Pre-Districts Update 2015

Plans: I judge the debate in front of me, but I find this trend toward policy teams reading a plan that is nothing but the very generic terms of the resolution disturbing. In particular, if your multiple solvency advocates disagree about the particulars of how something should be legalized and the negative makes that into an argument and they explain how that disadvantages them in an effective way, I'm unlikely to be persuaded by you saying something like "well, that's just the way debate goes these days." That's especially true if you think you get to pick and choose among different advocates to specify how the plan gets done in the 2AC, 1AR, etc. (assuming the negative makes that into an argument too). If you do what I've just described, can you still win the debate? Of course you can. Negatives are bad at running procedural arguments, you could be just better than they are debating, and I'm entirely open to being persuaded that I'm wrong. I will still vote on the flow first. I'm just saying that I will know you're cheating. I'm equally skeptical about the argument that normal means should be interpreted to mean that both sides read cards as to which legislation would be most likely to pass if the general concept of the aff was implemented. I don't think those cards exist, and if they did, would you really be inherent?

November 2013

WHO?: I’m the Director of Debate at Georgia State University.

SUMMARY: I try to let the debaters decide what the round is about, and what debate should be like. I will vote on whatever arguments win -- Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan, Affs with a plan, framework, what people refer to as "performance," etc. The worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is fail to explain your arguments. The second worst thing is to fail to respond to the other team’s arguments. The third worst is to assume you know what arguments I like and make strategic decisions based on your guesswork. The best thing you can do is to make arguments that seem smart to you, and to make them in the best way you can.

THINGS I WOULD LIKE:

1) Engaging debate. That's a broad imperative, but there's too much debate these days that's mechanical and boring. Too many people talking to their laptops instead of the judge or their opponents. Be clever, be passionate, be funny, be original, be effective, be whatever it is that you can be that's not just another bloodless read-through. Ask interesting or effective cross-ex questions. Deliver your speeches as though they matter. This is not an exhaustive list. You're smart and creative. I'm easy to please.

2) Debaters that fight hard but respect themselves, their partners, their opponents, the process, and the community. I will give you my respect as a person, as a judge, and as a fellow member of the community. Intolerance and pointless hostility are both awful.

CURRENT PET PEEVES:

1) When I say "clearer" and you ignore me. If that happens, I will deduct speaker points. If that happens, I am very likely to stop flowing you. I am even more likely to assign arguments that I can't understand less weight. I am yet more likely to let a clever opponent persuade me that I should completely disregard arguments that were made in an incomprehensible fashion after I had requested greater clarity. All this can be avoided by responding to my simple request with greater clarity.

2) Failure to label off case positions in the 1NC when there is more than one of them. Label all of them. Even the first one. ESPECIALLY the first one. Don’t make me hurt you.

3) I will dock your speaker points by .2 every time you say "thumper." You're better than that.

THE SPECIFICS:

I try to have no substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. Basically, this means you get to argue why you should win. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you convince me that the other team should lose because they have no fashion sense, I'll pull the trigger. This puts a huge onus on all of you to explain why you should win. If you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you to make things up. No, seriously -- explain your arguments or I may simply not understand them.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE STUPID ARGUMENTS. It means that I want to let debaters debate, and I have some humility about my own ability to decide ahead of time what arguments are good or educational or whatever. In this vein, let me say that debaters often do not explain things like how the counterplan wins/loses the round, how the kritik relates to the counterplan, whether topicality trumps the kritik, and so on. Don't be like those debaters. Explain the hierarchy of decisions in the round.

TOPICALITY: If you’re good at it, I am a lot better for you than some of these jokers who seem to think T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it (and you win it's a voting issue), I will vote for you even if all the cool kids think the aff is topical. However, I have also voted on arguments like T is genocidal and whatnot. The point is not that I'm eager, but that I'm willing.

READING EVIDENCE: Debates where I have to read a lot of cards are either really good or really bad. If the debaters in the round don't do their job to resolve major issues for me, I am not about to read 50 cards to overcome their ineptitude and/or replay the round in my head. Instead, I'll try to identify a few key cards and read those instead. If you want me to read a piece of evidence after the debate, you should cite it by author name and explain why it's important. In fact, if you do this really well and the other team doesn't respond, then I may just take your word for what the card says and not call for it at all. The bottom line is that, if you want an argument to influence my decision, you should say it out loud during a debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I love me some tricky counterplans. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. In my experience, most of those kind of theory debates get unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve. Every once in a while, though, I do like to see someone get decapitated on CP theory.

KRITIKS: I know them, I write them, I have read a lot of so-called postmodern stuff. This means that if you are a team that relies on the judge being mystified by big words, you don’t want me. However, some of y’all read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like fast debate, but if you read the overview to your torturously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, feel free to punch it. For those of you that hate the K, don’t worry. I will vote on framework or the perm or your turns too, as long as you win them.

PERFORMANCE: I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. I also want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say. Is that too much to ask? If it is, you don’t want me. If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me. If you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine for you. If you answer performance arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you want me, too.

CARD CLIPPING: It's cheating. I'm going to start recording debates that I judge. If a recording of a speech where a clipping accusation is made is available, I'll stop the debate, review the recording, and make a determination. If there was clipping, the offending team loses. If I feel that clipping occurred, I reserve the right to make that determination without an accusation from the other team, again using recorded evidence.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE. For the time being, here's how I'm assigning points:

30: I can't imagine how you could have been better. I haven't given one in years.

29.0-29.9: Damn, you're good. Overall, you were great and there was at least one "wow" moment in your speeches.

28.0-28.9: Nice job. Particularly solid work.

27.5-27.9: Meh. You did well, but your execution was lacking and there was nothing special for me.

27.0-27.4: Not up to par. There were some *major* flaws in your performance.

26.0-26.9: Really poor. Either I didn't think you were trying hard or you were annoying.

Below 26: You did something to really piss me off, and after my critique you will have no question as to what it was.

More to follow at a later time but here is the jist:

I think that the affirmative should do something and have an interpretation that gives both sides equal opporunity to win based on pre round preperation and in round execution. I think negatives should respond to the affirmative and tell me why they are wrong. 

K- I probably haven't read the literature base but I have done debate long enough to see most K's. I think an aff's best opportunity for offense is the alternative and generally find rejection alt's to be unpersuasive, the negative needs to go a step further and say what I'm rejecting in favor of and how that occurs from my ballot.

Theory- For me to vote on it I think the argument must be made coherently originally (Link, warrant, impact) then expanded upon and developed by later speechs. Half sentence theory arg that are shadow extended won't cut it . Conditionality is probably fine to an extent but can be done abusively. I generally don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team rather an excuse for the aff to go wild on the perm debate. Agent CP's are okay. Delay/Consult /Review cp's I'm less a fan of but have run/voted for them. 

DA's- yes please, politics, tradeoff etc. I like them.

Case- Case debate is under utalized and a good block can really do some damage by investing time here.

I debated for 4 years at Vanderbilt University with Cameron Norris. I am now a 3L at the University of Houston’s law school. I help coach for the University of Houston.

I will vote on any argument. I have voted on arguments I thought were awesome, and I have voted on arguments I thought were terrible. If you win the arguments, and you win I should vote on them, I absolutely will, regardless of my own personal views. My decision is not a referendum on anything except who won the round.

With that in mind, I can give you a brief history of how I have voted in the past:

DAs/Case: Obviously yes. In debates like these, I frequently find myself voting aff on “try or die” and frequently find myself voting neg on “our impacts happen faster than yours.”

Theory & T: I don’t really have many predispositions, and those I have are not strongly held. 

-I am happy to vote on T

-I do not like voting on theory

-With respect to this stuff, I will simply vote on the best explained argument. If that argument is competing interps is best or reasonability is best or theory outweighs T or anything else, I will vote for it if it is the winning argument. I will not reject an argument because I personally disagree with it.

-I think many process CPs are often terrible for debate in terms of the educational value they provide. Same with CPs that compete on certainty and delay. But not all of them.

-I’ve only voted on conditionality when there were at least 3 positions and if the 2ar gave a stellar speech and the 2nr didn’t; I generally find arguments against conditionality not explained to persuade me.

-I think intrinsicness against DAs is a very bad argument.

Legal Stuff: Now that I am in law school, I realize that debaters understand a shockingly small amount about how the courts are structured or function, even on legal topics. If the other team makes a contrived legal argument about the courts, or relies on an incorrect assumption of how they operate, I will be glad if you point it out. I certainly hope that, after 3 years of law school, I am pretty capable of understanding nuanced legal arguments (assuming you explain them).

Meta-Level Debate:

-I have often voted on arguments that, whatever you advocate, whoever the agent is or isn’t, whatever you’re talking about, that you should defend a specific course of action / solution to the problems you identify. I find this argument persuasive because I believe enormous value is generated by learning how to craft and evaluate fairly specific solutions.

-I will not vote for you because others have explained your argument better than you. I will not vote for you because I personally believe your arguments. And I will definitely not vote for you just because your evidence is awesome. I will only vote for you, whatever position you take, if you cogently present a persuasive argument in the round.

-I think evidence is most useful to establish factual questions about what has or will happen. Evidence is substantially less useful when employed for other purposes.

Kritiks:

-When I vote aff, it is often on the argument that the aff has an impact and a chance of solving it, and the alt doesn’t solve it, and the aff’s impact happens before the K’s impact.

-When I vote neg, it is often because the aff’s impacts are all lies or otherwise irrelevant, or the alt solves all the aff’s impacts and there’s no reason to do the aff, or the aff solves nothing and the K turns the case.

-I am capable of understanding and reading arguments, but I am not immersed in nor very familiar with many of the underlying ideas, background thoughts, or even vocabulary associated with many schools of thought. If I do not understand the argument as you articulate it, I will not vote for you. I will read your evidence only in light of how you actually articulated the argument.

Stupid Arguments: Notwithstanding what I said above, my personal beliefs will interfere with your ability to win these arguments. I think almost every rendition of Spark, Wipeout, Ashtar, Timecube, 2012, etc. arg that I’ve ever heard is completely unpersuasive. The authors of these positions almost inevitably rely on incorrect or unwarranted assumptions and lack any semblance of credibility. I will give an extremely strong benefit of the doubt to the team that makes smart, reasonable arguments against these positions and/or argues that the other side’s “evidence” is little more than a series of unqualified assertions and anecdotal “data”/substantively baseless scientific-sounding rhetoric.

Update 4/1/2023

*If you are scanning this philosophy as a nonmember of the community, seeking out quotes to help your political "culture war" cause you are not an honest broker here and largely looking for clickbait. I find your endeavors an unfortunate result of a rage machine that consumes a great deal of quality programs without ever helping them thrive or grow. Re-evaluate your life and think about how you can help high schools and middle schools around this country develop speech and debate programs, core liberal art educational, to improve the quality of argumentation, that otherwise is lacking. In the end, as an outsider looking in, you are missing a great deal of nuance in these philosophies and how they operate in the communities (multiple not just one) around the US and the world.

If you have landed here as a representative of Fox News or an ally or affiliate, I would like to see the receipts of the bias that has and continues to perforate your organization from Roger Ailes to Tucker Carlson and more. Here is my question, when you learned about the Joe McCarthy era of conspiracy theory, along with the hysteria and demonization of potential Americans who are communist (or sympathizers) and "pinko" (gay or sexual "deviants"), is your gripe with McCarthy that he had a secret list without evidence, or do you recognize that a core problem with McCarthy is his anti-democratic fear that there actually ARE communists, gay, trans, bisexual, Americans?

My next question is when and where you think it is acceptable for a person with strong beliefs to exist in democratic spaces. Bias is inevitable and part of this debate game. Organizations attempt to manage types of bias and coaches and debaters learn how to adapt to certain bias while attempting to avoid problematic bias. What do you think? Would right leaning presidential candidates vote for an argument that affirms trans athletes in sports? Should a trans judge leave their identity entirely at the door and embody a leading republican presidential candidate who is against medical care for trans persons? Both answers are no. The issue you seek to lambast for viewership clickbate is much deeper and more complicated than a 3 minute video clip can cover. Thank for reading.

REAL PHILOSOPHY
Background: Indiana University Director of Debate as of 2010. Background is primarily as a policy debater and policy debate coach.

Email Chain: Bdelo77@gmail.com

The road to high speaker points and the ballot

I reward debaters who have a strong knowledge of the topic. Those debaters who can articulate intricacies and relationships amongst topic specific literature will meet what I believe are the educational benefits of having a topic in the first place.

Using evidence to assist you with the argument you are trying to make is more important than stringing evidence together in hopes that they accumulate into an argument. “I have a card judge, it is real good” “pull my 15 uniqueness cards judge” are not arguments. Ex: Obama will win the election – a) swing voters, Rasmussen poll indicates momentum after the DNC b) Washington post “Romney has lost the election” the base is gone… etc. are good extensions of evidence.

Less jargon more eloquence. I get bored with repeated catch phrases. I understand the need for efficiency, but debaters who recognize the need for innovation by individuals in the activity will receive more points.

