where the entire plan could happen. I don’t think the affirmative is bound to defend either “immediacy” or “certainty” unless spoken to explicitly by the plan.

10) Reversion – If the 2NR extends a CP, I am willing to revert to the status quo if the CP isn’t competitive or doesn’t solve – but ONLY if the 2NR explicitly flags this as an option and explains why I should do so. And, the 2AR can obviously make arguments about why I shouldn’t. It is not sufficient for the neg to only say “the CP is conditional” or “SQ is a logical option” earlier in the debate and expect me to do the reversion on my own. I have found that this would lead me to vote negative too often. Basically, I’m willing to revert – but there’s a high threshold for the 2NR to set it up.

11) In my experience, if the neg exits the block without harm-related defense to the aff, they usually lose.

Critiques

1) I prefer when they’re not used as a shortcut to avoid topic-specific education. I don’t think winning the affirmative is “flawed” means the neg wins – I think you need offense for why voting aff is bad in order for the critique to be a a reason to vote for you, and I think that offense needs to outweigh the aff.

2) In general, I am unpersuaded by the (usually analytic) argument that the existence of a net benefit for a CP means it must link to the aff’s K.

Stupid arguments

I will listen to any argument you'd like to make, but there are a limited number of arguments which I think extensive community experience has proven over time to be particularly bad for both fairness and the educative value of the activity. As such, I am extremely unlikely to vote on them, and pursuing these lines of argumentation are likely to result in poor speaker points. 2AC's should feel free to dismiss these arguments with maximum flippancy. My current list includes:

1) Aspec and all derivatives

2) Consult CP's

3) Disclosure theory

Casey Harrigan Michigan State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 3, 2021 at 3:54 PM EDT

Casey Harrigan

University of Kentucky; 14th year judging; Updated March 2021

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

2021 Alliance Topic Updates

1. Assurance is singular, not plural. Like Deterrence.

2. ‘Can I get a copy of the doc [with cards marked / with only the cards you read]?’ – Sure, if you use your prep time for it.

3. ‘Did you read X card?’ – this is CX, not untimed twilight zone

4. I am very lenient when it comes to making adjustments to accommodate online debating. If you need to stop your speech, pause your prep, stop your opponent’s speech because you can’t hear, etc., that is fine. We’re all just out here doing our best.

5. Solvency ‘advocates’ – it is not enough to have a harm and say that is existence implies the opposite, thus solvency. It is also not enough to have a card that says the MDT as currently designed is bad. You need a card that says the United States should do something different toward the alliance. Affs that don't have this have a hard time beating CPs….and solving.

6. My typical decision process:

a) If there are any theory / procedural / T arguments, resolve this first. That seems logical, and if I am voting on them, it saves a lot of decision time.

b) Move to whatever issue appears to be most decisive. Usually something like an advantage that one team appears to be far ahead on, a DA the neg seems to be winning, a CP that looks to solve a lot of the case, etc. This is also for decision efficiency – deciding one issue can clarify the overall debate.

c) Move page-by-page, deciding each. I actively try to check for and counteract confirmation bias – as humans, we want to find ways to resolve conflict and want to generate ‘easy’ decisions. It is natural to want to decide that the DA is small if the case is large or vice versa. I actively try to set aside arguments that I have previously decided when moving to the next.

d) Argument weighting is something like 50% debating, 50% evidence quality. I have spent a lot of time researching the alliances topic and sometimes find it hard to give much credence to arguments that appear to me to be factual incorrect or egregiously false. I do admit to being ‘truthier’ at times that I would like to ideally be; it’s a work in progress. 50/50 is the goal.

e) In very close debates, I do think it is helpful to ‘write a ballot for each team’. Not literally, of course. No one has time for that. But, instead, thinking through the series of decisions that are required to vote for each time and considering which has stronger justifications. The act of considering how an alternative ballot could be cast, why, and then for what reasons should that ballot not be chosen is helpful. For me, at least.

7. K vs Policy? I do not believe there is a difference between these, nor do I have any preference.

Older

-- I enjoy all types of debate and have spent a significant amount of time recently working on K stuff on both sides. I also have been deep in the space topic lit and feel ready to judge a technical debate on most of the core mechanics of the topic. It is said often by many, but I really think it is true for me: do your thing, don’t over adapt to me, don’t think that I have strong immutable beliefs about debate/argument based on what you know about me. I, like everyone, do have preferences and prior assumptions about lots of things. They are easily overridden by good debating. I have often voted for arguments that I personally believe are terrible because one team debated better than the other. If you lose to a bad argument, that means you should debate better, not that I should correct for you by suggesting to the other team that their argument is actually bad.

-- I like my paragraphs breaks uncondensed, font to be Times New Roman, highlighting to be blue, and dashes to be tripled. I prefer A2: over AT: out of habit, though it is probably a little too cool-kid-Y2K to be actually correct.

-- I am probably not who you think I am. I was the only person at MSU who enjoyed reading the T.A. McKinney DRG article on Intrinsicness, the only person who wanted to write 2NR blocks on the Fromm 64 Death K, and the only person who wrote ‘growth is bad because diversionary war against North Korea is good’. I am sure that I have opinions about debate that no one else at UK shares. People are more than the name of the school that follows their name and more than what debate’s 4-year-long institutional memories pigeonhole them to be.

-- I prefer to be on the doc chain during the debate and do read docs occasionally during speeches and especially during CX. Yes, I still flow (and I think I flow pretty well since transitioning to using a laptop – would be willing to have a flow-off with anyone. Flowing gauntlet thrown down). No, I don’t let the cards do debating for you even though I have read them. I can both know things are facts and simultaneously know what arguments were and were not made well in debate. I read all the cards in the debate because I want to provide feedback that is as helpful as possible and I want to see if you have good cards that I should go cut later, not because I need to see all the cards to decide who won or lost.

-- I prefer that plans contain a degree of specificity. To me, a plan that simply says ‘the USFG should cooperate with China on X’ does not convey enough information about the mechanism of action to produce a debate of the highest quality on this topic and I would prefer that the plan state how that cooperation should occur or by what means it would be induced. If teams do not choose to specify in the plan or CX, it seems reasonable to allow that matter to be determined by evidence that describes normal means, which either team can introduce. I believe this introduces a strategic cost that is real and should be exploited by more negative teams and could counteract trends toward non-specificity better than relying on Vagueness as a theory argument.

Scott Harris University of Kansas 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:05 AM CDT

Harris, Scott (University of Kansas)

judgeharris59@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

I am a critic of arguments and an educator not a policy maker. I view my role as deciding who did the better job of debating and won the arguments based on what was said in the debate. I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument imaginable. I will read evidence (including non highlighted portions).

I expect debaters to be comprehensible and I have no qualms about telling you if I can’t
understand you. I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in
their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate although there is no such thing as a tabula rosa judge and some level of judge intervention is often inevitable to resolve arguments in a debate. Any argument, assumption, or theory is potentially in play. The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue. You make arguments and I decide to the best of my ability who won the arguments based on what you said in the debate. I prefer to follow along with your speech docs to double check clarity, to make sure you are reading all of your ev, and to enhance my ability to understand your arguments.

My speaker points tend to reward smart creative arguments and strategies, smart choices in the debate, high quality evidence, the use of humor, the use of pathos, and making the debate an enjoyable experience. My points rarely go below 28 but you need to really impress me to get me into the 29-30 range. I am rarely impressed.

Absent arguments in the debate that convince me otherwise I have some default assumptions you should be aware of:

The aff should be topical and topicality is a voting issue. What it means to be topical is open for debate and for anyone who wants to build their strategy on framework you should know that I often vote aff in framework debates.

The affirmative must win a comparative advantage or an offensive reason to vote affirmative.

Presumption is negative absent a warranted reason for it to shift.

The affirmative does not need a net benefit to a permutation. The negative must win that a counterplan or critique alternative alone is better than the plan or a combination of the plan and counterplan/alternative.

Permutations are a test of competition and not an advocacy.

Teams are culpable for the ethical implications of their advocacy. This means that framework arguments on K's that say "only consequences matter" have an uphill climb with me. Means and ends are both relevant in my default assessment on critical arguments.

Paul Hayes George Washington University 1 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 17, 2014 at 11:20 PM GMT

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.

David Heidt University of Michigan 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:10 PM EDT

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

Avery Henry Wayne State University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 11, 2024 at 8:23 PM UTC

Debate Background: I am currently the Director of Forensics at Florida State University. My educational training is in rhetoric and my debate background is heavily influenced by policy debate. The past six years I have coached and judged BP, civic, IPDA, Lincoln-Douglass, NEDA (traditional and crossfire), NPDA, and policy debate. Prior to that, I competed, coached, and judged in policy debate. Participating in all of these formats has shaped my general views on debate.

My general view of debate:

I think that affirmatives should defend the resolution and that the negative should engage and refute the affirmatives. I am interested in arguments not argument types. I am thrilled to listen to good arguments, bring out your best research be it competing policy options, critiquing the form of debate, challenging the team's discourse, ideology, or methods, topicality, or theory. If you have me as your judge bring your best argument rather than try to adapt to what you think I might like.

Flowing info:

I flow debates with paper and pen. I only look at the speech doc during the round to clarify information for my flow or if something is being referenced in cross-ex. Additionally, I will not use the speech doc to fill in arguments that I could not clearly hear.

Things to know when debating in front of me (I'll update this as I figure out more):

Permutations need a full explanation. "Perm: Do Both" is not an argument. You do not get to say three words in one speech and then elaborate on it in a later speech. If you are trying to make a permutation then you need to develop your full argument and explain how the arguments are being done together and how they are not mutually exclusive in the speech.

I am open to form arguments on debate. For example, a negative team has 2 counterplans, 2 disads, and 2 kritiks that all contradict each other, the affirmative reads evidence about how speech acts must be viewed as a totality, conditionality does not exist, and argues that this means that judges cannot separate arguments. Then the negative can't simply say the arguments are conditional and kick out of the arguments that they want. To win the neg would have to win that speech acts are separable, conditionality does exist, and therefore they are kicking out of arguments.

James Herndon Emory University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 2:01 PM EDT

James H. Herndon - FORMER Director of Debate - Barkley Forum @ Emory University

[prefer to be called Herndon - pronouns are he/him/his. Email is jamesherndon3]

2020 update:

I left the game because I wanted to spend more time with my family. Wow, did I get that #ThanksCovid My relationship with debate was not conducive to being the father, husband, and member of my community I wanted to be. But, virtual judging is easy enough. So, why not.

What else is different - I don’t do debate research anymore, I do a lot of economic/financial research now, I do a lot of tech/zoom/Webex presentations.

In my experience I find it easier to listen/follow along when I can see people’s faces (that’s not possible for everyone, so it’s not a judgement thing) but if it can be when speaking it may aid my comprehension.

————————

everything from Jan 2019
If I am judging you and you are freaking out about it, believe there is no way I would ever vote for you, or are just generally making assumptions about my world view, then I ask you to keep in mind that the following list are things I think I think. I have been wrong more often than I have been right. I will do my best to evaluate the debate neutrally. I view myself as an adjudicator first, and do my best to neutrally evaluate the arguments as defended in front of me. I will vote for anything

Though, like all educators I have biases, those follow.

These statements are things I believe to be true about my judging. They aren't rules. But, it is better to disclose:

1. Debate is a game. I view all theory arguments through this lens.
2. If I don’t understand it at the end of the round then I am not going to vote on it.
3. The Aff should have to defend a plan or advocacy statement that they can defend is topical.
4. Topic related critical literature should be debated.
5. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
6. I will reward good cross-x with speaker points.
7.. I tend to evaluate the strength of the link in tandem with uniqueness – neither exists in a vacuum.
8. Counterplans always switch presumption to the aff.
9. I will NOT kick counterplans for the negative. The 2nr is allowed to present me with a reason to vote for them, that is where the debating ended. If the neg says to kick the cp and the aff doesn’t answer it I will kick it. Absent that, I am not kicking arguments for one team. This applies to all speeches.
10. Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applys to everything.
11. literature shapes the topic. and what you get to do with it.
14. Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of.
15. There is value to life.

16. I am not qualified to evaluate people in the round for or about things that happen outside of the round. Intentions are important & I give people the benefit of the doubt too often for my own good.

17. I feel like fiating the states + federal government might be a step too far. I haven't heard a great debate on this, but since this is for my biases, thought I'd include it. That being said, state fiat is probably okay if there are solvency cards for what you are doing.

18. limited condo is good. the neg's job is to disprove the aff or win a competitive policy option. That being said, if the aff can prove that conditionality was used in a way that undermined the value or competitive fairness of the debate, it is a voting issue.

19. topicality is under-utilized against policy teams and over-utilized vs K teams.

20. future fiat illegit.

Good luck.

Kevin Kallmyer Georgetown 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 23, 2016 at 8:41 PM UTC

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.

William Karlson Hire 5 rounds

Stratford/Harvard

Short version:

Defend a plan: If you don't read a (topical) plan, please don't pref me; neither of us will enjoy the experience. If you read, but don't meaningfully defend, a topical plan, you probably still shouldn't pref me, but it'll at least be a bit less painful.
Don't be mean: If you are mean, obnoxious and/or rude to the other team (or to me, although that actually bothers me less), your speaker points and credibility will suffer dramatically. I would feel fine giving under a 25 for egregious violators.
Be specific: As nearly all judges do, I appreciate specificity. However, other than the above issues, as long as your arguments aren't blatantly idiotic/generic (ex: A-spec, Should = Past of Shall), you probably don't need to worry very much about adapting to me, but please below for more details.

Detailed version:
Topicality: I find that well-developed topicality arguments can be interesting and persuasive, perhaps more so than other judges. I tend to evaluate these in terms of competing interpretations, but can be convinced to use an alternative framework if it is well explained. Generally my primary concern with 'reasonability' is that the Aff does a very poor job of explaining what effects that has upon how I should resolve the debate. However, my openness to more developed violations sort of cuts both ways, because it means that I will likely be less patient with blippy violations (a 20 second 'substantial' violation, should=past tense of shall, etc). Also, I usually find it impressive if either team can produce evidence describing the likely political effects of a particular interpretation of words in the resolution.

Other arguments about plan texts: These generally seem very silly to me. Assuming a plan is topical, I don't think it is possible for it to be 'abusive' in any other sense. Questions of specification/vagueness, plan flaws, etc should either be framed as T questions, solvency/evidenciary questions, or ignored. If a team's plan text is vague and you want to establish a link to a DA, you should A) ask them in CX and/or B) read evidence describing the likely effects of the plan. If an aff is unwilling to answer CX questions about their plan, I think that's fine, but they then forfeit the right to clarify later (except, of course, by reading evidence which I will then compare to Neg evidence). As a side-note, I do not think A-spec is a T question, and can't imagine finding it persuasive.

DAs: I think predictive uniqueness questions can never be established with certainty, and therefore prefer to first resolve the direction of the link. However, if told to do otherwise, I would be perfectly willing to ignore this. I think DAs should probably be intrinsic.

CPs: I err neg on all theory issues except those listed specifically below. That doesn't mean I am unwilling to reject a CP on PICs bad, only that my predisposition is not to do so. I also think theory is almost always a reason to reject the argument, but not the team (conditionality/dispositionality being an exception).
Consult: I generally think these are illegitimate and non-competitive, but if a Neg has very, very good solvency evidence about the plan, they will substantially improve their chances on both of these issues. Note that I have a very high threshold for what constitutes "very very good solvency evidence" in this context.
Conditions: This is similar to consult, except the literature is usually better, so I am more willing to vote for these.
Agent CPs: I am mostly thinking here of international/multiple actor fiat, but domestic agent CPs raise less extreme versions of the same theoretical questions. I generally think these are legitimate, but am not sure that they necessarily test the opportunity cost of a particular political actor. Therefore, although most of the reasons that these CPs are illegitimate make little sense to me, a well developed argument about their failure to test opportunity cost could definitely persuade me to reject them.
Normal means CPs: I don't think that these are competitive, unless the Aff makes stupid mistakes in CX. Reading cards about the way the plan would be implemented absent the CPs fiated action does not mean that a world where the permutation explicitly alters it would look the same.

Kritiks: Here are the issues you should be aware of:
1) Framework: I begin with the assumption that the role of the ballot is to choose among simulated policy options. Therefore, the plan is the affirmative's normative statement of what should be changed, and the rest of the 1AC is a series of positive truth claims describing a world in which that occurs. I tend to think that evidence describing the relationship between representations and reality, etc is smart, but inapplicable to debate, because it is a game of sophistry with no necessary correspondence between what a speaker says and what they believe. I also find that the frequent "compromise" (we get our aff and they get their reps K) is logically incoherent as a framework , but am willing to use it if told to do so by the debaters.

2) Alternative: My primary concern here is that these are often so poorly explained (how they function, how they relate to the role of the ballot, etc) that I find them difficult to vote for. You should spend pre-round (and in-round) prep thinking about how to best articulate your alt and how it interacts with your links, their perm(s), and their advantage(s). It's not as much that I think vagueness is a 'theory issue' as much as that I am uncomfortable endorsing a political strategy that is extremely nebulous.

3) Literature: I know significantly more about some authors (ex: Foucault, Cap, Nietzsche, some queer theory, some CRT stuff, most IR K's, Heidegger, Schmitt) than others (ex: Baudrillard, Deleuze, Badiou, Butler) so that will inevitably affect my ability to resolve some of those debates. Note that I also think Lacan, Chaloupka, most of Zizek's work, and all the other psychoanalysis stuff is basically garbage. Also, I find specific literature dramatically more interesting, persuasive and educational than generic evidence.

John Katsulas Boston College 4 rounds

John Katsulas, Director of Debate, Boston College
30 years coaching

Here are the rules for debate:
1) The affirmative side must advocate a plan of action by the United States Federal Government. If you merely read poetry, dance, or play music, you will lose.
2) The negative side must defend a consistent policy position in the debate. The negative may choose to defend the status quo, or the negative may advocate an unconditional counterplan.
3) Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.
4) Conditionality is prohibited.
5) The resolution is worded as a policy proposition, which means that policy making is the focus of debate.
6) Kritiques are not welcome.
7) Performance-style debate belongs in theatre productions.
.
Here are suggestions for debating in front of me:
1) The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical.
2) Agent counterplans are fine. Don’t waste your time arguing PICS bad arguments against them. The legitimacy of international fiat is debatable, but I definitely believe there are far stronger arguments favoring limiting fiat to U.S. governmental actors.
3) Politics disadvantages are welcome. I like to hear them. Affirmatives should attack the internal link stories on many of these disadvantages. This is frequently a more viable strategy than just going for impact turns.
4) Both sides should argue solvency against affirmative plans and negative counterplans. Both sides should attack the links and internal links of impacts.
5) If you are incomprehensible, I won’t re-read all of your evidence after the debate to figure out your arguments.
6) Negative can win my ballot on zero risk of affirmative case solvency. Many affirmatives cases are so tragically flawed that they can be beaten by an effective cross-examination and/or analytical case presses.
7) I am very strict on 1ARs making new answers to fully developed disadvantages which don’t change from the 1NC.
8) Cross-examination answers are binding.
9) ASPEC: I won’t vote on it UNLESS you ask in cross-ex and they refuse to specify an agent.
10) Too late to add new links and impacts to your disadvantages during the first negative rebuttal.

I have a low threshold for dismissing non-real world arguments like nuclear war good and wipe-out.

Sean Kennedy University of Kansas 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:26 AM PDT

Sean Kennedy - Debated at: University of Kansas

Director of Debate at USC

In general I would prefer to judge based upon the perspective presented by the debaters in the debate. Framing issues are very important to me, and I think debaters should make it clear what they believe those issues are through tone, organization, or explicit labeling (ie "this is a framing issue for the debate" or some similar phrase). Embedded clash is fine, but I think that concept carries some limitations - there is only so far that I am willing to stretch my reading of a (negative/affirmative) argument on X page/part of the flow, that does not reference Y (affirmative/negative) argument on another page/part of the flow. Some of my more difficult decisions have revolved around this point, so to avoid any ambiguity debaters should be explicit about how they want arguments to be read within the debate, especially if they intend a particular argument to be direct refutation to a specific opponent argument.

Beyond that I will try to keep as open a mind about arguments as possible - I have enjoyed initiating and responding to a diverse set of arguments during my time as a debater, and I have had both good and bad experiences everywhere across the spectrum, so I think as a judge I am unlikely to decide debates based on my personal feelings about content/style of argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance.

