Joseph Autry

Affiliation: Liberty University

Debated from 2008-2011

Preferred Type of Debate: Clash of Civilizations

Just wanted to let you know this will my first tournament judging in 4 years. I judged and coached for from 2011 to 2015.

Kritiks:

I have always been a big fan of K's, and I have read most of the literature by the different authors. During my time as a debater, I ran racial criticisms, the Cap K, and Queer Theory. I prefer when the K team spends time addressing the other team's arguments. Too many K debates become really top-heavy and the bottom parts of the flow are missed. Like DA debates, impact and link analysis is key. I will mention that I don't like Baudrillard and Bataille K's, but I have been known to vote on them when the K team wins the flow.

Language Kritiks:

Personally, I don't like when sexist, racist, ableist, or homophobic language is used. I am prone to vote on criticisms of these types of language such as gendered language K. However, like most things my judge philosophy, I am flow centric with this argument, and I will not automatically vote for the K if it is run. The opposing team can still win the debate by winning the flow.

DA:

I love politics DA's, and I love to see a team that is willing to go all in on the politics debate. I have no problem with other DA's as well. Like the K debate, impact and link analysis is key, and impact analysis is the most important to me.

Framework/No Plan Affs:

I am not partial to voting on Framework, and I would prefer if a team uses a K against a K aff, but I was about 50/50 for voting for framework as opposed to the aff during the previous season. I ran affs without a plan text when I was a debater, and I have no issue if a team prefers to run an aff without a plan text. As far as framework, I fill that education is usually the best impact for the team running framework, and the team should make the debate about competing interpretations. I have listened to multiple performance debates, and I don't have an issue with the style. I prefer competing methodologies in debates with critical affs.

CP:

I tend to be aff-biased on CP's, but I will obviously vote for the neg if they win the flow. I don't like Word PICs. The team running the Word PIC can still defend it, but I usually see Word PICs as cheating.

Theory/T:

I have a high threshold for both T and theory, and the debate often becomes about competing interpretations for me. Because I'll vote on the flow, teams can win that they are topical on the flow even if they might not be topical or are questionably topical. Even with my high threshold for theory, I am more likely to vote for theory as the conditional worlds of the negative increase. When the negative teams starts running more than 2 conditional worlds, my threshold for theory starts to decline. I usually flow neg on performative contradictions except for Reps K's. If a team is running a criticism of the other team's representations, I don't think the team should be able to sever their representations in the other conditional world.

//shree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Neil Butt -- Vanderbilt University

District: 6

CEDA Region: Southeast

I have judged ADA/CEDA/NDT since: 1992

I have judged policy debate since: 1988

Background:

I debated for George Mason University 1988-1992.

I coached for George Mason University 1992-2000.

I coached for John Carroll University 2000-2005.

I coached for Wayne State University 2005-2008.

I was Director of Debate for Vanderbilt University (2010-2019).

My email is: neilsbutt@gmail.com. I would like to be included on email chains.

***Updates for October 2018***

The recent ADA rule change to further limit decision time may be too much for me. There were good reasons to put caps on decision times (in fact I probably WAS one of those reasons), but this further cut leaves me concerned that I will not have enough time to make a thorough decision and generate useful feedback. I will probably be limiting my judging even further this year, and intend to limit myself to Novice and/or JV debate, to mitigate the impact of the lack of time.

Framework (Modified again)

The affirmative should advocate a topical course of action. How we determine what is topical is still up for debate.

This document has a concise list at the top for pre-round scans, and more detail below. Right before the round you probably just want to know what to avoid, and are probably not interested in my rationale for why you should avoid it. If you are figuring out long-term prefs, the nuances may be more relevant.

Short Version: Be Nice. Be Clear.

Basic Stuff

Judging time

In the past, I have tended to take a while. Recent community moves to reduce decision time have sometimes made me feel rushed. If this is a concern for you, read more on this below.

I am also likely to just call for speech documents, rather than individual cards, after the round. I am not going to read everything, reconstruct the round, or steal your cards (though I might get cites)—I just want to save some time by eliminating the need to find specific cards and create new documents.

Prep time

I run prep until the other team (not your partner) has the flash drive. For more specific prep scenarios, see below.

Arguments

1. If the negative counterplans, presumption shifts affirmative. The negative must win a clear net-benefit (more than a "direction arrow") to win the debate. This shouldn't really change how you debate, but it helps me resolve “ties.”

2. Absent specific arguments otherwise, if the 2NR extends a conditional CP, I will not consider the SQ as an option, i.e., I won’t make that decision for the negative. If the 2NR kicks the CP and goes for case, that’s fine.

3. I’m OK with most Kritiks, so don’t panic because you saw my position on Framework above. Most of the Kritiks I have judged recently haven’t relied on winning a framework debate anyway. If you are negative and running a Kritik with an alternative that operates outside of a policy framework: I would like to consider myself agnostic in Framework debates, but my voting record in close framework debates seems to favor “traditional” frameworks lately (more below). I am definitely happiest judging a case debate, maybe with an advantage counterplan and disadvantages, but I have voted for a lot of other stuff.

4. If you win “Fairness Bad,” you lose (for reasons that should be self-evident). You can obviously feel free to make arguments that contextualize fairness, as long as you aren’t making a totalizing claim.

5. Don’t ask me to assess individual debater emotions or sincerity. Do not make the claim that you are sincere and they are not. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt unless there’s evidence to the contrary.

6. I probably have a lower threshold for voting on theory than most judges, but I do have a threshold, that threshold has actually gone up a little. I am not going to vote for something that I couldn’t initially flow. The key is starting clear. Most 2AC blocks I hear on theory are unflowable.

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

You should be clear and should not rely on me to intervene to make you clear.

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t get every cite initially when I flow, but I listen carefully for references to specific cites, especially in the rebuttals. That said, I don’t think “Jones ’98 answers this” is an argument. “Jones ’98 says fertility is high now so the turns aren’t unique” is much better.

Tags that are a paragraph long totally defeat my ability to flow them. It generally results in me writing down random words that are somewhere in the tag, which may or may not enable me to get references to them later in the debate.

You need to identify what you are answering—don’t assume I know.

If you think there is a new argument in the 1AR or 1NR, you need to point it out. If I hear them in the 2NR/2AR I will try to find and disallow them myself.

The Rest

I take ethical issues very seriously. If you argue your opponents are taking evidence out of context, then that will become the only issue in the round, and you better be able to prove it.

I pay attention to CX. I don’t flow it, per se, but if you say something in CX I will hold you to it unless there was an obvious misunderstanding or something. It’s OK if there are more than two participants in CX, but not at the same time, and please don’t marginalize your partner.

I like debates about evidence qualifications and bias, and don’t see enough of them.

I like clear debates (fast or slow)—though maybe you should slow down a little for analytical/theory/critical arguments as those can be harder to flow.

Be nice (to EVERYONE). That includes, and is especially true of, your partner. I don’t care if your partner IS a tool—they’re putting up with you too and you’d be nowhere without them.

ADA Rules

If (and only if) I am judging you at an ADA tournament: ADA Rules. I am a firm believer in the ADA. I don’t like all the rules, but I regard that as a reason to try to amend them, not to selectively enforce them. I will self-impose rules that apply to me, but I leave most infractions to the debaters to point out (e.g.: full cites, counterplan theory, etc.). Don’t bother arguing that I shouldn’t follow the rules. Feel free to debate about how the rules should be enforced, and whether certain “punishments” fit certain “crimes.” I will vote on these issues (I have done so in the past).

More Detail

Judging time

I’m a slow judge (deciding—not flowing). Left to my own devices, I take a while to decide. The recent community moves to reduce decision time have impacted my judging. While it has been great to finish before all the restaurants close and to get a little more sleep, it has definitely affected how I decide rounds. It is no longer “the best decision I can make,” it is “the best decision I can make in 40 minutes” (or 30 or whatever the specific tournament calls for). I have to take shortcuts and don’t get to double-check things. The most difficult part has been generating feedback. In novice and most JV rounds, I still have time to generate a lot of suggestions and talk to the debaters after the debate. In many varsity rounds, I generally have to focus exclusively on the decision, and find it is more difficult to answer questions like: “What should I have done differently in the 1AR?” (though I will, of course, still try).

Prep time

Given that I have less time to decide, and your stealing prep comes out of my decision time, I am getting more strict about prep time. Yelling “Stop prep!” annoys me. “I'm ready,” or something similar serves the same purpose without grating on me. Either way, if you are paperless, I am going to keep running prep until the other team gets the flash drive. If you give it to your partner first, I am still running prep time. If you didn’t already set up your collapsible lectern, that’s prep time. When your partner asks you a question about the 1NR after you have given the 2NC roadmap, that’s prep time. When you are out of prep time and aren’t moving fast enough to start the 2NR/2AR, I’m starting speech time. I hate to be a curmudgeon about such things, but fair is fair (and I want time for my decision—see above).

Frameworks, Projects, Performance, etc.