Speed: I expect I can digest at least 70% of your speech. The other 30% should be general human attention span issues on my part. I firmly believe debate is a communication event, I am saddened that this has been undervalued as debaters prepare for tournaments. If I agree with X debater that Y debater’s speech on an argument was incoherent, I am more and more willing to just ignore the argument. Computer screens and Bayesian calculus aside, there is a human in this body that makes human decisions.

Should affs be topical?

Affs should have a relationship to the topic that is cogent. If there is no relationship to the topic, I have a high standard for affirmatives to prove that the topic provides no “ground” for a debater to adapt and exist under its umbrella. Negatives, this does not mean you don’t have a similar burden to prove that the topic is worth debating. However personally I think you will have a much smaller hill to climb… I find it disturbing that debaters do not go further than a quick “topical version of your aff solves” then insert X switch side good card… Explain why the topical version is good for debate and provides argument diversity and flexibility.

Policy debate is good: When I prep our files for tournaments I tend to stay in the policy-oriented literature. This does not mean that I am unwilling to cut our K file or K answers, I just have limited time and job related motivation to dive into this literature.

K Debate: Can be done well, can be done poorly. I do not exclude the arguments from the round but nebulous arguments can be overplayed and abused.

(Updated 3-2-2022) Conditionality:

1) Judge Kick? No. You made your choice on what to go for now stick with it. 2NRs RARELY have the time to complete one avenue for the ballot let alone two conditional worlds...

I tend to believe that one conditional substantive test of the plan advocacy is good (agent CP, process CP, or ?) and I am open to the idea of the need for a second advantage CP (need to deal with add-ons and bad advantages) or K within limits. I'm not a fan of contradicting conditional advocacies in how they implicate 2AC offense and potential.

Beyond 1-2 conditional arguments, I am torn by the examples of proliferating counterplans and critiques that show up in the 1NC and then disappear in the negative block. There is a substantive tradeoff in the depth and quality of arguments and thus a demotivation incentive for the iterative testing and research in the status quo world of 3+ conditional advocacies. The neg's, "write better advantages" argument has value, however with 2AC time pressure it means that 1ACs are becoming Frankenstein's monster to deal with the time tradeoff.

Plans: I think the community should toy with the idea of a grand bargain where affirmatives will specify more in their plan text and negs give up some of their PIC ground. The aff interp of "we only have to specify the resolution" has pushed us in the direction where plans are largely meaningless and aff conditionality is built into core 2AC frontlines. The thing is, our community has lost many of its fora for discussing theory and establishing new norms around issues like this. Debaters need to help be the change we need and we need more in-depth theory discussions outside of the rounds. Who is the Rorger Solt going to be of the 2020's?

Reading evidence:
I find myself more willing to judge the evidence as it was debated in the round (speeches and cx), and less willing to scan through piles of cards to create a coherent understanding of the round. If a debate is being had about the quality of X card, how I SHOULD read the evidence, etc. I will read it.

Sometimes I just have an interest in the evidence and I read it for self-educational and post-round discussion reasons.

Judging:

I will work extremely hard to evaluate the debate as the debaters have asked me to judge it.

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

My background: I debated for Georgia State and West Georgia. I was heavily involved in debate for a decade (competing, coaching and judging as a hired gun). I have judged, literally, hundreds of rounds (mostly high school) and coached teams to TOC bids. I'm not working with any schools this year, just judging. I judged a fair number of high school rounds last year and this year and at GSU on the collegiate level. 

Prep time ends when the jump drive leave the computer -- if you're into that sort of thing.

Here are my biases:

1) Debate is a game. Like sports, the game affects life outside of the activity, but it's just a game.

2) Not all inclusion is good. The game needs limits and structure, but that's the beauty of debate is that you get to make arguments about how the rules, norms and structures of the activity function.

3) My role is to evaluate competing arguments each team makes and weigh them.

Be good and be good at it.

Background

I debated at the University of Oregon, and am now in my second year coaching at IU. I’m working with the developing urban debate league in Indianapolis and I’ve spent a lot more energy on that this year than cutting cards (sorry IU debaters…) or going to tournaments: for now, I’ll be less familiar with some topic specific plan mechanisms and arguments that hinge on “the direction of the topic”. I enjoy judging a lot and I’m working hard to improve. My number one goal is to facilitate an educational experience for the debaters. I enjoy judging novice, JV and open debates, and I come to the round to learn too.

General

I don’t have a preference for any type of argument. Do what you feel comfortable with and what you like researching and I’ll follow. On K literature: saying an author’s name usually does not allow me to access a reservoir of knowledge on their work, but I generally believe that it takes the same sort of skills to contextualize a piece of k evidence to your opponent’s argument and the round, which you should do.

Evidence

I tend not to call for much evidence – I default to what the rebuttals say about the use and spin of the evidence. There’s an exception: as a way of incentivizing what I view as a very useful educational aspect of debate, I am quite willing to look at evidence if you tell me to evaluate the quality, coherence, highlighting etc of evidence that is important to the debate. I think these should be made quite often. You should be specific (it won’t do to say “their whole K has bad evidence”), but I won’t punish a debater if their indictment turns out to be mistaken. If aff evidence contains alt causes in the ununderlined text, that needs to be pointed out. If the politics link is hideously generic or taken out of context, say so. Sometimes I feel like debaters get too rushed (or embarrassed that they could be wrong) to make these types of arguments and prefer to hide behind a wall of cards. I think this is absolutely the wrong response. You can get a lot of mileage with me out of short analytic arguments – at worst they’re usually a good time tradeoff.

Effective Communication

It’s the rare debater that this does not apply to: start your speech slower and ease into the speed as the judge gets used to your voice.

I find the following characteristics most important to my assignment of speaker points (in order):

1. Responsiveness and evidence analysis. If your speech makes me feel like it couldn’t be given in 3 other rounds, I’ll reward you. You can earn high points under this metric in many ways: directly evaluating the text/source of the evidence, amending your overviews to include a specific example from the round, or contextualizing your own evidence to undermine the logical underpinnings of your opponents specific position.

2. Communication skills – are you trying to convince me? Are you speaking to your computer? Do you look up every now and again? Is your speed an asset, and not a hindrance?

3. Strategic and technical ability

4. Random intangibles – I’m trying to standardize the speaker points I give out, but it’s a work in progress.

Tips

More analogies, more historical examples. More theory. Fewer, slower arguments per theory shell. More analysis of sources and evidence. Less read the opposite card. More creativity in strategy and research! That you care about your argument and have spent time reflecting on your strategy is apparent from where I’m sitting.

Debated: Missouri State 4 years (3 time NDT), Graduate Assistant at Indiana

Short version:

I like to vote for teams who have clear, nuanced strategies and who define, interpret, and impact their arguments. I like to vote for teams who speak clearly and persuasively. I prefer interaction between arguments and the specific application of abstractions. I tend to comprehend and analyze final rebuttals better when they are approached conceptually rather than with the goal of coverage. 

Longer version:

Evidence

What does evidence mean to me? Generally, it means you have provided some support for an argument you are making. Arguments don't require evidence, but evidence that is presented as unattached to an argument are considered on par with bad arguments. This has been one of the hardest things for me to determine as a judge, but I'm pretty confident in the following sliding scale:

Good argument (warrant+explanation of how it should impact that page/my decision+interactive with the other side's evidence/arg)+ good evidence

Good argument (same) without evidence

Good argument + bad evidence 

Bad argument (assertion, lacks interaction or explanation) + good evidence

Bad argument + decent evidence

Bad argument is considered equal to assertion of evidence with no argument

I always prefer straightforward arguments over convoluted ones or even over attempted humor. Each chance you give me to misinterpret increases the probability that I will not vote on what you want me to vote on. Have a personality, but if naming an advantage something silly means that I don't understand what it's about, then that's a problem for you.

I always prefer affirmatives with a central point of offense, whether that comes with a plan or not. I am frustrated by, but not decidedly against, affs with the strategy of a "say almost nothing 1ac"+"K everything 2ac". 

I always prefer negatives that talk about the aff, whether through advocacy of the status quo, a CP, or the K. This doesn't only mean explain your link arguments, it means explain why your links implicate the ability of the aff to solve its advantages. If you think your K or CP means that you don't have to talk about the aff, you are probably wrong and/or I am not the ideal judge for you.

I love (well-executed) T debates. But I always prefer well-executed debates to poorly-executed ones, so that modifier isn't necessary. I have no predisposition to believe that any aff is topical or that topicality is always good. I think I need to say this because I think there are teams out there that want to go for T (in policy or K debates) but don't because lots of judges or coaches have expressed a preference for "substantive debates". I think T is substantive and I would be happy to have you read it in front of me. Please do not misread this to think that you can't/shouldn't impact turn T in front of me. I want to hear all of it. 

Clarity:

I will call "clear" once for each speaker and then believe it is the debater's job to recognize that I am not writing anything down. This will be indicated by me not writing anything down. 

I'm an okay flow - I'm switching back to paper this year because I think it is better - this means that I'm limited by pen time. I also like to get used to a person's voice before they reach full speed - so keep that in mind. 

Speaker Points:

I consider speaker points based on the following variables: strategy, use of evidence, use of cross-ex, speech content (did you answer everything, how was your time allocation, etc.), and "overall quality" which refers mostly to unquantifiable things like did you seem interested in the debate, were you enjoyable or entertaining to watch (I like big personalities!), did you spend time trying to convince me. Any debater that is clearly making an effort to communicate with me is likely to get higher points than an equally skilled debater talking into their computer. 

Most of all, enjoy yourselves and this activity. Debaters who work hard and are happy to compete are the most pleasurable to judge. 

Ryan Galloway

Samford University

Coached for 29 years

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances. I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

1. I prefer if you number your arguments.
2. Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
3. I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
4. I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leave me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
5. I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
6. I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
7. I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
8. I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
9. I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
10. I still believe in a place called Hope.

Background – I debated at Chattahoochee high school for four years, where I qualified for the TOC, and at Georgia State for four years, where I qualified twice for, and cleared at, the NDT. I was primarily a policy debater in both high school and college, although I have been known to read and go for no-plan affs, nonsense K’s, etc. Just because I debated a certain way doesn’t mean I judge a certain way. If an argument is properly explained and well warranted, I will likely vote for it.

Forewarning – I am in law school. I don’t do research on the topic. Don’t assume I know anything about the topic. If you plan on using acronyms, please tell me what those mean.

Specific stuff:

Topicality

·         I defer to reasonability, although the presumption can be rebutted

·         I’d prefer if T debates were debated slow. Please don’t read T arguments fast. They are hard to flow as it is.

·         Pet peaves

o    Lack of a case list both ways – our interp allows the following cases, their interp allows the following cases

o    Lack of specific ground loss – If I don’t know what specific ground you loss (and why that ground is good for the neg), then it’s hard to win your ground arguments in front of me.

·         Spec arguments – read them if you want. I’ll listen to them.

Theory

·         Slower debates better than fast debaters

·         Conceded theory arguments may be a reason to reject the team, if extended properly

·         Conditionality is probably good, to an extent. More than three worlds, plus the status quo, is pushing it and makes it more likely to vote on conditionality bad.

·         Consult / Condition / Delay are probably reasons to reject the argument, unless otherwise specified.

·         Teams going for theory need a specific story of abuse (what exactly did they do that screwed you over?) and specific arguments about limits, ground, etc. Generic stories are probably a reason to reject the argument.

Disadvantages

·         Yes, please.

·         Specific links are good. Generic DA’s are not.

·         Links and internal links are, for me, the most important part of the disadvantage.

·         Politics

o    Your links need to be super specific.

o    Clearly impacted internal link story about how the plan pushes X off the docket, etc.

o    Intrinsicness is stupid, but I’ll vote for it if conceded.

o    Don't say thumper. I will dock .1 speaker point for every instance said.

Counterplans

·         More specific the better

·         Probably should have evidence specific to aff, not just generic evidence about the topic.

·         I’ll assume permutations are just a test of competition unless I am told otherwise.

·         Consult CP’s are stupid. I won’t ignore the CP like some judges, but your speaker points won’t likely be high.

·         Severence, intrinsic arguments are probably just a reason to reject the argument, unless a specific story of abuse is generated.

·         Multiple perms bad is probably just a reason to reject the argument. Like conditionality, the more you have, the more effective multiple perms bad becomes.

The K and K affs

·         Don’t assume I know your K. Your job is to explain to me what your K means. If you do a bad job at explanation, I reserve the right to vote against the K for lack of understanding.

·         Most of my K knowledge comes from various Zak Schaller rantings and through debate.

·         Specific link analysis good. Do not read generic links to the topic. I would prefer if you have links about the advantages and the plan.

·         Use historical examples to demonstrate link and impact claims.

·         Explain your alternative and what a world of the alternative looks like. The alternative should “propose a method that could attain something worth voting for.” You should also provide me reasons to reject / disprove the necessity for the PLAN

·         For the aff, plan texts aren’t necessary. If you don’t read a plan, you must clearly explain your advocacy statement and what it means to vote aff.

Framework

·         Presumption that the aff gets to weigh their impacts, can be rebutted.

·         These debates are boring. I would prefer if you engage the other team’s arguments.

·         Just because I think they are boring doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it. Like Consult CP’s, your points won’t be extremely high if you go for framework.

Performance / Project / Whatever term you identify with

·         I have little experience judging these debates.

·         Explain your position and why I should vote for it.

