The Ed Long Invitational at The Hockaday School
2022 — Dallas, TX/US
Novice CX Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
In high school, I was a policy debater. I competed in Parliamentary Debate at New York University. Now, I'm a trial lawyer.
1. Speed is fine, just be clear.
2. Evidence and well-constructed arguments matter.
3. Do not drop arguments. Clash is important.
Current Varsity LD Debater at Greenhill. Did policy for a few years.
I think in an ideal world, the affirmative should defend a meaningful change from the status quo, and the negative should prove why there is some opportunity cost to that change.
1. Speed is fine, just be clear. I'll tell you to be clearer if I can't understand you.
2. Tech > Truth unless the arguments are blatantly racist etc.
3. If online - make sure to be clear + a little slower.
4. Good for CPs, DAs, Ks, Case debating, Theory, Topicality, and maybe some Phil. Just no tricks.
5. Have fun!
Eric Mueller Judging Philosophy
I debated in college and was a collegiate debate coach for 15 years. I was research assistant at Guyer High School for five years.
Generally I like you to tell me how I vote. I have no natural hatreds for any argument although I am not high on tricky theory or standards debates. Otherwise I see myself as about as tabula rasa as you can get. I mean that. Tell me how to vote and on what argument and I will genuinely evaluate it. And I am willing to vote on almost anything.
I like evidence debates where people pull out warrants from cards and I like the last speaker to explain why the other side loses and they win. Think offense. I like debaters who demonstrate their intelligence by understanding their arguments. I like to have fun too. So enjoy yourself.
I give pretty good speaks I think. 29s and above in solid debates. I always disclose.
That's the short form.
I can be convinced to be a policy maker with some exceptions. Default mode of policy making is policy advantages weighed against risks of disadvantages and consideration given for counterplans and possible solvency deficits. Multiple CPs can be irritating but also at times strategic. Obviously advantage CPs can be an exception.
I read evidence. I like comparisons of the quality of evidence compared to the other team. Not just qualifications, but unanswered warrants in the evidence. Take the time to pull warrants out of the cards and explain them. It will go a long way here. Explain why your evidence should be preferred.
I also like you to take the time to explain specifically how you think you win. Put the whole round together in a quick "story." How do you want me to view it? Compare it the other team's "story." Tell me how this is taken out and that outweighs this. It makes it easier for me to frame your approach as I decide. Give me some "big picture analysis." Don't just get mired down in line by line. I don't need 4 minutes of overview or "canned" overviews. Make specific to what is occurring in this debate round. Otherwise, it's boring.
Put me on your email chain. My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org
I also often break with the conventional format. I am willing to vote for kritikal negative and affirmative arguments. So, yes. I will vote for your kritikal affirmative. In fact, I would prefer the negative debate about the offense the affirmative advocates rather than a constant resort to framework debate. That said, I will also vote negative on framework against kritikal cases. However it often comes down to an impact debate that many negatives are not very prepared for and the affirmative is usually very prepared to debate. I am always looking for something new.
It is the job of the negative to explain how K functions with respect to affirmative solvency. I think that needs to be hashed out in more specific ways than I often see occur. How do advantages with short time-frames factor into the question of whether to vote on K first? It is more clear for me with things like settler colonialism than it is with Marxism, for example. But don't assume. Take the time to explain. Make the reason it comes first very clear. How does the K undercut their turns? Be specific. Use examples. Don't make it just a non-unique disadvantage with a floating pic alternative. Sell it.
I also think there are reasons why there might be advantages left for the affirmative even given the criticism provided by the K. I think sometimes more specific affirmative evidence proves the plan can still have advantages to weigh vs. K impacts (as in Marxism) especially when the time frames are quick. Why does K come first? Has that been explored?
Framework against critical cases:
I also believe that it is necessary to answer clearly case claims by critical affirmatives that answer the voting criteria on framework. Think of framework as the disad, and case arguments as solvency that allows the framework disad to outweigh the case. Framing matters. I think "competitive equity" as a standard against critical affirmatives is often untenable for the negative. Focus more on the nature of voices and representational aspects of the need for grammar. Think semiotics. That makes voting negative on T easier in these cases. You need offense, not just terminal defense. T must be framed as offense against the case.
Quickly worded "Do both" or "Do plan and K" sometimes leave me confused as to what the world of the perm really looks like. Take the time to frame your perm for me clearly. How does it take out CP/K? How does it interact with the link to any net benefit? On the negative, hold the affirmative to clearer explanations of how the perm functions. Confusion for me usually breaks negative in the presence of a net benefit.
I’m not a big theory guy. I understand theory but I don’t like voting on it. I will if necessary.
All in all, I’m a quality of argument person. Focus more on making quality arguments rather than quantity. Kick out of stupid things early and focus on what you want to win in the block. I have a tendency to allow new explanations of old arguments in the rebuttals and love a crafty 2AR.
Fundamentally I see debate as a game. I think it is a valuable and potentially trans-formative game that can have real world implications, but a game none the less that requires me to choose a winner. Under that umbrella here are some specifics.
1. Comparative analysis is critical for me. You are responsible for it. I will refrain from reading every piece of evidence and reconstructing the round, but I will read relevant cards and expect the highlighting to construct actual sentences. Your words and spin matters, but this does not make your evidence immune to criticism.
2. The affirmative needs to engage the resolution.
3. Theory debates need to be clear. Might require you to down shift some on those flows. Any new, exciting theory args might need to be explained a bit for me. Impact your theory args.
4. I am not well versed in your lit. Just assume I am not a "____________" scholar. You don't need to treat me like a dullard, but you need to be prepared to explain your arg minus jargon. See comparative analysis requirement above.
Not answering questions in CX is not a sound strategy. I will give leeway to teams facing non responsive debaters.
Debaters should mention their opponents arguments in their speeches. Contextualize your arguments to your opponent. I am not persuaded by those reading a final rebuttal document that "answers everything" while not mentioning the aff / neg.
Civility and professionalism are expected and will be reciprocated.
College experience: I debated for UT Dallas my freshman and sophomore years.
High School experience: Debated for LASA (Liberal Arts and Science Academy)
Tech over truth. To evaluate an argument it can't just be an unwarranted blip, it must be developed and have an impact.
Clarity over speed: If I have to shout clear more than twice I'll stop flowing your speech
Stealing prep: Don't do it. It annoys me and I will ruin your speaker points if you do.
I haven't judged on the topic yet, so don't expect me to know what all the terminology means.
Have fun and be nice.
Disads: Yes there's such a thing as zero risk of a disad. Politics is a thing.
Counterplans: Don't expect me to kick the counterplan unless you tell me to.
Kritiks: Explain your kritik instead of assuming I know the literature. Also don'treada giant generic overview.
Theory: Slow down. Most arguments are a reason to reject the argument not the team, unless you can prove abuse. Reading twoconditional worlds is pretty reasonable.
Topicality: Negative teams can't just say the aff isn't topical, they must win that their interpretation leads to better debates.
K Affs: K affs should berelated to the topic one way or another. More importantly makeit clearwhat the ballot does and how the judge should evaluate the debate. I don't think reading framework isviolent or offensive. I also don't think people will suddenly start quitting the activity because there are just too many K affs out there.