University of Georgia Bulldog Debates

2014 — GA/US

all judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jarrod Atchison Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 4:02 AM EDT

Revised: 3/20/14

My first year judging at the NDT I had an important conversation with Dallas Perkins that still impacts my thinking about judging today. I expressed to him a bit of my anxiety about judging and the possibility of ending someone’s career. I’m paraphrasing here, but he said something to the effect of “People should ask two things when determining who the good judges are: 1- Do they try their hardest? 2- Are they willing to vote for the team that won no matter who they are?” Over the years I have found that these characteristics are simple in theory and sometimes difficult in practice. If I have the honor of judging you then I will most assuredly make a mistake somewhere, but I will strive to try my hardest and vote for the team that won no matter who they are.

How do I determine who won?

Rather than prescribing a set of argument preferences, I think it may be more productive to articulate my decision-making process because I think that we are at a moment where my preferences are not as important to me as helping debaters understand how I evaluate debates. Here is how I generally try to decide a debate:

1- I start by isolating the central questions of the debate: The second the debate is over I write a list of questions that I need to resolve. Sometimes I can do this without actually looking at my flows, but after I write the questions down I go back and check my flows to make sure I am not missing any major controversies. The key part of this stage is forcing myself to determine the issues that are essential to my decision versus things that *may* become relevant assuming certain teams win certain things.

2- Specific questions I tend to ask myself after almost every debate:

-Assuming both teams won all their arguments, who would win the debate?

-Is there a major execution error?

-Is there a team lacking offense on any given position?

-Has either team won an impact framing argument by virtue of execution or evidence?

-Is there significant argument interaction?

3- I determine which questions require reading evidence. Ross Smith taught me that starting with the evidence first can result in decisions that de-emphasize the important argument interactions that the debaters work hard at establishing during their speeches. There are lots of questions, however, where the quality of the evidence is an essential component of resolving a key question of the debate.

4- Dueling Banjos: After I figure out the issues that need evidence I create little duals on my flow between the relevant arguments in the mini-debate. It is helpful when I read the evidence or examine the arguments to think of it in terms of a mini-debate so that I don't get caught up thinking about the potential implications of the evidence or argument for issues beyond the part that I am trying to resolve. If I don’t do this then I can get lost down the rabbit hole.

5- Devil’s Advocate: After I answer all the questions I have come up with right after the debate, I play devil's advocate with myself two times. This is something that I learned from David Heidt. Basically, I write a mini-ballot for the team I think has won the debate. Something super short like "I vote AFF because I think the case impacts happen faster than the DA." Then, I pretend I am the other team and cross ex myself on the "what abouts?" I often end up determining that the "What abouts?" are good arguments that are just not in the debate. Sometimes, however, the "What abouts" force me to look at something I may have overlooked. I would say that 85-90 percent of the time I vote the way I wrote the RFD but sometimes I realize I was overlooking something important.

6- I isolate issues in the debate that "test my judge philosophy" so that I can tell the debaters after the debate that other judges may vote on X but my personal philosophy is Y because _____. Here is an example: at our district tournament a couple of years back I was on the bottom of a 2-1 when the 2ar forgot to go to a sheet of paper where the Neg had extended an argument that the status quo solved all the aff so vote neg on presumption. The other two judges thought it was bad and didn't vote on it. I am still at the stage of my judging career where bad arguments need to be called bad arguments. So, I voted neg and explained that the aff was winning the rest of the debate, but that in my view of the debate was decided on something technical. Inevitably, this happens about once a tournament.

7- Preventing the RFD that never ends: After I make my decision, I sit down and write the first 45-60 seconds of my decision out so that I can read aloud the short synopsis of how I voted. This is something I learned from Will Repko. For panel debates, I tend to write out a good chunk of my RFD just in case someone takes longer to decide and to ensure that I keep my comments concise. I have found that often times the debaters want to focus on the central question(s) of the debate and my ramblings about other things turns out to be less interesting to them.

8- The Triad: Sometimes it varies on the situation, but I try to give exactly three pieces of advice for both teams. Numbering the advice and limiting it to 3 helps me not wander around my RFD with random pieces of advice. I have found that the thing that really makes debaters angry is when I have voted against them and then flippantly say something like "you could have done X better" and the debaters freak out and say "Dude, this is my overview where I said X exactly like you just did!" The key to avoiding those interactions is for me not to venture into random musings on the fly.

9) Personal judging idiosyncrasies:

I usually decide any theory debate as an "option of last resort" for the team that needs it to win.

I usually decide a link debate first before worrying about uniqueness because of my belief that uniqueness is often a question of the direction of the link.