·         Explain why the topic is not necessary (if that is your argument) and, if necessary, the importance of your argument in lieu of the resolution.

·         I’d prefer if you engage the topic in some way, whether it be having a plan of some sort or using narratives from, for example, drone victims or just a discussion of the topic in relation to your argument / the debate community.

·         As above, framework debates are boring and I would prefer if you engaged the other team’s arguments. You can go for framework if you want, but your points won’t be ery good.

·         Please prove why it is necessary to engage in this discussion. It’s not enough to say the debate community is messed up. How does your aff/neg argument change debate? What’s the terminal impact?

Other things

·         Good evidence outweighs analytic arguments. Analytic arguments outweigh bad evidence

·         **PLEASE** make jokes. No one makes jokes anymore. Good jokes increase your speaker points, especially in boring debates. If you choose to make jokes, stay away from the overused ones.

·         Clipping cards is bad. If an ethics challenge is posed, the debate will stop and I will review the issue. If a team is caught clipping cards, the clipper will receive zero speaker points and the clipping team will receive a loss. I will also talk to the clipping team’s coach about the incident. If no clipping occurs, the debate will resume.

·         Be nice to your partner. Be nice to me. Be nice to the other team.

·         Cross-ex is good. Good cross-ex leads to higher speaker points.

·         Extinction is bad.

·         Read my expressions – I tend to show signs of agreement or disagreement during the debate.

·         Paperless debate – I hate it, teams are not effective at jumping and it wastes ton of time.

o    BE EFFICIENT.

o    Email chain > Jumping. I understand that some can’t access the internet at tournaments, which is fine.

o    Prep finishes when the jump drive is out of the computer or the email has been sent. If a team makes a mistake and jumps the wrong file or the other team doesn’t get the email, then prep starts until the problem is resolved

o    Bad paperless results in lower speaker points.

Speaker point scale

·         30: You are the best speaker I have ever heard. You deserve all the awards.

·         29.5-29.9: You are a fantastic speaker and deserve a top five speaker award

·         29-29.4: You are a really great speaker, made lots of smart arguments, didn’t make any blunders, and deserve a speaker award

·         28.5-28.9: You are a good speaker. You made smart arguments and made only small errors, whether technical or argumentative.

·         28-28.4: You made good arguments, but also made technical/argumentative errors

·         27.5-27.9: You made errors in the debate. Your arguments were not explained as well as they could have been.

·         27-27.4: You made lots of errors and resulted in a weakening of your argument. Your arguments were not well explained or impacted.

·         26-26.9: You made lots of big errors. You conceded arguments that lost you the round. You probably conceded at least one off case argument.

·         Lower than a 26: You were rude to me, the other team, or your partner. Reserved for egregious errors. 

If 

I debated for Samford University and am currently a graduate assistant coach at the University of Georgia.  

Be clear.

The quick checklist:

1) I consider myself a “policy judge” who privileges the importance of the link over the impact

2) I love good theory debates and am willing and ready to vote against what most call “negative flexibility”

3) Debate is a game (truth is important, but tech first) and my ballot will only determine who wins the debate, not which political stance or movement I am aligned with.

My “biases” are not harsh rules for debate. You are certainly best off doing what you usually do in front of me – I will work hard to understand your arguments, flow, and evaluate the round with as little intervention as possible. 

T: Reasonability. In order to prove the aff/neg is being unreasonable – talk about what the world of debate would look like if I endorse their interpretation. Caselists and in depth impact calculus will go a long way here. 

Theory: I am more than ready to curtail the community norm of unlimited negative flexibility. I do not think a team has to win the debate has become “impossible” in order to win an abuse claim. Topic education is paramount.

CPs: I love counterplans that test the intrinsicness of the plan to the advantages of the aff. PICs are great. Word PICs are not. I am more than ready to reject the following CPs : consult, agent Cps, international fiat, process CPs, CPs that compete off the certainty or immediacy of the plan. 

Ks: What can I say? Grad school changes a person. After years of judging, coaching, and familiarizing myself with critical arguments, I feel like I am in place to better adjudicate these debates. Still, specific links to the aff are crucial. Generic criticisms, like generic policy strategies, are boring to watch and will get you bad speaker points (and a loss).

Performance: While my experience is in policy debates, I am more than willing to listen and evaluate arguments here just as I do in those policy debates. I generally think the role of the ballot is decide who won or lost a debate (did the best debating, made the best arguments), so asking me to use my ballot to send a signal or align with a particular movement will need a strong defense. 

DAs: I will vote on zero risk of the link – you don’t need offense to beat the DA to zero. Talk about how your impact interacts with the opponent’s.  

Speaker Points: I will reward debaters for specific strategies, (good) jokes, and not stealing prep. 

Speaker point scale:

27-27.5: Did some good things, but needs a lot of improvement. Typically includes a lot of technical drops. Will not clear at a national tournament, will probably go 2-6 or worse if you debate like this every round.

27:5-28: Answered all the important arguments, but didn't do evidence comparison, sufficient impact calculus, or give me a clear way to vote for you. Will likely go 3-5. 

28-28.5: Did a lot of things right, but didn't wow me.  4-4 debating. 

28.5-29:Excelled in the cross-ex, has a positive ethos throughout the round, did evidence comparison, impact calculus, and made smart arguments and connections. You should be 5-3 or better.

29-29.5: Outstanding debating all around. You belong in the elims. No missing on points for you!

29.5-30: Rare. Reserved for the best speeches i've seen all year. 

Misc: Be aggressive. Have fun. Learn something. 

Paperless: I’m lenient. Don’t take advantage of it. 

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.

Andrew.j.hart@gmail.com

I have debated or coached for UGA since 2004 and debated for Stratford for 5 years before that. My knowledge and literature base exists largely on the policy side, but I am fairly ideologically neutral and well acquainted with K and K-ish args as well. After all, I have been in debate for nearly as long as many of the current high school debaters have been alive. That last sentence just hurt my soul, but it is true. My basic belief when judging is that as long as you clearly explain the argument and why it is more important than whatever the other side says, you will probably win the debate. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments fairly and without bias.

When it comes to assigning risk to an argument, I do not ascribe to an offense-defense paradigm. I can and will assign zero risk to an argument if defensive arguments are clearly won. If there is no link, there is no link. And no uniqueness if there is no uniqueness. For example, if your uniqueness evidence on a politics DA is 3-4 weeks old and the Aff has definitive evidence from a few days ago saying the opposite and cites a specific change, then there is zero risk to me. This also equally applies to advantages and solvency and pretty much all arguments. I’m perfectly willing to vote on only defensive arguments such as a perm, no link, and impact/uniqueness D, but it is still much easier to get my ballot by reading and going for offense.

I believe that debate is a communicative activity and not a judge reading comprehension test, which means I will not just call for all of the evidence at the end of the debate because it was read. I will pay attention to and flow the warrants of the evidence read if possible, so you should be clear when reading the text of the evidence if you want me to know what it says. I find that judges that just call for all of the evidence tend to reconstruct the debate in terms of evidence read instead of the arguments made. I will certainly call for evidence if necessary, typically if I did not get the substance of the evidence or if there is a debate over what the evidence actually says. Also, extend the warrants of the evidence in addition to extending the piece of evidence.

I keep a pretty decent record of the debate, but my pen does not move as fast as you speak. This means that you need to slow down when reading theory or other multiple analytical arguments in a row etc. If I do not have an argument on my flow, I cannot and will not vote for it. This also means that jumping around the flow can very quickly lead to flow chaos and potential missed arguments because I cannot just add in new cells or flow straight down and rearrange the flow during prep like on the computer.

As far as prep time goes for flashing speeches, I am reasonable if you are. You should be saving the speech when you say end prep and not continuing to copy and paste or compile the speech.

If you are caught clipping cards or cross reading or any other major ethics violations/cheating in a debate in front of me, you will immediately lose the debate. This is a very serious accusation with serious consequences, so there must be rather substantial/conclusive evidence of this occurring for me to be willing to end the debate. I have no qualms whatsoever dropping the hammer if it’s proven. If you believe that the other team has done this, speak up during C-X/prep, and we will resolve the issue before continuing the debate.

*Treat everyone in the round (and also outside the round) with respect and dignity. I understand that debate is a competitive activity that can lead to some heated arguments, but that is no excuse for being a complete jackass and a terrible human being.*

A couple of minor argument disclaimers/leanings/answer to pre round questions to note. These are clearly not strict rules and should not deter you from doing what you do best. I have voted for Condition/Consult CPs, ASPEC, non-topical Affs, and Affs that refuse to even engage the topic, and I believe that almost anything in the round is debatable with the exception of speech order and time.
1. The aff should at the very least discuss and be in the direction of the topic, so the neg at least has some reasonably predictable ground and the ability to have clash. Plans are often the best/easiest way to establish this, but they are not required – just preferred. I can and have voted for Affs that are neither in the direction of nor talk about the topic.

2. I, like most judges, do not want to have to wade through a big theory debate to decide a round. I much prefer the substance, but I will do it if needed. If you think it is your only option or that you are winning the argument and want to go for it, by all means go for it. I tend to default to reject the arg and not the team (except for condo/status) unless you can explain why the violation warrants that level of punishment. Even dropped theory arguments must be developed and explained as to why I should reject the team.

3. I tend to find the argument that counter-plans that result in the entirety of the plan, especially those with competition based off of certainty (condition, consult) are unfair/not competitive persuasive. You can certainly win the debate with these counterplans because they are strategic, and I do vote for them regularly. However the difference between strategic and unfair is a rather thin line in this area and that argument that can be won in front of me. As I said, I will evaluate the arguments based upon what happens in the debate and not my beliefs. Pointing out that this or other specific notes on arguments are in my philosophy as a justification for your argument is not an argument or reason for you to win. I wrote it. I do know what is in my philosophy. You must still effectively explain why these arguments are unfair and answer the neg arguments. There are still good reasons why these CPs should be allowed and good answers to the perm.

4. I’m not a big fan of most any spec argument. If you need to read A-SPEC to force/generate competition for an Agent CP, then by all means do it. At that point, there is a strategic value to this move. However, A-SPEC should probably not be the A-strat going into the round since it is difficult for me to envision a world in which the Aff must specify more than what the resolution demands. Occasionally, there is a good reason for a spec argument, but that is rather rare.

5. Topicality – I will vote on it if you win it and is well developed. Voting on T becomes easier if the argument is well developed beginning in the 1NC and extended with example case lists that each interp allows.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Put me on the email chain - lovemesomepolicydb8 [[gmail]]

My background

High School debate – None

College debate – University of Richmond

Coaching – Miami Beach High School

Bronx High School of Science

Columbia University

New York University/New York Coalition

West Georgia

University of Richmond

Vanderbilt University

Berkeley Prep

Overview points

The most important thing you should know about me is that when I finished my undergrad college degree I was done with school. Grad school/academia wasn’t for me. I took a jobs in sales (take note those few of you who still associate debate with persuasion), and spent years working for a Survey Research company before taking over the day to day operations of my own company (chemical manufacturing). This shapes my debate outlook.

1. I strive to be a judge that minimizes my beliefs to the greatest extent possible, and votes on the flow. I often vote on things I don’t believe are true but because they are dropped I’ll vote. I will do my best to flow everything and base my decision solely by what was said in the round. You want me to be a policymaker judging USFG action – cool, you want me to be an individual judging a performance – ok, I don’t care per se. I’ve voted for all styles of debate over the years, and I’ve also worked with teams that have run the spectrum of arguments. When I was a debater I didn’t like it when some judges refused to listen and vote on certain arguments (whether it be K or policy because both sides do it) and I don’t want to be grouped like that. End of the day whatever your argument is, I’m going to do my best to understand, treat you with respect, and we’ll see how it goes.

I prefer direct line by line debate above all else. By that I mean – they say/my response straight down the flow. If you are a debater who doesn’t flow to the point that you don’t respond to your opponent’s arguments because you didn’t record what they were then you may have problems winning my ballot consistently.

I view debate like a tennis match. The aff has to get the ball over the net by making an argument, then the neg has to return serve. They may return that ball at over 100mph (offensive strategies with turns and grand impacts of high magnitude) or they may go soft return (defensive arguments). Either/both could trip up the other team. You don’t need offense necessary to win my ballot (but it doesn’t hurt either).

I consider topic education my highest core value. The more topic specific cards (as opposed to backfiles) you read in a round the better all-round you’re going to be.

Providing details and drawing distinctions is always better than being vague and unclear about what you do. My threshold to vote on vagueness is way lower than my o-spec threshold.

Quality of evidence should guide your strategy. Quality always beats quantity. That said I think debaters self-censor in that if they don’t have a card they refuse to make the argument believing analytics to be of lower value then having a card. While that may be true, there are also rounds where the literature needed to properly rebut may not exist. In these cases direct analytics can often be better than generic cards that don’t apply.

If your only response to your opponent’s analytics is “you didn’t read a card”, you may be on weaker ground than you think.

The enthusiasm you display in selling your arguments can be important. A little pathos can yield positive returns.

I can vote against your opponent instead of for you. Sometimes attacking your opponent’s arguments instead of advancing your arguments can capture my ballot. Example, the neg may read a K that I don’t find very persuasive, but the aff ans turn out to be worse. Other times that strategy fails, and you need to advance a positive reason to vote for you.