As a caveat to that - I do think that the affirmative has an obligation to respond to the resolution, though I think whether that means/requires a plan, no plan, resolution as a metaphor, etc is up for debate. However, I am generally, although certainly not always, persuaded by arguments that the affirmative should have a plan.

I am also willing to believe that there is zero risk or close enough to zero risk of link/impact arguments to vote on defense, should the debate appear to resolve the issue that strongly.

Whether or not I kick a counterplan/alt for the 2nr (what some people call "judge conditionality" or "judge kick") depends on what happens in the debate. I will always favor an explicit argument made by either team on that score over some presumption on my part. I have similar feelings about presumption when there is a counterplan/alt. The reason for this is that although there may be logical reasons for kicking advocacies or evaluating presumption in a certain light, I think that debate as a pedagogical activity is best when it forces debaters to make their choices explicit, rather than forcing the judge to read into a choice that was NOT made or requiring that both teams and the judge have an unspoken agreement about what the logical terms for the debate were (this is probably more obvious and necessary in some cases, ie not being able to answer your own arguments, than I think it is in the case of advocacies).

Please be kind to your competitors and treat their arguments with respect - you don't know where they come from or what their arguments mean to them, and I think this community can only work if we value basic decency towards others as much as much as we do argumentative prowess. In that vein, jokes are good, but I'm certainly much less amused by personal attacks and derision than I am by dry humor or cheekiness.

Justin Kirk University of Kansas 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:09 AM CDT

Justin Kirk - Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

General philosophy – Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.

I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.

Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.

Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speech drop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.

Paperless Debate – You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. The easiest way to resolve this is through speech drop. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.

Topicality – Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis-à-vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.

Kritiks – Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.

Counterplans – Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.

Disads – Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.

Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.

Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate – no more, no less.

Disclosure (12/2/23 update) - I lifted this from Parker Hopkins at his blessing who borrowed from Chris Roberds.

TLDR - disclosure is an essential element to small-school competitiveness, the educational functions of the activity, and should be practiced by all teams.

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

(Justin's final thought on disclosure) - JV and Novice divisions need disclosure the most. There is a reason that CARD and ADA Novice divisions use a packet. There is a reason that the Nothern Tier used a packet when it was still a thing. Disclosure on the wiki serves a similar if not a congruent function for the community. Give those coaches some time to prepare their young debaters to engage their opponents and have a productive debate!

John Koch Wayne State University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 24, 2022 at 9:14 AM CDT

Name: John P. Koch

Institutional Affiliation: Vanderbilt University

Experience: 15 years (Currently, Director of Debate at Vanderbilt University. Formerly, 1 year as Interim Director of Forensics at the University of Puget Sound, 6 years as a Graduate Teaching Assistant at Wayne State University, and 1 year as Assistant Debate Coach at Capital University)

Please put me on e-mail chains: johnpkoch@gmail.com

Preface; or TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. If you want to know about me, I was a four-year CEDA/NDT debater for Capital University. I was primarily a policy debater. I read topical plans and went for politics. However, debate has changed since then, and I do my best to try to keep up with it, because the activity is now yours. I enjoy policy debates. I enjoy critical debates. I enjoy the testing and clashing of ideas. In general, my reading list runs the range from political science to critical theory. I cut politics cards and I cut critical arguments. This is not to say I will be familiar with your authors, but to say that if you have something to add to the discussion, an advocacy that will point us towards something better, whether it is a policy change or a wholesale change in civil society, then I look forward to sharing the debate space with you.

Debate Specifics:

1.) For the record, a good argument consists of a warrant, data, claim, and impact/implication. If an argument you go for at the end of the debate is missing one of those components, you are unlikely to win the round on said argument.

2.) I am by my nature a pragmatist. I say this in the philosophical sense (John Dewey, Richard Rorty, Cornel West), not in the every day political usage of the term. For debate, this means that I am open to and see positives in the productive tension created by different forms of advocacy. The point of debate is to contest policies, aims, methodologies, and practices, so as to point us towards new and better experiences. This is all a long-winded way of saying defend something. In short, I do not require that you have a traditional policy proposal, but I do require that you have an advocacy. However, while I do not require a policy plan, I will vote on framework if the argument is won, so be prepared to defend your choices.

3.) I often think of debates on the macro-level before I dig into the micro of the flow. This means that debaters who advance a coherent thesis throughout the debate and control the framing of the nexus question(s) are most likely to win my ballot. If you want to give yourself the best possibility of me evaluating an argument that you think is central to the debate in your favor, then you need to make it the focal point of the debate, connect it to your larger thesis, and impact how I should evaluate it in terms of resolving the nexus questions.

4.) I will work hard to put as much work into judging as you do preparing your arguments. However, the easier you make it for me to understand why you should win, the happier you will be with my decision. In other words, make the connections for me. Do not expect me to make the important connections for you.

5.) The arguments advanced in the debate are what establish “truth.” Each side having ground and creating clash are essential to test ideas and arrive at a decision about the best course of action. It is your job as a debater to advance a thesis and resolve the nexus questions of the debate in your favor. It is also your job to explain how I should evaluate the relative strength of evidence and arguments. Even/if statements are the hallmark of a successful debater. These are the essential tasks of rebuttal speeches and if you do this all correctly, then you will put yourself in the best position to win the debate.

6.) I am not the best flow when it comes to fast theory debates. In truth though, I think I am just more honest in admitting that contemporary theory debates happen at too fast of a pace for me to keep up. If there are judges who can really keep up with them, then my hat off to them. For me, you will need to slow down and make it clear what issues matter in order for me to resolve the theory violation. This is also true of framework debates.

7.) In relation to the above, I am not against speed. However, speed for the sake of speed is resulting in lack of clarity. You need to be narrowing your arguments, flagging the important ones, and explaining how they resolve the nexus questions of the debate. The earlier you start identifying the nexus questions and answering them in the debate, the better chance you have of persuading me. In short, your final speeches need to be writing the ballot for me. Otherwise, you leave it up to me to write the ballot. Trust me, you would rather write it.

8.) There are some rules of debate. I will enforce those relating to prep time, speech order, and speech time. Other rules, such as card clipping, are up to the debaters to point out and tell me how to enforce. You are all adults. I am not going to police civility, respectability, or cheating. If you think something that your opponents do in the debate space warrants them losing, then make an argument.

9.) I view framework debates as a question of whose method best allows us to access the educational benefits of debate. Whoever wins the better internal links into resolving this question (access, fairness, clash, testing, etc.) will win my ballot. If your strategy is to pretend that there are normative rules that I have to enforce, then you will most likely lose the round.

Postscript:

The rest is for you to write within the round. Questions, e-mail me at johnpkoch@gmail.com or ask at a tournament.

Joe Koehle Kansas State 2 rounds

Mike Krueger Kansas City Kansas CC 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM CDT

Experience: I’ve judged 10+ years of college debate. I have a Bachelor’s Degree in speech, a Master’s Degree in communication studies (rhetoric), and a Juris Doctor degree.

Judging Philosophy: You debate. I vote. I don’t have a preference for policy, performance or critical arguments. This philosophy applies to CEDA/NDT policy debate; if I am judging you in another format, I will of course adapt to the format, but the predispositions remain the same.

E-mail address: mahkrueger@gmail.com (please e-mail or flash speech docs).

Questions you might have (I enjoy judging Open, Junior Varsity, and Novice debates. This goes for debaters in all divisions—some of this is obvious to more experienced debaters but could be quite helpful to less experienced debaters):

Do affirmatives have to have a plan? It’s debatable.

Are counterplans and kritiks conditional? Yes, but link turns on kritiks don’t just disappear if the aff can solve for the implications for the kritiks. Example: Cap K that aff solves for doesn’t just go away because you want it to; the implications for the K become an advantage for the aff. The alt will go away (i.e. if there is a disad to the alt, it can go away even without a permutation and the neg can go for a cp or the squo instead). I don’t mind the negative defending multiple, conditional worlds, and most arguments about forcing the affirmative into contradicting itself are just untrue.

Will you vote on framework? Yes.

Will you vote on topicality? Sure. Keep reading.

Do you like kritiks? Yes.

Do you like cheap shots? Not especially. I try to avoid voting on them.

What should I be scared of? I don’t care who I vote for or what I vote for. I am not a “policy” judge. I am not a “kritik” judge. I am not a “performance” judge. I am not a hack for any particular perspective. I believe that argument can take many forms, and I believe that both implications and assumptions are subjects for discussion. Each debate is a unique event. I am not going to claim to be tabula rasa because that’s nonsense to me. I just believe that debaters should argue what they want to argue, and I will do my best to respect the choices and then make a decision based on what happened in the round. I try to bracket off my predispositions or tell you them ahead of time.

What about points? Point inflation is basically out of control. From looking at the cumes from the 2013 CEDA nationals, it seems an average debater is 28.5. If that’s the community norm, fair enough, I’ll use it. That said, not every debater is average or better every round, so don’t get in a twist if you get below a 28.5. Remember, it’s an AVERAGE, which means there are people above and below, and it can vary from debate to debate. That’s probably one reason for point inflation/creep. We don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings, so no one is below average in a given round.

What do you like and dislike?

· I like case debates (I don’t like when teams just concede case impacts, unless there is a good counterplan that solves as well or near as well as plan).

· I like counterplans (see above). Yes, I’ll listen to delay, veto cheat-o. Yes, I will listen to why those are not legitimate (i.e. PICs bad). Exclusion CPs aren’t really PICs, so don’t read PIC theory when it’s not really a PIC. Delay is a PIC, veto cheat-o is pretty much a PIC. Have distinct theory re: exclusion counterplans (e.g. all of plan but X, with a disad to doing the X part of plan).

· I like kritiks. I like reification/replication arguments re: impacts. I like good explanations of links, and I especially enjoy it when teams will point to evidence of the other team and explain the links vis-à-vis that evidence.

· I like disads. I like good scenarios/internal links.

· I like negative teams that have two or three possible 2NRs mapped out before the debate starts, but can adapt as necessary.

· I like good link stories. If I don’t get it, I don’t think that’s necessarily my fault.

· I like explanations of internal warrants.

· I like comparisons of evidence and analyzing the opponent’s arguments and evidence.

· I like teams to be topical, but I have a pretty high threshold for voting on T. Win a disad to the aff interp. If you go for T, just go for T in the 2NR (or T/framework of course in certain debates). PS--for any theory debate, please please please don't go a million miles an hour and blip out claims without warrants. Slow down through theory debates to make sure I get everything.

· I like a good, clean framework debate if there is a clash of civilizations.

· I like cross x that’s useful. Don't waste it.

· I like teams that can be understood. If I yell clear, I mean it. Don’t talk into your laptop. Speak loudly enough to be heard.

· I like smart analytical arguments. They can be devastating.

· I like lots of offense in the 1AR.

· I like teams that make gutsy choices.

· I like teams that make choices in general. Often it makes strategic sense to kick arguments in the middle of the debate.

· I like The Vandals, Bad Religion, and Social Distortion.

· I don’t take a stance on spark, wipeout, de-development, etc. I will vote on impact turns. They have to be done correctly.

· I don’t like doing work for teams. I often default to voting for the team that I feel like I do less work for to reconcile everything in the debate.

· I don’t like mean and/or rude debaters. Doesn’t implicate decisions, but hurts points. If you’re debating a less experienced team and you’re kind and helpful, I will recognize that and reward points. There is something to be said for cooperative debate. This isn’t warfare; it’s an intellectual exercise. Treat it so.

· I really don’t like condescending debaters. See above.

· I don’t like teams that ad hom opponent’s arguments. Tell me why the arguments are dumb; don’t just call them dumb. In other words, make an argument. Yes, Kanan. I am talking to you.

· I don’t like teams just stacking up extinction scenarios. There is more work to do than just stacking them up and claiming a risk.

· I don’t like teams that refuse to concede stuff when they’re wrong/losing an argument. Sometimes concessions are a good thing.

· I don’t like 2NRs that refuse to make a decision and go for everything.

· I don’t like teams/debaters that steal prep time. I don’t take prep for flashing docs, but that means debaters/teams should not be prepping while that’s going on.

· I don’t like shady debaters. Don’t clip cards. Mark cards if you don’t read everything underlined/highlighted. Reframing the debate in the 2NR isn’t shady since the 2AR has the chance to respond. Reframing the debate in the 2AR is shady if it’s not predictable.

· I don’t like tagline debate. Extend more than a tag. Give me a warrant.

· I don’t like excessively underlined cards. I would prefer fewer, longer cards with more warrants than a bunch of excessively underlined cards.

· I don’t like “condo bad.” I am the anti-Katsoulas.

· I don’t like teams telling me an argument is dropped. Instead, tell me the argument is “conceded,” because it’s rhetorically stronger. And, tell me the implication for the conceded argument and how it functions within the rest of the debate.

· I am not especially tied to the hyper line-by-line. I try to focus more on the big picture. That doesn’t mean I ignore subtleties and nuances. What it does mean is that I look at materiality of arguments and the intersections of arguments.

· I don’t like teams where one of the partners completely dominates the other partner.

· I don’t like coaches that blow me up when they haven’t been in the round listening to what goes down. If I make a mistake, I am more than happy to admit that I made a mistake and to have a conversation about the decision. This is not only a competitive activity; it’s also a pedagogical activity. Debaters make choices, debaters communicate. Sometimes they don’t do those things as well as they should or as they perceive they do. We can talk about those things.

Final words for the 2NR/2AR: I will listen and do my best to evaluate the debate. Don’t trust me to do work. For example, do the sequencing work for me, do the risk analysis for me, and do the evidence and argument comparisons for me. Why do systemic impacts come before “flashpoint” arguments? Why do “flashpoint” impacts come before systemic arguments? Consider what you might have lost in the debate round and tell me why that doesn’t matter and you still win. DO WORK. Don’t argue enthymematically.

Be specific and explicit about the conclusions and assumptions.

Paul Leader University of Central Florida 4 rounds None

Joe Leeson-Schatz Binghamton University 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 10:26 AM EDT

Updated for 2014-2015 debate season.

I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. However, I still strongly believe that if you care about the environment, racism, or injustice that you should register at tournaments vegetarian or vegan. Tournaments will provide for your nutiritional needs and you will have abstained from using your registration fees paying for the slaughter of sentient creatures whose death requires abhorent working conditions for people of color, massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the death of individuals.

What people decide to consume is a political act, not a personal one. Deciding to consume flesh at debate tournaments continues the pattern of accepting violence and discrimination. This happens for workers, for people living in food deserts, people living in countries across the world, and for the non/human animals sent to slaughter. Tournaments are not food deserts. Your choice to consume differently can make a tangible impact on debate as a community and beyond. Your choice has global and local ramifications. I urge you to make the correct choice in registering your dietary choice even if it has no impact on your speaker points. Several people said that they didn't want to be coerced into making the decision to go vegetarian or vegan at tournaments for speaker points. Now is your chance to make that choice without the impact of speaker points.

All that being said, how you choose to debate is a political choice as well. You can debate however you like but you should realize that the methodology and the content you put forth are not neutral choices. Whatever choices you make you should be ready to defend them in round. “As Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen emphasize in Channels of Desire: The politics of consumption must be understood as something more than what to buy, or even what to boycott. Consumption is a social relationship, the dominant relation-ship in our society – one that makes it harder and harder for people to hold together, to create community. At a time when for many of us the possibility of meaningful change seems to elude our grasp, it is a question of immense social and political proportions.” (hooks 376).

If it is not already clear, I will say it outright: I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. This does not mean I won't vote on framework or counterplans. What it does mean is that the arguments that I will find most appealing are those arguments that speak to how traditional approaches to debate are beneficial to us as individuals to create a better world. It is not that fairness is irrelevant, but that fairness is relevant only to that extent. Fairness plays a part in constructing meaninful education and activism but is not the sole standard to enable good debate. Concepts of fairness are not value-neutral but it is a debate that can be defend and won in front of me since I do not think fairness is irrelevant either. For teams breaking down such structures, you still must win the debate that your approach to debate is better for advacing causes of social justice. If you like policymaking and are running counterplans you merely need to win that your counterplan is a better approach. The same applies for theory violations. I will vote on them if you win that the impact to the violation is important enough for me to pull the trigger. The same is also true for kritiks and other styles of debate. Win that your approach and your argument deserves to win because of the impact that it has.

Again, to be clear, this does not mean that I intend to abandon the flow or vote based upon my personal beliefs. My belief is that debate is more than a game and that the things we say and do in it are not neutral-choices. This does not necessarily mean that so-called traditional policy debate is bad but that the way it should be approached by those teams should not be assumed to be neutral.

Whether it is what you eat, or what you debate, your choice is political. Our world can change. It is up to all of us to make it happen. Movements are already happening all around us. Don't let the norms dictate what you debate or what you consume. Debate should be at the forefront of these initiatives. Use the education you gain in debate to say something and to do something meaningful both in round and beyond.

Geoff Lundeen Gonzaga 4 rounds

Mikaela Malsin University of Georgia 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:28 AM EDT

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either. In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate.

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree) I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of basic communication.

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently.

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive. I think that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact.

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame).

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial.

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny)

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Brian Manuel Stanford University 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:08 PM EDT

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

(High School Constraints - Edgemont)

(College Constraints - Kentucky)

Email Chain: brian.manuel@uky.edu

2020-2021 Update: Christmas Edition

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

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

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

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

2020-2021 PF Update: December 21, 2020

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2016-2017 Season Update: September 11, 2016

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following are not for the faint of heart!

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

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

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

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

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

And you thought you had a sick blog!!

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

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

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

2012-2013 Season Update: August 22, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Newly Updated Philosophy - November 18, 2011

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

Past Updated Philosophy - September 9, 2010

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

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

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

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

Jackie Massey Oklahoma 8 rounds

Ben Meiches Minnesota 7 rounds

In general, two beliefs characterize my judging. First, I like good debate. This means whether you like traditional policy arguments, critical debate or something else I don't particularly care as long as you explain, execute, and make intelligent arguments. Now, this might sound vacuous, but really its a gesture towards many different approaches having merits or strengths and a sign that I don't have strong preferences in terms of what type of arguments you are making. You can read anything in front of me as long as as you have a clearly articulated claim, warrant, and impact. Second, your enjoyment as a debater should be prioritized in the round. Tangibly this means that you should make whatever arguments you think will win you the debate/whatever you are best at/whatever you enjoy arguing and do that. I think people should treat each other with respect. Humor is good, but humor at other people's expense can be unpleasant. It has come to my attention that my speaker points are out of touch with community averages and/or standards. My desire is not to punish teams that pref me or to have points jeopardize someone's opportunities for competitive success. To that end, I am going to amend my speaker points to approximate community averages. While I won't precisely determine what this change means say a 28 becomes a 28.3 or a 27.5 becomes a 27.9, I will, on average, be raising my points. I think evidence is important and that qualified evidence should be prioritized although what constitutes qualified evidence is certainly up to debate. Finally, I have standards for what qualifies as an argument this means both a coherent claim and warrant that is clearly expressed. If you expect me to vote on something that was vastly underdeveloped or quickly incoherent, cheap shots whatever then don’t pref me.

A few specifics:

I think in general that the affirmative should defend a topical plan and defend that plan throughout the entire round. Although if a team advances a different framework or method for thinking about the debate and wins that interpretation is better than what I articulate above they'll likely win. Specific impact work on all sides/theoretical questions is key so tailor your arguments.

I tend to value specific uniqueness arguments when adjudicating disads and believe it controls the general direction of the link. I also appreciate contextual as opposed to general impact calculus: probably, magnitude, and timeframe don't really mean much in the majority of rounds I hear them. I think it's possible to win zero risk of a disad.

I am negative biased on the majority of counterplan/alternative questions. I have a high threshold for voting on conditionality or dispositionality and would prefer substantive debates to resolving these issues. That said, I am willing to vote on conditionality/dispo bad, pics bad, consult bad, etc. as long as you are winning these arguments, clearly, this dependence on the context and the degree of specific impact work. Theory debates that develop late are is an uphill battle in front of me. I am largely on the textual comp side of the functional/textual competition debate. In terms of assessment I think about this, as with almost all issues, in an offense/defense paradigm. As with all arguments you can persuade me to adjudicate these issues differently as long as there is a coherent explanation of an alternative approach warranted both in terms of the impacts in the round and on the general status of debate itself.

I am familiar with a lot of the literature used in critique debate. This does not mean that I will automatically appreciate your particular insights into biopolitics, capitalism, being, nothingness, or any of the other concepts that are thrown around in these debates. Instead, as a general rule I think if you are going to talk about these things you should have some idea what you are talking about, be able to articulate it intelligibly, and not expect much lenience or work on the part of your critic to fill the holes in what you say.. I think critiques must be impacted in terms of the affirmative, I think narrow and specific alternatives are the best. If the criticism calls into question a world-view or approach that’s fine just make sure to articulate and impact this in terms of my ballot and how these things shift the way I should view the round. Affs should remember to use their affirmative in these and all debates. Context is better than abstraction.