I usually wear head phones to try to minimize being influenced by other judges.

I usually go up to the debaters to call for cards and hand them a sheet of paper with list of cards I want so as to not influence the other judges. This isn’t as relevant if there is an email chain going.

I usually ask to go last (or later) if I am on the bottom of a big split (4-1) so I can get a sense of where I split with the majority of judges.

I usually go for a walk around the hall once before I come back and look at my whole list of questions and my thought process to make sure I am comfortable with it before I sign my ballot.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

Jarrod

Joseph Autry Liberty University 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 29, 2022 at 3:07 PM EDT

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.

Dan Bagwell Wake Forest University 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:39 AM CDT

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Joe Bellon Georgia State University 10 rounds

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.

Cole Bender Liberty University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 9:14 AM EDT

Cole Bender

Debate Experience:

Assistant Debate Coach, Liberty University (2011-Present)

Years Judging: 2008-present

Former varsity debater at Liberty University

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

ADDITIONS FOR SPRING 2015 (This section supersedes any subsequent, older part of my philosophy.)

The cliff notes version is: I'd prefer you speak conversational speed, my default assumption is that you have to have a reasonable chance of solving in order to have "presumption" on your side (not just .1%), stop powertagging / overclaiming / making arguments that violate all rules of reasoning and logic, and follow the rules of the sanctioning bodies of the tournaments you attend (which includes but is not limited to having a topical plan at ADA tournaments and addressing the resolution at CEDA tournaments.

I have substantial modifications to my judging philosophy that will radically change how teams pref me. I have listed the changes below.

CHANGES:

1. I will continue to flow, but I would like to hear debates at a conversational pace. I still believe in the existence of common sense and that most people have a sense of how fast “conversation pace” is, but in case you need more specific guidelines, the average conversation speed of speakers using the English language is 150-200wpm. A person not trained in college debate should have no difficulty hearing and processing each individual word being said during your speech. If you’re going too fast, I’ll ask you to slow down. If both teams refuse and go fast, I’ll still prompt you to slow down, but I’ll flow the debate as normal. If the neg intends to go slow, they need to inform the aff before the 1ac begins. If the one team goes slow and the other team goes fast, I’ll default to the slower teams’ arguments and evaluate the debate largely in truth over tech terms. Speaking too fast will impact speaker points because speaker points indicate the level of clarity, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of your communication, but it is not an automatic reason for me to vote against you.

2. I see the role of the judge as being a critic of argument. My threshold for what constitutes “making an argument” was already fairly high relative to the average judge. In addition to this, I think it’s the burden of the team making the argument to produce an argument that is minimally coherent, demonstrates some level of rational consistency, and avoids obvious logical fallacies. The net effect of this is that the rational strength of the argument matters, even if the argument is dropped. Tech still matters, but my calculus for argument is shifting some toward the direction of truth. For example, your advantages in your policy affs are not deductive arguments that yield logical certainty. Doing your plan is not the one and only policy that can stop the 3-4 guaranteed extinctions that will happen in the status quo. Likewise, for non-policy arguments, ‘X’ philosophical system is not the root cause of all violence, nor is a given resistance strategy the one thing that will lead us to utopia. Evidence quality, reasonable extrapolations from evidence, and warrants matter much more in front of me. I’d vastly prefer if teams who intend to debate in front of me would re-structure their arguments to avoid overclaiming / powertagging / general disregard of rationality. I’d also appreciate if you read the qualifications of your authors. Teams that make reasonable, smart arguments will be rewarded with speaker points, and, if their tech is close to as good as their truth, they will be rewarded with ballots.

3. My default position is that I do not think 1% risk is high enough to keep / shift presumption in your favor. You can argue otherwise, but absent an argument in the debate, this is my position. For example, in a policy debate, the affirmative has an obligation to read a plan that has a reasonable chance of solving before they have proven the resolution true (my default assumption is that reasonable means 5-10%). Similarly, if the neg reads a CP, then the risk of the net benefit has to be reasonable (5-10%) in order for presumption to shift in favor of the CP instead of the plan. For non-policy debates, it’s increasingly unclear what presumption does mean or even what it should mean. I tend to be easily convinced that the affirmative ought to at least defend that that something material be done to change the status quo.

4. I will be following the rules of the sanctioning bodies of any tournament I attend, and I will expect those who debate in front of me to do the same. All the remaining tournaments I’m attending are either CEDA or ADA sanctioned tournaments. You can see a tournament’s sanctioning on Tabroom. The CEDA rules are available here (http://www.cedadebate.org/) if you log in, and the most recent copy of the ADA rules is located here (http://www.liberty.edu/academics/communications/debate/index.cfm?PID=22660). I encourage all participants to familiarize themselves with the rules of the various tournaments they agree to attend.