I pay attention to CX and have seen teams that have won and lost rounds based on CX but that’s becoming much rarer. Any gains made in CX should be referenced in subsequent speeches.

You can try to speak as fast as you want. If you believe you are best served going as fast as you can, and not slowing down when it counts I can reflect that in your speaker points. If I don’t have an arg on my flow that’s probably not good for you. I don’t read the speech docs as you go, it’s still a communicative activity to me.

The specific arguments

If you are Aff: the only burden I will hold you to is that I will check every answer in the 2ar to make sure it has a 2ac/1ar basis. Arguments introduced in the 2ac, dropped in the 1ar, and revived in the 2ar will not count. Beyond that I’m pretty open. Do what you want on the aff. That said over the years I found myself drawn more toward the policy end of things. Affs that are willing to defend a plan or solution to the harms they identify are preferable to affs that are 9 minutes of harms only. I’m usually far more interested in the 3 aff speeches after the 1ac then the 1ac itself. Affs often lose my ballot because they concede too many negative arguments. If you don’t answer each part of an off case argument, you’re handing the ballot to the neg. Oftentimes 2ac extensions of case resolve solely around explaining your 1ac cards, the only thing I care about though is responding the 1nc cards.

If you are neg: anything goes, it’s up to the aff to stop your strategy. If you are looking for a strategy that gives you the best odds in front of me, it would be a plan inclusive CP with a topic specific net benefit. That said no one likes a nitpicker, whatever part of the aff you take objection to should have an impact.

Disads – I’d much prefer you read link/internal link/or even impact uniqueness instead of extra impact scenarios. Developing one or two impacts is preferable than 5-6, and to be honest you lose a little cred in my mind the more extinction scenarios you introduce.

CPs – I default to the lit to decide CP legitimacy. Generally speaking I can see why consult, condition, QPQ, states etc could be unsound, but the quality of the solvency ev can go a long way. Must confess the question of when the neg can kick the CP is not very interesting to me.

Case debate – I was brought up to believe if you don’t have 20+ cards on case you’re in a hole.

Topicality – votes on it. The more specific your violations the better.

Theory – I don’t believe there is a single theory argument, not even conditionality, that justifies rejecting the team over the argument. If you want to win the debate on theory, justifying why I should ignore everything else to vote here is a priori and that discussion should begin early in the debate. That said I would categorize going for theory in front of me as akin to a Hail Mary pass. I find theory debate to be a set of self-serving claims with no proof to support anything. I’m looking to vote on substantive things first and foremost.

Traditional Ks – philosophy plays a very minor role in my life. I likely haven’t read your lit directly, nor would I ever outside of debate support many of the alternatives I come across. Specific links are vital. My voting record on backfile Ks has become very low. I have no why K teams think they can read old evidence (sometimes 20-30 years old) and I’m supposed to think it’s still relevant.

New School debate/identity politics – my voting record for these types of arguments is much higher than when you are neg vs aff. If you are aff I’m often very unclear where the burden of proof line lies. Set up a threshold for pulling the trigger on an aff ballot because leaving me to my own devices may not work out in your favor. Also when I wrote above that sometimes I can vote against your opponent instead of for you, out debating your opponents on framework/I got a better root cause K than you can be a winning strat. All that said as someone who was around at the very beginning of this movement and knowing the justifications that started it, I’m a little disappointed New School debate has taken to speed reading a bunch of cards that don’t always apply.

Framework – I end here because it’s become such a large part of so many debates and I personally think it’s often a real dumb argument. Debate groupthink. If you think speed reading is the way to go in front of me you’re wrong. Depth beats breadth always. If you don’t do line by line on framework, I’ll vote for the aff that doesn’t defend the USFG. I would love for framework to evolve. IMO it’s the same arg now that it was 15 years ago and I find that very stale. You greatly underlimit yourself when your violation solely revolves around the USFG, there are plenty of other reasonable standards you could apply to teams that don’t defend the rez. Identify the voters early because I find many framework arguments to be nothing more than time kill.

Any other questions/clarifications please ask.

Background:

• Debated at Gonzaga 1997-2001 


• Assistant Coach, Wake Forest University 2001-2003 


• Assistant Debate Director, University of North Texas 2003-2005 


• Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard University 2005-2006

* Director of Debate, Butler University (2012-present)

As a rhetoric professor with debate experience, I decided to resurrect the policy debate team at Butler. As the director of a new program, I am highly supportive of novice debate but I have experience (albeit a bit dated now) judging and coaching debates at higher levels. I don't think my judging or flowing skills have diminished, so don't be scared just because you don't know me. 

Summary: How do I evaluate debates? I have few ideological predispositions about what a debate should look like. While I think it is important to debate the topic, I also do not want to circumscribe how students go about that. Many years ago, I was a predominantly policy critic but I’ve decided to be open to all approaches. As someone who teaches and writes about argumentation, quality and clarity of arguments matters to me. This means quality evidence, clarity, logic, argument development, ethos, and clear conceptual strategy matter. I don’t enjoy voting on technicalities (poorly explained CP theory and reverse voting issues), reading poor evidence, and laboring to understand your point. I like to vote for the force of the better argument, whatever that argument is. My preference is for policy debates, but that shouldn't stop you from making arguments that change that paradigm. 


A. Critical arguments: As a rhetorical critic by trade, I do think that language and framing choices matter in all frameworks. That being said, I do not think that incomprehensibility is the marker of a good scholarly argument. Critical arguments must be weighed and evaluated by the standards of any other argument. And, like all arguments, I expect critical arguments to be fully elaborated. 
 

B. CP theory: Willing to consider it as a voting issue in limited specific contexts. I more inclined to see it less as of voting issue and more of a reason that I should not evaluate a CP. While conditionality is a bit played out, object fiat and international fiat are very debatable issues. I tend to think that pic’s are good for debate when the negative targets a specific part of a plan text. This being said, I am open to the idea that certain multiple and object fiat CP’s, especially run conditionally, might be a unique intersection of abuse. But, to be clear, I do not decide this issues before I enter the round (these are hypotheticals). Again, if debated well and warranted in context, theoretical arguments can be won.

C. Topicality: I’ll be honest, as an argumentation person it is hard to convince me that some implicitly agreed grounds for debate is not a valuable collective norm. That being said, collective norms are always changing and up for debate, so let’s hear the arguments.   

D. Speaker points: They are awarded based on speaking/critical thinking skills, smarts, clarity, and ethos (not based on whether you pref me or some other ideological predisposition). They are round by round and contextual. I am fine with any level of speed, but too many people go well beyond their capacity. It not only sounds bad, but it doesn’t help them get out any more arguments if you are stumbling over every word. I am a little old-school here: I like ethos and in-round presence. Exceptional speaker points are earned, not guaranteed.   

Ed Lee

Judge Philosophy 

Emory University

ewlee@emory.edu

 Revised:  November 2013(Remixed by KRS One)

KRS-One (My Philosophy) Let's begin, what, where, why, or when / Will all be explained like instructions to a game / See I'm not insane, in fact, I'm kind of rational / When I be asking you, "Who is more dramatical?"

KRS-One (Stop The Violence) I want to be remembered as the ghetto kid to jump up for world peace, because the stereotype is that all ghetto kids want to do is sell drugs and rob each other, which isn’t fact. I came from the heart of the ghetto — there ain’t no suburbia in me.

1.      We are playing a game and there is nothing wrong with that. I love games.  I play a lot of board games with my partner.  It is our primary form of entertainment. Collecting board games has actually become a little hobby of mine.  Gaming teaches conflict negotiation, winning and losing with honor, and proper ways to respond to adversity.  However, all of that is lost if we unfair, disrespect others at the table and turn the game into something it is not.  Play hard. Play by the rules.  Ignore the wins and losses.  Do those three things and you got of a decent shot at your debate career and life turning out pretty well. 

2.      Competitive debate cannot be the cure all for everything that plagues us.  It has a very limited range of things that it can do well and its incentive structures can actually be quite harmful to creating productive conversations over our most intransigent social ills. 

I strongly believe that debate educators and students should use our skills to help move our communities to a place where we can engage difference without being divisive.  A large part of my job has become the facilitation of conversations on Emory’s campus that encourage students to civilly and civically engage controversy. I wholeheartedly support the effort of the Barkley Forum to provide every student on Emory’s campus with the opportunity to meaningfully engage.  Debate educators have the capacity to present an alternative mode of politics and deliberation that is not motivated crisis and inundated in vitriol.  Unfortunately, I do not think competitive debate with its uncompromising zero-sum outcomes and time limits will  serve us well in our attempt to negotiate interpersonal differences.  I see the current crisis in intercollegiate debate as proof of that. 

I would prefer that we allow competitive debate to do the few things it does well and utilize our collective expertise to develop other forms of deliberation to address these vastly more important issues.  I look forward to talking to anyone who will listen about The Barkley Forums efforts to us debate in partnership with the content experts on our campus to address racism, sexual assault and religious intolerance and a myriad of other social ills.  I am sure that the other Emory coaches and students will appreciate it if I had a larger audience for this conversation.  

3.      One of the unique values of competitive debate is its ability to train students to quickly assess and evaluate information from various sources. I do not think there is a better pedagogical tool for providing this much-needed skill.   This has become critically important as the Internet has made information dissemination and access uncontrollable. 

4.      Competitive debate is a laboratory for experimenting with ideas and identities.  It can only function as long as we are not beholden to or damned by every idea we put forward to test.  I believe this type of space is essential for our personal and cultural development.

KRS-One (Know Thy Self) Sometimes you gotta go back to the beginning to learn.

KRS-One (My Philosophy) See I'm tellin', and teaching real facts / The way some act in rap is kind of wack / And it lacks creativity and intelligence / But they don't care 'cause the company is sellin' it

1.      While I am a huge fan of quality evidence, my decisions will privilege a debater’s assessment of an argument over my reading of a piece of evidence.  I do not believe that every argument needs to be evidenced.   I routinely vote on un-evidenced arguments that are indictments of the opposition’s evidence or a defense of one’s claims based on historical analogies, counterinterpetations of political theories, and assessment of an author’s qualifications. 

2.      Topicality exists to protect the guiding principles articulated above.  It will be very difficult to convince me that affirming the reading of 1acs that is outside the bounds of the resolution is more academically beneficial than topically affirming the resolution.  While I am not certain, I sense that I am less hesitant to vote on topicality than many others in the judging pool. 

I think that we should have topics where the Neg has the ability to and is incentivized to prepare a coherent set of argument strategies that are topic relevant.  I don’t think that a model of debate that encourages the AFF to defend truisms is a productive way to utilize this intellectual space. 

3.      Topic rotation is good.  We should encourage students to explore and unearth the unique set of arguments that are germane to each individual topic.  I strongly discourage argument strategies that that create disincentives for topic explorations.   Counterplans that compete based on immediacy and certainty and narrow interpretations of the topic that deny the Neg opportunities to generate offense are examples of the type of strategies that I find academically lacking. 

4.      2As need to reign in the Neg’s counterplan power.  They should be more aggressive about launching objections to certain types of counterplans.  I am particularly concern with those distort the literature base to such a degree that an informed debate can’t happen because scholars have never entertained the possibility of the counterplan.

5.      My weakness as a judge is my ability to flow very quick technical debates.  This is particularly true for theory debates that occasionally evolve into a string of unsupported claims with very little engagement with the opposition’s args.   Please keep in mind that cards provide enough pen time for judges to catch up even when they miss an arg.  We do not have that luxury with theory debates.   This also tends to happen in the 2ac on the case.  I am a huge fan of efficiency.  However, there are some forms of embedded clash that has has made it extremely difficult for judges (at least this one) to follow. 

I tend to make up for this shortcoming by paying close attention to every aspect of every debate judge, staying on top of the evolution of a topic and having a pretty decent memory of things even when I fail to write to them.  I will put in as much work listening and evaluating your arguments as you put in preparing and delivering them.

I will not vote on evidence/arguments I do not have explicitly extended through the block and contextualized in some way.  This tends to hurt some hyper technical tag-liney debaters.  

KRS-One (South Bronx) “Many people tell me this style is terrific/It is kinda different, but let’s get specific.”

KRS-One (Step Into A World) I'm 'bout to hit you wit that traditional style of cold rockin' / Givin' options for head knockin' non stoppin' / Tip-toppin' lyrics we droppin' but styles can be forgotten

Topicality

1.      Topic anarchy is unproductive.  I truly believe we need some stasis in order to have a productive conversation.  To be honest, I am not sure if that means you have to defend the state or you gotta have a plan.  However, I do believe that it is much easier to encourage a clash of ideas when those things are present.   Debates can’t happen unless the AFF is willing to defend something. 

2.      The most limiting interpretation is rarely the best.  I can be easily persuaded that a larger topic is better because it incentivizes AFF creativity while preserving core Neg ground.   Far to often the AFF fails to push back on the limits debate and allows topicality to be a referendum on which team has the most limiting interpretation. 

3.      Topicality is about guiding future research endeavors.  That makes source qualification an important aspect of the discussion.   Who is defining and for what purpose is worth evaluating.  