I flow speeches and CX that won't change under any circumstances. I am highly distractible and so 'connection moments' are important both for speaker points and in general. I value strategies and tactics that reveal critical thinking and feel like the execution on generics, while highly perfectible, isn't as important as real creativity.

Nicholas Miller Emory University 3 rounds

Things I think:

1. Debate is a public speaking and communication activity. Good debaters engage the judge, speak clearly, and are able to explain their arguments and be funny despite time pressure. Debaters who look up from their flow while speaking will benefit from being able to see my reactions to arguments. Debaters who are clear will benefit from my ability to understand or flow the warrants of their cards. If I don't understand it/get it/know why it matters, I won't vote on it. I should know an argument is important from the way you extend it, both in terms of content and style.

2. Qualified evidence is very important, but only reaches its maximum value if it is unpacked and explained. Evidence or arguments that are comprehensible or well explained during the course of the debate are almost always preferable to evidence that I have to read after the round to understand, even if the latter evidence is "better". Well explained analytic arguments can slay bad advantages, disads, alternatives, and counterplans. To wit: I will privilege explanation in debates over reading I have to do after them.

3. I fucking love Cross-X. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your Cross-x well (eg, if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are used in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase.

4. I like smart debates about the case. Case offense, case defense, the case and a disad, a counterplan the interacts with the substance of the 1AC, a K that is deployed in a case specific matter--those debates are awesome to watch. Process counterplans designed to avoid clash with the majority of the 1AC, generic Ks, and debaters who think impact defense constitutes case debate make me sad.

5. Topicality: T is a voter, but if the aff has a good interpretation, the fact that the negative’s interpretation is slightly better isn’t really a persuasive reason to vote neg.

6. I think the idea that I can kick the CP or Alt for a team is kinda silly. Defending something is your job. Make choices yourself.

7. Don't be a dick to your opponents or your partner.

--

Please ask me about Emory KT - Klimchack and Tankersley - of late 1970's fame. They were the two greatest and most revolutionary debaters of all time.

Leah Moczulski Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 5:14 AM EDT

GSU 2019 UPDATE:

I'm walking into this tournament pretty cold on topic knowledge (read: I had Eric Lanning tell me what the topic was over the phone one time - so who knows if he even got it right) so please govern yourself accordingly. Everything below about how I judge or how I've judged in the past, I would suspect, still applies.

xoxo Leah

*************************************

Background:

Debated at Gonzaga University 2007-2012, Assistant Coach at Wake Forest 2012-2014, Assistant Coach at Harvard 2014-2015, Assistant Coach for Gonzaga 2015-2017, Assistant Coach Kentucky 2018-Present. I'm a commercial disputes attorney in Atlanta.

Meta-Level:

1. I’m not as involved in deep topic research as I have been on past topics. Be careful with jargon. Please define an acronym before you use it for the rest of the debate. I may not be up on the hip abbreviations for all things emissions. Please don’t assume that I am. It makes the debate even harder for me to judge and I could end up making a silly error because of a gap in understanding. You have to do some of the work here.

2. I flow on paper. This is to make sure that I’m giving you my full attention. I understand the debate better this way. However, it comes with some drawbacks. I need more pen time, especially on case and theory arguments. I am not writing down everything you say verbatim. If you have an important point, emphasize it.

3. I also flow cross-x. You should make sure that cross-x translates into arguments used in your speech. I tend to reward debaters with good speaker points for using cross-x wisely.

4. I do not have a poker face. You should use that to your advantage. I am very expressive. I do yell things like clear if I can’t understand you. Try to be clear before we get to that point.

5. I only read the evidence that I think is absolutely essential to my decision. Do with this what you will.

6. I reward hard work and smart thinking.

Case Debate:

1. I think overall, affs have gotten very cavalier about how they debate the case. I think affs should be wary of too much embedded clash in the 2AC and 1AR at the expense of answering the nuances in the neg arguments. If the neg invests a lot of block time with good developed case arguments the aff should be equally technical in the 1AR defending the case.

2. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

Topicality:

1. I’m very techy when it comes to judging T debates. If your argument is more “truth” then “tech” you better have very good evidence to back up that your interpretation is correct. Otherwise, make sure you are hedging your bets by taking the negative up on the standards.

2. Again, I am not incredibly familiar with the emissions literature so I’m not sure (as of Georgia State) if I have any predisposed idea of what “reasonable” or “heart of the topic” affs are. This is really up for debate, at least early in the season.

Disads:

1. I always think the neg can use more impact calculus when they are going for DAs.

2. I will vote on low risk of DA high risk of aff. I think having offense is a better path to victory for the aff but if the negs DA has a number of logical leaps if the aff explains those well I will vote on it.

Critical Arguments:

1. I’ll be the first to admit that critical arguments are not my area of expertise just because I have less experience judging these debates. I will do my best and try my hardest to judge whatever debate is in front of me. I stole this from Adrienne Brovero but I think this is really helpful “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.” With that being said, you do you. If you’re neg and your argument has a link and an impact – I’m game. If you’re aff and your argument has an impact and you can articulate why winning the debate is enough to “solve” your impact – I’m game.

2. My academic background is in the following: political science, history, feminism and gender scholarship, and rhetorical theory. I’m also a law student. I do find myself presuming that the law is good at achieving positive outcomes. That is a presumption that can be rebutted.

3. My default assumption is that the role of ballot is to vote for who does the better debating. If you say the role of the ballot is something else, be clear about it and prove that you meet that role of the ballot.

Counterplans:

1. I generally think the neg gets to be conditional. You can try to persuade me otherwise. It is an uphill battle.

2. I will vote on other counterplan theory though based around the mechanism or the type of fiat that the CP uses.

3. I think advantage counterplans are under-utilized. Affs put a premium on being able to solve big impacts but often the internal links are very weak. You can either make this a case argument or counterplan out of it.

Have fun!

Eric Morris Missouri State University 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:37 AM CDT

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State – 29th Year Judging

++++ NDT Version ++++ (Updated 10-22-2019)

(NFALD version: https://forensicstournament.net/MissouriMule/18/judgephil)

Add me to the email - my Gmail is ermocito

I flow CX because it is binding. I stopped recording rounds but would appreciate a recording if clipping was accused.

Be nice to others, whether or not they deserve it.

I prefer line by line debate. People who extend a DA by by grouping the links, impacts, UQ sometimes miss arguments and get lower points. Use opponent's words to signpost.

Assuming aff defends a plan:

Strong presumption T is a voting issue. Aff should win you meet neg's interp or a better one. Neg should say your arguments make the aff interp unreasonable. Topic wording or lit base might or might not justify extra or effects T, particularly with a detailed plan advocate.

High threshold for anything except T/condo as voting issues*. More willing than some to reject the CP, K alts, or even DA links on theory. Theory is better when narrowly tailored to what happened in a specific debate. I have voted every possible way on condo/dispo, but 3x Condo feels reasonable. Under dispo, would conceding "no link" make more sense than conceding "perm do both" to prove a CP did not compete?

Zero link, zero internal link, and zero solvency are possible. Zero impact is rare.

Large-scale terminal impacts are presumed comparable in magnitude unless you prove otherwise. Lower scale impacts also matter, particularly as net benefits.

Evidence is important, but not always essential to initiate an argument. Respect high-quality opponent evidence when making strategic decisions.

If the plan/CP is vague, the opponent gets more input into interpreting it. CX answers, topic definitions, and the literature base helps interpret vague plans, advocacy statements, etc. If you advocate something different from your cards, clarity up front is recommended.

I am open to explicit interps of normal means (who votes for and against plan and how it goes down), even if they differ from community norms, provided they give both teams a chance to win.

Kritiks are similar to DA/CP strategies but if the aff drops some of the "greatest hits" they are in bad shape. Affs should consider what offense they have inside the neg's framework interp in case neg wins their interp. K impacts, aff or neg, can outweigh or tiebreak.

Assuming aff doesn't defend a plan:

Many planless debates incentivize exploring important literature bases, but afer decades, we should be farther along creating a paradigm that can account for most debates. Eager to hear your contributions to that! Here is a good example of detailed counter-interps (models of debate). http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,2345.0.html

Impact turns are presumed relevant to kritikal args. "Not my pomo" is weak until I hear a warranted distinction. I prefer the negative to attempt direct engagement (even if they end up going for T). It can be easier to win the ballot this way if the aff overcovers T. Affs which dodge case specific offense are particularly vulnerable on T (or other theory arguments).

Topicality is always a decent option for the neg. I would be open to having the negative go for either resolution good (topicality) or resolution bad (we negate it). Topicality arguments not framed in USFG/framework may avoid some aff offense.

In framework rounds, the aff usually wins offense but impact comparison should account for mitigators like TVA's and creative counter-interps. An explicit counter-interp (or model of debate) which greatly mitigates the limits DA is recommended - see example below. Accounting for topic words is helpful. TVA's are like CP's because they mitigate whether topics are really precluded by the T interp.

If I were asked to design a format to facilitate K/performance debate, I would be surprised. After that wore off, I would propose a season-long list of concepts with deep literature bases and expect the aff to tie most into an explicit 1AC thesis. Such an approach could be done outside of CEDA if publicized.

This was too short?

* Some ethical issues, like fabrication, are voting issues, regardless of line by line.

William Mosley-Jensen University of Georgia 2 rounds

Judge Philosophy – Will Mosley-Jensen

Edited 9-19-12

***Short***

1. Win an impact. (If you can’t do that, join the band)

2. Compare that to the impact you think they win.

3. Compare evidence in steps 1 & 2.

4. If you are fast repeat steps 1-3. If not focus your efforts on steps 1-2 with a sprinkling of step 3.

5. Have Fun! Clarity, Humor, and Civility all help your speaker points.

6. Specificity > Generality

***Long***

General Comments

When making a decision there are three factors that precede other considerations first, the status of direct counter-arguments, has an argument been dropped; second, the quality of evidence supporting an argument, is the evidence superior, average or inconclusive; and third, the correspondence of an argument to reality (or the relative “truth” of an argument).

It is important to note that none of these factors is fixed prior to any given debate, but rather that the debate itself determines them. I should also hope that it is clear that my ordering of these factors represents merely my fallback position if there is no re-ordering argued for in a debate. Some of the factors, such as evidence quality could, and should, be a part of the ways that debaters compare their arguments and establish the relative priority of their argument. If this is not done in a debate, then I will evaluate the debate utilizing the order that I have established.

Specificity is important in all debates. If you say that your disadvantage “turns the case” because Romney will destroy hegemony, then it is probably important to compare this warrant to the affirmative warrant for why they solve for US credibility abroad. The best debates are a comparison of warrants; the worst debates a battle of claims, with most debates falling somewhere in the middle.

Specifics

Topicality debates-

Against Non-traditional (not topical and proud of it) teams

I find that I have a very strong bias that affirmatives should be topical. Most of the reasons that teams advance for why they do not need to fulfill this most central of affirmative burdens pre-suppose several problematic propositions. First, that there is some value that is external to the debate community that can be gained from not affirming the topic. Second, that participation in debate trades-off with other types of activism, rather than occupying a supplementary role. Third, that the value of debate is not intrinsically tied to the identification of a common topic of discussion. Finally and most heinously, that debate is sustainable without the minimum of fairness that is provided by having a shared topic. These assumptions seem to me to be easily answered by a team that is properly prepared.

Against traditional (ostensibly topical) teams

A well-executed topicality argument is one of the most enjoyable debates to judge or watch in my opinion. If it is thoroughly researched and considered by the negative, topicality can represent a strategic tool in a wide variety of debates.

That said, I think that the negative needs to clearly articulate the method of evaluating topicality, and avoid statements in other parts of the debate that question the assumption of the competing interpretations framework. It is not unusual to hear a negative argue that “hard debate is good debate” on conditionality and then extend a topicality argument that is based on some trivial loss of ground. Affirmative teams should capitalize on such inconsistencies when arguing that their interpretation does not make debate impossible but improves it by creating strategic bottlenecks for the negative.

Framework debates-

I find that these debates usually come down to what the role of the critic should be. Namely, should the role of the critic be that of an impartial observer that evaluates the relative advantages and disadvantages of government action versus the status quo or a competitive policy option or should the role of the critic be something else? I can be persuaded that this role includes things not traditionally associated with the assumption that I am an impartial observer, but it helps if you provide some specific articulation of the benefits of deviating from the accepted norm. I enjoy policy debates and am sympathetic to a well-argued defense of the educational and fairness benefits of this approach. I will say that most of the time if the affirmative defends a topical plan that is usually enough to facilitate a productive debate, and in that case it is generally wise to question the solvency of the affirmative. In other words, if the affirmative team has read a topical plan text and the crux of your negative framework argument is “they are not policy enough,” I am likely to vote affirmative.

Criticisms

I am pretty firmly rooted in a Western metaphysics of presence and the value of enlightenment rationality. I am also of the mind that adjudicating debates requires assumptions of rationality and so if you want me to adopt a different framework of evaluation it will require some pretty solid reasons on your part. That is not to say I do not enjoy critical debates, there are some fine criticisms that are firmly grounded in modernity. If you are going for a criticism in front of me, it is likely that I have at least a passing familiarity with the foundational literature of your argument (I got my B.A. in philosophy and my M.A in rhetoric) but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go out of your way to explain the specific application to the affirmative. Similarly if you are reading a critical affirmative you should be careful to explain the reasons that your affirmative renders parts, or all, of the negative’s strategy irrelevant. For example if you are arguing that epistemological considerations precede policy considerations you should explain the nature of that relationship.

Counterplans

In most circumstances when negatives read counterplans that are questionably competitive/legitimate (process, consult, conditioning) I find that aff teams are unwilling to engage in a protracted procedural debate and so become competitive/legitimate by default. Usually going for a permutation is a time intensive process, but can be rewarding if you spend the time to work through the competition theory that purportedly supports the negative’s counterplan. Advancing theory on a counterplan should always include controlling not only the specifics of the theory debate, but also the meta-questions. For example, a robust defense of competing interpretations is generally necessary for the affirmative to win that multiple conditional counterplans are a voting issue. Most affirmative teams tend to simply spot the negative that it is not a question of competing interpretations but rather a question of whether the counterplan makes debate impossible for the affirmative (which almost no counterplans, save fiating the object of the resolution, do).

Speaker Points

Although debate is a competitive activity that doesn’t mean that people can’t be civil with each other. Your comportment during a round can easily affect your speaker points as much as the quality of your arguments. Debate is a fun, rewarding activity and the people that I regard with the most respect are not only great debaters but great people as well.

Ana Nikolic Georgetown 5 rounds

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.

Martin Osborn University of North Texas 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 1:40 PM EDT

drmosbornesq@gmail.com

My judging paradigm has evolved a great deal over time. These days, I have very few set opinions about args. I used to think I had a flawless flow and a magnet mind but now I can't follow each little detail and/or extremely nuanced or shrouded arguments with 101% accuracy like once upon a time. Still pretty good tho lol. And that said, I believe I've come to prioritize debaters' decisions more than ever and try harder than ever to base my decision on what debaters are trying to make happen in the round, and how well they do it, as opposed to how I logically add up what occurred. No judge can totally eliminate their process of sorting things out or their lived personal experience but I try to judge rounds as the debaters tell me to judge them, and with the tools they make available to me. I do think debate is about debaters, so I try to limit my overall judge agency to an extent. But sometimes my experience with traditional policy debate matters and favors a team. Sometimes my lived experience as a brown dude effects my encounter of an argument. These things happen and they are happening with all of your judges whether they admit it or you know it or not. I competed with "traditional policy arguments" (which, frankly, I am unsure still exist #old) but by now I have voted for and coached stupidly-traditional, traditional, mildly-traditional, non-traditional, and anti-traditional arguments in high-stakes rounds for a ton of programs in high school, college, internationally, in different eras, dimensions, all kinds of shi*. If you think your reputation matters in how I see the round, don't pref me. If you or your coaches are used to attacking in the post-round, you're gonna play yourself because I'll either be 101% and crush you or I won't care and I'll just mock you. Debate's a game but we are people so we should treat each other with respect. Self-control is one of the hallmarks of critical thinking and a disciplined intellect; if you cannot make peace with results in a subjective activity, you are simply not an elite debater, imho. Take it or leave it. Good luck to all debaters, seriously -- it's a hell of a thing.

Jonathan Paul Georgetown 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2013 at 5:33 AM EDT

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.

Donny Peters Cal State Fullerton 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:39 PM EDT

Donny Peters

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

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

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

Policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For LD

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

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

Dylan Quigley Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM EDT

Dylan Quigley

Currently an attorney for foster youth, coached at Dartmouth ('11-'13) and Harvard ('13-'16), debated at Kansas ('06-'11)

Updated: 9/2023

Note for 2023:

I've been out of the activity for a bit now so do with that what you will. I did debate on the last nukes topic and have continued to follow nuclear policy some so I should be ok with topic jargon, but probably not more recent K authors or generics.

Some distance from debate also makes me feel that my original paradigm below is a little too serious. It's a game; please have fun.

Note for 2019:

Being out of debate has not substantially changed my views except maybe to deepen my belief in empathy for others. I think the stereotype is that people leave debate and become more skeptical of K alts which is probably true, but I think I have become equally more skeptical of the "pragmatism" of most plans as well.

Original Philosophy:

I like nerdy, wonky, academic debate.

I don't flow that well, slow down.

I like and reward people who take on big debates, rather than avoid them with fancy footwork.

I think I am most impressed by debaters who can use small concessions or the given facts in the debate to create a complex vision of how the world operates.

I try to try hard to resolve debates because it's what I valued most in a judge when I debated and because its what I value most from those judging my kids.

If you are doing your prefs, I may not be a good judge for you if:

I am turned off by highly abstract arguments or things that rely heavily on an anything goes, game playing model of debate. If your jam is irony, conspiracy theory, word pics, OOO, death good and Ashtar, I may not be a very good judge for you. If "trolling" is a word you use to describe your arguments or debating style, I may not be a good judge for you. If your argument is against making the world better in any way, I may not be a good judge for you. [2023 edit: I still sort of believe this but would also tell my past self to chill out a little.]

But since you are mostly likely a policy team about to debate a K team or vice vera, I have pulled the following sections to the top.

Topicality versus non-traditional affirmatives:

As a debater, I both read non-topical affirmatives and also went for topicality against teams that did not defend the resolution. I have found myself very turned off by affirmatives that defend exceptionally minor revisions to the sqo or an unwillingness to defend a large vision for social change and have been voting on T with much more regularity.

I think that the question of the value of debating the particular Aff at hand is very important. For the Aff, I think that explaining clearly what the core controversy of the affirmative is and why the negative should be reasonably expected to negate that claim is key. (Put differently, what is productive about asking the negative team to negate the 1AC you’ve presented?). I want to hear about why and how either teams interpretation facilitates debates over particular mechanisms for social change.

Competition in non-traditional debates:

I do not enter the debate with the presumption that competition functions in the same way in plan focused and non-plan focused debates. I think that one possible way the debate community can facilitate debates that do not necessarily require the affirmative to defend the resolution while ensuring relative side equity and quality debates is to demystify permutations and develop new ways of thinking about competition. I look forward to judging debates about this issue.

Now the rest...

The quick stuff:

-I believe strongly that intentionally conceding the claim of another team means that that argument is true regardless of evidence quality etc.

-I don't believe that the Aff has an absolute right to define the scope/meaning of the plan.

-For some reason, it really bothers me when people look at each other and not me during CX.

-My default facial expression is often a scowl – it’s not you, it’s me.

-I believe zero risk is possible (and often likely) for the purposes of deciding a debate.

-I reserve the right to not vote on a sufficiently stupid theory argument.

-An all-case 2NC will likely receive extra speaker points.

CP Theory:

I find myself leaning aff on some competition questions especially for CPs that could result in the entire Aff. I'm fairly skeptical of states/international cp's - I’m especially interested in the way CP's like states constrains the affirmative research process at a very early point and how it affects the common sense of the debate community as to what counts as a “good aff.” My default is that presumption shifts aff when vs. a CP/K alt.

Critiques:

I have an academic basis in critical theory and debated mostly critical arguments at the end of my debate career. I think many critiques I see are vulnerable to being impact turned and I'm surprised and disappointed I don't see Aff teams doing it more.