*My philosophy evolves when I grow uncomfortable with how my decisions work out. I have been increasingly uncomfortable with my decisions in Framework debates (and just judging them in general). I have had to explain to teams that they lost to an approach they could not have been reasonably expected to be prepared for, and I have had to vote against teams that, given their framing of the debate, saw my decision as a rejection of them as individuals (which is obviously not how I saw it, but I don’t get to decide how they see it). I have reluctantly decided that I need to narrow the focus of the rounds I judge. Please do NOT read my change in philosophy as an endorsement of one approach over another. I realize that it functionally plays out that way if I’m judging you, but that begs the question of whether I should be judging you. In a world of ubiquitous MPJ, I see it more like registering for one class instead of another, and/or like picking a section based on how well that instructor matches what you want to get out of the class. I realize I could resolve this in the other direction (e.g., I won’t accept any framework arguments, so anything goes), but I also have to be realistic about my preferences and expertise. Traditional and non-traditional approaches are both potentially educationally valuable, just like different classes are. “Women, Rhetoric, and Social Change” and “Argumentation and Debate” could both be good classes, but while I could teach the former, given that I’ve done graduate work in Feminist criticism, why would I when Bonnie Dow can do a much, much better job? [This section is really just a brief synopsis of my decision—there’s more I could say, and am happy to discuss it if you would like.]

Since I might be judging a negative team with a Kritik that assumes a non-policy framework, I’ll include elements from my previous philosophy: My recent record on framework debates has been about 50-50. As indicated above, I’d like to think I can be completely open on these issues, but I’m not sure I am, and my shift regarding Topical affirmatives certainly highlights this. My Dissertation was about how we teach argumentation and debate, so I like the issues involved in Framework debates (“traditional” and “non-traditional”), but don’t like how many of the framework debates I’ve judged play out. The arguments I’ve seen tend to mutually indict each other’s assumptions, making resolution very difficult, absent some work by the debaters to clear things up. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile my desire not to intervene with what I feel is my responsibility as an educator. At any rate, just make sure it’s clear. I won’t vote on anything I can’t understand, but if you can get me to understand, I will listen.

Theory

I think teams let their opponents get away with far too much. Some Affirmatives succeed with cases that there is no way a Negative could be prepared for. Some Negatives succeed with counterplans that don’t leave the Affirmative a shred of ground. I’ll buy that just about anything is legitimate, but I’ll also buy that just about anything is illegitimate (by the way, Affs DO NOT win 70% of the time). Absent the imposition of rules (like what the ADA used to do), the only way to check unfair or anti-educational practices is with theory debates.

I default to policymaking and/or stock issues if that seems to be the assumption the teams I’m watching are making (and I prefer to view the debate as a policymaker), but it is easy to change my default perspective by making some arguments that I should view the round a different way.

Other than ethical issues or fairness issues, I don’t like punishing people much. For example, I think it would be very difficult to persuade me to vote against someone because they used the wrong pronoun a couple of times during a speech (and yet, I have done just that in at least one round—so much for preferences and predispositions…).

It kind of blows my mind that current community norms seem to be that people have to “mark” cards during their speech, but that negative teams don’t have to identify the nature of the counterplan until CX…

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

Clarity is your responsibility. It used to throw me off when judges interrupted my speeches, so I’m reluctant to intervene in yours. I’m also not sure what the threshold for intervention should be. If I just missed a non-critical word or two, we are probably both better off if I don’t interrupt. If I can’t understand you for several seconds in a row, I’m likely to yell, “Clear!” I’ll do that a couple of times and then give up. If I can flow the words but don’t understand the argument, I’ll just hope it gets clarified in CX and ensuing speeches. I am even more reluctant to intervene when I am on a panel, because if the other judges are getting it, I don’t want to throw you off (of course they may be thinking the same thing, and you may be digging yourself a hole and not know it…).

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t like to make applications or cross-applications for debaters. It begs the question of whether they knew about the application in the first place. So if you assume something “obviously” answers something else, you might be disappointed.

Speech docs seem to be undermining some folks’ ability to flow and follow a flow. Since I rely on my flow, this can be a problem. You still have to answer analytical arguments that are not in the speech doc. You shouldn’t answer arguments they didn’t make. While teams should not be giving you a messed-up speech doc, you also should not be up in arms because the 1NR gave you some solvency cards they didn’t get to at the bottom of the document.

So…

My philosophy seems more grumpy than it used to. I think it is just a matter of having to spell things out that I didn’t have to before, given trends in what debaters do. I wouldn’t read too much into it. I’m not actually especially grumpy, and I’m happy to answer your questions.

I totally love debate. I wish I could still debate. Good Luck folks!

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

Hello!

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

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

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

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

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

<*My Debate History*>

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

High School

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

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

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

College

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

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

Coaching

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

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

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

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

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

Kristie Cramer

Affiliation = George Mason University

I’ve been with George Mason University since 2010.   Before that; I debated in high school and coached in Ohio, for CCC and Perry High Schools for 14 years and spent several years coaching Case Western Reserve University. In the summers I have worked at the Dartmouth Debate Workshop, the Dartmouth Debate Institute, Georgetown Debate Seminar and George Mason Patriot Classic Institute.   

I try to judge the round off the flow and avoid judge intervention as much as possible (flowing can be very different based upon the round, some rounds are highly technical line-by-lines, other debates are done in a more global fashion – the bottom line is I’ll write down all that you say & base my decision based upon what was said)  That means a few things to you. 

1.        Impact comparison is vital to you.

2.       Don’t just assume certain things are a voter; you need to say why they are.

3.       Cheap shots, if unanswered, can get my ballot.  I hate it when it happens but I will vote on small things if they are effectively extended and the other team drops them.

I have judged highly technical debates as well performance debates.  I don’t feel strongly that one sort of debate is better than the other; each form has its value.  I do feel that any performance should have something to do with the topic, have an impact, and should still discuss all of an opponent’s argument in some fashion.

I try to protect the last two speakers, arguments in the 2ar or 2nr need to have their roots in the earlier speeches. 

I am not a big evidence reader; don’t assume I will or tell me to read your evidence.  I think there is far too much evidence reading happening in debate these days; the point of debate is for the debaters to communicate their evidence to me.  I see little purpose in pulling every card read by a debater, reading them & reconstructing the debate myself.  I rarely ask for evidence if I do….Typically I’ll call for evidence if that piece(s) of evidence has been contested as not saying what someone claims or if it’s out of context or if the debate done on the evidence has been done equally well on both sides and so I need to read them myself to determine to resolve that debate.

Don't clip cards! I can handle a quick round, but a quick round DOES NOT mean a debater should card clip, cross-read, etc... I listen to evidence & often flow texts of cards - if a card doesn't make sense I'll know it & if you get through a ton of cards sooner than is reasonable I'll pay attention & make sure you are reading the evidence properly. If you do card clip, I'll drop your speaker points & most likely ignore large parts of your evidence because it was read improperly which will probably mean you'll lose the round. DO NOT DO IT.

Prep time use – I don’t like prep stealing – my time is valuable.  When you say you are ready then be ready.  Prep ends when the timer is pulled out of the computer of the person prepping.  Jumping of files should be done expeditiously!

In terms of specific arguments...any argument is fine with me. I will and have voted on just about any argument out there. I believe I can handle just about any argument. Topicality, counterplans, critiques, conditionality, dispositionality, fiat arguments, topicality permutations, counter critiques, the whole list of theory arguments are all fine with me and I could be typing all day to list them all so suffice it to say run anything because I will evaluate anything you tell me to. I firmly believe the debate belongs to the debaters so run the arguments you want, just make sure your strategy makes sense and that you can support it.

While I say run what you want I should offer a disclaimer: that doesn't mean I want to hear offensive strategies or words. Also beware I am very sensitive to gendered language.

When it comes to voting on theory arguments (including T or Aspec, etc...), you will have an easier time getting my ballot if you can demonstrate in round abuse or prove why voting on your particular argument will make for a better debate. On T in particular I like hearing a topical case list and topical version of the Aff for fair limits.

Framework arguments - I don't really buy critiques don't have a place in debate, there are plenty of reasons they do. I think alot of framework arguments end in the same conclusion: let the Aff weigh their case, as such recognize if that's true with that round's particular criticism and don't sit on fw on the flow too long if you don't have to. There are other criticisms where the framework debate is much more important, ie Security/Threat Con debates, ethics questions, language critiques, reality critiques I'm impressed by debaters who realize the very specific role framework can take & the generic role framework can take.

 I’ve heard lots of critiques, read lots of critiques, coached many critiques - that said I don't claim to know about every critique personally. You can run any criticism you'd like just make sure if it's something new or deeply developed you spend some time simplifying it so that I'm on the same page as you. Alternatives can be great & useful to have, but plenty of teams have won in front of me without winning the Alt, critiques can still function & win just as case turns or offense independent of the alt.

Finally, a note about delivery in a debate round.   I believe in sticking to the flow; I’ve judged somre really quick teams and some not so quick teams.  However good flowing requires good speaking!  Be clear, speak up, and always slow down on analytics. I'm a decently fast flower but there are plenty of faster flowers out there than me. I value signposting, smooth transitions from one page to another, and slight pauses from one argument or piece of evidence to another. Flowing is an art dependent, in part, upon a well delivered speech.  

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.

Scott Elliott, Ph.D. J.D.

Asst Director of Forensics, KCKCC

Years Judging: 35+

Judging Philosophy:

What you need to know 10 minutes before your round starts:

I believe the affirmative should affirm the resolution chosen by the organization. I have been persuaded to vote otherwise. But, it is tough.