A short summary of how this impacts non-topical affs:

For CEDA tournaments: the CEDA documents only indicate that the debate should be about the resolution. The minimum affirmative burden is therefore to discuss the resolution in some capacity and to affirm something in relation to the resolution. Obviously I can be convinced through a process of debate that the affirmative ought to do much more than this (standard topicality and framework is still a viable strategy). But I cannot be convinced by arguments in the debate that the affirmative can do less than this.

For ADA tournaments: the ADA documents indicate among other things that the affirmative must present a topical plan of action and that topicality is a voting issue. (I’d encourage negative teams to look at the section on critiques as well.)

I will not intervene to make an arbitrary decision that the aff has not met these burdens. The responsibility is still on the negative team to present an argument for their interpretation of the resolution and how the affirmative has not sufficiently addressed the resolution (CEDA) or fallen within it (ADA).

To be very clear, you can and should have a debate about what these rules mean and what their proper interpretation is. But for the purposes of the ballot I won’t evaluate arguments that the rules should not be applied.

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

Addition for Decrim and Subsequent Topics:

I do not wish to see or hear any sexually explicit speech acts or performances, nor do I wish to see debaters in any state of undress. To clarify, speech acts that discuss sex, sexuality, and corresponding topics are fine in front of me. Speech acts or performances that simulate or vividly describe sex acts are not fine in front of me. If that statement isn't clear, either ask, or, when in doubt, presume in favor of caution. If you choose to speak or perform in such a way in front of me, I will ask you to stop and adopt a differnet strategy. If you refuse to honor that request, I will excuse myself from the debate for at least the duration of that portion of your speech but possibly the debate as a whole. If I have to leave the debate, I will attempt to get the tabroom to replace me. If this is impossible and I am required to sign the ballot, then the situation will likely result in a ballot for the opposition. This is a personal conviction about the types of acts I want to be exposed to as a judge and as a member of this community, and I ask that you respect it. This is not intended as a statement about how debate should look in general.

As a judge, I will try to balance the importance of allowing debates that might make persons intellectually uncomfortable with also allowing debaters to protect themselves from emotionally damaging situations. I believe that in some circumstances the competitors have the right to let everyone know if they are uncomfortable and they may take appropriate action to avoid witnessing/hearing things they find to be emotionally damaging.

Oliver Brass Wake Forest University 6 rounds

Neil Butt Vanderbilt University 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 1:15 AM CDT

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!

Erin Caldwell Georgia State University 5 rounds None

Abraham Corrigan Wake Forest University 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 9:28 AM CDT

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 George Mason University 6 rounds

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.

Samuel Darkwa West Virginia University 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 26, 2014 at 2:37 PM EDT

I am a Ph.D. student in Political Science at West Virginia University. I have an MA in Foreign Languages and Literature from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a specialization in the rhetoric of Ghanaian presidential debates. I have no prior policy debate experience. However, I have had one year policy debate judging experience and have had the opportunity to panel with some experienced judges where in all cases I voted the same as them. I think debate is a competitive game that needs decency, fairness and decorous disposition.

When it comes to rounds, my preference is civility of speech and validity of argument. Please note that I value clarity over speed. Therefore, kindly take your time to read your Plan text and make sure that transitions between arguments are punctuated with appropriate speech art mechanisms. I also prefer coherent argument supported by specific EVIDENCE on which I place utmost value. Consequently, if the evidence does not support your argument, then it is just your argument and that will not help you much. Stylistically, I expect debaters to give a clear road map before each speech.

Below are some few thoughts:

TOPICALITY: Topicality is a very subjective concept thought it is a voting issue. I therefore, expect that the AFF is able to produce appropriate evidence in support of the topicality of their plan at the 1AC. Topicality only becomes an issue if the NEG brings it up but the AFF either drops it or if the negative wins the exchanges based on their framework. Note that I will be inclined to vote NEG on the grounds of education, fairness and predictability should topicality becomes a critical issue in a debate round. COUNTERPLANS:

I’ll like the NEG team to hammer home the solvency of the counterplan and show how it’s mutually exclusive as well as net beneficial. Please, should you run counterplan theory, your best bet is brevity and vigor. When it comes to permutation of the counterplan, the burden of prove lies with the NEG team to show why the AFF cannot do her advocacy and that of the counterplan should the AFF select to perm. Again, AFF is also to prove that the counterplan is not mutually exclusive for instance.