In the context of a traditional aff versus a critique, I think the vast majority of debates that center around the question of "should I evaluate the plan or ontology/epistemology/scholarship/whatever first" are a waste of time for both sides. Frameworks that ask me to ignore large portions of the 1AC rarely make any more sense to me than frameworks that ask me to ignore portions of the 1NC. Both sides time is likely better invested in other parts of the debate.

Dig it especially when placing an emphasis on evidence and normative/literature based argument rather than abstract limits based arguments. I think we are almost always served best by drawing our lines from the literature, not imposing them ourselves.

Conditionality/judge choice:

I don’t have any strong feelings about conditionality, though I find myself moderately uncomfortable with judge choice. My default assumption is that if you extend a CP/Alternative in the 2NR, you are giving up the possibility of advocating the status quo. I do not feel comfortable kicking anything for you unless this framework has been well developed earlier in the debate.

Side bias/case debate:

Though I said above that I lean aff on many competition questions, I am disturbed about much Aff teams seem to get away with on extending their case in the 2AC and 1AR. I think just as strong of a burden of rejoinder should apply to the case debate for the Aff as would apply to the Neg on a DA.

Speaker points:

-I care deeply about cross-examination, presence, persuasiveness, eloquence, cross-examination and clarity. By “eloquence” I mean speaking at a rate and style that I can flow and that allows you to talk continually with out stumbling, stopping or repeating yourself unnecessarily. Mentioning cross-examination twice was not an accident.

Andrea Reed University of Kentucky 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 7:35 PM CDT

Kentucky 2017 update: This is the first year since the Europe topic where I didn't attend the season opener. So whatever T/competition things the community "collectively figured out" during the first tourney, do not assume that I am in the know re: that info. I have been reading about healthcare and doing some topic research, so don't over-apply this advice. I know what single payer means, I know what happened to Graham-Cassidy, I know Price resigned, etc. My point is more about the *competitive* direction the topic is heading.

Updated Fall 2013: I added a new section on evidence, clarity, and clipping at the end, given its length, but I wanted to mention it up here (in case of TL;DR)

Crotchety old person complaints: You should flow. You should go line-by-line unless having a purposeful reason not to. You should talk about the other team’s evidence. You should talk about your own evidence. You should have warrants to back up claims, and examples to contextualize your arguments. Historical references are great. Smart analysis > more cards. I will not read cards after the debate to reconstruct arguments that you failed to communicate yourself during your speech. I will read cards that are intelligently contested by both teams. Wiki golden rule- put as much intel up as you expect from other people.

Cross-x: is my favorite part of the debate. I flow it. Being smart in CX can win or lose you the debate.

T debates… things that will help you out: explaining which affs we should be debating and why, which arguments we should be debating and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion, ect. If the neg’s interpretation is more limiting, but the aff can clearly explain why that definition is not predictable, or the affs that the neg allows are not good affs or exclude critical parts of the literature, ect, the aff will be in a good place. Limits are not the end all, be all. Discussion of sources of definitions also important for the aff to win if their counter-interpretation is not going to be more limiting.

Theory debates- happen at a speed where its impossible to get all of the 2ac/2nc/1ar args... if this describes you (and it almost certainly does) and the aff wants theory to be a real potential option for the 2ar, know that you should slow down to around 75% speed. I lean neg on most counterplan theory questions by default, but its all up for debate.... assuming I can understand what you are saying.

Ks- I am not a judge that you cannot go for the K in front of. Judges get siloed in some weird ways based on presuppositions about how they think, and philosophies are meant to clear that up. SO! I evaluate kritik debates like any other strategy- superior analysis and refutation in the final rebuttals over the key questions will win you the debate. Negs should focus on why the alternative remedies their link arguments (and solves the aff's 1AC impacts, if you are trying to do so). If there is no alternative or you posit that your framework is your "alt," you do need to explain why this instance of rejecting the aff/their representiations is alone/taking an ethical standpoint in this debate is sufficient action to avoid the impact that is identified by the K. The one thing I will say for the neg is that there is some tension in my mind between the common neg claim that "the aff doesn't leave the room, there is no "spill up," the state never hears them, so they can't access their impact turns" with the neg's alternative solvency claim that "rejecting this aff solves our terminal impact which is global extinction from neolib/militarism/antiblackness," etc. Is there "spill up" to one debate judge's choice or not, and if not for the aff, why is it assumed for the neg? I think this is best remedied by the neg narrowing your impact framing to the types of things that ARE clearly within the judge's purview-- epistemological choices behind scholarship presentations matter, single ethical choices made by individuals matter, representations even within academia matter, and so on.

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s argument as possible... not impressed with the aff that recycles the same 4 cards against every kritik. Same for the neg- if you mix it up every year with kritiks that are tailored to the topic, I will be a good judge for you. If you've been doin more or less the same thing for the better part of a decade.. meh, there are better judges for you. The aff should say what their permutation actually means in the 2ar. I've found most framework debates in policy aff v. neg K debate to be vacuous. Everyone wants to meet in the middle. The neg rarely seems to go as far as to say "no aff," and the aff is too afraid to say "no alt," and we all can never get those 120 minutes of our lives back.

In terms of K affs, though my default is that the aff should discuss the benefits of hypothetical topical action by the USFG, affs should at a minimum demonstrate topic-relevance. If you are reading an aff that very explicitly ignores the topic, I'm not the best judge for you, though if you do find me in the back of the room, you should be sure to explain fully why departing from the topic is essential to whatever your thang is. Bottom line, my default is the topic, but you should always do what you think will maximize your chance of winning, rather than comporting to what you think my own leanings are. Debate is hard and you should do what you are best at. All arguments have a chance of winning if they are well reasoned, and if its clear why I should prefer them compared to your opponents arguments.

Paperless stuff- your prep time ends when you are ready to send the email or give the jump drive to the other team. The more time you waste, the less decision time I have, so be mindful of that.

My only request to you when you debate in front of me is to please be civil to your opponents. In CX's, post rounds... coaches getting in post rounds. Yuck. Having your judge cringe at you is never a good thing. I dislike debaters who visibly or audibly react negatively to the other team's final rebuttal. You get your last speech and thats it. I dont need the 2N to be a one-person peanut gallery during the 2AR. Its distracting to me and rude to the other team. You have now been warned re: your speaker points. You should be able to tell how I’m feeling if you look up once and a while.

**New section on evidence and card clipping:

Evidence- this is getting out of control. First, the ethically problematic and academically lazy practices:

--highlighting to the point of creating new content- if you are making new arrangements that the original author did not intend, that is a problem. Let’s call “creative highlighting” what it actually is: fabricating evidence. If your highlighting of evidence is making stuff up and then wrongly attributing it to the author to give it false credibility, that is fabricating evidence.

--ending cards before the end of the author’s original paragraph- I thought this was a universal norm but apparently not.

Second, these practices are not unethical per se, they just make you worse at debate:

--removing warrants from the tag- its hard to flow evidence where the tag is 2-3 words long. I do my best to flow the warrants in each card, but its impossible to get everything said at 300 wpm for 9 mins straight. Debaters should be highlighting the critical parts of evidence in your tags and then deliver them clearly.

--cutting strawperson evidence- lazy research, period. This wouldn’t fly for academic work, so it shouldn’t for debate research either.

--having things that hurt you in the 2-point font of your card. Lets be honest, blowing that stuff up is the first thing I do when I see that in a card. You can expect to find good stuff here usually. This makes it pretty easy on your opponents.

--"abbrev"s make you sound dumb. Why are you highlighting "targeted killing" as just T....K...? "Nuclear weapons" as "nuc.........s"? You are being the characture of policy debate that everyone ridicules.

Clarity- If I cannot understand you, I won’t read your cards after the debate to reconstruct your arguments for you. Debate is a communication activity, love it or leave it. Delivery is a big issue here obviously, but so is form. If your speech is a string of debate “abbrevs”, its pretty hard to flow. Clarity in content is important. If you aren’t contextualizing your arguments and giving examples in your final rebuttal, you leave the judge no choice but to have to input their own analysis to resolve the debate.

Cross reading, “clipping cards”, stopping short on evidence or not marking cards and then misrepresenting what you have read in a debate are unethical practices. If a team suspects another team of doing this, they should stop the debate and present their evidence. I would be willing to listen to any video or audio recording in the room that is available to me. For me, the important thing is the actual result (did the audio of the speech as presented include all of the text submitted into the “record” of the debate?), since intentionality is impossible to prove either way. And I will say this: if a debater’s performance is SO unclear as to look exactly like what cheating looks like, that is still a huge problem.

J.V. Reed Texas 4 rounds

J.V. Reed- Judge Philosophy
Texas

To me, the best debates center around the case. One of the most important things to remember when debating in front of me is that I like specificity, an interest in history, and debates that are committed to (and end up being decided through) the search for context. This is no less important for “kritik” debates than it is for “policy” debates.

Many Aff advantages and many more Neg disadvantages and kritiks are so poorly constructed, with so many missing internal links that they hardly warrant a response by the opposing team. This requires an attention to internal links, source quality, and also the depth of the warrant cited by a given piece of evidence. This brings up an additional important piece of information: debaters are highlighting their cards WAY too much. Debaters tend to want to be rewarded for their research, and I tend to want to do the same. However, if you only read two sentences of a two-paragraph card and the warrants are in the un-underlined part of the card and that card is mentioned in the 2NR/2AR as an important piece of evidence, I will be seriously under whelmed come decision time. I want to be clear about the preferences I have: I do not have a preference for K over policy or vice-versa. I do have a preference for debates where the debaters are working hard to make the most of their evidence. The teams I enjoy judging the most, whether K or Policy, will demonstrate in debates that their knowledge of the region is substantial, and will make “cutting to the chase” their primary argument resolution tactic.

As far as theory goes:
Framework:
The aff is unlikely to ever win a wrong forum argument against a neg K with me. It is possible, but don't butter your bread with it. Aff's often win however that the real contest occurring is between differing approaches to debate and that their approach is more advantageous than the neg. This is not my preferred Aff strategy vs a K, but it has at times been effective. The neg, though, has better/decent chances of winning a framework argument against a K aff, esp if the aff is really ignoring the topic altogether. Still, I will listen to the Aff’s reasoning and don’t think I’m particularly a “hack” for either side of this question. Although I would prefer to never resolve a debate over the question of framework (because they are painfully boring and tedious debates to decide) I understand the need for the discussion. Creative framework arguments will work better for the negative than the standard schlock.

CPs:
On conditionality, international fiat, etc.: I’ll evaluate the debate on the basis of the arguments. I tend to favor the Neg on the legitimacy of all of these sorts of questions. However, I can be persuaded by Aff’s who argue that a conditional PIC is particularly bad, or that a conditional international fiat CP is particularly bad, or that fiating the object of the aff advantage is bad. This is not true in every case, but the important thing to glean from these examples is that the more specific your theory argument is, the more likely I will be to want to hear it. As far as PICS, international fiat etc, if you are able to demonstrate that the debate of the aff vs. the CP exists in the literature, you’re also probably in good shape. "3 is better than 4" type arguments on conditionality seem pretty arbitrary to me.

T:
competing interpretations is good to a point. i can be persuaded by reasonability. examples of what cases are included/excluded by an interpretation are needed.

K's
K's need a specific link. K's need examples. K's usually need better application/explanation of evidence more than they need more evidence. I prefer Ks that include a link to the plan. That does not mean that I don't think that reps Ks are illegit, but I do think that reps k's are more persuasive when the impact is explained in relation to the goals of the aff. and the intended projected consequences of the plan. Think "turns solvency" arguments here. To be more specific, I understand how reps could be at odds with the goals of a given plan action and have the effect of undermining the intent of the plan.
I am more interested in how a given mode of understanding/ideology implicates implementation of the plan, than I am in simplistic root cause (and therefore "turns case") allegations. If the neg can show me how democracy assistance is seeped in neoliberal goals,vocabularies,practices - and then- can show me how those practices will undermine stability, create resentment, sew seeds for disruptive inequalities and the like, I will be happier. In these kinds of case specific K debates the neg will win by making sure the alternative functions to provide some kind of uniqueness to the case turn questions (even if that uniqueness is "gotta have a fresh perspective"). This way of winning a cap debate, for instance, looks a lot different than winning on the basis of "root cause", "never compromise our ethics with cap actions"/total rejection type K's.
--
Other things you might want to know:

I like to understand your arguments as they are being made. I don't like to, but often have to, reconstruct parts of the debate after the fact.

permutations need a text. intrinsicness permutations might be justifiable in some circumstances. agent specified cps are unlikely to be competitive against an aff that simply has usfg as the agent.

word pics are not a favorite. a permutation answering a word pic doesn't have to have a net benefit. i am not persuaded by the "any risk of the net benefit" argument when evaluating a word pic. word pics in some rare instances can be good arguments if there is an actual link, but not often.

Framework - is boring. I am unlikely to be persuaded that Neg's don't get K's. I can be persuaded at times that an aff needs an advocacy statement, a plan, or a defense of how their aff relates to the topic. I will evaluate these debates on the basis of the flow and don't feel that I am particularly ideological. I am more likely to vote neg on framework when the argument has been specifically crafted for the team being debated. Laundry lists of Joyner, Shively etc don't float my boat, but I understand the utility. I don't like it when aff's run from clash or are deceptive about their advocacy. I also wonder about the narcissism involved in not considering the controversies the topic asks us to consider. I generally think that there are important ethical questions to consider about a variety of the topics that we debate that won't get considered if we continually make debates about ourselves rather than thinking about what's going on with the people affected by the issues of the topic. This means that I more interested in k affs that bridge standpoint issues with important ethical questions raised by the topic than in affs that don't do that.

DA's
it is possible for there to be no risk of a disad. it is possible for you to win uniqueness decisively and there still be no risk of a link. link debates are very important to me. quality of link evidence, qualification of link authors etc is something to be considered.

impacts are best evaluated in a way that takes into consideration magnitude, t/f, probability, but not in a way that treats these as obligatory "key words" that somehow mean something in and of themselves. disads are little machines with lots of moving parts that all need to be considered in isolation, but also in concert. it is therefore better for you to talk to me in terms of the relationship between the risk of the link and the risk of the impact rather than treating these issues as completely discrete. I don't really believe that aff's have to solve their advantages to win, the aff has to present a persuasive case that their advantage is likely to be solved. Ditto for DAs. The question is of probable effects and their relative importance.

saying "extinction" or "no value to life" is not impact comparison. i don't want magic word invocation to stand in for final rebuttal work weighing and comparing potential outcomes.

a single smart argument with some good old fashioned rightness backing it up can be enough to dismiss a high number of blippy, tech-y half thoughts.

don't underestimate the importance of cross ex. use cross ex scores in your speeches. you would be wise to incorporate those moments into your flow of the debate so you don't forget them by in your 2nr/2ar.

William Repko Michigan State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Updated - Pre-NU - 09.12.23.

On balance, J Philosophies should prob cut to the chase - but I'm gonna violate my own rule this time:

We exist in an era where being unfiltered gets glorified.. where the smartest person in the room is also encouraged to be the loudest.

Every now and again, someone arrives in our small pond - and they have all the characteristics of a great judge. They are quietly brilliant. They are thoughtful. They hold the community's respect for the simplest reason of all: they are undeniably good at what they do. It doesn't need to be broadcasted - it finds itself on display in each oral critique.

I won't be the guy that pretended to know Brian McBride on a deeply personal level. Our interactions were often limited to those panels that finish their task at 2am.

... but I know enough to say this with confidence. I learned a great deal by letting that guy go first in the post-round. He rarely called attention to himself. I am hopeful that our community finds ways to honor his contribution - even if he would've bashfully declined such praise.

I had a great deal of respect for who he was in this community.

Customary biz:

Yes - speech Doc.

Repko.Debate@gmail.com

Side note - I often miss non-speech doc correspondence sent to that address bc I only use it for judging.

** New - Topic Specific - Nuclear weapons, 2023-4

With all the asterisks that often accompany this, I'll say I'm not going to deeply break-down my thoughts on hyper-generics and the kind of K's that tend to get run on every Res. I do have thoughts on these matters - but I am much more apt to be placed in a Policy-Policy round... this is bc clash/K teams have (correctly) concluded that there are many judges in the pool where their win% would be higher.

I have sneaking suspicions that Topicality will arise more in Policy-Policy rds - what follows is designed to be helpful:

- As a general proposition, I am more Aff than most on T - but I do think the Framer's worded things in a manner that gives the Neg something to argue here. Enough will come down to execution that some of what follows could be overread.

- I do not enter into the T Debate presumptively assuming Negs are structurally hosed on *this* Res. This ain't the water or CJR Res - there's at least room to argue that this Res= atypically good for Negs. I often judge on panels where the lone conception of "ground" is Neg. Absolute kudos to the Neg if they can pull of that framing - you should (as ever) run with the premises your opponents concede. But - in an evenly matched debate - I do think there's space for the Aff to push back on the some of the classic Neg ground claims.

- While I can certainly imagine hypotheticals where one side's interp is noticeably imprecise (i.e. old school "substantial" defs about a Court case involving a kitchen measurement), I tend to think most prepared teams read a reasonably precise interp. Once the opponent's interp has exited the theater of the absurd, I am open to threads that argue that we should consider defaulting to other RTP various interps. Better put - if you're trying to win that an inch of precision >>> a mile of balanced ground/limits, I would recommend you have technical execution on your side.. bc I am going to need to read the opponent's interp and chuckle at how non-applicable it is. If your lead on precision is NOT an inch - I am very good for your side.

Deterrence and Assurance are a thing. If/when the Neg blends them together, they create Aff openings where "thumping one" can "thump both".

Revisionism has become the Policy equiv of ontology. The 2N uses the fact that "Russia has revisionist tendencies" to lower the threshold for the link, the impact, the "turns case" thread, etc.... OK - I suppose it's somewhat helpful to the cause - but let's not overdo this. No one would pretend that reading a card that "X nation is revisionist" is - by its lonesome - a link to the NFU Aff... The best K research takes the ontology claim and contextualizes it to the Aff in question. The best disad research takes the revisionism premise and applies it to the NFU Aff. I find no dissonance here - it feels logical (to me) to demand scholarly contextualization from both revisionism claims and ontology claims. And - to be candid - I suspect I have a higher bar for Neg contextualization than most.

*Older stuff starts here - I'd only read through it if you needed more than the basics

I'm somewhat correctly stereotyped as a "good judge to break a new aff in front of". And, certain broad strokes will not change between now and Monday:

- I am bad for some Neg generics that get run in these spots (process CP, many K's)

- I will do enough "reading" in the post-round to at least try and comprehend a novel Aff or Neg arg - and, as these things go, that can open room for a prepared new Aff to win on various appeals to specificity

- I get that Neg's adore the Cap K... but the way this is getting deployed in the modern era is just so far from what I feel is a complete reason to Negate. I could break down my creative Cap K 2.0 blueprint ..or go on some rant - but, unless your Cap K has some very unique twists, I'd say that I am the second worst judge in the pool for your Cap K (behind Katsulas). This is meant to be helpfully honest as you make pref decisions;

- I am one of the better judges in the pool for "the impact turn doesn't link". Let me unpack - as this might read as illogical. Just bc the Aff said "heg" doesn't mean that *the way* the Aff enhances Heg auto-links to your backfile... similarly, just bc the Neg read an impact module that loosely referenced "ag" or "econ" doesn't mean the camp backfile is simply greenlit. Often times the OG impact is about "preventing a future decline in Heg"... or helping a sector of the econ that may solely be a piece in the dedev puzzle. I'll obviously "play ball" if both teams opt to ignore this int link minutiae. But I do sometimes find myself on the bottom of a 4-1 bc I strongly consider analytic threads appealing to whether the impact turns applied in the first place. This is not intended to full-on dissuade. Teams seeking to impact turn should invest some time connecting the "top-level" dots between the opponent's impact claim and their impact turn. Impact turn strat can also wind-up defending a squo that's very messy (transitions, other Aff impacts). Think about more than the narrow impact turn itself - and the broader system being defended.

- I differ from many judges on "disad turns case". I was recently asked to recount an NDT elim I judged a few years back. In it, Aff slams on Adv... Neg slams on Disad... Aff is bad on "disad turns case"... neg is silent on "Aff solves case"... 8 out of 10 judge vote neg here: after all, Neg turns Aff. I regularly vote Aff on "aff solvency claim is every bit as dropped as the neg's claim to turn solvency". There are some exceptions where I would vote Neg - suppose the neg's "turns case" arg is couched as comparative to the 1AC solvency... OR maybe the neg claim simply makes more sense than the OG Aff solvency.. etc... but I tend to not punish the Aff for lacking large re-explanations of (dropped) swaths of their case. Negs would do well to make comparisons that bake-in the particulars of the Aff.