That argument you always wanted to run, but were afraid to run it….this may be your day to throw the Hail Mary. I prefer impact turns and arguments that most judges dislike.

Affirmatives still have to win basic stock issues. I prefer counterplans and disads. But I also believe that the affirmative has a burden to defend the ontological, epistemological, pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the affirmative arguments they have chosen.

I have probably written, cut cards for and against, and coached teams about, the “cutting edge” argument you are thinking of running. I have also voted for it and against it depending upon how that argument is deployed in the round.

I am not intimidated nor persuaded by team reputation, verbal abuse, physical assaults or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside the debate community and I have my dogs. I don’t need to be your buddy and I certainly do not care about my social standing within this so-called “community.”

Memorable examples of ways teams have unexpectedly picked up my ballot:
1) Voted for Baylor one time because Emory misspelled their plan text;
2) Voted for Emporia once because their plan wiped-out the universe, destroying all life (you had to be there);
3) Voted numerous times on anthro kritiks, De-Dev, Cap K's, anarchy, malthus, space, aliens A-Life, etc.;
4) voted for a counter-performance because it made me feel more emotional than the 1AC narrative;
5) voted for porn good turns;
6) voted for genocide reduces overpopulation turns;
7) did not vote, but the team won, because they took my ballot filled it out, gave themselves the win and double 30's;
8) voted once on a triple turn--link turned, impact turned, and turned back the impact turn (had to be there);
9) voted on inherency;
10) voted on foul language in a round--both ways--foul language bad and "yeah, we said F***, but that's good" turns;
11) voted for veganism K while eating a cheeseburger.

One last point: All of you need to flow the round. The speech document they flash over to you is not the debater's actual speech. Look. Listen. You may be surprised what the other team is actually saying.

Hi All!

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

Things that are good:

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

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

Things that are bad:

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

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

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

marie.eszenyi@gmail.com

(919) 323-1353

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.

Background

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

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

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

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

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

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

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

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

1.     1.  Clarity of interpretation

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

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

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

2.      2. Articulation of comparative significance –

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

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

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

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

Odds and Ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 

Taylor Hahn

Clarion University of Pennsylvania

Judging Philosophy 2016-7

Years judging: 9

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

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

My default style of judging:

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

Topicality/Theory:

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

Counterplans:

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

Kritiks:

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

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

Non-traditional debate/projects/performance:

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

DA/Case:

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

Speaker points:

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

Heather Holter Hall

Hallheather8@gmail.com

Salem and Tallwood High School Debater 1990-93

Liberty University Debater 1993-96

Liberty University Assistant Debate Coach 20+ years

I love this activity and I look forward to meeting you.

For novices:

Congratulations on being at a debate tournament! I like debates with a few pieces of quality research that you can explain well plus some smart logical arguments. You should focus on good explanation of arguments and on getting better at flowing.  Putting lots of extra pieces of research that you have never read before into your speech is a waste of your time. I would much rather hear you explain research that you understand, compare that research to your opponent’s research and arguments, and tell me why the plan is either a good or bad idea.  The most important comparison in the debate you can make is to tell me whose impacts are bigger, come first, or are more likely. 

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, not the speech document. You should highlight and read complete sentences. I do not count sentence fragments as arguments.

If it is an online debate, please make sure you SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech. Please say out loud when you are done with prep time and post how much you have left in the chat. When you say prep time is done, you should be ready to email the speech document immediately. 

For everyone else:

I have spent the majority of the last 20 years coaching novice debate.  I also judge a lot of novice and jv debates. This means that I am not deep into the lit base for most arguments. My days are full of explaining and re-explaining basic debate theory. You should view me as someone who loves learning something new and the debate as your opportunity to teach me. If you want me to assess arguments based upon previous in-depth knowledge of a particular lit base, you will probably be very disappointed. I love the strategic use of each student’s scholarship but get me on the same page first.

Likewise, the theory debates I am used to judging are pretty basic. I would love to hear a well-developed theory debate at a high level, but you will need to slow down, give full warrants, and not assume that “lit checks” means the same to me as it does to you.

About preferred types of arguments—smart strategy with good support that is clearly communicated usually wins. I prefer consistent, thoughtful strategies with a few well developed arguments, but, sadly, I have voted for negatives who won simply by overwhelming the 2AC with skimpy highlighting of 7 off case positions.

I have voted for everything, but I do not judge alternate formats of debates often so you will probably want to slow down, make well developed arguments, and assume I do not know. As long as I am judging and there is a win to assign, my main assumption is that every team is playing the game, maybe in different ways, but still just playing the game. I can only make decisions based on words or actions in a particular debate. I will not begin to speculate about another person’s motive or intentions--that is a job for someone else.

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, including cx.  I will reference the speech doc, BUT if I can’t understand your words or if the words you say do not make grammatically complete sentences, they won’t make it on my flow and only my flow counts. Likewise, if you are hedging the debate on a warrant buried three sentences deep in the fourth card by Smith, you will need to say more than “extend Smith here.”  The more concrete and specific your warrants are, the more likely you are to persuade me.

If it is an online debate, you need to SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech.  Yes, this has happened more than once lol.  Don’t steal prep—it is obvious and annoying.

Feel free to strike me. I am not offended at all if you think I am not a good judge for you. Hopefully, I still get a chance to meet you at a tournament and chat.

Finally, I hope you all have a great tournament, learn new things, think deeply, speak well, meet fascinating people, and win lots of debates (unless you are debating my teams)! Have fun and please say hi in between debates!

Debated 4 years at Kansas State University
Graduate Assistant at Indiana University

Big Tent: (stolen from Joe Koehle) There is no right way to debate. I don’t enter a debate round already knowing what the ballot means or what my role as a judge is. I prefer this to be made explicit in the debate round. If both teams are in agreement, I will default to the implied role and meaning. If both teams are in disagreement, I will default to the framework established through debate. If both teams are in disagreement and do not debate the framing for the round, I will be very sad.

Evidence: [Updated] I am very resistant towards reading substantive evidence after the round (excepting T or FW definitions and politics links or uniqueness). I think it's important to remeber that debate is a communicative activity. I value research and quality evidence, but I would rather be able to hear the evidence than read it after the round. I'll call for contested evidence but if you want me to read other evidence after the round, give me reasons.

Paperless Prep Time: [Updated] The timer stops when you hand your USB drive to the other team. In cases of email or dropbox, the timer stops when you click save or send (that also means stop fiddling with your computer. If you read new cards in a speech, I will deduct the time it takes you to jump the new evidence to the other team from your prep time. Don’t steal prep. I’m not stupid.

Theory Debates: [Updated] The claim "this is a voting issue" is not an argument and I will not vote on it. If you make and impact a theoretical argument, I will vote on it. Caveat: I flow on paper. I need pen time. If it's not on my flow, I will not vote on it.

Topicality: [Updated] So far, I've only judged topicality arguements against critical affs so most of my preferences apply to that particular context: I find 'topical version of the aff' arguments compelling and important, I default to the assumption that T is distinct from FW, and specific, contextual impacts trump broad claims.

Framework: [Updated] I really enjoy clash of civilization debates (and I'm sure this will change as I continue to hear this debates. I'll let you know when that happens). For the neg: Drawing clear connections from your interpretation to your impact matters. For the aff: describing the world of debate under your interpretation matters (alternatively, tell me why the world of debate doesn't matter).

Stylistic preferences: [Updated] Big overviews make me sad and lower your speaker points- most overviews can be broken up and debated on the line by line. If you don't want me to flow line by line, please tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round. I am an expressive human- if you would like to know what I think of an argument, my face generally makes my opinions clear. If I can't understand you, I wont flow you. I will only say clear to each speaker once. After that, it is your responsibility to notice that I am not writing anything down. 

2023-24 will constitute my 31st year judging intercollegiate debate.

General comments about my judging:

1) When forced to choose, evidence-based argumentation informed by an understanding of current events is preferred to eloquent prose devoid of substance.

2) Argumentation that directly engages opponents' positions, especially strategic choices that clearly acknowledge and account for the strengths of an opponents' claims while exploiting their weaknesses is considered the highest form of debate.

3) In terms of delivery style, confidence is not measured by volume, aptitude is not proven by aggressiveness, and eye contact is always appreciated.

4) Competitors who know how to employ "Even If" statements ("Even if my opponent is correct about ______, they still lose the debate because ________") are more successful than those who assume, and speak as if, they have won all the arguments.

5) I flow, or at least try to. I don't give up on that exercise because debaters share a speech document.

Specific thoughts about judging the 2023-24 CEDA-NDT resolution:

1. Debating nuclear weapons is a relative waste of our collective intellect, and an unfortunate reminder at the shallow and superficial manner by which our community chooses what topic we will spend an entire year researching, learning about, and engaging in a contestation of contrasting perspectives. US nuclear weapons policy is neither the most salient policy issue, nor even the most pressing foreign policy issue. Sadly, our community is too narrow-minded and scared to use our powers of debate to focus our energy on other areas of public policy that would be much better for college-aged scholars to delve into.
2. My thoughts expressed above do not mean I automatically support Affirmative teams who strategically choose to talk about some other topic, regardless of how passionately they feel about it. Debate is still debate, and if you can't explain how your decision to affirm something beyond the reasonably-expected "topical ground" is both educational AND fairly debatable, then in my opinion you're not any better than the folks who are stuck in the time loop of debating NFU.
3. Especially at the start of the year, don't assume we know the acronyms and specialized vocabulary you're using. My responsibility as a judge is to give the teams my full attention and effort as an adjudicator during the round - I am not required to show up to the debate already having expert-level familiarity with whatever literature base the debaters have been immersed for the last few months - whether that be nuclear weapons policy or any other body of literature.