DISADVANTAGES:

I think that running DAs is fine and can cause great havoc to the opposing team so try as much as possible to connect them bringing out the links, internal links and impacts in a coherent manner. Again, the opposing team has the burden to respond to all DAs ran against them which I prefer line-by-line address.

CRITICISMS:

I think that should the NEG team select to run a K shell, the NEG team needs to offer a cogent explanation how its particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. This implies that the NEG team must be prepared to pick evidences from the AFF’s argument and show how these arguments are inconsistent. For instance, the NEG team needs to explain why the AFF plan is a bad one. In this case the NEG needs to point out some impacts of the plan and explain why the plan’s assumptions cause that impact.

FRAMEWORK:

For framework, I believe that you’ll like me to judge the debate that way therefore, if a team initiates framework debate the burden of prove lies with that team to show that their advocacy is the best. The opposing team is also required to respond to the framework argument or take up the challenge and show that their advocacy is better than their opponent’s.

Welcome aboard and Good luck.

I will prefer judging novice rounds now

James Durkee University of Miami 6 rounds

Marie Eszenyi James Madison University 6 rounds

Jordan Foley Wake Forest University 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM EDT

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

Ryan Galloway Samford University 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 16, 2024 at 1:26 PM EDT

Ryan Galloway

Samford University

Coached for 29 years

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stylistic issues:

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

Lincoln Garrett Liberty University 6 rounds

Nathan Getty Navy 3 rounds None

Kirk Gibson Emory University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 12, 2020 at 7:39 PM EDT

Kirk Gibson

Updated 09/12/2020

First things first - this year is incredibly challenging for all of us. I absolutely hate that you can’t experience the thrill of the season opener like I was fortunate to experience. No one ever feels ready for the season opener and no matter how you do at this tournament or at future tournaments, be kind to yourselves! It took dozens of universities like two years to begin the transition to paperless debate when I was a junior in college. You have had to adapt to remote debate in a fraction of the time with *gestures broadly* all of this happening. Take some time to decompress and do something nice for yourself. Eat and sleep well. The number of people at my current job that care about my record at the season opener in 2010 is zero. My mom doesn’t even care and she loves me a lot. Just find happiness and be a good person.

==Boring Biographical Stuff==

If your coaches don’t know me and you want boring biographical stuff: I debated at Emory from 2007 to 2011. I made the octas of the NDT. After that, I briefly coached at Emory before taking a job at Pace Academy, where I coached two NDCA champions. I have been out of debate since 2016 when I changed careers. I am now a social worker and I have worked with individuals facing the death penalty and I now work with restaurant workers who are facing homelessness due to unexpected medical or personal crises.

==Season Opener/Online Debate Relevant Stuff==

You should know that I haven’t even judged a practice debate on Zoom yet. I tend to be pretty expressive when I judge but because, presumably, I’ll be on mute during your speech, I will gesture if you need to be more clear or slow down. I will chime in during CX if I didn’t understand something that both teams seem to get (e.g. acronyms). It is my plan to flow on paper.

==How I Evaluate Framework And Other Impacts==

I wrote several versions of this and cannot seem to be as concise as I wish I could be, so I apologize in advance but I hope it at least helps you understand the experiences that shaped how I relate to debate.

In some ways, I have become quite a bit softer since I debated. My experiences working with people who are facing or experiencing homelessness and who have experienced life changing trauma has undoubtedly shaped how I evaluate impact and role of the ballot claims. In other ways, I was always skeptical of arguments that suggested debate was a site for social change and that belief has, unfortunately, hardened in the last decade. It has made me really quite sad to see the number of my contemporaries and former students who went into corporate litigation, big tech, finance, etc. while being aware of the incredible amount of injustice in the world.

I am also skeptical of arguments that center themselves on individual trauma or are based around intra-debate arguments. I believe that the competitive incentive corrupts our ability to actually process trauma in a productive way. I want to be the kind of human being and social worker who is a resource you can speak with so if you are actually struggling in debate, please know that you are not alone and you should feel that you can reach out to me.

I view debate strictly as a game. It has incredible educational benefits (I wish it had more psychosocial benefits), but no individual round changes anything. It's funny thinking about that argument now. Would my client who is facing homelessness care that I voted in a particular way to affirm a certain principal? Absolutely not. This doesn’t necessarily mean I’m a policymaker! Many policies are “good” because they are based on a calculation that doesn’t include the marginalized. Other times, I could decide that something may be “bad policy” but ethically the right thing to do. I guess all of this is to say that I think "policymaking" and "utilitarianism" is often grouped together and too many judges, when I debated, were fairly unwilling to vote on an ethical basis (and also accepted a certain kind of evidence).