- there is a risk of overcorrection to all of this. I have voted on "PIKs bad" at the NDT - and it was the correct 2AR choice.. I voted on a "meh" human innovation disad earlier this season bc the Neg tailored it so well to the opponent's solvency claims. There have been other decisions that might surprise a third party coach - unless they watched the debate itself. I do understand that debate is a game. All of this advice assumes situations where both sides have the time to evenly execute on a position - but sometimes that hasn't taken place. Capitalize accordingly.

--- Everything below this is older stuff... all of it still applies - but may be more than you need ------

TLDR - general

More apt to be placed in Policy v. Policy rounds. A great deal of the research that I do is on critical/culture theory. And, a lot of outcomes are possible in a world of imbalanced coverage/attention to detail.

That said, I have a poor track record for planless Affs. I have enough "argumentation teacher" in me to give a range of oral critiques. But, I do think K of this Res/Topicality struggles vs. standard (policy) boilerplate responses.

If your pref decisions hinge on post-round academic convos, I will be an engaged critic. But if a big component of your pref decisions are about the grizzled bottom line of winning (which is 1000% understandable, IMO), I think much of the pool has a better track record on behalf of the K.

Seems like there's two sets of Policy judges on this particular Res:

Camp 1.0 - summer pleasure reading was about Bostrom, gray goo bloggers, and meta-physical q's posed by British scholars.

Camp 2.0 - not that.

I'm more in camp 2.0. I have cut policy cards on the topic. I am not dismissive existential risk. I think the Sci Fi impacts are fine - strategic even....

And, I am (quite fairly) accused of letting your ev do some work for you. But there's a wave of oral critique out there that's akin to: "the sub-text of the Aff entropy claim rests on Toby Ord's The Precipice - which is hardly viable without a deeper defense of hypercomputation".

... huh ?..

I can get there - but you'll need to at least start me down that journey.

TLDR - process CP, compete on "should"

Anything is poss in the land of wildly disparate in-rd execution/coverage - but I am quite Aff here

Where are you good for the neg ?

Disad, CP of non-process flavor... the 1AC itself = often pretty silly.

'Rona

For me, I am judging INP for the first time in a minute - mostly bc it would not be great if I brought COVID back to my household.

I am appreciative of the efforts the tournament and the participants are making to reduce the risk of COVID. I mean that quite genuinely

... this simple statement could be over-read or cause students to overreact when I am judging. I understand that sure-fire solutions are rare... and I do not need to 2A to debate outdoors or something. Just a friendly - not judgmental - reminder that I will be on the cautious side of this one.

--wrote this pre '21 NDT - I'll leave it up a bit longer, but it has little to do w. arg preferences ----

This strikes me as an audience where one can make a bold claim... and be granted an opportunity to back it up.

Here goes:

One of the strongest people I know is only 3 yrs old.

... I've watched her figure it out.

When the six yr old points and stares.

When the family switches lanes in swim class.

When they ask why her mask is the kind that ties in the back.

...and I've watched in amazement. Somehow, she channels her exasperation into thoughtfulness. Somehow, these aftermaths are productive.

A few years ago, I heard rumor that a student was thinking of foregoing her final NDT - ending her career after her Junior season. This student had challenged MSU Debate ...in the best ways possible. Judging policy rds as I do, I knew this debater. I decided to drop her a note. I thanked her for the hard work she'd put in.... for the indirect ways in which she'd made our program grow. One never knows what to expect once the send key is hit. I do think she was a little surprised to receive it. But I came to learn it made a small difference... that it landed with the right timing.

Later that season, I wrote a similar note - this time to a non-traditional debater. The same premises held. This student pushed our program and drove us to be more prepared. I extended an overdue "thanks". I imagine they were more than a little surprised to receive it. Judging policy rds as I do, I had even less of an idea how it may land. I was glad to learn it landed well.

The days leading up to the NDT are an especially good time to keep one's head down.

...But when the dust settles... when the inevitable frustrations grow distant... consider crafting a simple note. Consider sending it to a judge... a rival... a teammate.

Above all, consider sending to someone that may not expect it.

In doing so some will accuse you of being weak. Why extend energy to your rivals ?.. Why breathe life into the foe ?

But - in doing so - you will be anything but weak.

You will exit a challenging season... perched atop a most-challenging 12 months... and you will have done something genuine.. something unexpectedly thoughtful.

And - in doing so - you will show strength.

Strength similar to the strongest girl I know.

A girl who is Earless... and Fearless.

A girl named Robin Jane Repko.

#E&F

Thanks - and best of luck to each of you this weekend.

NDT 2021

---------old stuff here-------------------------

True non-starters:

A - Teams that joke-y or playful about death or trauma - esp as part of some high-theory attempt to illustrate a point. I was early to this train - but I think a lot of people in the community are ready to close this chapter.

B - Consult Cplan in almost any variety - it's quasi comeback is surprising.

Topicality:

I'm overwhelmingly Aff on "contrived" interps bad. In general, I think I am more Aff than most on T in policy rounds. If it helps, I did not happen to judge the elim between UGA AR + KU HM on the Exec Authority. Here - by all accounts - the neg did a dazzling job on a T thread that amounted to "you gotta be a big Aff".

I cannot know - but I suspect I would have been an above-average judge for UGA in that spot. It has nothing to do with the debaters - all four were/are magnificent. It's more that I find T interps of that ilk tend to break-down under strict scrutiny.

I don't mention this example out of nowhere. I am writing in 2021 bc I suspect it could be instructive for this yrs college topic. I would not be shocked if I voted Neg on T - hard work has dividends. By this is a game of inches - and this is me being transparent about an inch.

Just be honest, please:

In an evenly matched-debate where all the best args are on the table (two important caveats), rate yourself on the following items relative to the field of possible policy judges:

A - CPlan competition theory.... Aff (esp vs. "resolved", "should", etc).

B - Kritik - even the flex variety - Aff by a considerable margin.

C - Truth or tech.... truth by a decent amount..

D - Are you lying - lots of judges just lie in these philosophies ?..

Not really... I'm pretty ardent - but I will say that anything is possible in the land of wildly-disparate in-round execution. I did vote on PICs bad (dropped) last season.

-------------- old philosophies start here -------------

I wrote this a few years ago - it still holds:

Often, the K struggles on the alt... and can be a little over-reliant on the checklist for someone (like me) that's a bit of a truth-seeker and post-round ev reader.

To give a concrete example:

Suppose a (policy) Aff said "a Small Modular Rector will *solve* for a nuclear accident". Further suppose that the Neg did not engage this claim in any way.

Then suppose the Neg said "interrogate our relationship to neolib -- as it may *solve* neolib". Suppose the Aff was comparably inattentive to that alt.

I would start the post-round evaluating competing solvency claims. Both teams 100% won their original statement -- but the word *"solves"* in both sentences does not get at questions of magnitude/likelihood. "Solve" was not posited as a 100% affair in either the ev, the tag, or under any standard of logic.

So, yes, both teams "solve", but the degree to which an SMR could prevent an accident is miles ahead of the degree that individual interrogation might solve neolib. I acknowledge that not everyone judges these args in this manner -- in part because they fear being labelled "interventionist". I happen to feel it "intervenes" to impose magnitude onto either team's claim (as stated).

I can imagine a future time where the K more assertively attempts to have Alts that inform policy praxis or generates non-institutional collectives... And if you think your arg is novel in that regard, then I might be a better judge for you... But, the odds are that you've learned to run the K based on the prevalent community norms that have developed over the previous 15 years... Over that time, your predecessors did an exceptionally mediocre job of helping the K inform praxis and be PART (not all) of negating an Affirmative.

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

Rando:

- I rarely think "literature" alone makes a cplan competitive. I consider the two as wholly unrelated and I struggle to grasp this line of thinking. Some are aghast if the two options that are compared by a think tank article are somehow not auto-competitive. This borders on laughable - as there's lit that defends plan-plus cplans....Sometimes I have judged literature that demonstrated that the perm severs - that might be germane.

- I think "judge kick" needs to be flagged early and often - not merely implicitly as part of a conditionality answer in cx - for it to be a presumptively strong arg for the Neg. I consider "conditionality" to be a question of whether multiple strategies can/should be carried through the middle of the debate - and *not* whether the Neg should ultimately be afforded multiple choices at the end of the debate. I will assume that you went for the one damn strategy that you did extend in the 2NR unless you play your "multiple options" card earlier in the debate.

If you have specific questions about how I'd evaluate an item, feel free to ask. I'll strive to respond with candor.

Best,

Will

Armands Revelins Cornell 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:00 AM EDT

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

Collin Roark University of North Texas 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 18, 2020 at 12:01 AM GMT

Updated Pre-Emory 1/9/2020

Email chain please: croark@trinity.edu

Professor and Assistant Director of Debate at Trinity University, Coach at St. Mark's School of Texas

I view my role as judge to be an argument critic and educator above everything else. As part of that, you should be mindful that a healthy attitude towards competition and the pursuit of kindness and respect are important.

Biases are inevitable but I have been in the activity for +10 years and heard, voted, and coached on virtually every argument. I genuinely do as much as possible to suspend my preconceived beliefs and default to explanation/comparison.

Quality > quantity – 1NC’s with a high volume of bad arguments will have a hard ceiling on speaker points & I will generously allow new 1AR arguments.

Speed is the number of winnable arguments you can communicate to your judge. I will usually say “clear” twice before I stop flowing your speech. If you can't flow or comprehend your partner that's a problem. If you don't sign-post I am likely to give-up on flowing your speech.

I try to flow CX so please make reference. CX is about LISTENING and responding – let your opponent finish their answer/question, acknowledge it, and then move to the next point. Be polite if you have to interrupt.

Everyone should give two speeches. I’ll only flow the assigned person during speeches.

Framework --- I’ve voted on all kinds of different impact arguments. Debate has wide-ranging value to folks and I think you should be willing to defend why it’s important to you in any given situation. Defense can be very compelling: Neg teams should win an overarching theory of how their model absorbs/turns the 1ac’s offense with explanations of switch-side or TVA examples that interface well with the aff. The TVA should be a proof of concept, not a CP. Aff teams should win a counter-interp/alternative model of what debate looks like OR terminal offense to the neg’s model of debate. Above everything, you should think strategically and react instead of just reading some dusty, generic blocks.

Jeff Roberts George Mason 2 rounds

Anthony Rowles United States Military Academy 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 25, 2013 at 11:52 AM EDT

Anthony Rowles
Former Army Debater
Years Judging College: 4? 5?

There is no such thing as tabula rasa; I inevitably make judgments about your arguments the moment they're made and before your opponent(s) have responded (or failed to respond) to them. That being said, I strive to be receptive to all arguments and I make every attempt to defer to your interpretation of the argument rather than what I think the argument is or should be.

On judge intervention: A conceded argument is a true argument, but a conceded assertion is not (necessarily). An argument has both a claim and a warrant. In other words, if you tell me "Plan drains Obama's political capital because he has to overcome Republican backlash" and your opponents don't answer, then I will accept the argument as true, whether or not I personally believe it. If you tell me "Plan drains Obama's political capital," you've made an assertion, not an argument, and you're leaving it up to me to decide whether I think it's true or not. Don't do that.

Semi-serious arbitrary demand: I'm becoming increasingly frustrated by "word soup" in debate. If half the words in your tags are five syllables or longer you should probably reconsider your phrasing. I understand that you can't make Zizek or Baudrillard stop being obtuse blowhards, but that's no reason that your articulations of arguments have to sound like they're straight out of the PoMo generator.

On prep time: For whatever reason, one of the consequences of paperless debate has been a growing practice of complete disregard for 10-minute limitation on prep time. With respect to the mechanics of paperless debate, I generally defer to the expectations of the debaters, as long as it applies equally to both sides. So I don't really care whether prep time stops when you start to save the file, or when you pull the flash drive out of the computer, or when the group email is received, or whatever, as long as it works for both sides. There doesn't seem to be a clear community norm on that issue and I'm not going to establish one in a judge philosophy that no one is even going to read.

With that in mind, I intend to start rigorously enforcing a simple, brite line rule: STOP PREP MEANS STOP PREPPING. IT MEANS PENCILS DOWN. IT MEANS STOP TALKING, STOP WRITING, AND STOP TYPING. If you need to mess around with your computer in order to save the file, or you want to chat amongst yourselves about other things while we're waiting for files to be transferred, that's fine, but know this: I will err heavily in favor of restarting prep time if I think you are prepping, and your adherence to prep limits will affect your speaker points (positively or negatively). In fact, I prefer to reward good behavior than punish bad behavior. Based on my limited assessment of current trends in prep time use, a team that makes it through an entire debate round without stealing prep time probably deserves double 30s. By the way, all of this applies to both teams, not just the team preparing to speak.

In the interest of clarity, here is a non-exhaustive list of things that debaters I have judged incorrectly interpret as not prep:

Telling your partner what to read in her speech or when/where to read it.
Adding, removing, or modifying cards in your speech document.
Telling your non-speaking partner what to prepare while you are speaking.
Typing anything, unless you are physically receiving a speech document at that very moment.
Asking your partner if she has the answers to X argument.

A final note: when your prep time is up, your prep time is up. I'll give you a reasonable period of time to collect yourself, get to the podium, and give me your roadmap. After that, I'm starting the speech time.

In order to avoid punishing teams for not reading my judge philosophy, I will attempt to put teams on notice of these policies prior to the round.

Sara Sanchez Hire 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 21, 2024 at 9:41 AM CDT

Name Sara Sanchez
Affiliation: NAUDL
School Strikes: Glenbrook South, Lexington
Last Edited: 1/21/2024, Edited for Emory 2024

General Overview: I default to the least interventionist way to evaluate the round possible. I’ve pretty much voted on anything that you can think of, and likely some things that you can’t. I have not been historically inclined to accept/reject any arguments on-face. That said, the following is true:

Impact calculus and comparison is your friend. I cannot stress this enough. I'm routinely surprised by the number of quality rounds I judge where each team is weighing their impacts but no one is weighing their impacts vis a vis the other team. It is not enough to explain your scenario for solving/avoiding war, explain to me why that matters in the context of the other team's genocide impact.

I would like you to be driving questions of impact calculus and framing. I prefer to be reading your evidence through the lens you have set up in round. You should be telling me what your evidence says and why it matters. This means I probably give a little more weight to spin than some judges, you should be calling out bad evidence that is being mischaracterized if you want me to read it. Obviously, I have (and will) read evidence on questions that have not adequately been fleshed out in round when it’s necessary, but now you are held accountable for my understanding of the card, which may, or may not, have been on the flow. So please, weigh those issues for me, and we’ll all be happy.

Clarity & Organization: This section used to be a note about speed. It was a gentle request that you keep in mind that reading 3 word theory arguments at the same rate as the cards you are reading was obviously silly and difficult to flow. I am now substantially more concerned with clarity in general. I can understand a pretty rapid rate of delivery. I want to hear the words you say. All of them. That includes the words in your cards and the sub-points of your theory block. I think we as a community have let clarity get away from us. I was recently pleasantly surprised by a few debaters who were both incredibly fast and crystal clear at all points in their speeches. I was also saddened that they stood out as anomalous in contrast to many of the debate rounds that I judge. In addition to the clarity with which you deliver your speeches I believe this also is a component of organization in the round. It is functionally impossible to follow your arguments and apply them correctly when all of the debaters in the room abandon the structure of the flow/line-by-line. Embedded clash is fine. Flat out ignoring the order/structure of arguments and answers is not. While my speaker points have always reflected things like clarity & organization I am going to use them more heavily in this regard in an effort to encourage good practices among the debaters in my rounds. If you are not clear, I will ask you to be clear once, if you are not clear after that, your partner should probably keep an eye on me to make sure I look like I’m following you, because if it’s not on my flow, it’s not in the round. If I cannot understand large swaths of your speeches and/or you are jumping all over the flow with no attempt to answer arguments in the order they were made, your points will be low (think less than 27.5 range). If, on the other hand, I can understand almost every word of your speech, and you consistently following the line-by-line structure of the round, your points will be high (think 29-29.5 range) to ensure you have a better chance at clearing if points become an issue. If you have questions about this, please ask before the round.

Clipping: I am disturbed that the number of clipping incidents seems to be on the rise and that there appears to be some confusion as to what constitutes clipping. Card clipping, is failing to read sections of the card without marking audibly during the speech and on the speech doc (or on paper, if you are not paperless). It can be definitively determined by recording the speech and playing it back with the speech doc. It is an ethical violation and if proven will result in zero speaker points for the debater(s) who have clipped cards and the loss. If an accusation occurs I will stop the round, ask for proof, and make a determination about the accusation at that point in the round. That decision will determine who wins the round. I will also make a point to talk to your coach after the round to explain what I believe happened and why. I reserve the right to adjust the policy according to circumstances (i.e. accidental clipping in a novice round is different than clipping in a senior varsity debate).

Please be nice to each other and have fun. I’ve yet to have someone upset me to the point where it has lost them the round, but I will not hesitate to punish people for being rude via speaker points. Debate is a wonderful activity, that I care about a lot, and we don’t all give up our weekends, nights, and a decent portion of our social lives to be verbally abused or to witness said abuse. That said, competitive spirit is fine, flat out rudeness is not. If you need clarification on where the line is, feel free to ask.

Speaker points Apparently I needed to bump these to align with point inflation, so I have. Points probably start at a 27.5-28. Anything over 29.5 is rare, it's been years since I gave a 30. If you get below a 25 it's probably because you did something offensive/unethical in the round, and I'll likely tell you about it before I turn in my ballot.

27.5-28 Average
28.1-28.7 Good, but probably will miss on points or go 3-3
28.8-29.2 Good, chance to go 4-2 and clear low
29.2-29.5 I believe you should get a top 20 speaker award at this tournament
29.5-29.8 You were one of the most exceptional speakers I've heard in years, and should be in the top 5 speakers of this tournament.

What’s above is more important than what is below, as I will default to the round that is given me, however I’ll include a couple of notes on specific positions. The below list is not exhaustive, if you have specific questions, ask.

Topicality/Theory: I’m more than open to these debates, I have no problem pulling the trigger on them. I tend to evaluate these debates in a framework of competing interpretations. You should have an interpretation in these debates, and you should be able to articulate reasons (with examples, evidence, and comparative impacts) that your interpretation is preferable to the other team's. You should be explaining why your arguments matter and what the world of your interpretation looks like (case lists, argument ground). You should not assume that the 3-word blippy jargon we all use now is an argument, because I don't tend to think it is one. If you've done the above things, and you want to go for theory or T, you're probably fine. That said...

Counterplans: I personally tend to error negative on a lot of theoretical CP objections when these aren't adequately debated in round (dispo, PICs, condo, etc.) I'm probably more sympathetic to objections to consult counterplans, or procedural counterplans like delay, sunsets, etc. I love specific counterplans and adore specific PICs, so you have a bit more of an uphill battle on the PICs bad debate. That doesn't mean I won't evaluate PICs/Dispo/Condo bad args, feel free to make/go for them, see the interpretations note above. I am more likely to vote on nuanced theory arguments than generic ones. For example, conditional, consult, counterplans bad is more persuassive than just conditionality bad.

Condo - couple of extra notes: I think that having more than one K and one CP in the round is pushing the limit on conditionality. You would still need to do work here to earn my ballot, but it's definitely viable. I also tend to think that uniform 50 state fiat counterplans that counterplan out of all solvency deficits are not good for debate. The reason for this is that I tend to like solvency advocates for counterplans and there isn't one for those types of CPs. These are both cases where, if sufficient analysis was done, I'd be okay rejecting the team. For the record, I have not voted on either of these yet, because no one has made these args in a compelling enough way, but the potential exits.

The K: I don’t have a problem with it generally. I’ll entertain various frameworks and interpretations of debate, but this isn't where I spend most of my research time. I’m also reticent to vote on “framework” in terms of "there should be no Ks in debate ever." I don't think this line of argumentation is necessary or desirable—it seems to me people should just be able to answer the arguments that are leveled against their case. I tend to believe both sides should get to weigh their impacts. I find framework debates generally lack a decent amount of clash, which is incredibly frustrating for me to adjudicate. Framework debates that center on the question of accurate methodology, bias and substantive education are by far more persuasive.

If you’re running a K in front of me on the negative, specific links and a solid articulation of what the alternative does will help you. Let me know what the world looks like post-plan and why that is different post-alt. Similarly if you're running a K aff, you should explain to me how your action truly shifts mindsets, what the role of the ballot is, etc.