Final Comment:

Over the last six years, I have become heavily involved in debate outside of the US, having taught both teachers and students, high school and university level, in Africa, east Asia, and the Caribbean. One consequence of my international experience is that a lot of the ontological claims debaters in the US make about the activity (e.g., "Debate is ______" or "Debate must ________" or "________ (people) can only debate like _________" ) ring very hollow to me and reflect a naive ethnocentrism about which too many folks in the US are oblivious.

Director of Debate at The University of Michigan

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.

Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.

Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.

Seasonal voting record:

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. 

Leandra Lopez

Background:
Debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart (4 years), University of Miami (3 years) and University of Mary Washington (1 year)

Debate thoughts:
The affirmative should read and defend a topical plan that is an example of the current resolution. Advantages should stem from the theoretical passage of that plan. Certainly, it is the burden of the negative to make persuasive arguments for why this is true.

Topicality and conditionality are reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments are typically reasons to reject the argument.

Critiques should link to the plan, as opposed to the advantages. Alternatives typically have serious competition problems and solvency deficits. The more the negative does to deal with these issues, the better.

If the 2NR goes for a CP or a critique, I assume the status quo is not an option unless the 2NR specifies otherwise.

Evidence quality over quantity.

Flow.

Arguments I do not want to hear:
-Death is good.
-Communism is good.

Please be respectful – of your opponents, your partner, the judge, the classroom.

If you have questions, feel free to ask. For questions or the email chain - leandrallopez@gmail.com

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

Short Version:

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

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

Longer Version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m a 2L law student at Vandy law. As an undergrad, I debated with Vanderbilt for 3 years, in Novice, JV, and Open. I have been judging Novices and JV since my senior year at Vandy.

2015-2016 Topic

I haven’t judged any on this year’s topic until Kentucky (10/2–10/5), which should be a real benefit to you all since I will judge you by the arguments that you and your opponent make instead of judging you by the arguments I know you should have made. However, it also means that—though I will recognize Topicality, Theory, and most Ks—I may not immediately recognize acronyms or buzzwords! Please clearly explain your proposals, disads, etc. and any terminology or terms of art that might not be immediately recognizable.

Philosophy

Because I usually judge novice and JV, this is a bit basic, but it covers some common things I’ve seen in novice rounds I’ve judged.

• T/Theory: T and Theory should never be conceded.
• Topicality: Please do not forget to give examples of how they’re being abusive (exploding the topic, etc.).
• Theory: Depending on the violation, I will almost always need an example of in-round abuse / why what the opponent did was bad for debate. Conceded theory arguments are an easy tiebreaker for an otherwise close round, but I don’t think that’s a particularly educational way to resolve a debate. But if you just throw a random T/theory argument out there in one constructive to see if it will stick, and then you don’t mention it again until your last rebuttal, I will probably not give it that much weight.  
• Counterplan theory: I will lean heavily toward rejecting the counterplan, not the team. If your counterplan doesn’t solve for all of case, be sure to tell me why that doesn’t matter. 
• Kritiks: Ks and answers to Ks should be in dialogue with one another—not just four people talking past each other. I’ll need a framework to understand how to evaluate the K in the round. I like plenty of Ks, but I’m not fond of generic Ks with weak links. You need to demonstrate to me that you understand your K, especially if it’s part of a project. Non-traditional teams should do their best to provide me with an explanation of what the ballot means for them.'

Public speaking practices

• Manners: Do not be rude to your opponents! Being aggressive doesn’t make you right. You won't get by with being rude in a courtroom or any practical settings that debate is preparing you for. However, it is perfectly okay to interrupt your opponent during cross-ex. Those are your 3 minutes, not theirs.
• Clarity: Please clearly distinguish between your flows, tags, and the actual text of each card. (E.g., say "And..." between cards.)
• Stealing prep: Don’t do this! You will lose speaker points! It creates an awkward situation for everyone, especially me. You cannot prep when people are uploading files (whether via email or flash drive).
• Dropped arguments: I will vote on conceded arguments, but they still need to be fleshed out and extended properly. That one disad you mentioned briefly in the 1NC then completely forgot about until the 2NR isn't going to win the round for you.
• Pre-round disclosure: On the Aff, unless you are presenting a new plan / this is your first tournament of the year, you should usually disclose the plan text and advantages. On the Neg, you should likewise disclose what you went for in the last couple of 2NRs.
• Card sharing: Your opponents should be allowed to review any and all cards that you read from, even if you are a non-traditional team. This usually does not apply to analytics / theory blocks.

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.

bethmendenhall@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

natemilton@gmail.com

Background

I debated for four years in high school and three years at Liberty. I mostly debated a “CP and politics” type strategy on the neg and also enjoyed going for T and theory when it was strategic. I did read the K sometimes though. My favorite debates are large case debates with a DA or two.

General Philosophy:

I try my best to let the arguments in the debate determine how I evaluate the round although I will admit that I have biases that can influence how I view certain arguments. I have included some opinions that I hope you will find useful in specifically tailoring your arguments to me. I am flow centric. I enjoy clash. I believe that both sides should have an equal opportunity to win the round, so while not defending a “policy action” (ie not having a plan text) doesn’t mean you will automatically lose in front of me, I believe that if pressed, you should have some sort of a division of “ground” that enables the opposing side an equal chance to win (I believe in “fairness”). I believe that having to argue in favor of something you don’t believe is beneficial (“switch side debate is good”). I have a minimal threshold for arguments for me to evaluate them, they must have a warrant that makes sense. It is important for you to talk about impacts and compare them to the other side’s impacts on all arguments. I do not evaluate arguments that aren’t in the last two rebuttals. I don’t think debates should get personal, it should be about the arguments, not the people. I try not to have to read evidence, I prefer it to be explained and impacted in the debate, “call for this card after the round” is not an argument, explaining the warrants of the evidence in question is a more productive use of your time. Don't try to talk too fast (speed is overrated) and you probably shouldn't use profanity.

T + Theory

I will vote on T/Theory. I lean towards competing interpretations on T and that Condo is usually ok (1 CP and 1 K). I ere Aff on T, Neg on Theory. Please remember to impact these arguments, it’s not a “Voter” just because you say it is. T is not a reverse voter. Please be aware of argument interaction between different theory arguments.

Cross-Examination:

CX starts (my timer starts) promptly after the end of the constructive speech. Open CX is fine, however I feel that it is best to not engage in it whenever possible. I think the CX is an underutilized speech, and good questions are often not turned into arguments, it is important to turn CX questions and answers into arguments during a speech. I don’t flow CX but I do pay attention. CX greatly influences how I award my speaker points.

CP’s

I like clever PIC’s (not word PIC’s). I ran SC CP and politics a lot. However, I’ve been doing some thinking about agent CP’s, and the more I think about them the more I think they aren’t competitive (if the agent is within the USFG). Obviously this is a debate to be had and I can be persuaded either way. I am not a fan of delay or multiple CP’s (the exception to the multiple CP’s is if you are reading advantage CP’s and/or unconditional CP’s). In the 1NC, please SLOW DOWN when reading your CP text so I know what the CP is, thank you in advance. For conditional CP’s, unless the 2NR explicitly says that the SQ is still an option, if you go for the CP I transition into Plan vs CP framework in which the CP must be net beneficial to warrant a neg ballot.

K’s

I am not the biggest fan of the K. That being said, I will and have vote/d for/on the K, I would say that I just have a high threshold for the level of explanation that needs to occur for these kinds of arguments to be persuasive and make sense. I do not appreciate a bunch of post modern jargon; the simpler you can explain your K the better. Please explain what your alternative is and what voting for you means/does, what the role of the ballot is, and why all of that is more important than an endorsement of the Aff. I find that when I don't vote for a K it is usually because the explanation of what the alternative is/does is lacking. While I do not find some K's to be very persuasive, just because the debate makes me grumpy(ier) doesn't mean I won't vote for you, I'll probably just complain about it afterwards (although I will happily provide you with a list of my least favorite K's upon request). I will say that I very much dislikes K's based on a link of omission. If in doubt, read what you are best at and most comfortable with and tell me not to be so grumpy.

Paperless

Please be as prompt and courteous as possible. DO NOT: intentionally include 9 million cards that you aren’t going to read into your speech document (please feel free to ask for a new speech document with just the marked cards that are read, no charge), intentionally disorganize your speech document, or steal prep-time (no one should be doing anything during “tech” time). I am rather trusting on this issue so feel free to police yourselves, I won’t hold it against you if you call your opponents out (even if they are behaving).

MISC

I do not prompt for clarity, if I can’t understand you, I will stop flowing and make a face at you. I believe that judge adaptation is an important part of debate and so if you have a question about anything I have not covered here, please feel free to ask, but I will get angry if it’s clear you haven’t read this.

When in doubt: "Make with the good debating, not the bad debating."