4.      I tend to lean towards “competitive interpretations” over “reasonability” because it feels less interventionists.  However, I think there are ways to craft “reasonability” arguments to change the direction arrow on this. 

Counterplans

1.      I find some theory objections more persuasive than others.  It is hard for me to get overly excited about counterplan status debates.  While I have and will vote on conditionality, I just don’t consider it that great of an offense when there is only one counterplan.  I have some concern about multiple conditional counterplans because of their ability to pervert 2ac strategic choices.  It is such a rare occasion that a debate was improved with the addition of a 2^nd or 3^rd counterplan.  I will go on record to say that I have never seen a debate with multiple CPs that would not have been improved by reducing the number of CPs to 1.  

2.      I think counterplans that compete by excluding a part of the plan text is good for debate.  They encourage both the AFF and the NEG to research topic mechanism instead of focusing on impact debates that rarely change from one topic to the next.  They also create opportunities for a more nuanced impact framing that is not oriented towards maximizing one’s magnitude. 

3.      I think Perm “Do the CP” is persuasive against counterplans that compete off of things that are not written in the plan.  Neg research that supports the necessity of a particular action to do the plan will resolve this debate in their favor.  However, the bar is one of necessity and not possibility. 

4.      I am not a big fan of States or International Actor CPs.  They have each effectively narrowed the range of AFFs we can talk about to those that access US hegemony or a set of actions that can only be formed by the military.  I am occasionally persuaded by the arg that they are necessary to functionally limit the size of the topic.  Aff should keep in mind that topicality exist for that same reason.

5.      We need to do a better job telling judges what to do with theory objections.  The statement “vote against the arg – not the team” is not an argument.  It is claim.  Teams need to be more aggressive about telling me the impact of my decision in either direction. 

6.      My default is to stick the Neg with the CP if go for it in the 2nr.  I do not think it is fair to force the 2ar to have to do impact assessment for a world that includes the counterplan and one that doesn’t.   The “judge kick” model discourages the 2n from making choices, discourages the development of a coherent 2nr based on that choice and undermines the ability for the 2ar to properly compare relevant impacts. 

7.      I am starting to toy around with the notion that the AFF should be able to advocate permutations to compensate for the multitude of CP options we have created for the Neg. AFF needs to more creative.  The vast majority of argument innovation since I have been around has occurred on the negative.  

Critiques

1.  The more germane you can make this set of arguments the better.  The major problem is that I rarely find the grand sweeping totalizing claims of inevitability and the necessity of radical response to social problems persuasive.  I am quite suspicious of claims that are grounded in an indictment of “all” or “every.”  I tend to opt for permutations that prove that the AFFs reformist pursuits are in the same direction as the alternative. 

2.     2.   What is that alt again?  I would be a much better judge for the neg if I understood what the alt was and its functionality.  AFFs that exploit this weakness by carving out solvency deficits for the case impacts and the squo tend to win these debates.  The best 2As highlight the internal links to the advantages and identify those as reasons the Alt can’t solve.  

3.      The Neg would get much more mileage with this category of arguments if they treated them like ethics/ontology/method DAs with an impact that was more important than the AFF utilitarian impacts. Many will think that is overly simplistic.  Keep in mind that I spend most of my life thinking that I am a simple man living in an overly complicated world. 

4.      4.     The Aff is too dependent on framework args.  The plea to weigh the 1ac is not a substitute for engaging the criticism.  I kinda agree with the Neg that Aff framework args are arbitrary in their self-importance and exclusion of the Negs link args.  A little research on the educational value of talking about your AFF gets you to the same place without appearing dogmatic. 

5.      The most persuasive critiques are those that challenge the way the 1ac encourages us to understand others and ourselves.  They challenge the pedagogical force of the 1ac.  These types of arguments are appealing to Ed Lee, the teacher.   

Disadvantage

1.      My general dispossession is that most impact claims are highly unlikely and the block gives the negative a structural advantage in the competition of lies.  All other things being equal, I think a DA+Case strategy is the best path to victory.  Keep in mind that the amount of DA you need to win is directly related to the amount of the case that the AFF is winning.  You don’t have to win much of your DA if you are sufficiently beating up the case.  

2.      I believe uniqueness operates on a continuum where the terminal impact of the DA is more or less likely to occur in the squo.  Both sides should be more sophisticated in assessing the probability of whether or not the impact will happen and why gradual shifts along the continuum are worthy of a judge’s evaluation. 

3.      “Turns the case” rarely means turns the case.  Neg usually has uniqueness issues with winning this line of arument.  A better direction to go in is to explain why the DA impact short-circuits the ability of the Aff to solve the advantage.   It gets you to the same place and doesn’t have the uniqueness burden.  

4.      2a should invest more time in reading the Negs DA ev.  There are usually a goldmine of alt causalities, uniqueness args and impact takeouts.  This is a place where you can get a lot of mileage out of witty analytics.  I am wmore than willing to vote unevidenced assessment.  Don’t just read.  Debate. 

5.       Don’t ignore the internal link debate.  Most debates seem to boil down to a limited number of impacts – Hegemony, Trade, Climate, Economy.  The better teams will invest time winning that they have a stronger internal link to these impacts then their opposition.  

6.      1nc should generate some offense on the case.  Impact turns are useful because they force the 2a to read ev on the case and you usually have a counterplan (or 2) that makes this a risk free proposition for you. 

KRS-One (Tears) While you lay the flowers on the grave, let's talk about how you behave. Do you come out the neighborhood or out of the cave?

KRS-One (Health, Wealth, And Self) I'll give you the gift, but use the gift to uplift.

Criteria - Things I Like and will give the gift of points

I will start this discussion by identifying some of the styles/skills I like and tend to reward with high speaker points.  It is easier for me to talk about specific people.  Some of these folks are still in our community.  Others you may find some videos of.  All were exemplary in one form or another of what I think great debaters do and what I want to honor them with high speaker points. 

Kacey Wolmers (Emory) – Fast, technical and clear.  I actually find some beauty in this presentational style.  Her 1ncs were artwork.  I must emphasize the clarity component.  She was one of the few extremely fast debaters that I had no problem following.  That had a lot to do with her clarity.  She also made arguments and not a random assertion of claims. 

Martin Osborn (Missouri State) – Efficient and driven.  Martin is a testament to fact that you don’t have to choose between being fast or being a "policy" debater.  He was one of the most efficient debaters I ever judged with superb in-round argument selection skills.  Words were never wasted and he rarely extended an argument in the final two rebuttals that were not necessary.  

Julie Hoehn (Emory) – Dedication to preparation.  I never judged Julie. I was her coach.  However, I saw how her dedication to prepare won numerous debates.  It created a situational awareness that was vast superior to most.  Julie was rarely caught off guard and it never happen twice.  She had the capacity to quickly diagnose and dismiss trivial and inconsequential arguments. 

Gabe Murillo (Wayne State) – Argument Explanation.  Some people ask me how they can get me to vote on critiques.  I tell them to debate like Gabe.  I know very little about most of his arguments.  However, Gabe was fantastic at identifying my limitations and biases and developing argument strategies that resolve them.  I distinctly remember the times that I voted against him and the post-round being a series of questions about repackaging the argument and ways to alter phrases.  Gabe was constantly trying to figure out ways to connect with me as a judge.  That was true even he disagreed with my decisions.  Most people would be extremely shocked by how often I voted for him. 

Naveen Ramachandrappa (UGA) – Research.  The stories about his evidence production are absurd.  Talk to Hays Watson about it.  Much more impressive was that he demonstrated it debate.  Naveen was a master at debating evidence and not just reading it.  He understood not only the strength and weaknesses of his evidence but his opponents.   

Seth Gannon (Wake) – Humor.  Humor can stand in for any gift of persuasion you have.  Be yourself.  Have fun. I never judged Seth and didn’t look like he was having fun.  Even during the stressful final round of the NDT, he looked like he enjoyed being there.  That makes judging so much easier and pleasurable.  The judge is your audience. Connect with them.

Debbie Lai & Varsha Ramakrishnan (Michigan State)  - Hard workers. This is my favorite debate team of all time.  They were two regional debaters who worked hard to become the best debaters they could be.  It was and honor and pleasure to watch them growth and develop.  I wanted to vote for them.  They were not a first round team and didn’t clear at the NDT.  However, they had a genuine love for the activity and were willing to invest a tremendous amount of time an energy to get better even though the odds were long and they started college debate at an experience deficit. I look forward to rewarding those who work hard and value the process. 

Criteria - Things I don’t like and will reduce points  

I implore you hold Emory’s debaters to the same standard.  They should be expected to play fair, be clear and conduct themselves with respect and humility even if you don’t expect it from other debaters. Help me help them to be better people and debaters. 

Cheating – Cross-reading, card-clipping, using disclosure/speech doc to gain an fair advantage.  Your honor and integrity is far more valuable than winning the game.  I don’t play games with cheaters and I will not reward them.  I am a guardian of the integrity of this activity and will not wait for others to ask me to perform that role. 

Lack of clarity – This is a communication activity.  If I don’t understand it, I will not evaluate it.  I don’t like the model of debate where students incomprehensibly read at me and then ask me to read a litany of cards after the round to determine who wins.  Debate. Persuade. Analysze.  Don’t just read.

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 where this line should be drawn.  That conversation is long overdue.   

My scale

I will the scale established by the tournament.  Grandma taught me to never show up to someone's home and not eat the casserole.  that's just rude.  

29.6 -30:  I think you are debating like a Top 10 debater at a national tournament.

29.3 – 29.5: I think you are debating like an Octos debater at a national tournament

28.8 – 29.2:  I think you are debating like a 5-3 double octofinalist

28.5 – 28.7:  Debating like you are 4-4 and on the verge of clearing at a national tournament

28 – 28.4:  You are working to get better

Revised 2-16-94 
NAME __Ed Lee_____________________ INSTITUTION __University of Alabama ___ 
POSITION _Director of Debate ___ YEARS OF COACHING ___5__________ 
NUMBER OF TOURNAMENTS THIS YEAR ___10____________________ 
I am a very flexible critic. Win a link and explain why the impact is more important than what the other team is winning. This holds true 
regardless of what artificial box we decide to place the argument in - harms, critiques, disads, and theory. 
Topicality 
I consider topicality to be a discussion about the best way to interpret the resolution so that we create the fairest debates possible. I think about 
topicality the same way I think about a plan vs. counterplan debate. Each side needs to explicitly discuss the benefits of their interpretation that 
can not be co-opted by the counter interpretation. 
Counterplans 
Solve for the case harms and win a disad. It sounds like a decent strategy to me. Affirmative needs to offensive in this debate. It is more likely 
that I will vote on a disad to the counterplan than theory. Don't take that to mean that you can't win the counterplan theory debate in front of me. 
I think this statement stems from the difficulties I some times have flowing quick blippy theory arguments. (Bydaway: Tell me what you want 
me to do if you when the theory debate and why. My default is that the line of argument should be evaluated. Winning theory is not an 
automatic victory.) Not only are grounded claims easier to flow but they make better arguments. The best affirmative theory arguments use the 
negative’s stance to justify a set of affirmative offensive arguments. I operate under the assumption that the negative must make a choice 
between advocating the status quo and or the counterplan(s) in the 2NR. I think that it is your argumentative responsibility to stabilize your 
position of inquiry. 
Disadvantages 
I do not believe in the risk of a link. One must first win a link and risk assessments are made when evaluating the probability of the impacts. 
Critiques 
What is the link and why is it more important than the affirmative? Why does it doom the entire affirmative's project (plan) just because one 
piece of evidence uses “nuclear” “terrorism” etc? The affirmative should force the negative to articulate how the criticism interacts with the 
1AC and why it is wholly cooptive. The negative needs to be explicit about the opportunity costs of not voting for the criticism. At times, I am 
at a lost for what the impact is to the criticism even after the 2NR. 
Affirmative needs to be more offensive at the impact level of these debates. Unlike disads, I think that the negative has an advantage at the link 
level of this debate and the best Affirmative attacks come at the impact level. The most persuasive 2ACs have been those who turned the 
alternative, counter-critiqued, and been generally offensive. 
Speaker points 
CX should be used for more than gathering cards and talking about tidbits of nothingness. CX is a powerful tool that can be used to setup future 
arguments and provide the critic with a filter for evaluating the debate. I listen to CX. 
My average speaker points are between 26-27. 28 is reserved for those performances that "wow" me. These debaters are usually able to make 
my decision easy even when there are no conceded voting issues. Arguments no longer exist as disparate, isolated blocks on a sheet of paper 
but live and interact. 28s are able to competently discuss argument relationships and consistently make link and impact comparisons. 29s are 
performances of brilliance. It is a presentation that allows me to forget that I am judging a debate round. The presenter is on and everyone 
knows it. I think that it is a measurement of near-perfection that I reserve for only the most amazing speeches. A 30 allows me to temporarily 
forget that another speech in the round was worthy of a 28 or 29. 
ed lee 
Director of Debate 
Alabama Forensics Council 
University of Alabama 
bamadebate@yahoo.com

Judging background:  I was a GSU debater for roughly 2 years and I've judged several high school tournaments and a couple of college tournaments.   