The above noted, I find myself focusing more on policy literature than critical literature these days. My undergrad and graduate work is in political science and international relations, not political theory/philosophy. I tend to be much more familiar with some K authors than others. I've read a decent amount of Foucault, I've read almost nothing Lacanian. In addition to Foucault I am substantially more familiar with Ks centered around IR theory, non-psychoanalytic capitalism and questions of gender and identity. I am less to not at all familiar with psychoanalysis, Nietzsche and Heidegger. I personally lean towards believing realism inevitable type arguments and that floating PIKs are bad (reason to reject the alt). While I do everything possible to objectively evaluate the round that happened, this is probably why I’ve noticed a very slight tilt towards the policy side of things in these rounds.

Affs that don't have topical advocacies: I have spent a lot of time thinking about this. I feel as though I've been asked to objectively and neutrally evaluate a set of arguments where the people proffering those arguments in no way practice the same neutrality has always created a lot of tension for how I evaluate these arguments. To that end I offer my full disclosure of my connections to, and beliefs about, this activity. If you would like to attempt to change those biases, you are welcome to try, but the bar for such debates will be high, because I am not neutral on this.

I came back to debate 15 years ago after a brief hiatus working in politics and public policy because I firmly believe there is no stronger or more effective pedagogical tool. I have routinely been impressed by the skills and information this co-curricular activity provides for the participants that practice it. I chose a career in debate at the time because I think that teaching young people how to debate a topic while switching sides and researching policy and philosophy is one of the best things our educational system has to offer. I worked hard for my debaters, in class, after school, on weekends, and during summers because I believe this game, even with its imperfections, is good. It will be difficult for you to get my ballot if your goal for the round is to convince me that 15 years of my life and countless hours of work has been a mistake. I also see problems in this activity in terms of equity and access. There are good reasons my work after directing large debate programs focused on education policy, equity, and now urban debate. If your arguments are criticisms of debate you should take all of that into consideration when trying to win my ballot.

Topic Specific Addendum: I currently work for NAUDL, I run our national tournament, write curriculum for our coaches, attend the topic meeting every August and work on our file set each year. I judge substantially fewer rounds than I used to and have fewer conversations with friends about the direction of the topic. You should assume I'm familiar with debate arguments but you should not assume I'm super up to date on the latest topic specific acronyms or fanciness. This means a little explanation on what the NSDOQPC* is will probably be necessary if you'd like me to understand your aff/da/etc.

*(The NSDOQPC, to the best of my knowledge, is not a real thing. It's merely an example of the type of insane acronyms/topic specific jargon that gets routinely bantered about on most topics)

Additionally, while I haven't had a chance to test this yet, I'm reasonably certain my tolerance for the truly inane has lowered substantially. I now spend my days working on debate in a more education focused environment that is centered on building many strong programs rather than the TOC arms race. I also spend a bunch of my spare time working in politics and on policy and advocacy campaigns that have real world implications. I'm not entirely sure what the implication of this are for you, but if it's the pre-round and you have two strategies to choose from, one of which is asinine and one of which is more substantive, I'd bet that the more substantive one is going to work out a lot better for you.

Finally, it's been a few months since I've flowed a top speed round. I'm pretty sure I'm still fine there, but if you could keep that in mind, and ease into your top speed in speeches, it would be appreciated.

If you have a question I haven't answered here, feel free to ask.

Good luck. :)

LD Specific Business

Most of what is above will apply here below in terms of how I evaluate substance, impacts, etc. However, since I have judged more LD rounds recently it was time for me to clear some of this stuff up.

I spent most of my time at tournaments judging policy debate rounds, however I did teach two LD classes a year for seven years and I judged a large number of practice debates in class during that time. I tried to keep on top of the arguments and developments in LD and likely am familiar with your arguments to some extent.

Theory: The way theory is debated in LD makes my head hurt. A LOT. It is rarely impacted, often put out on the silliest of points and used as a way to avoid substantive discussion of the topic. It has a time and a place. That time and place is the rare instance where your opponent has done something that makes it literally impossible for you to win (teeny area of the topic, frameworks and definitions that cross the border from strategic to definitionally impossible to debate, etc) it is NOT every single round. I would strongly prefer you go for substance over theory. Speaker points will reflect this preference.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I am not fine with paragraph after paragraph of a prioris/theory/continental philosophy read at a top speed with zero regard for clarity whatsoever. I will say clear if you are engaging in the practice above, and I will stop flowing if you don't alter your delivery to a rate I can understand after that. I will only vote on what is on my flow. I may call for evidence after the round, however, I will not call for your theory blocks because I didn't understand them. Slow down, be clear, and enunciate on that stuff for the love of all that is holy, or you will have very little chance of winning my ballot. Also see the clarity note at the top of this post. It will apply to LD as well.

Disclosure: I think it's uniformly good for large and small schools. I think it makes debate better. If you feel you have done a particularly good job disclosing arguments (for example, full case citations, tags, parameters, changes) and you point that out during the round I will likely give you an extra half of a point if I agree.

Prep Time: 2 Notes. First, I like Cross-Examination. I pay attention to it and think it is strategically valuable. You should use your CX time. If you would like to ask more questions beyond CX in prep, that's cool. But please make use of CX. Second, prep time is the time you use to prep, that includes actions like giving your opponent your case or whatnot if you haven't done this in a timely manner. There are no alternate time outs or whatever. If you are reading a case off a laptop, you need to make that case available to your opponent before you start speaking OR immediately thereafter. There will not be a non-prep-time time outs while you all figure this out. That time will come from one of your prep times. In other words, if the culprit is the aff, who has not made a computerized case available to their opponent in a timely manner, then the AFF loses prep time while they get it ready for the neg, and vice versa.

Good luck, and have fun.

Abby Schirmer Michigan State University 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:46 PM EDT

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Bill Shanahan Binghamton University 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri July 16, 2021 at 1:58 PM MST

Bio: Former PF debater (2014-2018). Been judging PF from 2018-present.

Logistics:

Timing: Time yourself/your opponents. If your opponents are going over time, just raise your phone up (be chill). However, if they go over time and you don't call them out, they get the benefit. Evidence reading off-time, but I reserve the right to say, "Hey, this is taking too long." If all the debaters in the round agree, we can skip grand cross (you can get an extra min of prep instead).

Speed/Speaking: If I'm looking up from my flow and not writing, it means that either a. I can't keep up with you or b. you aren't saying things that I can write on the flow. Either way, not good. If you are worried about the speed issue, give me a copy of your speech.

Etiquette: I'm not very uptight about these things. You can sit during speeches and cross. I don't care about language. I like jokes. To be clear, this just means I like when debaters act chill/normally/informally, I am not ok with insulting/disrespectful language. No need to shake hands.

Also, please get to the round on time, especially at nat-circuit tournaments. If you need a little bit of time to get your stuff together before the round, I will give it to you. Just try not to be late because then I have to tell tournament directors that you don't exist and that will make me and tournament directors sad.

Debate-y Stuff:

Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost everything. Signpost...pretty please?

I'd rather not judge a K, you'd better be really good and your opponents really have to not do anything with your K to win with a K. Just don't do it pls. Stay on topic.

No specific advocacy of the Aff (akin to a Policy plan). No alt on the Neg. You can probably tell that I am asking you to not Policy in PF.

Partners can communicate with each other while one of them is giving a speech. Pass them writing on a paper or something if necessary.

Holistically, I am pretty tabula rasa, but if a team says something ridiculous like elephants are purple, if the other team says "no, elephants aren't purple, make them explain the warranting for that claim extensively", that will be good enough response for me.

The beginning (Constructive):

If your frameworks agree, please just stop mentioning it, I'll use it. "But bro, they didn't have a framework, so you HAVE to use ours" is not a good argument (unless your opponents didn't address it at all and it flows cleanly through).

Cross-Ex: I will not judge on what it said in cross-ex. If something important happens, please bring it back up in a speech so I can put it on the flow. Remember I don't care what you say, so don't just engage in cross just to grandstand! Cross-ex can be used to clarify and understand your opponents case so you can make better arguments. Focus on the warranting, cards are not the same things as warrants. Make the discussion meaningful. Seriously, if you don't have any meaningful questions, do not just say things to say things, I do not care at all, we can stop early.

The middle (Rebuttal/Summary):

I like off-time roadmaps before speeches (make it simple, "framework, their case, our case").

I will accept overviews, tell me where the overview goes on the flow (your case or their case).

If you're refuting an argument, tell me what specifically you are responding to. If you're frontlining a response to your case, tell me exactly which responses your frontline applies to. I like numbered responses.

The 2nd rebuttal must address the first one. The first summary should respond to the 2nd rebuttal (also the first speaking team's defense will stick if the second speaking team hasn't responded to it in rebuttal).

When extending cards, I benefit more from hearing you explain the warrant of the card because I really suck at remembering/writing down author names. Example: "Remember the second warrant from John Doe, explaining blah blah blah" <- see how there was an explanation and not just the author name?

Please extend arguments throughout all speeches in a non blippy way, I will straight up cross off stuff on my flow that is not clearly extended. Remember, the summaries contain all the content that you are allowed to discuss in final focus.

Please verbally label turns on the flow, so I can see the offense (just say the word "turn").

If you are gonna collapse on an argument, you can literally just tell me "hey, we are collapsing on contention X"

The end (Summary/FF):

I like carded weighing analysis, but definitely do analytical weighing and explore methodology of studies etc. I really prefer seeing debaters explain the intricacies of their arguments rather than maintain a narrative with what cards flowed through the round. I really hate key voters because they usually lead to bad weighing. Keep it on the flow, tell me why the arguments that are left actually allow you to win (essentially I prefer line-by-line). I strongly encourage collapsing, just make sure to tell me what's important. At the end of the round, I will vote off whoever has the most offense relative to the winning framework. Remember, do analysis using weighing mechanisms like probability/timeframe/magnitude/irreversibility, but then also do analysis on why I should prefer one mechanism over another (strength of link is important). If the last sentence didn't make sense to you, just ask me before the round. If you don't do these things, I will face palm at the end of the round and have no clue as to how I should evaluate offense.

I might ask for cards after the round if I feel like something is sketch or it has been made an issue in the round. However, I would really like for you to call for me to read cards if you feel its needed. I try to be non biased when it comes to my take on the legitimacy of evidence, so unless a team completely misrepresents a card, I can't call them out on their BS unless you tell me to.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm and the way I judge before the round. I will probably disclose, unless you don't want me to. I will provide a verbal RFD too. You can ask me questions after the round about anything. If you still have important questions but we are out of time because next round needs to start, email me.

Eric Short Minnesota 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 11, 2019 at 10:35 AM CDT

ericjohnshort@gmail.com please add me to an email chain.

previous coaching: Niles West (2016-present), Walter Payton (2014-2016), Wayzata (2009-2013), Moorhead (2007-2009), University of Minnesota (2011-2015, plus various tournaments since), Concordia College (2006-2009).

I generally judge 75+ debates on the high school topic.

updated September 2019

I'm updating my philosophy not because of a meaningful change in how I evaluate debates, but because I think the process of how I decide debates is more important than how I feel about individual arguments.

I judge debates in the way they are presented to me. This means you control the substance of the debate, not me. As such, the team that will win is the team that is best able to explain why their arguments are better than their opponent's arguments.

I start deciding a debate by determining if I need to read evidence. I often read very few cards at the end of a debate. In many debates, the quality of evidence, its qualifications and even warrants or conclusions go uncontested. I'm not the judge to reconstruct the debate for you. Then, I assign "risk" to the positions forwarded in the last rebuttals. The type of "risk" is determined by the debate--anywhere from "does the DA outweigh the aff" to "do the representations lead to a unique impact" to "does the performance actively resist forms of oppression". Link and impact analysis is therefore extremely important. You probably won’t like the decision if I decide what is most important.

Most of my topic research revolves around critiques. I have also worked at a summer institute almost every year since 2005. Chances are I am familiar with your literature base, no matter which side of the library it's housed in. However, you still need to explain your arguments for me to consider voting for them.

If you want me to consider the status quo as an option, you should tell me in the 2NR: I will not default for you. Outside of conditionality, I default to rejecting the argument, not the team unless instructed otherwise.

Note on decision times: the longer it takes to finish the debate, the less time I have to adjudicate, so it is in your best interest to be efficient.

Speaker points are influenced by a variety of factors. While I do not have a specific formula for integrating all the variables, your points are reflected by (in no particular order): argument choice, clarity, execution, participation in the debate, respect for others, strategy, and time management. I tend to reward debaters for specific strategies, humor, personality and speeches free of disposable arguments.

William Smelko University of California, Berkeley 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 10, 2020 at 7:24 AM PDT

Please email me your speech documents. I have judged over a 1000 HS and College Debates over the last 18 years. I am a lawyer and lectured this past summer on this year's HS topic at Institutes for the NY UDL and the DC UDL Coaches Workshop and at Summer Institutes at the University of Michigan, Gonzaga, Georgetown and Harvard.

If you run a K, and actually have an ALT that can be proven to SOLVE a problem - - - any problem - - - it would be the first one I have heard that does solve a problem in 18 years of judging debates and then you might get my ballot, but probably not depending on how well the AFF does. If you are AFF and have a Plan that SOLVES a problem without creating more or larger problems - - - you might well get my ballot, depending on how well you debate during the round.

I listen to arguments, favor clash to determine who does the better job of debating, and no matter the chosen framing or style of either or both teams, I judge the debate based on what is said during the DEBATE by the Debaters.

I began high school judging in 1973.

I started judging college debate in 1976.

Between 1977 and 2002, I took a vacation from debate to practice law and raise a family.

Since 2002, I have judged between 40 and 80 Rounds a year in High School and had brief stints judging college and professional debate while "coaching" for the University of Redlands, my alma mater, in, I believe, 2010.

You can debate your own stuff, but I am not a theory fan.

I believe I have voted NEG on topicality four times in 18 years, twice in non-traditional AFF debates and once at the Kentucky RR when I thought the AFF made a mistake and I also thought the NEG made them pay, although a very competent and distinguished judge who was also judging the same round felt differently. So, even in the one traditional debate round where I voted NEG on T, I was probably wrong. I believe in AFF creativity, reasonability which guarantees predictability.

BUT (and and this is a CAPITAL BUT) I like/strongly prefer substantive debates ABOUT the topic area, so long as the Plan is a reasonable illustration of the Resolution.

People who listen and answer arguments well get great speaker points. People who are nice and friendly and not jerks also like their speaker points.

I have had teams run K's and all kinds, types and nature of CP's. The PERM Debate really makes a difference in a K and CP Round. I am not the most philosophically literate humyn being on the planet, so please explain your esoteric K and your even more esoteric K responses.

Cross-Examination is IMPORTANT, so please ask questions, get answers and ask more questions. When responding, please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. No need to fight or argue. Ask questions, Get Answers, move on.

For the clash of civilization people who want to know more about my feelings and leanings, perhaps the best information I can give you is that I listened to a recording of the final round of the 2013 NDT and would have voted for Northwestern had I been judging. The framework debate in my mind flowed Negative.

I enjoy DISADS and case debates. I am particularly fond of hidden Case Turns that become huge Disads.

I know how hard you work and will attempt to work just as hard to get things right.

Kyla Sommers George Washington University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 11, 2014 at 8:10 AM EDT

"He was a man of talent and ability, to be sure…He knew how to knock his opponent down quickly and effectively with the fewest possible words. He had an animal instinct for sensing the direction of the wind. But if you paid close attention to what he was saying or what he had written, you knew that his words lacked consistency. They reflected no single worldview based on profound conviction. His was a world that he had fabricated by combining several one-dimensional systems of thought. He could rearrange the combination in an instant, as needed. These were ingenious—even artistic—intellectual permutations and combinations. But to me they amounted to nothing more than a game. If there was any consistency to his opinions, it was the consistent lack of consistency, and if he had a worldview, it was a view that proclaimed his lack of a worldview…

He had nothing to protect, which meant that he could concentrate all his attention on pure acts of combat. He needed only to attack, to knock his enemy down. Noboru Wataya was an intellectual chameleon, changing his color in accordance with his opponent’s, ad-libbing his logic for maximum effectiveness, mobilizing all the rhetoric at his command…He knew how to use the kind of logic that moved the great majority. Nor did it even have to be logic: it had only to appear so, so long as it aroused the feelings of the masses.

Trotting out the technical jargon was another forte of his. No one knew what it meant, of course, but he was able to present it in such a way that you knew it was your fault if you didn't get it. And he was always citing statistics. They were engraved in his brain, and they carried tremendous persuasive power, but if you stopped to think about it afterward, you realized that no one had questioned his sources or their reliability…It was like boxing with a ghost: your punches just swished through the air. There was nothing solid for them to hit. I was shocked to see even sophisticated intellectuals responding to him. It would leave me feeling strangely annoyed…All they looked for on the tube were the bouts of intellectual gladiators; the redder the blood they drew, the better."

-Haruki Murakami, The Wind-up Bird Chronicle

The section below explains my judging predispositions. These all stem from my hope that debate can avoid being/becoming what is described above.

I am significantly more persuaded by framework as a method question instead of a voting issue. There is a vast literature base over whether working within or outside of the state is the best way of combating social ills. I find these method debates are best (and most persuasive) when the theory that underlies each side is tied to specific historical examples. For example, what positive and negative effects has previous government reform entailed? What accomplishments and change have individualized resistance actualized? While it is always up for debate, I am open to the idea that the affirmative should not get a permutation in a method debate.

I find probability before magnitude to be very persuasive but will listen to arguments that disagree. In the event that I am judging a round in which both sides are claiming extinction impacts, a solid tactic could be to emphasize a more real world impact (ie instead of saying plan solves extinction, say plan increases jobs which reduces poverty) and then make fun of their scenarios.

Education arguments are the most persuasive when evaluating theory. For example, is the counterplan real world and does it provide valuable education? Or, does it allow the negative a contrived position to merely by-pass topic education?

For me, the most important part of a critique debate is applying your theory to specific aspects of the affirmative. This often requires substantial explanation that may not be carded. Well-developed analytics are far more persuasive to me than a slew of poorly explained cards. When in doubt, use historical examples of why the affirmative’s ideological underpinnings are problematic. Perhaps this is a personal bias since I am currently getting a PhD in history, but I am a huge sucker for utilizing history to contextualize arguments.

I am willing to and have voted on ethical issues that occurred within a debate round (ie overt racism, sexism, homophobia, abelism, etc). For me to vote on such an issue, it must be a fully developed argument that includes an explanation of what the problematic instance was, why it was problematic, an impact, and a reason why my ballot should be centered on that instead of other arguments in the debate.

Be civil. No, that does not mean you have to fake liking your opponent or be overly nice. It does, however, mean that I will reduce speaker points if I feel like you are degrading your opponents in an attempt to control ethos.

There is a high probablility I will be overly talkative (and make bad attempts at jokes) during dead time. You are more than welcome to ignore me/tell me that you need to concentrate.

David Strauss Michigan State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 19, 2022 at 8:59 AM EDT

Plans and aff "clarification"

I have seen an increase trend towards aff teams reading normative "solvency advocacy" evidence that they would *like* to be descriptive of the plan, that includes a variety of clarifications and specifications *not* in the plan text. Plans are determined by *the plan*, not by aspirational solvency evidence that includes things not in the plan. The aff does get to clarify. There is a mechanism for that. It's the plan. If the aff chooses not to clarify something in the plan, then it is determined by 1) binding cx clarification in situations where the neg does not contest that clarification and 2) normal means as determined by logical argument and descriptive evidence if the neg does choose to contest. normative solvency evidence is not a description of normal means. the decision not to clarify something in the plan is a CHOICE - as with all choices, it comes with strategic upside AND strategic baggage. if something is important for aff solvency, but not in the plan, you are running a grave risk of not being able to access it.

Risk

I think too many judges address issues as absolute “yes/no” questions. I am much more likely to think of things in terms of relative risks. That said, relative risks can be EXTREMELY small.

Counterplans

If debated equally, I am prone to thinking that counterplans which are desirable because they result in the affirmative, are, generally speaking, not competitive and make for worse debates. At a fundamental level, I don’t believe they express disagreement with the affirmative plan, which I sort of think is the whole point of debate. That said, I’ve written many of these counterplans, and voted on many of these counterplans.

I lean heavily neg on all other counterplan theory questions.

If both teams are silent on the question, my presumption will be that counterplans identified as “conditional” mean that status quo is always an option for the judge to consider, even if the counterplan is extended by the 2nr. This presumption can easily be changed if debated by either side.