Matthew Moore

Judge Philosophy- Update Oct 23

I am no longer actively coaching debate so if I am judging you it was because someone really needed a judge. I was involved in college policy debate for over 20 years. I was the Director of Debate at the University of Central Oklahoma until May 2022.

Do the style of debate that suits you best and you are best at. Traditional/non-traditional/K/performance/whatever, do your best. Make arguments, impact them, explain to me as a judge why your arguments should win.

The only argument I will not be open minded to on the high school level is disclosure theory. If you run it in front of me, even as a throw away, you are risking losing my ballot and a lot of speaker points. It is ok to make they did not disclose anything as part of a larger theory argument, but if you think that the other team failing to disclose to the level of your liking is a reason you should win the round, then you are doing debate wrong. Seriously, just stop.

Important questions:

Will you vote on framework? Yes

Will you vote for an aff that is not topical against framework? Yes

I am about 50/50 in these debates because I leave it up to the debaters. The aff usually wins these debates when they have substantive impact turns to the framework impacts. The neg usually wins when a topical version can access most of the aff’s offense. For affs: T version of the aff does not solve is not very persuasive to me when the solvency argument is functionally it does not solve as well as the aff.

Neg goes for a K versus a policy aff:

At the ’16 Texas tournament, negs going for K’s versus policy affs were 3-0 in front of me. Why? The aff only said weigh the aff, it is true, and then had no substantive answer to the K beyond the aff impacts. You should have offense to the alt that is not just the aff.

Theory:

After hearing multiple rounds where the 2AR goes for conditionality bad and not voting on it once, it is highly probable that affs will not win on condo bad in front of me. Not impossible, just highly improbable. This is especially true is the argument is less than five seconds in the 2AC, 30 seconds in the 1AR, and then six minutes in the 2AR. If you think the neg is cheating, tailor specific theory arguments to the situation (i.e. this conditional pic is uniquely bad). That will be more persuasive to me and garner you better points than "Condo is bad, strategy skew and time skew voter for fairness." I will not vote on perm theory. The aff shouldn’t lose for making a perm no matter how bad it is. The more a counterplan/alt cheats, the more lenient I am to theory arguments against it. Cheating is a relative term here, but affs that can demonstrate the cheating in concrete terms will win my sympathy. You should make the arguments.

Misc:

·The aff can win there is no link to the DA if they win their link turns. Uniqueness does not make the link magically only go in one direction.

·Paperless sharing of speech documents is not an excuse for being unclear. Presentation matters for points.

·For K Debaters- saying the aff results in violent interventions like NATO missions in Libya is not an impact. At best you have an intervention internal link to something else, not a terminal impact.

· Speaker Points - I tend to adjust my scale at the tournament using the points I have given in previous rounds as a guide for future debates. Be professional and respectful to each other. Shut up during the other team’s speeches. I will be pretty honest with you after rounds about what I thought was rude/not professional and what was good. These things really do impact your points.

Don’t read to much into subtle nonverbal cues from me. I have had multiple rounds where I ask a team why didn’t you go for X and they will respond with you looked like you did not like the argument. Judging can be a miserable and uncomfortable experience, usually that look of disgust on my face is the result of a weekend of bad food, lack of sleep, and being stuck in an uncomfortable chair for hours at a time hunched over. I will do my best to make any nonverbal communication that may matter obvious. If I am grimacing because I do not like your argument, that is up to the other team to call out.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About me:

Update January 2024.
Whew. Been a long ride since I last updated. If I'm in the back of the room for you, it's because someone drafted me into judging a tournament as a fill-in for somebody else. My work has gotten increasingly busy, and now I work close to 12 hours a day. I also have a baby on the way (due April 2024!) so there may be some elements of sleep deprivation. I have stopped actively coaching debate, and probably will not pick it back up until the aforementioned child is in middle/high school and has decided to join the debate team.

As a result, a few things to think about.

My ability to hear speed hasn't gone away - I listen to debate rounds online from time to time, and fast spreading still sounds like conversational speech to me. What has gone away is my ability for my flow to keep up with speed. I can pretty much guarantee that if you spread anything except the text of evidence itself I will miss arguments on my flow. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what happens when I don't judge regularly.

I will not be familiar with the topic beyond what I follow in the news (though admittedly, I read a lot). It might be beneficial to think of me as a well informed person, but someone whose knowledge is much wider than it is deep. As I've stated in past updates, it's to your advantage to read deeper piece of evidence that you can explain well. Keep in mind that any narrative you build based on that evidence is vulnerable to disruption by the other team, and so be prepared for that.

If you want to read T, theory, or framework, that's still fine. It's my general perspective that framework debates have changed as the community has started embracing a lot more Ks, and given my unfamiliarity with that literature base, I'd spend some time explaining it if I was in your shoes.

I'm a lot more flexible, however, on what I'm willing to judge. I used to have a strong preference for reading a plan text. Judging so much PF and LD, where plan texts are less common (especially in PF, where it's usually a bad idea to read one), pulled me away from that preference. I'm more concerned with the central thesis of the debate more so than I'm concerned about plan action. That's not to say I don't enjoy the whole plan text + advantages structure which dominated my time as a debater, because I do. It's just that I recognize that affirmative solvency isn't necessarily dependent on the implementation of a plan. Most plan-less debates still have the concept that you need to present an alternative to the status quo and solvency for it, but that doesn't need to a plan implemented by a government entity.

Finally, a general thought. I do make a point of trying to keep up with developments in the debate community, especially in the policy and progressive LD domains. There is a lot of public pushback against both activities as exclusionary because of the various Ks that get read, and it creates an image that debaters are trying to push out people who don't agree with them. There are people outside of debate who will cherry-pick judging paradigms, or streamed debates which are K-heavy, and then present that as evidence that debate is broken. As someone who has been around debate for a long time, and as someone who has a lot of friends still coaching and judging who have informed me otherwise, I really don't think that's the case. Unless I see something which really leads me to believe otherwise, I will defend and advocate for debate as much as I possibly can. I only ask that you help me in this goal by being the best version of yourself - do deep research, constantly refine your speaking skills, practice flowing, and always do redos after your tournaments. Just like you need evidence to win your debates, I need it too.

Thanks for letting me be your judge.

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

Update for Harvard 2022

I am super tired at this point in time, largely because I started a demanding new job in the middle of a pandemic while remote coaching a 10-person LD/PF team by myself (though my older debaters are finally cutting their own evidence, so that helps.) Please consider slowing down. I'm fine with all your tech, but maybe focus on reading deeper pieces of evidence and explaining them to me instead of going fast. I just wanna hear a good debate at this point, but not a fast one.

Rest of my philosophy is below, nothing has changed in the macro sense except the speed stuff.

My email is zoheb.nensey@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any questions post round or put me on the email chain.

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

I debated for four years at Miami (FL), took a year off to coach for the Chief at KCKCC, and then returned to school to coach at Florida State. I then spent 5 years in DC, where I worked with Oakton HS for like a year or two, and then with the Washingtion UDL for 3 years. I've since moved back to Florida and work with Jesuit (Tampa) on the side. We do a little bit of policy, and a lot of PF/LD (good locally, mostly a bunch of pretty bad 1-5s, 2-4s on the circuit).

Short version:

1) Speed's fine - I'll let you know if you're going too fast. Sorry if I miss it on my flow, but my local circuit is not very fast.

2) I have an ongoing love affair for T. You can turn it with your K if you want, but know that I'll evaluate the T flow before I evaluate anything else (including any turns.) Please slow slow slow down on these debates as I rarely judge T (or theory, for that matter) anymore. For 2018-9, I am not as familiar with the topic and what is normally considered topical as I would like. So keep that in mind when you're arguing about what the core of the topic is.

3) Arguments I consider outlandish but will still vote for (but warning - high threshold here):

a) Must define all terms - only if the aff somehow drops it.

b) nuclear malthus, spark, wipeout - only if the neg goes all in on it during the block and the aff doesn't win any offense against it. Feel free to bust out your turns, affirmatives.

c) ASPEC - only if the neg asks who the actor is in the 1AC cross-x, and the negative can justify loss of ground based on that actor choice.

4) K debates - go for it. Please provide real world examples of the kind of logic that the affirmative is using and why that logic is a bad idea.

5) Framework debates - go for it. But please let me know you're reading framework in your roadmap - I flow these separately, and much like a T debate.

6) Disads - have fun. Read them. I'm still skeptical of political capital being zero sum after having lived in DC for 5 years, but read it anyway if you think you have a good argument. All other disads are fair game, but don't make your internal link chains too contrived.

7) Counterplans - these are cool too. I'm skeptical of consult CPs from a theoretical perspective, but handle the perm debate and you'll be good. Also - if you're the aff, don't go too fast through your perms, and make sure you explain them in detail. If you're the negative, slow down on your counterplan text - I need to write it down.

8) Theory - I only really vote on super egregious violations (except as outlined above, like on consult CPs), but please avoid reading conflicting worlds.

Longer version:
Theory
I always read theory in debates as an answer if I didn't have anything else. My past experience has been, though, unless its a really egregious violation, I'm not likely to vote on theory. If you're reading more than one counterplan or alternative, AND they conflict, that's a pretty sure way to get me to pull the trigger on theory. If you’re saying “condo”, and then read conflicting positions which can function as offense against each other – you have another thing coming if you think I won’t let the affirmative make you defend both. If, however, they don't conflict then I see no real problem with multiple conditional positions.