My Preferences:

I prefer a good time to a bad time, so please don't be jerks to your partners or your opponents (or me).  Clash is important - I'd rather a round that weighs scenarios and impacts any day over a laundry list of your card authors.  (Obviously that's not the same as failing to cite your evidence.  Please don't forget to cite your evidence, just don't think name dropping #Joe Schmoe '14 is going to mean anything to me by the time we get to the 2NR.  It won't.) 

I'm a fan of analyticals, both improvisational and planned.  Try to answer all of the arguments your opponents make in priority order.  I probably won't vote on a dropped link argument if you've already won uniqueness, for example, but if it's a theory argument or an impact argument or even the other team saying I need to vote on X thing you dropped and you legitimately dropped it...I'll probably vote on it.  Because it makes my life easier. 

Don't let the other team make my life easier; that's good advice all around. 

Paperless Debate – I will have a spare flash with me if something wacky happens with yours, no worries.  Hopefully we're all familiar enough with paperless debate by now and it doesn't strain our time, but if you demonstrate new and unusual levels of incompetence sharing evidence, someone's prep will suffer for it.   

DA – Link stories and uniqueness and impact calculus, oh my!  Why should I care about your disad, please do tell.  Aff teams - I find it very impressive and charming when debaters leverage their case against the DA in addition to whatever they've prepped for the DA, and I distribute speaker points accordingly. 

K – Vitamin K all day.  I love the K, I am charitably disposed to the K.  If you do not understand your own K, do not read your K in front of me because I will either be A) disappointed in you and liable to punish your speaker points if not your ballot or B) confused and therefore some combination of bored/annoyed which is very dangerous for your ballot and tragic for your speaker points.  'Understanding' in this context means you're prepared to answer questions about how the K works, why it's better than the plan or the status quo, how your alt solves, etc.  I also enjoy schadenfreude so I'm just as happy to see a K argument clowned out of the debate as I am to see it win the day, especially under the conditions mentioned above.   

CP – Counter plans are cool!  Perms are cool!  I'll vote on technicalities and I'll vote on the substance of the CP - it's up to y'all to decide how that debate boils down.  If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask them before the round. 

Theory – Theory is great!  To abuse the saying: there are no small arguments, only small debaters.  You'll have to weigh your argument to win it, of course, but I won't discount anything out of hand.  Clarity of speech is great here, because I can't care about the argument I can't comprehend. 

T – See above re: clarity.  I'll pull the trigger on T if you carry it through, and ETA: I default to reasonability here.  Again, feel free to ask me whatever questions you like before the round. 

Open to all styles of policy debate. 20+ Years coaching college policy, 20+ years teaching policy at high school camps. Detailed philosophy removed due to lack of site security. email to lundeensb at gmail with any questions

College nuclear weapons topic - I have not been actively coaching/researching this season so keep that in mind in assuming my depth of topic knowledge or "where the community is" on any issue.

I debated for 4 years at Vanderbilt University and have now been judging and coaching there for the last 7 years. 

By default, I evaluate the debate within a policy paradigm. If you want me to evaluate it the debate in a different way you need to tell me that. I prefer CPs and a good case debate---impact analysis being key. I will listen to critical arguments, but do not assume I have read the literature. To win on a critical argument, you probably need to be making specific arguments as to why you solve the affirmative or how the affirmative plan will aggravate the circumstances that the critique indicts.

Topicality: I have been known to vote on topicality, but you probably need either actual abuse or a well-warranted argument of potential abuse to win it. 

Theory: I hate theory debates, but having said that I realize that theoretical objections are a necessary tool to fight against many CPs and strategies, and will take that into account. Slow it down a little on the blippy theory arguments because I need to get them all down. For theory, I usually default to drop the argument and not the team for the “transgression”, so keep that in mind when making decisions at the end of the round. Make sure you go for uniqueness on the theory debate or else I really don't know where the brightline is or why I care. My threshold for voting on a theory or "rules" argument is fairly high, you could say.

I have a very expressive face. Look at it during the debate and you will get a plethora of indications of what I am and am not feeling and/or understanding. 

Be nice.

Finally, I would rather not have to read evidence at the end of the debate. I probably will not unless a. everyone does a bad job on impact and/or warrant analysis, or b. one team alleges the other team is lying about what is in their evidence. Think about that when you are deciding how much warranted analysis you want to give me at the end of the debate.

**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.

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

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. 

I flow everything straight down on paper.

I actually think framework is a good argument, but in the way that I think it pushes K args to defend some of the fundamental aspects of their arguments - reform, legal solutions, the state, progress, liberalism, traditional forms of politics, etc. I think these are the important aspects of framework. Procedural fairness is an impact and not one that I love, but it's a means to an end. You still have to win some kind of terminal impact to framework, otherwise we're just playing a technical game of checkers. Give me a reason to care.

Affs get perms. You need a link to your K anyway. That should make it so the perm is unable to solve the impacts of your criticism. But they still get to make the perm argument so that that aspect of the debate is tested. I get it, it's a method debate. But I super want you to have a link that says why their method sucks.

Example: direct revolutionary praxis vs strategic, opaque resistance. There are a ton of flavors of these methods, but at their roots they are competitive and produce good debates.

"Performance" - All debate is a performance. This categorical distinction is arbitrary and I don't like it. Of course you can read a story to support your argument. People do that.

Evidence – I'm going to read cards. I like them. I think cards should be good and well warranted, and I hate calling for cards only to find a good argument was backed up with some lackluster ev.

Len Neighbors                       Judging Philosophy
Wake Forest University                   

Technical Information You Should Know.

+My flow leaves something to be desired, but it always did and I have come to believe that this is not necessarily a liability.  I can hear and understand rapid debates, but slowing a bit when you need to be sure I get something written down is a good idea.

+Citations are not arguments. Ideally, the last few rebuttals should focus on warrants.

+I am probably not going to read a lot of evidence.  I will read evidence to resolve questions of fact, to determine the level of support for a claim, or to check for problems in reasoning pointed out during the debate, but if your ideal debate is one where large piles of evidence are sifted through by the judge, then I am not your ideal judge.

+Generic bad, specific good. This goes for links, counterplan solvency, critical arguments and their answers, cross examination questions, and plan texts.

+Choose early and choose often. Nothing in this judge philosophy should lead you to believe having more arguments in the late rebuttals is better.

Proclivities.

These are not rules in the sense that I enforce them regardless of what happens in the debate. You should be aware, however, that the other direction on these questions is often an uphill battle.

+I would like to think that I am open-minded about debate arguments, but in practice this is sticky. Whenever people have to decide what is more likely, more important, or more persuasive, those decisions are informed by how they view themselves. I’m about as politically, socially, and economically conservative as a person in mainstream America can be. I, of course, think of this entirely pragmatic, reasonable, and morally sound. 

+I think of the activity as a sport whose purpose is competition.  To that end, the ability for each team to compete fairly is the deciding factor in debates about theory.  To me, conditionality and multi-actor fiat are good examples of theory arguments that make a debate unfair to one side or the other.

+If I have to choose between competitive equity and education, I will choose competitive equity. While education does play a role in debate, proving that something is important to talk about is only useful if talking about that thing preserves the fairness of a predictable topic. I prefer to see debates about the topic. This doesn’t mean I don’t vote for the K, but it does mean I will be more persuaded by the K if it is intrinsic to the topic. And “You use the state” doesn’t count as the topic, in my book. In the same vein, the Affirmative should present a topical plan.

+If you go for the K, have a realistic alternative. “Rethinking” sounds to me very much like doing nothing. Many judges self-identify as academics, but I self-identify as a businessman, a pragmatist, and a teacher. Over the years, I have discovered that this has a noteworthy impact on what I consider to be a “solution”.

+I also haven’t read a lot of modern philosophy because I don’t enjoy it. And by “modern”, I mean “unavailable to George Washington”. If you need me to understand an important philosophical concept for your argument to make sense, you’ll want to explain.

+I am willing to say that there is zero link of a disad.  I am also willing to say there is zero solvency for an advantage. I think something missing from the more recent debates I have judged is a healthy sense of incredulity. Both teams will say a couple of reasonable things, and both teams will also say a series of preposterous things, and then the teams will conspire to make them indistinguishable.  Perhaps this is because the preposterous things have larger terminal impacts, but that doesn’t interest me nearly as much as probability, subjection of internal links to reason, and the application of evidentiary standards to solvency and link evidence.

+I am probably not the best judge for your politics disad. I often think the evidence read doesn’t meet any reasonable standard of evidence, and many of the common internal link arguments (horsetrading, political capital, etc.) don’t actually work in the real world the way they must be described in debate in order for the politics disad to be a force in being.

If you're reading this right before a round here's the summary: affs should generally support the topic. I'm enjoy kritical and performance arguments. CP's and DA's are fine. I find it hard to win a round by winning a politics scenario. K's are good, but you need to understand what you're saying and be explaining it as you go. T and Theory are important tools for debate but there has to be real in round abuse and the 2nr/2ar needs to be spending just about all of the 6 minutes on it if you want me to vote on it.

now for details:

I debated for four years in high school and then 1 year for USF and 2 years for FSU. During that time, I was primarily a K debater. I have been judging and coaching on and off since 2012. In my time coaching, I have found that I have become more middle of the road and generally acccept any argument, provided you tell me why I'm voting on it.

GHG Topic Specifics: On Warming, I beleive that if your advantage is going to solve for extinction, you have to also won the leadership advantage. If it is a mitigation scenario, you have more leway and I can weigh them separately. Carbon Tax is probably not topical

Affs need to be related to the topic but I don't necessarily feel they should have to be resolutional. K affs and performance affs are good, though you need to have a reason for doing so. A lot of novice teams will forget to keep their aff in the round- make sure its in every speech! I believe the Aff wins if they prove they are better than the status quo and any alternative plans. Bonus points if you use this to evaluate the round in your rebuttals!

CP's are a good way to test the affirmative. If you plan on defending the actions of the CP and have it be more than a test, you need to have your net benefits clear from the beggining. Generally, I feel that perms should be a test of competition. If you are the Aff, please explain to me why your perm is now a legitimate "world" that you can win.

DA's are good however in order to win the round, you need to be winning more than the DA flow- case takeouts or another DA. Which brings us to impact calculus. This should be utlized in every speech in every round. The less work you make me do, the happier I'm going to be. Tell me why your impacts matter in the round not just the typical timeframe/magnitude/probability. 

T/Theory. They both can be used for gaining offense on other flows. For topicality, unless the team is horribly untopical, I'm not likely to vote on T. For theory, I feel condo is legitimate until there are 3 or more conditional advocacies. Both sides need to spend time on this flow and actually answer your opponents arguments. Too much theory debate is just reading blocks you didn't actually write. If you want to win on t/theory, it must be the entire 2NR with proven in round abuse.

K's are my favorite but I think they need to specific to the topic and not some generic "government bad." This is where I spent most of my time as a debater. My favorite K was by far Foucault's Biopower. Just because I'm familiar with the lit, doesn't mean you shouldn't explain it. Please take the time to explain the K (overview/underview) and not just read cards. I think I am one of the view judges who believes that Kritikal DA's are legitimate. AKA your K doesn't have to have an Alt. If this is a strategy you plan on using, look back over my notes on DA's. If you  do plan on using an Alt, please make it specific; 'reject the aff', 'reject the topic', 'vote neg' are not enough.

Performance debate I think is an important part of debate. I prefer when performance is either about the topic or about the debate space. If you plan on kritiking debate and the rules, make sure you factor in what that means for the judge. Should I be flowing or taking notes in a different way? What does my vote actually mean? Why am I here? The earlier you set up these rules, the easier my life will be, and the happier I will be to listen to your performance. If you are facing a performance team, please don't use arguments such as "do speech events instead" "this bad for debate." I generally support that performances should be listened too, even if you choose to utilize framework instead of engaging in their argument. Silencing the performance is probably abusive.

Framework is where some of my favorite debates take place. Role of the ballots should be established early. 1AC if you are a kritical aff, 2AC if the Neg offers a ROB, and the 1NC if you're neg. Adding ROB's later in the debate is messy and can shift how the entire round plays out, which is probably abusuve. I think that arguing about the rules of debate is an important part of debate. Please include impacts to your framework.

Paperless debate, I have accepted as the new normal, even though I long for the days of paper and tubs. While I understand there are a lot of benefits to paperless debate, there are also a lot of new problems. First and foremost, if you are having technical difficulties, talk to me, talk to your opponents, and talk to your partner. So that we are all on the same page and can get it resolved quickly. Then start talking about the weather, traveling, funny youtube videos, anything that shows no one is stealing prep. This should also be applied when you are transfering speeches. Once upon I time, i would say preptime stops when you remove the jump drive, now that we are in a world of email/pocketbox/speechdrop/etc., it is harder for me to know when you're actually done prepping. I do not want to be included on the email chain. Debate is primarily about communication; I expect all speeches to be clearly spoken, and taglines and authors to be pronounced. I have found that debaters (especially in the first constructives) while spread it all together since "everyone is looking at the evidence." I think this is a bad practice to get in to and is less effective in communicating your arguments. If I need a specific card, I will ask for it after the round.

At the end of the day, this event is all about you. Do what you do, do what you love!
If you have any other questions, just ask!