Kritiks

If you are going for a kritik in front of me, the place its most likely to fall apart for me is the alt. You would be well advised to explain what your alternative does and how it is able to meaningfully accomplish its own objectives. If someone is going for a kritik against you, the easiest way to lose me is to drop a “checklist” impact calc claim: “turns case, solves case, X first, extinction inevitable, etc”

Topicality

I generally view this as question of competing interpretations. I’ve become worse over the years for “silly” topicality arguments. I’m generally easily persuaded that precision is the most important standard. For instance, if the military has a precise and official definition of “presence” it would be difficult to persuade me to disregard that for the sake of limits.

As it may come up, you deserve to know I’m probably a better judge than most for “T-significantly”. Obviously I’m not saying it’s an auto-win, but against some tiny new aff, its definitely a credible option for the neg.....my brain will judge fairly, but my heart can't get over its first love (the negative).

Planless affs

I will do my best to fairly adjudicate any argument made in front of me. No argument is ever procedurally disqualified in advance. I will judge only based on arguments made in the round, rather than arguments I may believe to be “true” that are not well defended within the debate. That said, debate is a persuasion activity, and when arguments are advanced well by both sides, you should know that my proclivities are that debate is better when the affirmative defends topical action. Again, its not impossible, and I will, as always, attempt to judge fairly based on arguments made in the round, but you deserve to know my preferences…..I don’t think they are a secret.

If you are advancing this strategy in front of me, I will say that I think teams sometimes try to “adopt” by attempting to win the “race to the middle”. In my experience this tends to help negs win that “topical version solves aff offense” more than it helps the aff win "link defense" to things like limits and fairness. My advice to you is that you are actually probably better off sticking with a more hardline position that simply impact turns topicality rather than spending time trying to minimize the “link” to the aff standards.

Peter Susko George Mason 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:09 AM EDT

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

Gabrielle Tandet Hire 6 rounds

Updated pre-Wake/post-Harvard

I will do my best to adjudicate the round in front of me. I do not think that your style of argumentation, my personal favorite arguments, what I used to do when I debated, or similar things should influence the decision or my points, and to the extent possible I will endeavor to be a neutral critic.

That said, clearly I have more experience with some types of debate than others. I read almost exclusively "policy" arguments as a debater, and I am unfamiliar with philosophical literature of any flavor. One of the things that I think has become apparent is that there is sometimes a disconnect between what a team thinks they are saying and what a judge unfamiliar with their style of debate thinks they are saying. I will do my best to meet you in the middle, but I am necessarily limited by my experience (or lack thereof).

To that end, if you are a "non-policy" team, you would maximize your chances for success in front of me by explaining your arguments in relatively more basic / concrete terms. K buzzwords are unlikely to hold much meaning for me, as I simply lack the relevant context to unpack your argument from phrases like "libidinal economy" alone. Concrete explanations of the alternative / affirmative are very helpful for me to better understand your argument (e.g. if you challenge a particular epistemology/methodology, what would an alternative to that look like; what would / could result from adopting this mindset) and to answer the question of what it means for me to vote for you; this is frequently the issue I struggle with most.

Speaker points
Following recent discussions, I have determined that I have not been self-reflexive enough in giving out points. I have thus developed the following scale for assigning speaker points. If you have a question about my points after the round or you would like me to disclose them during my RFD, please ask and I would be happy to.

**If a tournament (e.g. Wake) provides a scale, I will use that scale rather than my own scale**

> 29.5: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year; top 5 speaker award range
29.3 - 29.5: very good speaker; top 10 speaker award range
29 - 29.2: quite good speaker; top 20-30 speaker award range; should clear*
28.6 - 28.9: good speaker; should clear*
28.4 - 28.5: solid speaker; may have some issues to work out; reasonably likely to clear*
28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably shouldn't clear* but should be close to .500
27.5 - 28: decent speaker; needs substantial work
27 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work
< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate

Note: * when I say "should clear" and variants thereof, I mean "if they debated in all rounds like they debated in this debate, I would expect this team to be in the top 32 at this tournament". I do not intend to try to adjust my points ad-hoc to ensure that particular teams clear; this is simply how I have expressed the subjective process of identifying certain debaters as better than other debaters.

Within these parameters, my speaker points focus more on execution of arguments, smart decisionmaking, and the quality of questions and answers in CX. I am unlikely to dock speaker points based on the content of your arguments (e.g. I'm not going to subtract .5 because you read ASPEC or because you didn't have a specific CP). I am likely to dock speaker points if you are overly aggressive or rude to the opposing team.

Old philosophy (still true)

Everything here is a reflection of my defaults absent argumentation from debaters. Defaults can be overridden with arguments.

Important Things
Topic experience: very little. I have a full-time job that is not debate, and I was never very good with acronyms to begin with. I just finally remembered what AUMF meant today. Only vaguely aware of its relation to the topic. Explain stuff.

Pure offense/defense is silly. You don't need offense on every flow, just an offensive reason for me to vote for you. There may always be "a risk," but with good defensive arguments this risk can be so minimal as to warrant ignoring it.

Argumentation outweighs cards: explain your ARGS, don't just cite author names!!! I am unlikely to call for all of your cards after the round and base my decision on their quality. I think that kind of judging lends itself to intervention. I like it when YOU talk about ev quality, but I don't want to do that for you.

Specific arguments:

Can you read your K in front of me? - I guess so. I'm not ideologically opposed to critical arguments, but I have never read any critical literature of any flavor and do not intend to do so - it's just not my thing. Therefore, don't assume that I know anything about your authors or various K buzzwords you will throw around. Please explain things, the more specifically the better, especially if your argument is really 'high theory.' The same goes for K affs, "performance" teams, whatever.

Do you need a plan? - I don't really care. Do what you do and do it well. Just because I liked to talk about the topic doesn't mean you can't win in front of me if you don't. (triple negative whatup)

Topicality - Impacts are quite important to me, which manifests itself in two ways. 1: if the aff proves they have a good enough interpretation of the topic, it'll be tough to convince me to vote neg for an interpretation that is only marginally better if this difference isn't well impacted. 2: impacts outweigh ev quality. I don't really see the point of nitpicking about whose definition is minutely clearer absent a reason why that's important (so, if you think this is important, tell me why).

Theory - SLOW DOWN PLZ. No, seriously. SLOW DOWN - I can't write that fast. Even if it's dropped, if it wasn't a coherent argument in the first place and/or if you're not going to explain why I should reject the team, don't bother extending it. I don't really think the team defending against accusations of theoretical illegitimacy must prove that what they did is net BETTER for debate, just that it's not too bad.

Disads/CPs - Yes please. If you go for a CP, my default is that you have forgone the status quo as an option; therefore, I will NOT kick the CP for you if I decide it is not net beneficial and/or competitive. This can be changed if you explicitly make arguments to the contrary in the 2NR.

Do you want good points?
-Be nice, be respectful. Passionate is good; aggressive is bad

Keegan Tomik Dartmouth College 3 rounds

John Turner Emory University 3 rounds

T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are important. I consider T an argument that doesn't specify the relationship between the debaters and the resolutional actor (i.e. how the debate is evaluated and what the role of the judge for evaluating the debate is still in question). To me, framework is a category of arguments that establish a limit that restricts not just the resolution but the role for the judge. I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are difficult for me to accept, while criticisms of framework have frequently been successful.

DAs- I’m unlikely to assess uniqueness/link in absolute terms. It tends to be easier to get me to consider direction/quality of link & internal link over uniqueness. Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give analytic and defensive arguments more weight than many judges.

CPs--I've rarely voted against CPs for theory reasons. This probably has more to do with what affs are willing to do/commit time to more than it demonstrates any real appeal of certainty-based competition arguments.

K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to not being obnoxious in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags. Historical examples help a lot for either side.

Theory—I tend to dislike theory debates focused on narrow comparison of interpretations. For the most part, people would be better off discussing the logical implications of a practice rather than a potentially arbitrary implementation of that practice (i.e. conditionality rather than "neg gets 1 CP and 1K"). I am biased in favor of conditionality, though not that strongly. To me, "status quo is always a logical option" or other logic-oriented defenses of conditionality require a judge to evaluate the plan versus the status quo even if the negative goes for their CP. I say this for clarifying purposes -- this has very rarely changed the outcome of a debate that I have judged. I often judge debates that do not presume conventional plan-focused models for debate yet still contain theory arguments that presume a plan-focused terminology and its resulting constraints. I point this out only to suggest that I think debaters should devote some time to thinking about the consequences of strucutral changes in the form of debate that they advocate for the smaller theoretical practices that occur within those debates.

Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the 2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely dislike random unqualified internet evidence.

I prefer cross-ex strategies premised on listening to an opponent's answer and using it in a subsequent speech, not posturing/arguing as though c/x were another speech.

I'm a bit of grump, especially when it comes to my consistent facial expressions in debates. It's not often that is about you, the debaters. I often talk a great deal after debates.

I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is lower than our current average. I've tried to get more in line with current norms so as not to punish people for speaker point inflation. That said, for high points (28.5+) I still need to be impressed.

Christopher Vincent University of Louisville 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:20 PM CDT

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

Heather Walters Missouri State University 3 rounds

In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan. The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense. Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game.

I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world. I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies. Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history.

I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it. It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really. It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time.

I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts.

I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster.

The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor.

Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached. Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here. Have fun.

Stephen Weil Emory University 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 8:25 AM EDT

Updated 9/9/2016

A few firm rules:

-Speech times are 9 minutes for constructives, 6 minutes for rebuttals, and 3 minutes for CX. Prep is determined by tournament invite. Each debater should give one constructive and one rebuttal, with only one debater giving each speech.

-Note on CX: you get 3 minutes of CX time. If you ask the other team clarification questions during prep (“Did you read this card?” “Can you confirm your CP text?” etc), it would be pretty rude of them not to answer, but I will not flow this/treat it as argument-development time like CX.

-I will use my ballot to decide the debate in front of me. Debaters can advance various criteria for how I should evaluate that debate, but I can’t render a decision on the basis of something that did not occur in the debate I have been watching.

-Be transparent about your evidence. The other team should receive the same speech documents that I do. That doesn’t mean you are obligated to include analytical arguments – people should also flow! Also, mark stuff during the speech, you probably aren’t going to remember each word you stopped at once the speech is over.

A few argument leanings:

-I am pretty convinced that competitive debate requires a point of stasis. That doesn’t mean I think there is only one way to read/interpret the resolution, but it does mean that I am most persuaded by affs that relate themselves to the resolution in a way that they can argue provides predictable points of contestation for the neg. In short, Predictability/Argument Testing Good > Policymaking Good.

-I like plan/CP texts with some specificity. If your plan text is just a re-printing of the resolution, it will probably annoy me. If a team is vague about their advocacy, I am more likely to give the other team leeway in interpreting how it would play out through evidence.

-I am more sympathetic than average to aff theoretical objections (conditionality and multi-actor fiat stand out). If theory debates reflect well thought-out visions of debate rather than regurgitation of stock phrases, then I actually enjoy them.

-I can be persuaded that theory arguments are a reason to reject the team, and not simply the argument, if persuasive reasons are given. However, my default position is always to reject the argument (conditionality is an exception; rejecting the argument would make it conditional, so teams are encouraged to explain an alternative remedy), unless a developed warrant is made to the contrary.

A couple general reflections on my judging:

-I think I care more about evidence than I did a few years ago. Debate requires skill in framing arguments and making comparisons, but also in finding good evidence to support your claims. Obviously I prefer to watch debaters do good evidence comparison, but it’s often hard to fully interrogate every piece of evidence in the debate. If a team has invested good effort in evidence comparison, I will try to extend their skepticism in a limited fashion as I read other evidence after the debate.

-I give the best points to debaters who have a good big-picture strategic vision of the debate and how the relevant arguments interact. If debaters invest their time in the right places and explain their strategic decision-making, I am more likely to view the debate the way they would like.

Sarah Weiner University of California, Berkeley 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM EDT

Sarah Weiner
Cal Berkeley '12
Updated 1/2/19
saraheweiner@gmail.com

The last season I coached was '13-'14, so I am probably a little rusty. In case it is worth knowing, in the intervening 4 years I went to law school and am now clerking in DC.

Basics:

1) Things need to make sense. I promise to try my hardest to understand your argument. But if it still doesn't make sense at the end of the debate, that's your problem and not mine. Debate is about your ability to be pursuasive, not my reading comprehension.

2) An argument is a claim and a warrant. A dropped 3-second argument consisting of, for example, "fiat solves the link" is not yet a full argument.

3) I don’t think “try or die” makes a lot of sense if the probability of being able to prevent the bad thing is low. It’s like saying, “An asteroid is coming! Quick, give me 5 dollars!” That makes no sense.

4) Don't over-focus on “turns the case.” Turning the case relies on you winning a large risk of your link. It's so sad to see a 2nr invest so much time in the overview that he or she undercovers the meat of the debate.

5) When answering a theory argument, you need offense and/or a warranted reason why you shouldn't need offense (reasonability, etc.).

6) Often the authors who say the most are the least qualified to be saying it. I take seriously arguments about an author's/source's reliability or credibility.

Arguments:

Topicality: It's important to me that I understand the kind of topic I am voting for. This not only means giving caselists, but also offering an interpretation that provides a clear sorting mechanism for what's in and what's out. Reasonability is persuasve as an impact calculus argument (i.e., how much better does the neg interpretation need to be to justify voting negative), but pretty unpersuasive when explained as "I know it when I see it." I don't.

Ks: Most important is that I know what voting negative does. "Framework" is one label for several arguments, all of which are important to discuss: a) what should be the affirmative's job and what does that mean for thinking about the aff ("weighing impacts"), b) what should be the negative's job and what does that mean for thinking about the alternative/role of the ballot (alternative's or method's "solvency"), and c) how can/should/do we think/know things about the world. For both teams, "framework" is a lens through which all the other arguments in the debate need to be filtered.

Affirmatives that do not want to be topical: I have not judged many of these debates, and as a debater I relied heavily on framework/T. That said, my job is to listen to the arguments in the debate and make a decision based on those arguments, and I will take that job very seriously. It will help me to have a sense of what you think debates will look like in a world where we follow whatever rule/guideline/custom your affirmative falls within.

Counterplans: In general I lean neg on conditionality and PICs and am conflicted about international/state fiat. That said, I find myself leaning aff on a lot of competition questions, especially when the CP 1) competes on immediacy / certainty, 2) competes through “normal means”, whatever that means 3) competes though c-x answers instead of the plan text, 4) competes by assuming the aff does ALL instances of the plan in all places at all times.

Theory: Theory arguments are reasons to reject the team only when you have proven the other team has changed your ability to engage in the substance of the debate.

Other Oddities:

1) Cross-x pet peeves: a) Saying "we'll answer that argument if you make it" in cross-x. Answer it now! b) Demanding a yes/no answer to your question. This is not Matlock, and sometimes answers really do require nuance. c) "Show me a line." Read a line or ask a question. "Show me a line" causes awkward downtime and is incredibly boring.

2) Paperless rant: a) Marking your cards means physically marking your cards. You have to do more than just say "mark the card." b) The other team deserves to have a copy of your marked cards. They do not have a right to "a document of only the cards you read."

Speaker Point Scale

27.3-27.6 – You are still working on getting the basics. You will win 1 or 2 debates at an 8 round tournament.

27.7-28.0 – I believe you are trying and have many of the basics down. There is still a ways to go. You will win 2 or 3 debates at an 8 round tournament.

28.1-28.5 – You had some moments of greatness but some rough patches too. Your debate showed some strategic vision, but there was room for improvement. You will win 3 or 4 debates at an 8 round tournament.

28.6-28.8 – You are pretty good and I was impressed by you at several points during your debate. That said, there are certainly things that could have been executed a bit better. You will win 4 or 5 debates an 8 round tournament. I won’t be surprised if you clear. I think you deserved to be somewhere between 35th and 25th speaker.

28.9-29.1 – Very impressive, both strategically and stylistically. There is still some room for polish, but overall I have few criticisms. I expect you to clear after winning 5 or 6 debates at an 8 round tournament. I think you deserved to be somewhere between 25th and 10th speaker.

29.2-29.5 – You did an incredibly good job. You executed well, made the debate clear and easy to flow, showed a comprehensive understanding of the arguments, correctly identified the path to victory, and tried to make the debate easy for me to judge. You are polished and made smart arguments that I hadn’t thought of before. You deserve to be somewhere between 10th and 1st speaker.

29.6-29.9 – Wow. Everything from the previous level but with just a little more polish. You are one of the best speakers in the country. I’ll be very surprised if you aren’t in the top 5 speakers. I won’t be surprised at all if you are the top speaker.

Mike "Shooter" Weitz Oklahoma 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 31, 2014 at 5:26 AM CDT

Mike “Shooter” Weitz

***************************Updated 2014-15********************

A guy walks into the Buddha’s bar. Plopping on the stool, his dejected look was plain for all to see. “How can I help with what’s ailing you?” the Buddha asked, sliding the man a drink.

The man said, “I did everything I was supposed to, and nothing happened. I spend hours meditating under a tree every day, and I still haven’t reached enlightenment. I do my mantras, mandalas and sutras without forgetting a word. What am I doing wrong? I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I walk perfectly along the path.”

Giggling at the seriousness of the upset man, the Buddha exclaimed, “Well, there’s your problem right there! If your path is the trampled dirt of others’ footsteps, you’ve already lost your way.”

“But without that path, how will I know where I’m going?” the man asked earnestly.

“Exactly,” the Buddha smiled.

Not satisfied with the response, the man demanded, “If I don’t know where I am going, how will I know when I get there?”

“Exactly,” the Buddha quipped.

The man’s temper got the better of him, “That tells me nothing. Why don’t you just tell me what I need to know?”

“Exactly,” the Buddha chimed with glee.

“The Silent Flute”

I wish neither to posses,

Nor to be possessed.

I no longer covet paradise,

More important, I no longer fear hell.

The medicine for my suffering,

I had within me from the very beginning,

But I did not take it.

My ailment came from within myself,

But I did not observe it

Until this moment.

Now I see that I will never find the light

Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel,

Consuming myself.

-Bruce Lee

“Once More I Hold You In My Arms”

Once more I hold you in my arms;

And once more I lost myself in

A paradise of my own.

Right now you and I are in

A golden boat drifting freely on a sunny sea

Far, far away from the human world.

I am happy as the waves dancing around us.

Too much analysis kills spontaneity,

As too much light dazzles my eyes.

Too much truct astonishes me.

Despite all obstacles,

Love still exists between us.

It is useless to try and stir the dirt

Out of the muddy water,

As it will become murkier.

But leave it alone,

And if it should be cleared

It will become clear by itself.

-Bruce Lee

“Sharing a Mountain Hut with a Cloud”

A lonely hut on the mountain-peak towering above a thousand others;

One half is occupied by an old monk and the other by a cloud:

Last night it was stormy and the cloud was blown away;

After all a cloud could not equal the old man's quiet way.

-Kuei-tsung Chih-chih,

“Being as Is”

Food and clothes sustain

Body and life;

I advise you to learn

Being as is.

When it's time,

I move my hermitage and go,

And there's nothing

To be left behind.

-P'ang Yün

Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water.

The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken.

Although its light is wide and great,

The moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide.

The whole moon and the entire sky

Are reflected in one dewdrop on the grass.

-Dogen

Look for Buddha outside your own mind,

and Buddha becomes the devil.

-Dogen

“Suchness”

The wind traverses the vast sky,

clouds emerge from the mountains;

Feelings of enlightenment and things of the world

are of no concern at all.

-Keizan Jõkin

Where beauty is, then there is ugliness;

where right is, also there is wrong.

Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent;

delusion and enlightenment condition each other.

Since olden times it has been so.

How could it be otherwise now?

Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other

is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.

Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,

how do you deal with each thing changing?

-Ryokan

“In science we have finally come back to the pre-Socratic philosopher Hercalitus, who said that everything is flow, flux, process. We in the West think of nothingness as a void, an emptiness, a nonexistence. In Eastern philosophy and modern physical science, nothingness—no-thingness—is a form of process, ever moving. In science we try to find the ultimate matter, but the more we split up matter, the more we find other matter. We find movement, and movement equals energy: movement, impact, energy, but no things.”