T
I like T. I've won debates on T. I think that affs should have a clear link to the topic. For me, its always been a question of competing interpretations. I do think a lot of critical affs can still be run with a topical plan. That's not to say I won't vote for an affirmative that doesn't have a plan text - I've done it before - but you have to have a really good reason why doing your plan through a personal advocacy rather is a better idea then having the USFG doing the plan.

CPs
I think that counterplans are a necessary part of any debate. I'm fine with most counterplans, with the one major exception being consult counterplans. I don't like consult counterplans because it seems that most of the time the net benefit is pretty artificial and stems entirely off of the counterplan's action, rather than any direct link to the plan.
These debates always seem to be pretty heavy on theory, so when you're debating the theory part of these debates slow it down a little and explain things out, because if you're blippy on the line by line I won't be able to catch everything you write down.

DAs
Nothing's better than a good disad. I'm pretty fair game with almost any disad. Though I have a higher threshold for politics.

Ks
I like the K, but I'm not especially familiar with it. My background is such that I’ve spent a lot of time looking at political science things, communication things, statistics things, and computer things, but I have not had the chance to dig into philosophical literature much beyond the basics. I have judged a number of K debates over the years, so my basic feeling is that if you run into a K Aff, you should try and read a K against it.

If you’re an affirmative and you get a K run against you, try and engage it. I am not averse to the idea that the affirmative can be a step in the right direction. That being said, the negative should spend time highlighting the logic and assumptions of the affirmative – I tend to view the link in these terms, and I am persuadable by arguments along the line that even if the aff is a step in the right direction, its’ underlying logic means that it won’t achieve any sort of long term solvency for the harms that the K expresses. But it’s on the negative to prove that the bias of the affirmative is strong enough to preclude any risk of affirmative solvency or perm solvency at all, and on top of that I need to understand why the K’s alternative will eventually resolve the problems presented by the aff. A change in logic can lead to changes in how we formulate policy, but you need to explain that.

One other thing – on framework. I am not averse to it. I will judge it much like a T debate for the K – it comes first if it’s get read. But my threshold for rejecting frameworks that simply say that we should only do policy analysis is low. Policy considerations are always based on assumptions and ways of looking at the world, and your framework argument should tell me what your view of the world is and why that’s better than whatever the negative is proposing. Make it specific. Also let me know if you’re reading framework (in the form of – you’ll need an extra sheet) during your roadmap. I flow framework separately.

Offense/Defense
Offense is good --> having lots of it at the end of a debate makes me happy. In the case that the other team has lots of offense too, I need a clear explanation why your offense is more important than theirs, because otherwise you're opening the door for a lot of judge interventionism. I don't like intervening, but if I have to intervene I will.
Defense is good too --> I think you can win on an argument purely on defense. If you have some really good evidence that takes out their link or takes out the uniqueness to their disad, by all means, read it and use it to its fullest extent. I need there to be more than just a risk of a link to vote an argument. If you're negative, make sure your link is as concrete as you can possibly make it.

Miscellaneous
Be nice to the other team and to your partner. I once had a partner who was blatantly rude, and it cost us debates and caused a lot of bad feelings. Rudeness will hurt your speaks.
If you don't know the answer to a question in CX, it's far better to say I don't know or look to your partner to answer it than to stand there blankly or try and dodge the question.
I'm fine with tag-team CX.
Jokes about the Florida State Seminoles (even though I went there), the Florida Gators, and the Ohio State Buckeyes will be rewarded with a laugh and a slight increase in speaker points.
Humor in general will be rewarded with increases in speaker points.

Speaker Points Scale
30 - you're the best debater I've ever seen, and your execution was flawless. I don't think I've ever given a 30, but if someone were to get it they would probably also be in late outrounds at the NDT.
29 - 29.9 - You're one of the best debaters at the tournament (in your division.)
28 - 28.9 - You're good, You'll probably clear.
27 - 27.9 - You're an okay debater, you need some work, you didn't drop anything major.
26 - 26.9 - You dropped at least one or more important arguments that lost you the round.
25 - 25.9 - This is reserved for people who were either so atrocious that they answered nothing (an unlikely scenario, no matter the division), or were exceptionally rude to one or more people in the debate.


At the end of the day, do what you do best. If you can run and explain a K really well, then run it. If your pleasure is politics disads, go for it. I've voted against my personal preferences before, and I'll do it again. I'll work hard in deciding the round for you because I know you work hard to prepare. So do your best, keep it civil, and have fun.

About me:

Director of Debate at George Mason University.

Please add me to chain: japoapst@gmail.com

11/26/2023 Speaker Point Update:

I will be utilizing the Regnier speaker point scale

5+ Random Things that Annoy me:

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

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

3. Multiple cards in the body of the email.

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

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

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

Theory:

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

Counterplans:

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

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

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

Disadvantages:

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

Critical Affirmatives:

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

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

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

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

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

Overall Sound:

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

Flowing:

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

Your Decorum:

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

My Decorum:

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

<3 Jackie

Ravi Rao, J.D.

Director of Debate

Lindenwood University

St. Charles, MO

Updated Oct 2014

Debate Experience - 4 years HS CX in suburban St. Louis (slow, very non-critical, very traditional)

3 semesters of CEDA, maybe 12 tournaments in all.  4+ years of Parli.  Former St. Louis UDL coach and Director.  Have coached for Lindenwood since its inception, 2012-2013.

I hold the educational value of participation in debate rounds of the highest value, and try to be as open to different arguments as I can be.  In this,  I place a premium on the value of diversity in participation (meaning I don't like limiting "education" to "policy / real world education").  I happen to find much of what we do in debate exclusionary, often for no better reason than that we've always been that way.  That said, you should be free to do as you will in front of me, though I will have to find some way to determine a "winner" and a "loser", and allocate speaker points, when all is said and done.  While I have no predisposition to vote against teams for failing to comply with what I write here, I will try to outline some of what I have observed in my own debate judging.

1. Slow down.  My issue with speed is mostly practical - I never developed the hearing/flowing skills to flow the faster teams going at their fastest.  I will try to interject "slow!" or "clear!", but it's ultimately on you to make sure I'm keeping up.  This becomes especially problematic during chains of rapid-fire 2-word responses that aren't even numbered (and, no "Next" isn't a number).  At least if it's numbered, I know how many I've missed and can ask you to repeat them during prep.

2. Depth over breadth.  If your basic NEG strat is to run 12 off and see what they undercover, you should probably pref me ridiculously low.  It's a perfectly legit strat, just not one I'm able to fairly evaluate (see #1).  I'd much prefer to see substantive clash over fewer arguments and scenarios.  Extend warrants, don't just shadow extend citations and tags.  If I have to call for cards to dig out warrants at the end of the debate, you're doing it wrong - and I probably won't bother.

3. Framework, T, and "Performance".  I presume a traditional framework requiring the Aff to affirm the resolution by way of a topical example is advantageous.  That doesn't mean I'll pull trigger for the Neg, or won't vote for nontraditional "performance" teams.  If you can articulate a good reason for punting the topic, and generate offense against this presumption for the traditional view of debate (most performance teams do this), my opinion on this issue will come down to which competing interpretation is best for education.  Fairness and rules are, in my view, internal links to education, and little more.

That said, I continue to be frustrated by (some) performance Affs that give me little to no weighing mechanism to adjudicate a debate.  Under an alternative, non-policy framing of debate, what must a Neg do to get my ballot?  Role of the ballot arguments might begin to answer this question, but in my view don't go far enough.  My ONLY inclination to vote on framework is when I can't figure out what to ask of the opponent to keep the debate fair. JMO, but not enough performance teams clearly articulate what their opponent's burden is to win, and doing so would be much appreciated.

4. Disads/Advantages.  My formative years were spent debating in a district where plans had planks, and a policymaker cared how much plans cost and where the money came from.  So I tend to require a greater degree of specificity in internal links than most debaters are want to provide.  Simply put, the results of a midterm election in which maybe 20% of registered voters will cast ballots isn't very likely to cause WW3, no matter how many times the same authors write the same cards.  I prefer case specific, tighter DAs.  Generally, the smaller the impacts, the more solid the internal links.  Same goes for AFF Advantages and solvency: legalizing medical marijuana isn't all that likely to prevent three different extinction-level scenarios.  That said, debaters have to actually make these answers, or else I'm likely to give full weight to the argument.

5. K's.  I can guarantee you I don't know your literature base as well as you think I do, even after reading this statement.  K cards are dense, so you need to do some heavy explaining.  I understand that longer tags are designed to alleviate some of this problem, but find it impractical for flowing.  I'd prefer 1N's take the time to explain cards as they're being read, pulling out the key warrants (see #1 and #2, above).  Bottom line, if I can't articulate what the link to the K is, or what the alternative would look like, or how the K should function in my adjudication of the broader debate, by the end of the block at the latest, you will lose your K.  When in doubt, err on the side of me being ignorant and unread - you won't offend me.

6. Line by line debating.  This used to be a thing; whatever happened to it?  I have a predisposition to give higher speaks to teams that impose structure onto the debate.  It's a pragmatic thing that I can be argued out of doing in-round (I've been persuaded before by performance teams arguing how flowing itself was hegemonic).  That said, it's never an excuse to be disorganized.

