Pre-Districts Update 2015

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

November 2013

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

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

THINGS I WOULD LIKE:

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

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

CURRENT PET PEEVES:

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

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

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

THE SPECIFICS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28.0-28.9: Nice job. Particularly solid work.

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

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

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

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

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!

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

Be clear.

The quick checklist:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker point scale:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Misc: Be aggressive. Have fun. Learn something. 

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

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.

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

My background

High School debate – None

College debate – University of Richmond

Coaching – Miami Beach High School

Bronx High School of Science

Columbia University

New York University/New York Coalition

West Georgia

University of Richmond

Vanderbilt University

Berkeley Prep

Overview points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The specific arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any other questions/clarifications please ask.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be nice.

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

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

updated pre-Shirley, 2013 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30: Perfection.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jadon Marianetti - Assistant Coach @ UFlorida. Debated @ Univ. West Georgia for 5 Years 05-10 (4 NDTs). Debated at Leland HS San Jose, CA

For me debate is generally a game whose rules and contents are to be decided by the debaters.I don’t have particular argument preferences but put a large emphasis on warrants, quality of evidence and strategic deployment.I default to the offense-defense policy maker paradigm, unless told otherwise.

T - I think affirmatives should be resolutionally grounded.T is a debate over competing interpretations

DA’s - This is classic negative strategy and it’s pleasant to watch if executed properly.I’m sympathetic to affirmatives who debate dumb disads and point out obvious internal link problems analytically and in CX.

Case – A good case debate demonstrates that both teams have done a lot of in-depth research on the topic resulting in clash and education which pleases me.

CP’s – I think the neg should have a decent amount of cp ground and use it.I don’t particularly like cp theory debates but understand their necessary.I think affirmatives should use CP abuse stories to justify a perm.

K’s – Kritik debates are fine except when an inexperienced and poorly read debater tries to read advanced philosophy as fast as he/she can without explaining it.Don’t expect that I have read the literature or have prior knowledge to arguments you are making.

Theory – I think of theory as a game of competing interpretations.I would prefer not to watch a theory debate but I understand that it’s part of the game.An actual in round abuse story and a nuanced explanation of theory at its fundamental impact level would help make decisions easier.

Debate should be fun... Don't be unpleasant... Make me laugh please!

I flow everything straight down on paper.

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

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

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

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

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

Being revised.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

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

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

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

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

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

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

DA’s:

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

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

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

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

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

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

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

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

Flowing:

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

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

Cross-X:

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

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

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

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

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

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

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

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

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