–Bruce Lee

************************************************************

(2013-2014)

To be honest, I am not sure what it means to have a ‘philosophy of judging.’ I can tell you what I do: I evaluate arguments in relation to other arguments. I like good argument more than I like bad arguments. I like good cards more than I like bad cards. But, other than that, I’m not sure what I am supposed to tell you. Am I, through some unknown process of self-evaluation, to disclose how I decide which arguments that I’m yet to hear, and how they will win out versus other arguments? Should I provide you a list of the arguments I like and dislike, the things I have pre-determined to be true, as avenues of persuasion to receive my ballot? Such a list doesn’t exist. However, i can tell you some things:

If it is about my personal philosophy, then I’m not sure how telling you that I am a Buddhist and like to study Eastern Philosophy explains my approach to judging debate rounds, except to say that i evaluate arguments as i understand them at their moment of utterance, i evaluate them by the interdependent relationship to other arguments in the round, and i do my best to remain present and attentive during the course of the round. I think that truth tends to be a little grey (and technically ungraspable by language and set, intellectual patterns of thinking). I very much believe in paradoxes, which means that sometimes even 'incompatable' truth claims can both be true and untrue. This can be frustrating for debaters sometimes, because it puts a higher argumentative standard on you to make sure that you not only make arguments, but make sure that your arguments answer your oppenents arguments. Finally, it's not a requirement, but i do tend to prefer the nice and humble debater, even while debating with a passion. I will also do my best to judge with humility; we are all human and all make mistakes. I definately will.

I like arguments to be clear. I don't like to have to do a bunch of extra work to read your cards after the round because I should be able to hear them when you read them if you're clear. I only like to call for cards if their meaning is contested, and arguments are made against them. This is usually a sign of a good debate, but i don't want to have to call for cards because i don't know what they say because you weren't clear the first time.

An argument is a claim and a warrant. Missing one makes an incomplete argument, especially in the warrant department. And just because you made a claim and a warrant, does not necessarily make them persuasive, which is why the more warrants the better, usually. Always answer the "why" question. Why is what you say true?

The same standard applies to evidence, if your evidence does not contain warrants, then it is a bunch of warrantless assertions, and, hence, a waste of your time. You don't have to read seven-page-long cards, but the more warrants the better. Highlight your cards down to one sentence at your own risk and peril.

You would be surprised how often teams will win portion of an argument, and lose because of their failure to properly 'impact' it in the debate round. This is a critical part of the debate that should not be skimped on just because it happens in the latter speeches. Again, answer the "why" question.

Finally, while I'm not quite ready to go "full Dallas," I do attempt to generally communicate my thoughts, feelings, how I'm receiving stuff, and might even pipe in a "that don't make sense." My point is that I'm a source for information that you should use.

As always, have fun!

Janna White New York University 8 rounds

Whit Whitmore University of Michigan 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM EDT

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.

Kelly Winfrey Kansas State 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 10, 2014 at 6:24 AM CDT

Kelly Winfrey

Kansas State University

Yrs judging- 9

I’ve been judging for a while now and my views have evolved over the years. My general philosophy is the same (and thats below my rants), but I want to start off with some addendums to my old philosophy so that teams may make pref decisions and choices about arguments knowing who their audience is.

I try to be as objective as possible as a judge, but I think its impossible to separate one’s beliefs completely from evaluating arguments. My academic research primarily uses social scientific methods to examine political campaigns and political engagement. With this comes the belief that participating in politics if fundamentally good and that persuasion is an important element in democracy. This may inform what types of arguments I find most persuasive.

A few notes about things that are bothering me as a judge these days....

Critical/Topic-rejecting Affs- I believe Affs should be related to the topic. I have a pretty broad interpretation of what that means, BUT I think there are many Affs have gotten too far away from the resolution. For example I think Affs this year (12-13) need to be related to energy in some explicit way. You need to make some effort to talk about the topic. If your 1ac doesn’t even mention energy- you may have gone too far for me. I think some limits are good so that we can have a debate- you can win that too many limits are bad in front of me, but I do believe we need a starting point for discussion. The fact that so many Affs have gotten so far fro the topic or read the same critical args every year has made judging stale and has limited what I learn about the topic or critical issues related to the topic. Teams have won limits bad arguments in front of me, but it requires a lot more explanation to win that limits in debate is the same thinking that cause genocide, etc.

I believe that switch-side debate is good. That’s not to say I refuse to evaluate args to the contrary- but you should know that I personally believe that one of the valuable things about debate is that it teaches us how arguments on all sides function and I believe there is educational value in putting yourself in the position of those you disagree with.

I am sick of debates that end up being nothing more about framework. When the Aff reads something that is totally unrelated to the topic- I blame the Aff. When the Neg reads a k with links to the Aff and the Aff chooses to say framework instead of answer the k and defend their ideology/representations/etc I think it’s the Affs fault we are having this debate.

The general judge philosophy-

Paperless and prep time- You save your speec doc in your prep time (same as you would put papers in order on your prep time). Once you pull the flash drive out of your computer (or send the email) then your prep stops.

Theory- I don’t tend to vote on theory. That does not mean I will never vote on theory. I think theory debates should be well developed and impacted. If you spend 30 seconds at the beginning of the 2ar going for dispo, it is unlikely I will vote for you on that argument. That said, if a team just drops some theory arguments, I will probably vote for you assuming you extend the argument well and impact it. Also, make sure you give me pen time.

T- I like a good T debate, but I haven’t voted on it much. If you are debating a team that is blatantly untopical, then you should definitely run T. I think Aff’s should probably talk about something related to the topic, but I am willing listen to args otherwise. If you are going for T, it should be all of the 2nr and you should impact your argument.

K debates- They are fine. However, don’t assume I have read everything you have. I hate judging a critical round when a team assumes I know all the things they know about a particular argument. I also hate being stuck reading a ton of K cards at the end of the debate. This is dangerous for you because I may not interpret them the way you want me to. Just make sure you explain your arguments, and you’ll be fine. I think alternative debates are really important. I want to know what the alt is, how it works/solves, etc. I think alt debates are the best way for Aff’s to beat Ks. I think the Neg needs to apply the K to the specific Aff. The best way is specific links or at least explanation that applies it specifically.

Answering K’s- I rarely vote on framework as a reason to out right reject a k (that was ran on the neg); it may be a reason you get to weigh your impacts. Assuming it is a K that has been around for a while, I think you should have actual answers to the specific K.

Performance/Project Debates- This give me a little trouble. First, I am never really sure how to evaluate them. I like a lot of elements of “traditional” debate, so teams that ask me to completely abandon that are fighting an uphill battle. Another annoyance that I have is Affs that read entire 1ACs saying debate is bad. If you think you have a better way to debate, then I think you should debate that way. If the neg makes args that you can’t debate that way, THEN you can make your traditional debate bad args. That said, I do think that Aff’s should have at least a little to do with the topic.

CP/DA debates- I love a good disad/cp debate. I like elections and politics disads- assuming they are debated well. Smart PIC strategies I also enjoy. I like big impact debates, assuming the debaters make good comparisons between arguments/cards. However, I want you to make connections between all the little args in a big impact debate rather assume I will connect all the dots for you. In other words, explain how the arguments your going for interact with each other and with theirs.

The topic- I don’t do much topic research, so what I know about the topic comes primarily from judging debates. Don’t assume I already know specifics about the topic or what different acronyms mean.

Other thoughts: I don’t like looking for you arguments in your evidence after the debate. I think it is your responsibility to make warranted arguments. I won’t call for evidence if you don’t explain the argument. If you just say “our Smith ev answers this,” then you aren’t making an argument. Why does your ev answer the argument?

Have Fun! Don’t be super rude! I don’t like judging people who are mean to each other. I want you to have a good time, and then maybe I will have a good time too. If you have any specific questions please ask!

Austin Woodruff George Washington University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 5, 2017 at 3:51 AM EDT

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.

Carly Wunderlich Michigan State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:49 PM UTC

Background: Debated 2006-2010 at Michigan State University, Assistant Coach at Gonzaga 2010-2011, Coach at MSU 2011-present

carly.wunderlich@gmail.com

---Updates Based on Getting Old---

1. What happened to 1NC DA shells that were complete arguments? Card 1 – Dems will win now – health care is a thing that matters. Card 2 – Dem win stops impeachment. Card 3 – Trump causes nuclear war. Um, no. You don’t have an argument here. The aff gets a wreck of leeway to answer stuff in the 1AR because this isn’t even starting to establish a causal link chain in the 1NC.

3. What happened to 1NC solvency cards for CPs? If your 2NC starts “they dropped the announcements plank in the 2AC it’s GAME OVER” but you haven’t read solvency for that plank that’s a no as well.

They all have huge strategic benefits, I get it – you can just spread them out and then piece it together once the aff drops everything. It’s gross to watch, your speaker points will reflect it and I won't forget who's fault it is that the debate is a wreck to try to decide because the debating didn't start until the block. This is also all true of ludicrous aff moves in the same vein

---Old Philosophy + Minor Revisions---

Things I like about debate

1. Working hard/preparation--- I think quality research should be a guiding factor when making decisions. Specific strategies rewarded, poo-nuggets punished

2. Critical thinking--- nothing gets you thinking you your feet like debate. I like interesting pivots and fast-moving debates

3. Argument testing---looking at both sides of an issue to parse out the most compelling arguments on both sides without confirmation bias – more important than ever, in my opinion

Topicality

As an old 2A I think reasonability works out well for the aff in a lot of spots. I'm very close to living in a post-T world if I'm being honest. The link to the limits DA should be well explained and evidenced (either by analysis or with actual evidence). Need clear case lists with explanation why you do/don’t include a specific case. T-substantial/significant is no for me.

CPs

I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, states) as reasons to reject the team. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. I also do not think that distinct is competitive and I think the neg should compete off a mandate of the plan.

Conditionality- for the last decade my philosophy has read “this is an area where I've started to move farther into the aff camp. My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans. It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a better job of protecting the aff in this department.” Unfortunately, I have failed the aff and voted neg in a LOT of spots. I still wish in my heart that we could limit the number of CPs read in a debate but unfortunately my voting record has not reflected that.

Unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

DAs

I think there are many logical inconsistencies with DAs that often go unremarked on by the aff in favor of impact defense. I think the aff would generally do better on engaging at the link/internal link level of dubious DAs. Picking one argument to deal a death blow to the DA works better than death by a thousand cuts.

Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. Links to the plan action are best. Affs get far on “K doesn’t remedy “x” advantage and that outweighs” if the neg is not good and explicit about it. Almost all frameworks are a race to the middle. Neg gets to question assumptions of the aff, aff gets to weigh advantages- that’s a warning to the aff and the neg.

The Aff

I feel that there are lots of instances where crummy affs get away with it because the neg only focuses on impact calc. I think this is another instance, like DAs, where focusing on solvency/internal link args can pay bigger dividends than impact calc.

Speaker points

Things I like in speeches

1. Connections on central questions- slowing down and effectively communicating about guiding issues

2. Technical proficiency- answering clearly all necessary arguments

3. Clarity- I’m doing my best to be mindful of this but I honestly sometimes just forget- I’ll call clear once if you’re incomprehensible but at a certain point it will affect whether or not I vote on arguments

4. Strategic cross-exs- I’d prefer not to spend another 12 mins listening to “where does your card say that?”

Things that will result in reduced speaker points

2. Tech fails- please be prompt and quick with tech things. In a world of decision times this is increasingly getting to me.

3. Creating an environment that is hostile or unsafe for me or the other team – It's important for productive conversations and it's not healthy for all of us to leave tournaments hating each other.

4. Talking over everyone in c-x – I get it, you think you’re cool but I’m pretty bored with watching people get themselves all worked up and then just yell over the other team

My Speaker Point Scale (unless otherwise published by the tournament)

29.6 -30: You should receive a Top 10 speaker award

29.3 – 29.5: In this debate, you were an quarters level debater

28.8 – 29.2: In this debate, you were a 5-3, octos or double octos debater

28.4 – 28.7: In this debate, you were a 4-4 debater on the verge or bubble of clearing

28 – 28.3: You are improving but not quite there on big picture issues

27.5 – 28: You need some improvement on technical items as well as big picture things

Edmund Zagorin University of Iowa 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 8, 2014 at 1:25 PM PDT

"There are some who believe that there is a "correct" way to debate just as there are some who believe that there is only one true religion. I am respectful of all of those who so believe but I do not think students should have those values imposed upon them."

-- Jim Gentile, legendary debate coach

I have judged a minor slew of the wild'n'crazy debates over the past few years. This has lead me to a strong appreciation of the fundamentals: line-by-line, "even if" statements and strong impact calculus. That said, I like to learn and experience new things. If you introduce me to a word or an author or a frame of thinking, I am more likely to reward you with whatever ballots mean.

My definition of a *good debate* is as follows: words are clear and discernible, arguments are distinct and comparative, speeches are well-organized and contain multiple historical and situational examples, debaters are cordial and crafty while always keeping a sense of humor, paperless wastetime is kept to a minimum and the final two speeches are spent writing my RFD.

Unless you are doing something wrong, I almost always flow cross-ex.

While not impossible, I don't typically vote for teams that solely extend defensive arguments.Since definitions of offense/defense differ among judges, mine are:

Offense = what they advocate is/leads to something that is bad/dangerous/catastrophic. Defense = something they said is incorrect/unlikely/false.

If you are using debate to fashion a new Total World-Image, you should realize that I might not care that hard. I leave you with the following kernel of empuzzling wisdom from the Haruki Murakami:

...there is nothing unusual about a dairy cow seeking a pair of pliers. A cow is bound to get her pliers sometime. It has nothing to do with me.

(Older Extra-Long Version, All Of Which Is Still True-ish)

My primary goal as a judge is to enjoyably resolve debates with a minimum quantity of my own intervention. While true tabula rasa is impossible, I think that attempting to constrain the influences on my decision to arguments in the debate is a necessary thought experiment in the interests of pedagogical competition. Therefore, I will attempt to prevent my prior knowledge of the topic, history, and certain authors or literatures from influencing my decision and will consign such interests to post-round suggestions and comments.

That being said, I have some presumptions which are generally reflected in the way I make decisions in really bad/unresolved or good/close debates, where key questions are left to the judge. If you want me to judge in a different way, then you should introduce a judgment calculus as an argument in the debate itself and tell me how you’d like things resolved. Below are a list of some of my considered presumptions.

STRUCTURE

Debate is a game — it is supposed to be fun and it is supposed to stimulate participants’ intellect. Rules and constraints on arguments are a vital element of motivating this stimulation, in the same way that constraints on poetic forms motivate novel plays of language. Debating the rules, the framework and the impact calculus within that framework has always been a component of winning debates. This is true whether the framework argument concerns a stipulation that the affirmative defend the minimum number of votes necessary for legislative passage, that the judge is a logical policy-maker, that the affirmative must defend a topical plan or that every debater must answer the cross-ex questions posed to them. Fiat and policy implementation are black boxes that can be uniquely unpacked in every debate for strategic gain, whether via an intrinsicness argument or an argument about one’s personal connection to the topic.

Line-by-line is pretty important — it’s how I flow and my flow typically dictates how I decide debates. If there is a compelling reason not to decide a debate on dropped arguments, tell me what it is during the debate and if the other team drops it I’ll make a good-faith effort to embrace your paradox. Conceded arguments may be treated as true, but the scope of that truth is limited by arguments which remain contested. I try to remain vigilant of new arguments in final speeches.

Scope matters — an argument that is thesis-level is more powerful and wide-ranging than a specific argument, but because there are more opportunities for counter-example, general arguments are logically easier to disprove. If you concede the truth of a thesis-level claim without taking the opportunity to find a counter-example, then you should not be surprised when the debate is decided at the level of generalities. See Karl Popper’s explanation of Occam’s Razor for an explanation of the logic behind this.

Warrant depth and diversity are key — it’s how I decide most contests between given claims. Counter-intuitive, improbable and morally repugnant claims are totally winnable with diverse and high-quality warrants.

Cheap shots aren’t a great idea — I’m a pretty good flow but I have a high threshold for clarity. If you mumbled out a voting issue or trick perm in pig latin that the other team missed there’s a decent chance I missed it too. I won’t vote on an argument that I didn’t record during a speech unless all four debaters agree that it was made or concede the same

Offense/defense is standard — with some obvious exceptions it seems like everyone wants to debate this way, so I’m happy to go along with it. I do think there are serious problems with the logic of offense/defense, most easily highlighted in debates over the link differential between a plan and counterplan. I am also susceptible to offense/defense bad arguments (“Arguments are sentences that are either true or false…the counterplan either links to the DA or doesn’t… therefore link differential as a concept is incoherent… you’re either pregnant or you’re not”), but I’m sure there are good responses to such objections

THEORY

Remedy is the most important question for theory debates. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise prior to the final rebuttals.

Conditionality is usually a good thing, but then again it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Nuanced theory is key — I’m more sympathetic to the aff if conditional advocacies contradict or steal the aff in some way, as opposed to the debate over whether or not conditionality in the abstract is good or bad.

Postround conditionality is sweet for the negative but terrible for the aff. I am very sympathetic theoretical objections against it. I won’t kick arguments for the negative unless explicitly told to, and then only if the aff doesn’t object.

Permutations are tests of a link unless explained otherwise. If there is a link argument extended by the negative, then it must be explained how the permutation resolves the link arguments.

DISADS

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link if decisively won by either team — otherwise I’ll evaluate all arguments probablistically via offense/defense

Diverse case turn arguments are a great way to persuade me that you’ve won the debate

I find that I begin most of my decisions by looking at impact uniqueness — the part of debate that determines whether or not either side truly controls “try-or-die”. If a team decisively controls impact uniqueness, then I may be inclined to vote for them even if they appear to be losing much of the rest of the debate.

Extreme-low-risk causal chains fall within the penumbra of statistical noise and in principle only dictate possibility rather than probability. In other words, if you lose a key defensive argument on a DA, you have proven that the link-chain suggested by the DA is possible, but not probable. Because lots of things are possible, the fact that the DA is possible may not be significant in my decision.

COUNTERPLANS

PICs done right are some of my favorite arguments. Case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates are awesome

Counterplans that steal the aff are probably unfair for the aff to have to debate — I’m more aff-leaning on condition/consult than most

Cross-ex is the best way to establish competition

Solvency advocates in general are preferable but not a must

KRITIKS

Specificity is key — if you aren’t pointing to specific 1AC cards to do link analysis then you are depriving yourself of both a speaker point opportunity and strategic advantage

Think through what the alt is — if you get embarrassed on the alt being vague and/or naive and/or dumb in cross-ex then I may feel hard-pressed to vote for you

Floating PIKs are silly but really strategic — if you make them too sneakily in the block and then claim that they were “dropped” I think the 2ar probably gets a few new-ish logical answers

CROSS-EX

I flow it sometimes, it’s binding and vital for speaker points

INTERNETS

Only use it for research questions during debates — fine for Wikipedia checks or to get the context of a full article, not cool to open an email with a bunch of new updates half-way through the debate. If you want to use time during a debate to cut a cards, that’s your own business

SPEAKER POINTS

I give speaker points for rhetorical and persuasive flourish, use of historical examples and creative analogies, humor and technical talent. I may lower points for debaters who fight with or interrupt their partner, are cruel or disrespectful to their opponents, who prompt excessively, who make poor use of cross-ex. I will also punish the speaker points of debaters who use prejudicial or discriminatory language in a debate, or violate ethical norms of conduct.

ETHICS

I don’t vote on ethics challenges. There are other remedies that solve better, and I don’t think that it is worth ruining an entire debate over one person’s opinion of what constitutes “community norms” or “ethical practices”. That being said, please don’t lie, cheat, steal, cross-read, fabricate evidence, text/chat with your coaches during a debate and so on — it fosters a weakness of spirit if you get away with it and makes you look pathetic and/or stupid if called out on it.

PERFORMANCE

Arguments are arguments, whether made by voice, image, song or body. That being said, sometimes it’s difficult for me to flow the warrants of the body, so make sure you explain your arguments in plain language. I appreciate rhetorical debating, and will give higher speaker points for performances that look like some effort was put into composition and rehearsal.

I find that reading evidence often distracts from / undermines the rhetorical force of a performance. I appreciate warranted argumentation — you don’t need to hand me a lot of evidence.

Your opponents influence the way that I judge your solvency. Make sure that the other team understands what you’re argument is, or at very least give them the opportunity to understand. Performance teams whose arguments are excessively complicated, vague or constantly morphing can undermine their own raison d’etre.

I am more sympathetic to performances that either justify the resolution or have advocacy statements that are germane to the topic. I think that topicality and framework are different arguments. Make sure you can defend your education in the context of the education facilitated by the resolution.

Jonathan Ziakowski University of Central Florida 4 rounds None

Jake Ziering Stanford University 2 rounds

Login to Tabroom

Harvard Debate Tournament

2013 — MA/US

All Judges Paradigm List

Judges