To sum all the above in two sentences: The easier it is for me to follow your arguments, the better decision I will be able to render, and the more useful my comments will be.   Slow down, make fewer arguments, but focus the debate on the arguments you find most compelling - whether you think I like them, or not.  This space is for you to make the arguments you've chosen, and for me to try to offer constructive criticism.  To the extent I can, I will.

Old paradigm, saved for posterity.

Ravi Rao, J.D.

Adjunct Instructor, Lindenwood University (St. Charles, MO)

Experience.  Four years highschool CX in suburban St. Louis, 1+ years CEDA.  My last exposure to CEDA, prior to 2012-2013, was over a decade ago.  I don't have the best ears for this game, but will do my best to keep up - still, slowing down and enunciating (especially during line-by-line) is appreciated.  Ultimately, if it's not on my flow but on everyone else's, I'm not going to consider it - this is still a persuasive activity, after all.  I'm a former UDL Director (St. Louis), so that probably informs my perspective on theory and style.

T & K.  I default to policymaking when deciding rounds, but will listen to pretty much anything.  I tend not to pull trigger on T unless it's blatant and impacted - you pretty much have to hang your hat on it in the 2NR.  I tend to view kritiks within a policy framework, in that I'm most comfortable as a pragmatist.  If you want me to vote on the K, the sooner you establish a clear alt and its centrality to your overall strategy, the better.  I'll listen to "multiple worlds", but I think there's something compelling about NEG strategies where each arg amplifies the next.  I was always a CLS/Movements guy when I debated.

F/W & Performance.  I heard my first framework debate only a couple of years back, so I'm not as familiar with the development of the theory as I'd like - but I think it's valuable to question norms and rules.  My experience with urban debate makes me quite sympathetic to challenging the way in which the debate game is traditionally played.  That said, my own highschool debating was in a very traditional district, and I definitely see value in the traditional formulation.  I presume the traditional view of policy debate (that AFF teams should have a topical plan, and the role of the ballot is to test whether that topical plan, as an example of the resolution, should be enacted) has value.  You can critique the activity in front of me, but you will need to provide me an alternative of what debate should look like (including what standards should be upheld).  I tend to value educational warrants (access to the activity, depth of clash, predictable ground, etc) over competitive ones (fairness, rules of the game, jurisdiction, etc).  I think the best "nontraditional" teams are those that have a clear idea what their opposition needs to do to win the ballot.  If an alternative ROB doesn't seem to provide equitable ground, I think this can be a voter against nontraditional teams (and an argument that is, IMHO, underutilized or poorly impacted).

This ain't my day job.  For me, this is a labor of love.  I don't do this full time, nor is this a part of my academic pursuits - so don't expect me to know your literature base or topic as well as you or your coaches might.  When in doubt, assume I don't know and you need to explain it to me.  You won't offend me, unless you're a belligerent ass about it!  I'll try to be reasonable and explain my decisions (and ways to win my ballot in the future) as best as I can.  

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.

PhD Student and Assistant coach for Indiana, debated 4 years for Kansas State

Prep stops when the email is sent or the jump drive leaves the computer. Email chains are preferable to jumping. Include me on your emails, reynolds771@gmail.com

I am fine judging many styles of debate. I will choose from the arguments presented to me in the round based on the frameworks and weighing mechanisms provided by the debaters. I will not pretend to be a clean slate, and you should attend to and adjust to my presence and that of other judges, but I also don't have a checklist of forbidden arguments. Use your judgment and own best morals, like in all educational settings. I like teams who try their hardest to understand their opponents' arguments and directly respond, even when it means extra work or thought.

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.

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

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

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

Being revised.

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

Some general thoughts about how I judge debates:

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

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

Thoughts on how I most often evaluate specific issues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 years debate for JMU in novice, JV and open, this is my second year coaching & judging at JMU, and have judged at numerous tournaments, including Georgia State, Districts & the NDT

While as a debater I was more inclined towards straight up policy debate, as a judge I am open to absolutely anything, but I'm not going to pretend you're making sense if you aren't.  Run what you're good at and feel comfortable doing.  Hit me with your best arguments and methodology.  I judge the debate in front of me, not what you did last tournament, last round, or anything else.  I don't have a preference what you run.  Performance, K, straight-up, doesn't matter. 

No matter how the debate is going, there is always a way to win. It may be a longshot, may be unlikely, but the best advice I got as a debater is you always go for the win.  It doesn't get you anything to look good losing; try and know when you're behind and do something about it.  There's a lot of ways to generate offense, it just may not be obvious.  Don't go plunging off the cliff...go for the win.

Tell me what the role of the ballot is and why I'm voting for you; otherwise I default to cost/benefit analysis in the lens of a straight-up policy debate.  If you don't explain it or mention it in the round, don't be surprised when I tell you that one element outweighs the other.

K/Performance teams

Just keep in mind I am not as up to date with the literature (I don't read biopolitics/Wilderson for fun, sorry), so you're gonna have to explain it.  Don't assume I know what element of Agamben/Deleuze/Wilderson your link or analysis is.  I'll vote for it (and often do) but you'll need to help me understand how/why the K/performance matters, how/why it earns the ballot and how I should compare it to a non-performing team.  Sequencing explanations are very beneficial.

Neg

FW

Again, I default to a straight up policy mindset until you tell me otherwise.  Explain your framework, how I'm to view/judge the round, sequencing, etc.

DAs

The more diverse impacts, the better.  Make your internal link clear and strong, don't assume that I'll just get it.

CPs.

Assuming equal solvency, an external net benefit that outweighs will likely earn my ballot.

PTX

I always took politics in the block and prided myself on my PTX blocks and my walls.  Paint the story, explain your scenario and how it trades off, why the plan kills PTX.  I have a very high threshold for voting politics theory; I'll far more likely to just toss the card/argument, rather than voting them down unless you can really establish abuse.

T/SPEC

I'll vote for topicality, but it should be explained with some big picture impacts.  Why/how would allowing their affirmative be harmful to you in the round and to debate as a whole?  Clearly establish some in-round or potential abuse.  Don't just read your blocks after the constructives if you're going for this, and the 2NR better have more than 1 minute if you're going for a win on T.

If you're going for a SPEC argument, it better be good/applicable.  Given the resolution, SPEC arguments (especially ASPEC) are pretty pointless and just a time suck.  I appreciate time sucks, but recognize it's just that.

Other notes:

Don't steal prep.  I hated it debating and I'll call you out for it, including docking your prep time.  No, I don't count flashing as prep time, but keep it speedy.

I prefer not to call for evidence; the burden is on the team to explain the card and the warrant and why it matters/applies/outweighs/links, etc. Generally I'll only call for evidence that a 2A or 2N has flagged repeatedly, or if both sides try coopting the same card.  

I dislike judge intervention, the round is the round and my decision is independent of that.  I'll do my best to not. If you cut the card during a speech, you or your partner should mark that in the highliting.

Debate is fun, have fun, make me laugh and remember at the end of the round you're gonna have to shake the other team's hands.

any questions, email me

danieljspiker@gmail.com

1. Sure debate is game. But who said that games don't matter?

2. You are always you. You can say your roleplaying, but how do you roleplay out of your own ethics or responsibilities? Is that even possible?

3. Black lives matter. Black debaters matter.

4. The world is--literally--on fire. Right now, perhaps even our games should matter.

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

Terrell Taylor

Debated at Mary Washington from 2007-2011

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


Disads/Case and Advantages

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



Counterplans and Counterplan Theory

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

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


Topicality

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


General Theory

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

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

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

Critical arguments (Kritiks/K-affs)

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

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

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


Performance

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

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


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

Introduction:

I debated for Liberty University for four years and have judged for the past two seasons. I have a B.A. in international relations and philosophy, a master’s in religion and theology, and am working on my master’s in public health with a concentration in global health policy.

Because of my diverse educational background, I feel equally at ease adjudicating policy rounds as well as those that are critically oriented. I will discuss specific strategies and positions below, but I would like to highlight two important preferences here:

First, your rebuttals must contain impact analysis. This seems rather intuitive, yet again and again I hear rebuttals that are 95% solvency and link articulations and then, with 20 seconds to go, I hear “extend the impact, causes extinction” or “causes violence.” Write down all the impacts in the round, both your impacts and those of your opponent. Ideally, the 2NR and 2AR should mention each of these impacts, elucidating why yours are more important and how they relate to those of your opponents.

Second, do not alter your strategy for my sake; do what you do best and I will adjust accordingly. If you think you are winning T, go for T. If you think the other team has severely mishandled the K, then go for the K. You can win my ballot with a lucid articulation of just about anything.

Topicality and Framework:

I believe the topic can be a strong starting point for discussion. If you – as the affirmative – believe this is not the case, then argue otherwise. If you believe that the resolution does not provide the best approach to discussing violence or oppression, by all means, offer your viewpoint on the issue. Though I am fairly lenient on what the affirmative must do, I want to make it clear that I will vote on framework if I believe the negative offers a more persuasive articulation as to why USFG action - or, in some instances, any action - is critical for education and ground....and/or the affirmative drops important arguments like topical version of the aff. 

Above all else, interact with each other’s arguments, particularly the framing issues. Yes, line by line is important and all of your opponent’s arguments should be responded to, but please remember the meta-debate that is happening here: what should the aff be doing and how does debate educate those of us who participate in this activity.

