Hello. I'm a former debater for Cal Poly SLO, Sacramento State, and Monterey Trail High. I have competed in college open policy, college BP, and high school parli (but see #2). I am an attorney (but see #6).

1. I have no preference for debate styles, so please debate however you like. Just make clear what my role is as the judge in the round and what voting for you means or signifies.

-

2. Assume I don't know your authors/arguments. I am not a lay judge, but I am also not a judge who cuts cards or researches arguments for the topic. Do not assume that I am familiar with the literature that you are reading or the arguments that you are running. I have a fair understanding of critical theory in general as well as the kritiks common to debate. But in general, you should assume that I am unfamiliar with your argument.

-

3. Impact comparison is very important to me. Provide me with a metric for weighing different impact claims and prove to me that your impact is more weighty and important than your opponent's.

-

4. I probably will not adopt your framework if you used it to avoid a debate. I don't like when framework is used as a way to hide. I am more likely to reward teams who directly clash with their opponent's argument, whatever it may be. If you do choose to go all-in on framework in the 2NR or 2AR, you must justify why you chose to give zero recognition to your opponent's argument, because you are asking me to do the same for you. Focusing primarily on the "rules" of debate is not enough.

-

5. I'm unlikely to vote for theory arguments unless I'm convinced that the abuse or unfairness in the round was strong. If you are going for these arguments in the rebuttals, please slow down and clearly identify what unfairness/abuse occurred in round and explain why that conduct creates bad debate not only in this round but for debate in general. I won't vote for it if I don't understand it.

-

6. I don't expect you to "know" the law any more than your peers. I don't expect you to be as familiar with the law as a law student or lawyer would. In other words, please don't worry about running or having to respond to legal arguments in front of me. I am judging your argumentative abilities, not your knowledge of jurisprudence.

-

7. Try to have fun! Debate is intense, but it can actually be enjoyable. A positive room is the best way to spend time in debate, and I'll do my best to keep ours light-hearted. Mistakes can happen, and that's ok. Try not to get too frustrated; there will always be another speech, another round to try again. Assume that your partner and opponents, like you, are debating in good faith, are probably nervous, are trying their best, and are doing this activity because they want to. I would even suggest cheering on your opponents, even if they've out-debated you, and especially if you've out-debated them--try it, it's fun. Don't be disrespectful, don't be unethical, and do not impugn anyone's dignity or humanity.

-

Thanks, and best of luck.

I'm a former LD debater for Needham High School, and Policy debater for Cornell University.

I will flow, and tolerate mild spreading. I'm more persuaded by voting issues that are well-developed through the round vs a random collection of drops.

Perry Green, III - Judging Philosophy

[6 years debating – 5+ years coaching]

I debated at Jones College Prep HS in Chicago for four years and at the University of Louisville for two years. Currently I am the San Francisco Program Lead at the Bay Area Urban Debate League. Prior to my service at the BAUDL, I’ve spent the better part of this last decade as a community, labor and political organizer. I believe that this activity is absolutely pertinent to empowering individuals and communities. This has a deep impact on the way I view debate.

First and foremost, I think civility in debate is important. BE NICE. When you are mean, rude, condescending etc, be prepared for some of the worst speaker points you have ever seen. There is a clear delineation between competitiveness and being mean.

I really do not have a predisposition towards any arguments in particular. However for all of you who are astute and aware of the college debate community, Yes, I debated at the University of Louisville, known for an “nontraditional” style of debate. What does this mean? I like critical arguments and in particular I have a keen awareness of arguments regarding race, gender, class and sexuality. Therefore, I have a very high threshold for evaluating critical arguments. I fundamentally believe that critical arguments, kritik’s in particular, question the basic assumptions of affirmative cases – therefore they are debated at pre-fiat levels. Ironically, I can understand and evaluate more traditional arguments, however I am not the judge who you can convince that critical affirmatives or critical argumentation will destroy debate.

The particulars not covered above:

Topicality – I believe topicality is a voting issue, I rarely vote on Topicality.

Theory – As the case with most arguments in debate, Theory is no exception, arguments need impact analysis. Tell me why it is important to vote on Conditionality Bad etc. Otherwise you leave me to my own devices and you probably will not be happy with that outcome.

Cross-Examination – One of the most under utilized times in a debate. People need to ask questions rather than trade evidence. It sets up links for your disads, K’s and the like. A great time to indict the other teams evidence, and a whole host of things. Everyone asks “Can we tag team cross-x?” Yes, you can however typically what ends up happening is three people end up dominating the cross-examination and the person who is supposed to be answering or asking questions is not one of the three dominating, and to quote popular culture it is not a good look...

Framework – I absolutely HATE the argument that “Policy Debate is about competing policy ideas” or “Traditional policy debate frameworks are best for evaluating debates.” It is fundamentally antithetical to everything I believe about debate. This is a very hard debate for most teams to debate – however, if you do it well I am more likely inclined to evaluate these arguments.

General points – I think its critical for teams to slow down when reading tags and cites because I think I can flow fairly well but its very difficult to flow otherwise…Evidence from a Geocities website is a bad idea, evidence quality is important to me. My interpretation of debate is that debate is unique because we can have debates about debate – justify/impact your arguments. Impact analysis is absolutely critical for me in terms of evaluating debates. I cannot stress that enough.

Prep Time - Prep starts IMMEDIATELY after the last speech, unless you are ready to speak. Preparing for your speech, Emailing documents, trading evidence, asking random questions, going to the bathroom (unless I need to as well) are all examples of when you are using prep time.

Add me to the email chain: pwgreen[at]baudl[dot][org]

Any questions – just ask. Finally, HAVE FUN!

1 year policy debate experience

2 years LD experience

I was a local debater. I coach middle school policy debate. I like framework and ks and policy arguments. I'm not good at evaluating theory arguments. YES. I will listen to and evaluate them but maybe thats risky of you. So just make argument interactions clear and we'll have a good time! :)