School: Vanderbilt
Experience: 1 year novice, 1 year JV, 1 year open

General

You should not have to modify your debate style in front of me. Stick with what you know, and you should be fine for the most part.

Unless convinced otherwise, I will default to an offense/defense paradigm. I like trickiness, but only when it’s not underhanded. Dropped arguments are not necessarily guaranteed wins unless capitalized upon, so don’t think the round is over. However, if explained well, I am willing to vote on almost any dropped argument, even if it is (initially) a silly analytic.

Evidence sharing is a must. This does not include analytics, but if the other team wants to see the evidence/sources you read, you MUST provide it to them. This is something I strongly believe in, and I will be very disinclined to vote for you if you refuse. When you give a speech doc to the other team, it must be the exact same file that you are reading from (again, you may delete analytics, but that is the only exception that comes to mind). If you skip cards, then say so during your speech.

Cross ex starts right after the speech ends, and prep time starts right after cross ex ends. I’m not a stickler about flashing files, but if it starts taking too long I’ll tell you to hurry up and start counting against prep time.

Be nice. There is a fine line between being assertive and being a jerk.

Theory

Please provide examples of in-round abuse. Keep in mind that while you may be reading prewritten blocks, the other team and I have to flow. If you spread full speed on theory and I miss something, that’s too bad for you.

Fairness is always good; I highly doubt you will be able to convince me otherwise, but if you do, you lose (think about it). I lean slightly negative on conditionality, but anything beyond one counterplan and one kritik is pushing it.

Counterplans

Counterplan plus disad is a very effective strategy, but be prepared to defend the perm. Many counterplans are cheating, but I’ll vote for them if the aff doesn’t point out why they’re abusive. Theory on this is usually a reason to reject the CP, not the team.

Kritiks

I’m not well-versed in critical literature, so be prepared to explain the K well if you’re running it. I think many teams just run the K in an attempt to confuse the other team, but I won’t vote for something that I don’t understand. That being said, I will vote on a K if (and only if) you can explain the argument using words smaller than fifteen letters and not ending in “-ology.” Otherwise, you’re doing it wrong.

I also believe that many aff teams rely too heavily on cards during K debates. More often than not, rational analytics are just as powerful. The K has many obvious barriers that must be overcome, but it is up to the aff team to point them out and exploit them.

If you are a “non-traditional” team, I will listen to what you say, but I will not do any extra work for you. Tell me what I need to do; don’t expect me to interpret songs or performances on my own.

Cross-Ex

This is my favorite part of debate because it’s where the best analysis usually happens. A lot of debaters get away with making up answers on the spot, but I encourage you to call them out and question deeper. I promise that a good cross ex will be reflected in your speaker points. I should clarify that I do not encourage being a jerk during cross ex; as I’ve said before, there is a fine line between being assertive and being rude.

My default position:
I will judge the debate how you tell me. If I’m supposed to believe that I’m every citizen in America then I will. I really don’t care. Please be clear.


Counterplans:
All cp’s are legit until the aff prove otherwise. Cheat how you feel and the aff should be making as many theory arguments as they can.

Kritiks:
I ran the K for the majority of my college time. Explain your link story, how it turns the aff, how your alt functions and how it interacts with the aff. If not, I’ll have to vote on “case outweighs, perm solves residual links”. For the aff answering the k, be smart please. Don’t just say framework and the perm double bind. Diversify your arguments and cross apply your aff scenarios to mess with the k story.

Non-traditional debate/performance:
Do what you gotta do. I’m in no position to tell you how or how not to debate. However, you probably should explain why your performance is important and how it relates to debate, the rez, the other team, me, etc. Don’t just dance or play a song and expect me to vote for you.

DA/Case:
Nothing wrong with that. If your DA is tricky then explain it. If not, keep it simple and make sure to do the proper impact analysis. In fact, start that asap.

Theory:
Conditionality is probably good. T is probably a voter. However, this and every other theory question is up for debate. Chances are I won’t flow the 6th subpoint on your theory blocks because you’re probably just speeding through it. Slow down and make your arguments as needed.

Speaker points:
Be funny, be smart, and don’t be arrogant. Debates happen too early in the morning for me to have to deal with people’s ego.

I debated at the University of Florida. I’m now a law student at Vanderbilt. I will not hesitate to let you know if you are unclear. 

My general philosophy about judging is that I should minimize my interference in the round and let the debaters do the debating.

All things being equal, here are some of my general leanings. I can be persuaded to vote against ANY of these general leanings, especially when the side who agrees with me fails to fully explain their position or doesn’t answer the other team’s arguments.

Framework:

My default framework is that the debate is about a single yes/no question: is the topical plan preferable to the status quo or a competitive alternative?

I find arguments that affirmative teams shouldn’t have to defend a literal interpretation of the resolution to be less persuasive than a straight up policy aff, but if you make the right arguments and win them I won’t be afraid to vote for you. With that said, I will feel dirty.

However, a sad but true fact about these debates is that the Aff team has much more experience and is thus much better at debating framework. Be forewarned: I won’t vote Neg on framework without good explanation and impact analysis. But, I feel your pain and will extend a sympathetic ear.

Kritiks:

I think most Kritik arguments are oversimplified outlooks on the world dressed up in obnoxiously dense jargon. Affirmative teams who recognize the actual (probably pretty simple) argument made by the Kritik and are prepared to defend their assumptions should be in a very good position. I ran the K during my debate career, but not because I enjoyed it. I was usually a CP/DA debater. But I am certainly amenable to a well argued K.

The major hang-up for me with the K is typically the Alternative. If the Alt calls for me to “reject the affirmative” for some practice they engaged in or some assumption they made, I have no idea why that solves anything. If the aff makes the argument that rejecting them doesn’t solve your impacts (preferably, with evidence), and there’s still some chance that doing the aff could prevent some unique harms, that seems pretty compelling to me.

All that being said, I think Kritiks have a legitimate place in policy debate and make challenges to the Aff that teams should be prepared to answer.
And, despite my reservations about the alternative, I don’t think they make the K any less winnable. If the negative wins that something about the Aff means it solves none of the identified harms, and risks making things worse or leading to some other unique impact, then they can certainly win my ballot on the K. Also, if the negative wins impact arguments like “no value to life” or deontological obligations, it’s going to be Bad News Bears for the Aff.

In general, if you decide to read a Kritik in front of me—though I am fairly familiar with the typical K’s that have been around for awhile—I expect you to completely explain your argument in relatable terms. If the first time I understand what you really mean is after the round when I’m reading your cards, you did not do a good enough job communicating to me, so I will give your evidence much less weight.

Theory:

It’s hard to persuade me that one Conditional advocacy is abusive. But I can be persuaded that multiple conditional advocacies are abusive. Blippy theory debates do not bode well for you.

Though I don’t see any of these issues as settled, I do find the following arguments theoretically suspect (though often very strategic, especially given how poorly theory is typically debated):

Counterplans that compete based on Certainty/Immediacy
States CPs
Agent CPs
International Actor CPs

Finally, with the exception of Conditionality, I will default to rejecting the argument if I am persuaded that it’s theoretically illegit. Rejecting the team seems excessive without some in-depth explanation about why it’s an appropriate remedy.

Topicality:

I tend to think that if the Aff is reasonably topical, it meets the threshold asked of it. Reasonability is just a strong argument for the aff. However, if your interpretation of “Reasonability” is that you just need to show that the negative had some ground and that your aff is related to the topic, then you will be in a bad spot in front of me. I do expect the Aff to present a Counter-Interpretation of what the topic should look like that preserves good limits, ground, and education for both sides. If that condition is satisfied, there are compelling reasons why the Aff shouldn’t always lose in a T debate just because the Negative provides a slightly “better” version of the topic. In short, I am sympathetic to Reasonability as an offensive argument but rarely as a defensive one.

Current affiliation: director at Purdue & assistant at Head Royce.

Did you know Purdue is a public University with over 40,000 undergraduate students? Despite our excellent reputation for our engineering and computer science programs, as well as our success in the NCAA basketball tournament, we are in fact a public land-grant university in West Lafayette, IN. Tuition is less at Purdue than it is at Indiana University.

Past affiliations: Weber State, Wake Forest, Loyola Marymount, Idaho State, West Georgia, as well as College Prep, Georgetown Day, Bishop Guertin, Chattahoochee, and many other high school programs.

I love debate. I chose to return to debate after spending a few years working at a consulting firm. I make less money now, but enjoy the work much more. I appreciate your participation in the activity and will do my best to determine a winner, as well as help you improve in the time I spend judging your round.

I will default to flowing on paper. I appreciate efforts to be organized and go line-by-line; I will reward speakers that make flowing easier.

I will not read along with the speech doc. I believe debate should be a persuasive activity. I think following along with the speech doc is a poor practice, and I feel some type of way about it. I would like to be on the doc chain; everybodylovesjim@gmail.com& hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

If the round has started and there is no timer going, please don’t prep. I’ll kindly ask you to stop prepping if I notice you prepping while no timer is running. I think remote debate may have contributed to lax prep time standards, and I feel some type of way about it.

I’m a fan of multiple flavors of debate. I’m somewhat of a dinosaur at this point, but I still appreciate attempts at innovation. I’ve voted for and against all sorts of arguments. I’ve coached teams on various flavors of arguments. I’m generally agnostic. My best piece of advice for debating in front of me, or any other judge; debate powerfully, make the judge adapt to you.

I love cross ex! It’s generally my favorite part of the round. I usually flow it. I always pay attention to it. If you make gains in cross ex, please leverage those gains in your speeches. I will reward speakers for a well executed cross ex. I prefer you don’t treat prep time as cross ex time, I frequently leave the room during prep time and appreciate these opportunities.

I will reward speakers that focus on clarity over speed. If I ask you to be clear, please make an effort to adjust.

I start the process of deciding who won by establishing the most important issue(s) in the debate and determining who won the core controversies. I ask myself who won the round if both teams win their package of arguments. I frequently write a rough draft of a ballot and then try to argue against that decision to check against overlooking something. I try to edit my many thoughts to keep things more brief in delivering my RFD, particularly when on a panel. Sometimes when I sit I ask to give my RFD last - sometimes this is so I can get a sense of where the other judges are at, sometimes it’s to circumvent judges from editing their decisions when I’m confident in my RFD.

2018: I've gotten out of debate coaching as a full-time profession in order to focus on my research on the tenure-track. I'll still write and speak on debate in journals and conferences, respectively. I'll likely judge at some local high school tournaments in South Texas and may do some judging in the Texas area at both the high school and college levels. I very much enjoy debate and will still be a strong advocate for it. I'll just be doing less of it as a career. In 2018, I was fortunate enough to win the Forensic Educator of the Year for Southern States Communication Association and Coach of the Year from SE CEDA. I also won the John Cameron Turner Memorial Novice Critic of the Year Award from SE CEDA, which probably means more to me than any debate award I or my debaters have won. I will still be a good judge in race, cap, and high theory debates, but my reading on the topic won't be that great.

2016 Updates: I continue to think debating is good for education and that many different styles of debate have merits. I still prefer critical arguments to policy arguments, although much to my chagrin, I'm not the worst policy/policy debate judge. Judges are not neutral when they enter a room. We should stop pretending they are. I prefer certain arguments, I've read more critically certain books, I've written things I stand by, and I find some debates more interesting than others. I do not think debaters should have to agree with me or only read arguments I'd like to read, however. I was a 2N/1A most of my life so that's often how I think about debates. I never was to sure what that meant, but since it's in many people's philosophies. I judge a lot of debates in all divisions, although now I'm judging a lot of novice debates as a result of coaching novices. Novice debate is important to this activity, and we should be kind to our novice debaters. I recently returned from Barcelona studying decolonization and also spent significant time in Germany working broadly on communication tragedy. I don't care what pronouns you use to describe me. I use he/his/him. I appreciate people not using "guys" as a gender neutral pronoun and that you make a good faith effort to call people what they want to be called. It's also important to engage the substance of arguments you might not like, which probably means framework arguments are not always the best in front of me, although I have voted on them. I think Sean Ridley and Erik Mathis are good judges and good people, which may say something about me as a judge or a person. I'm currenty reading a lot of Lacan, which has always been the case, and thinking through some issues of leadership and social mvoements. Have fun!

2015 Updates: I continue to be a good judge if you run arguments that address issues of race, capitalism, and ideology. I recently completed my dissertation on George Jackson's Soledad Brother and I actively write about race and (rhetoric, law, capitalism, counter-terrorism and national security). I am starting a new policy team this year so that will likely reduce the critical literature I am personaly reading, although that ought not change my judging philosophy. I continue to think debaters should be nice, fair, and honest. I want everyone to come away from this activity invigorated, feeling as though they are better thinkers, students, scholars, and activists. Although I am clearly a critical style debate person, I am more than competent at judging traditional policy style arguments. Just don't expect me to call for and read your 10th uniqueness card with the same interest I'd put into a piece of Anthony Farley, Charles Mills, or Carlos Mariategui evidence. And yes, I did cut a piece of evidence and cite it as "Saint Alloysius, 400 A.D. or something" for my NDT-qualifying team of GSU NS. I'm a fan of the odd. Have fun, be smart, argue passionately!

The philosophy... more or less...