Lastly, if you are going for topicality, please explain potential aff’s the untopical aff justifies as well as what abuse as occurred. If you are answering topicality, extend a counter-interpretation. The neg’s interpretation versus no-interpretation extended by the aff almost always means a neg ballot.

K’s/Performance:

I will listen to whatever you feel best conveys your argument. If that involves singing, dancing, powerpoints, or cross-dressing, so be it. You must, however, explain the relevance of your performance to the debate round and to your argument. I am familiar with a wide swath of critical literature; however, my knowledge of Wilderson, Baudrillard, Butler, or Deleuze does not excuse you from explaining what your position is and how it provides a better method of approaching the world.

Role of the ballot: what does “role of the ballot” actually mean? So often – too often – I hear both sides advancing ROBs that are conveniently tailored to their positions. Please do more than just extend the ROB and how you meet. In fact, I would rather hear a somewhat shallow ROB extension and a more detailed discussion of why your impacts outweigh or come first. At the very least explain how the two ROBs interact and attempt to give me a reason why I should prioritize yours.

Disadvantages:

Link and impact analysis is of utmost importance. I really enjoy a good politics debate, one with ample impact analysis and specific link scenarios. Affs: you need uniqueness for that link turn. Please stop extending link turn cards without uniqueness. Also, just because you link turn doesn't mean you should forego putting defense on the DA's impact. 

I will only pull cards if they are highly contested; otherwise I go strictly on what either side has said about those cards. Reading more evidence in the block is strategic; extending the evidence by name and tag in the 2NR is not. Explain why things are true and give me warrants. The greater your specificity, the higher your speaker points will be and the more likely I will believe your scenario.

CPs:

I do not like consult CPs or CPs that compete based solely on the immediacy of the plan. Aside from that, I am open to any CP you have. In terms of theory, I view them in a similar fashion to DAs. If you win a link, but fail to articulate an impact as to why that’s bad, I will not vote for you. Spend most of your time on the impact standards if you are going for theory. As I said on T, an aff that does not extend a counter-interpretation is in trouble. Please do so.

I do not enjoy theory debates (and who does, really?), but for the umpteenth time, I will vote on persuasively articulated and impacted positions.  

Concluding thoughts:

I flow and you should do the same. I’ll know if the other team actually dropped an argument or not. I also flow cross-x, or at least things I deem important from cross-x.

I have an utmost desire to be useful and to make debate as educational a game as it can be. Over the past few years I have judged a wide array of debates and I truly enjoy the variety. Never be afraid to impact turn K’s, critique specific words, perform, or go for politics DA’s for the entire block; do what you need to do and I will give you my attention as unbiased as I possibly can. If you have any questions regarding arguments, authors, etc. feel free to talk to me. 

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.

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.

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

add me to the email chain: whit211@gmail.com

Do not utter the phrase "plan text in a vacuum" or any other clever euphemism for it. It's not an argument, I won't vote on it, and you'll lose speaker points for advancing it. You should defend your plan, and I should be able to tell what the plan does by reading it.

Inserting things into the debate isn't a thing. If you want me to evaluate evidence, you should read it in the debate.

Cross-ex time is cross-ex time, not prep time. Ask questions or use your prep time, unless the tournament has an official "alt use" time rule.

You should debate line by line. That means case arguments should be responded to in the 1NC order and off case arguments should be responded to in the 2AC order. I continue to grow frustrated with teams that do not flow. If I suspect you are not flowing (I visibly see you not doing it; you answer arguments that were not made in the previous speech but were in the speech doc; you answer arguments in speech doc order instead of speech order), you will receive no higher than a 28. This includes teams that like to "group" the 2ac into sections and just read blocks in the 2NC/1NR. Also, read cards. I don't want to hear a block with no cards. This is a research activity.

Debate the round in a manner that you would like and defend it. I consistently vote for arguments that I don’t agree with and positions that I don’t necessarily think are good for debate. I have some pretty deeply held beliefs about debate, but I’m not so conceited that I think I have it all figured out. I still try to be as objective as possible in deciding rounds. All that being said, the following can be used to determine what I will most likely be persuaded by in close calls:

If I had my druthers, every 2nr would be a counterplan/disad or disad/case.

In the battle between truth and tech, I think I fall slightly on side of truth. That doesn’t mean that you can go around dropping arguments and then point out some fatal flaw in their logic in the 2AR. It does mean that some arguments are so poor as to necessitate only one response, and, as long as we are on the same page about what that argument is, it is ok if the explanation of that argument is shallow for most of the debate. True arguments aren’t always supported by evidence, but it certainly helps.

I think research is the most important aspect of debate. I make an effort to reward teams that work hard and do quality research on the topic, and arguments about preserving and improving topic specific education carry a lot of weight with me. However, it is not enough to read a wreck of good cards and tell me to read them. Teams that have actually worked hard tend to not only read quality evidence, but also execute and explain the arguments in the evidence well. I think there is an under-highlighting epidemic in debates, but I am willing to give debaters who know their evidence well enough to reference unhighlighted portions in the debate some leeway when comparing evidence after the round.

I think the affirmative should have a plan. I think the plan should be topical. I think topicality is a voting issue. I think teams that make a choice to not be topical are actively attempting to exclude the negative team from the debate (not the other way around). If you are not going to read a plan or be topical, you are more likely to persuade me that what you are doing is ‘ok’ if you at least attempt to relate to or talk about the topic. Being a close parallel (advocating something that would result in something similar to the resolution) is much better than being tangentially related or directly opposed to the resolution. I don’t think negative teams go for framework enough. Fairness is an impact, not a internal link. Procedural fairness is a thing and the only real impact to framework. If you go for "policy debate is key to skills and education," you are likely to lose. Winning that procedural fairness outweighs is not a given. You still need to defend against the other team's skills, education and exclusion arguments.

I don’t think making a permutation is ever a reason to reject the affirmative. I don’t believe the affirmative should be allowed to sever any part of the plan, but I believe the affirmative is only responsible for the mandates of the plan. Other extraneous questions, like immediacy and certainty, can be assumed only in the absence of a counterplan that manipulates the answers to those questions. I think there are limited instances when intrinsicness perms can be justified. This usually happens when the perm is technically intrinsic, but is in the same spirit as an action the CP takes This obviously has implications for whether or not I feel some counterplans are ultimately competitive.

Because I think topic literature should drive debates (see above), I feel that both plans and counterplans should have solvency advocates. There is some gray area about what constitutes a solvency advocate, but I don’t think it is an arbitrary issue. Two cards about some obscure aspect of the plan that might not be the most desirable does not a pic make. Also, it doesn’t sit well with me when negative teams manipulate the unlimited power of negative fiat to get around literature based arguments against their counterplan (i.e. – there is a healthy debate about federal uniformity vs state innovation that you should engage if you are reading the states cp). Because I see this action as comparable to an affirmative intrinsicness answer, I am more likely to give the affirmative leeway on those arguments if the negative has a counterplan that fiats out of the best responses.

My personal belief is probably slightly affirmative on many theory questions, but I don’t think I have voted affirmative on a (non-dropped) theory argument in years. Most affirmatives are awful at debating theory. Conditionality is conditionality is conditionality. If you have won that conditionality is good, there is no need make some arbitrary interpretation that what you did in the 1NC is the upper limit of what should be allowed. On a related note, I think affirmatives that make interpretations like ‘one conditional cp is ok’ have not staked out a very strategic position in the debate and have instead ceded their best offense. Appeals to reciprocity make a lot sense to me. ‘Argument, not team’ makes sense for most theory arguments that are unrelated to the disposition of a counterplan or kritik, but I can be persuaded that time investment required for an affirmative team to win theory necessitates that it be a voting issue.

Critical teams that make arguments that are grounded in and specific to the topic are more successful in front of me than those that do not. It is even better if your arguments are highly specific to the affirmative in question. I enjoy it when you paint a picture for me with stories about why the plans harms wouldn’t actually happen or why the plan wouldn’t solve. I like to see critical teams make link arguments based on claims or evidence read by the affirmative. These link arguments don’t always have to be made with evidence, but it is beneficial if you can tie the specific analytical link to an evidence based claim. I think alternative solvency is usually the weakest aspect of the kritik. Affirmatives would be well served to spend cross-x and speech time addressing this issue. ‘Our authors have degrees/work at a think tank’ is not a response to an epistemological indict of your affirmative. Intelligent, well-articulated analytic arguments are often the most persuasive answers to a kritik. 'Fiat' isn't a link. If your only links are 'you read a plan' or 'you use the state,' or if your block consistently has zero cards (or so few that find yourself regularly sending out the 2nc in the body rather than speech doc) then you shouldn't be preffing me.

LD Specific Business:

I am primarily a policy coach with very little LD experience. Have a little patience with me when it comes to LD specific jargon or arguments. It would behoove you to do a little more explanation than you would give to a seasoned adjudicator in the back of the room. I will most likely judge LD rounds in the same way I judge policy rounds. Hopefully my policy philosophy below will give you some insight into how I view debate. I have little tolerance and a high threshold for voting on unwarranted theory arguments. I'm not likely to care that they dropped your 'g' subpoint, if it wasn't very good. RVI's aren't a thing, and I won't vote on them.