Explanation and analysis over random card reading. I’m open to hearing any arguments and not disinclined to vote on any argument. If your strategy is politics DAs and Counter Plan theory—read ‘em. If you love reading Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida—read ‘em. I thought about writing my philosophy for every conceivable argument, but that would probably lead folks to think I had a strong preference for or against arguments which really is not the case. All critics come into rounds with experience in different areas just as debaters come into rounds with different majors. It’s your job to convince me, not my job to tell you what I want to be convinced on. I am ultimately a kritik-oriented debater and coach. I prefer to hear these rounds and am probably more qualified to judge these rounds. I love performance, memory politics, poststructuralism, identity politics, and feminism particularly.

Debate is subjective, but I try to come into each round with as open a mind as possible. That being said, I have a strong background in critical theory, critical race theory, feminism, and rhetorical theory, but that does not predispose me to vote for poorly constructed arguments that claim to engage those ideas.Because I’m more involved (reading and writing) in those areas, I probably am a better critic in those rounds.Again, not because I have a preference for those areas, but because that’s where a lot of my intellectual energy has gone over the years.BUT, I also worked the in DC Metro Area in government affairs, so I have an on-the-ground sense of how politics actually works.

Your ultimate goal should be to convince me why you win the round.That can come about using not only many different arguments, but also many paradigms. I value your performative consistency and gender neutral language.Debate is an open canvas upon which debaters can construct communities of action. The ballot can be a tool, but before you assume I’ll vote on something, you need to explain why your paradigm makes sense in the round. If you believe my ballot sends a message, explain why I should feel the same way. If you feel like we are policymakers, then explain why my position as critic upholds sound policy decision-making. Inspire me to take action with you.

I prefer not to call for cards after the round, but if you feel I must, then provide some darn good reasons. Explain why your evidence is better. What are the qualifications of your author? The warrants behind her or his arguments? The inconsistencies of the other team’s authors? I have a good flow, but I’m not perfect. It’s very important to me to flow things in the appropriate place and make sure that I can follow arguments from start to finish. I value debaters who are organized. I usually don’t flow CX, but if I hear something that sounds particularly relevant to the resolution of the round, I’ll jot it down.

Speed does not matter, but speed should not be a substitute for persuasion. Sometimes speed gets valued over persuasion, and that’s not helpful for anyone. It’s great that you read 7 internal links, but how do they matter to the round and why are they better than your opponent’s answers. Don't make speed a substitute for argument.

I've voted on T, DAs, CPs, Ks, Turns, Perf con, Condo, the various Specs. For theory, I am very concerned with education in the debate round. I find a lot of theory unpersuasive, but if you can explain why the other team hurts your, their, or my learning in this round, then you'll be in a good place.

Have fun, be humorous, don’t take yourself too seriously. This is a competative activity, but it's also a fun activity.

Other debate information…

Coaching Experience:

Director of Debate, University of Central Florida (17-18)

Director of Debate and Forensics, Illinois College (15-17)

Assistant Coach, Georgia State University (11-15)

Assistant Coach, United States Naval Academy (09-11);

Director of Debate, T.C. Williams HS [VA] (07-12),

Assistant Coach, West Virginia University (03-04)

Head Policy Debate Coach, Midlothian HS [VA] (00-03)

Debate Experience (all policy): Middle School, Tallwood High School [Virginia Beach, VA], University of Richmond

Education:

Grad. Cert., University of Central Florida (women's studies)

Ph.D., Georgia State University (communication, track: rhetoric and politics)

M.S. Troy University (international relations, concentration: national security affairs)

J.D., West Virginia University

B.A., University of Richmond (history, urban practice and policy, rhetoric and communication studies)

Jonathan Shane

Head coach at Florida State University

Debated at Georgia State and South Florida

Updated September 2014

 I don't have many biases that should affect your debate choices. I've heard, read, cut, voted for and voted against just about every style of argument and don't reject anything on-face.

That said, I do tend to be most impressed by clever and nuanced strategies more so than metaphorical (or literal) podium pounding.

I also tend to strongly prefer specificity over generics.

I can keep up with any speed and I'm a pretty good flower. But if you're disorganized (jumping between flows, not sign posting, reading random cards without any clear purpose) you might lose me.

Focus on warrants and explaining things in a comprehensive manner. Tag line extensions are a waste of time.

I understand that 2ACs use condo and the like as strategic devices so I can appreciate them from that respect. But I'm not super likely to vote on the tacky theory violations unless you're willing to do more than just read off some camp theory file from 2003.

I am not biased one way or another on the CP-specific theory arguments (agent, int'l, condition, etc.)

Just like a disad/case debate, I expect theory to be framed in the context of impacts (i.e. standards).

As far as the "clash of civilization" debates, please, for god's sake, don't focus solely on your own offense. Spend some time directly responding to your opponent--without actual clash, these debates are the pinnacle of repetitive rubbish.

Kritiks should portray the alternative as a solvency mechanism and explain it as such. Explain exactly how your alternative works and what the ROB/a priori value of the debate is.

I don’t give a shit about cursing or decorum. Just be respectful.

***Assuming there are no more non-paperless teams out there: Prep time ends when the usb drive leaves your computer. None of this 20  minutes to save the file bullshit. I suggest having your speech doc already on the drive so you can just hit save and be done.

Feel free to ask questions before  the round or email me

jshane@fsu.edu

Sean Slattery
Samford University
Fourth Year Judging
GSU 2013

Though I am more experienced with the "policy" form of debate, I do my best to evaluate what I have written down in front of me regardless of content. I prefer to judge rounds that are related to the topic in some capacity; the more esoteric the argument, the less competent my judging becomes.

Given the legal depth of this topic, there is an additional burden on you to explain the nuances of whatever process or policy you are discussing. Simply put, I haven't researched or memorized every Supreme Court case related to the resolution, so please do your best to unpack these details in a flowable manner. 

When it comes to "critical" and "non-traditional" arguments, I am what some call a "checklist" judge. I vote on these arguments not because I am exceptionally familiar with the literature base of the K / non-traditional genre, but because debaters frequently mishandle "a priori" and "inevitabillity" claims.

Counterplans that compete off the word "should" or "resolved" are dubiously competitive. 

Stating an argument is not the same as making an argument. I communicate just as much as you do during round - it's just a question of whether or not you notice. In an ideal world, you would consider what's on my flow during your speech just as often as you'd consider what's on yours. 

Update (2/12/2019): I am in the novice/JV judging pool for the upcoming D6/SECEDA tournament. Except for the Miami Dade Urban Debate League, I have not judged a policy debate this year, and only a handful last year, so please take it easy on me! Be slow, clear and organized. The rest of this judging statement reflects my thoughts when I was judging policy tournaments regularly and is fairly accurate.

I will vote for the team that in my opinion wins the debate, even if inconsistent with my predispositions. But if you adapt your arguments and presentation to me, you have a much better chance of winning. Keep in mind that I do not hear many policy debates and I am not researching the topic as you are. I still enjoy debate, and I believe in it. There are as many ways to do debate as their are debaters, and I appreciate creativity.

I believe that the focus of the debate is the proposition. And if (as with the current CEDA Resolution) that is a policy proposition, it is impingent upon the affirmative to offer and defend a topical plan. Affirmative advantages and negative arguments should have unique links to the affirmative plan, and policy comparison is my default decision framework. I also believe in the burden of rejoinder, the expectation that you offer on-point answers to your opponent’s arguments, and so, the flow matters. But, my flow is not great, especially in a very fast debate, so you should work to keep a clear and clean flow with references to the specific arguments to which you are responding and which you are extending. Computer debating has diminished the direct clash in debate. Debate is defined by clash. You should reference and respond to each other's arguments and track the linear progression of arguments as they evolve horizontally across my flow. Debate requires reading (of evidence), but reading is not debating. I believe that debate is an oral communication activity requiring some reading, but at its best, also offering spontaneity, wit, and creativity.

I believe that debaters should adapt to their audience (i.e., the judge, ME), NOT the other way around. So I am pleased to offer my thoughts about debate in hopes that you will respect them. And feel free to ask me for more detail. Also, I will at times offer some nonverbal feedback during the debate. Pay attention.

Moral, ethical and critical considerations are not only relevant in debate; they are essential components of policy analysis. But the link to the proposition and the plan advocacy do matter to me. I focus on the topic or the topical plan. So negatives, run counterplans, disads, case turns, solvency arguments, and relevant Kritics that link. Run topicality not as a technical violation based on the game, but as a genuine difference in interpretation or definition based in the world. Don’t assume that I know what you know. Please start with clear explanations and definitions. It is your job to identify points of clash or decision criteria for me.

I have no problem admitting that I didn't get it or understand it if I didn’t. It is your responsibility to help me understand the evidence and position during the debate, not after.

I enjoy style and creativity in debate and I support the effort to expand what is considered acceptable proof. But your time is better spent making arguments than playing music during the round, and profanity does not belong in debate. I appreciate style, humor and wit in debate. On the other hand, I am somewhat uncomfortable with excessive self-disclosure and emotion in debate (and, probably, in most contexts outside debate as well).

For years, I have identified myself in the role of debate judge as an educator and evaluator of argument. I am not a referee. Debate is a subjective activity and there is generally not an absolute winner. Rather, it is my job to express my inherently biased perception of which side did the better job of defending or opposing the proposition based on the content of their arguments. I try to minimize my intervention, but to suggest that I can operate outside of my own perceptual screens and personal history is unrealistic.

I look forward to hearing debates, and I enjoy and believe in the process. I hope I will be able to promote a learning environment and a comfortable experience.

Please enjoy the experience and don’t take it too seriously! It is a game in which we are priviledged to participate. It should be enjoyable. And treat your opponents and me with respect and courtesy.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

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. 

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

Do not attempt to appease me. I do not want you to debate to me but rather persuade me to believe you. Stay true to your argument set and do what got you here. That being said, who cares what I personally believe, this is your activity. Below is my process for making a decision in a debate:

Who should I be when evaluating the debate?

What is the main question/issue of the debate?

Who best answered/addressed that question/issue? Note: The characteristics of best should be determined by you not me.

Are there reasons why an approach is dangerous or insufficient that overwhelms its positive potential.

Speaker Points: I give points based on how clear, efficient and engaging you are. What happened to debaters being able to be serious, funny, personable and entertaining simultaneously? You will be rewarded for quality speaking even if you do not win the debate.

Team email: jagzdebate@gmail.com (preferred for speech docs in round)

Personal email: rwash@g.emporia.edu

Hays Watson, former head debate coach @ University of Georgia. whwatson@gmail.com. I split my time between political consulting and caretaking for a dying parent. Haven't judged a debate since 2020.

Online debate 411 - Please slow down, speak up, have patience, and make sure that everything (sound/camera/wifi/tech) is on and working properly. I will do my best to judge as I normally do and make the best decision possible while providing helpful feedback.

My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments made in the debate. That being said, I remain a teacher at heart and I'll also offer suggestions for how you can improve. That's why I still write full ballots and send them via email to the teams that I judge.

Here are many of my preferences, simply-stated:

Clarity trumps speed...the best debaters are able to achieve both.

Evidence matters...but not much more than logical, analytical arguments. Many positions (case advantages, politics, etc.) can best be defeated with smart, analytical responses. Use your brain.

Efficiency and explanation both matter - but doing one while sacrificing the other produces bad debate. Explanation seems to lose out quite a bit these days...there is such thing as being "too efficient."

Process questions determine substantive questions. The "who" of action does, in fact, determine the effectiveness of "what" action is being taken.

I prefer that Affirmatives advocate topical action. Specific plans of action are preferable over vague/generic policy suggestions. Yes, that means I still appreciate spec-based args.

I tend to find more persuasive logical/plausible scenarios ("truth") than technical/strategic ones ("tech"). A dropped DA is a dropped DA, but a card saying the economy will collapse tomorrow doesn't make it so.

I reward arguments grounded in the topic literature over arguments based upon non-germane net benefits or advantages. In other words, I'd prefer that you read the deterrence DA and an advantage CP over a made-up counterplan with an artificial internal net-benefit or a crappy politics DA.

Links/internal links are more important (and more interesting) than uniqueness questions. Most debate impacts are silly - not everything causes extinction. Yes, advantages/harms can be linked turned. Yes, impacts can be turned as well.

I'm increasingly frustrated by the relative absence of debates about important theoretical questions. Topicality no longer is seen as a strategic Negative tool. Affirmatives consistently refuse to challenge the theoretical legitimacy of various negative positions (conditionality, politics DAs, kritiks, etc.). Why?

Impact defense alone is an insufficient way to answer an argument. I'm confused as to how case attacks based solely around impact defense have become the "norm." The best argumentative strategies involve mixture of offensive and defensive responses. "No impact" doesn't cut it.

Effective cross-examination is still the most underutilized tool in debate. Poor, un-strategic cross-ex questions (and responses) make me sad.

I can spell 'K' despite my reputation. It's impossible not to acknowledge (albeit begrudgingly) that a well explained and case-specific kritik supported by high-quality evidence is an important strategic tool. Play to your strengths - even its gooey and critical.

I flow. I still flow on paper. It's hard to flow stuff - blippy T args, theory, embedded clash on the case, etc. Keep that in mind, especially if you are debating online.

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.