I have yet to see a topic that doesn’t offer many ways to critique how that policy has been formulated to exclude groups of people. As such, I am still skeptical of any claims of the topic as a metaphor. I am dismissive of the argument that “we’ve been running this for a while so you should be prepared”.

==DA/Case==

I think the “direction of the link” people took things to an extreme when I debated and were nearly unwilling to evaluate uniqueness claims. I never understood this and I hope that the caricature I have in my head is just that.

I loved impact turns when I debated. That absolutely hasn’t changed.

==Counterplan Stuff==

I do not like to vote on counterplans that are not grounded in the literature. I nearly refuse to vote on the states CP (I know that’s not relevant this year), and I am a heavy lift on process CPs. If you have something that mentions the plan and was predictable when researching it (not just predictable because debate has tolerated it for years) then that’s different.

Under no circumstances will I kick the counterplan for the negative team. One of the great things about debate is being forced to make strategic decisions in a limited time. Who am I to rob you of that opportunity?

==Other Things of Varying Importance==

1. Debate is not a card submission activity. Extending a card is not a substitute for talking about it.

2. You are more likely to win on a well reasoned analytic than saying “DA not intrinsic,” even if the latter is dropped. It does not constitute a full argument.

3. Not everything needs evidence, we’re all human and watch the news/are aware of things going on. Most things benefit from evidence, however.

4. Please don’t quote parts of this at me. I don’t like that.

5. I watched a lot of debaters be rude to hotel staff and servers. It’s weird what stands out in our memories. If things return to how they used to be, and I really hope they do, please know that the person who serves your food or drinks at a tournament could be one sinus infection away from not being able to pay their rent. Be kind to them and tip them well.

6. Similarly, you should be nice to each other. That was always true before, it’s even more true via Zoom. Let your opponent ask the question and let your opponent answer the question. You know, basic stuff.

7. If you have dogs or cats at the location that you are debating from, I absolutely want to see them during down time. If you don't have pets, I will be equally happy if you share something else with us!

If you have any questions whatsoever, you should feel free to reach out to me at kirkgibson1 at gmail.

Joshua Gonzalez University of Houston 10 rounds

Josh Grace Georgia State University 10 rounds

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.

Logan Gramzinski University of Georgia

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.

adam grellinger University of Georgia 6 rounds

GSU '13 will be my first foray into college judging. I have judged high school debates at a rate of 80-120/year for about 10 years now. I debated at the University of Georgia as well as West Georgia. My background in different types of arguments is broad, there aren't many styles of debate I haven't coached or done personally. I feel comfortable with most any style or type of argument that you can cook up.

When judging I do my best to leave the debate up to the debaters. This means I don't have a high propensity for reading cards in rounds, though it is certainly not unheard of. I feel that calling for evidence means one of two things, either there was excellent clash on both sides or there was almost no clash.

This influences my view of several things in a debate round. I have no strong theory pre-dispositions. I find that debates often come down to team A gaining access to team B's offense better than team B gains access to team A's offense. This can come about in the form of anything from global impact uniqueness to framework issues.

The best rebuttals are ones that advance a reason why you should win and ALSO refute reasons why your opponent should win. The best line by line technique is one that advances your argument and also says why your opponent is wrong. In doing so you ensure that there is little if any room for intervention, which should be your goal as a communicator Often I find that a team will advance their own position without explaining why it refutes that of their opponent. If you do this and your opponent doesn't you are likely to lose. If both teams do this then some intervention is inevitable and you have not done your job, which is to take the decision out of my hands and to place it beyond the realm of doubt.

A few details about specific argument types/concerns in the debate

Topicality: under used, under appreciated. If the aff fails to provide a completive definition then they are likely in trouble should the negative articulate why this is a problem and win competing interpretations. On the flip side Aff teams should articulate why any differences between standards of interpretations are pedantic or meaningless and maintain a robust defense of "good is good enough"

DA's: Who doesn't like a disad? DA turns the Case vs Case turns the DA only become relevant if the neg wins the DA and/or the aff wins their case. There can be terminal defense on both DA's and advantages that render the argument moot. Things like Uniqueness controls link/Link controls uniqueness depend on the specific arguments and the framing mechanisms debaters use in the round.

K's: Best done with minimal jargon. If you can't explain why the aff links, and why that's bad in a way that has a story that makes a degree of sense then you are probably in a rough place. Aff should watch out for K tricks like no value to life, etc. Will I like your K? That depends, the name of your K is someone's last name then probably not. Higher specificity and application to the rhetorical situation you find yourself in increases these odds substantially. K debates can be some of my favorite to evaluate when done with thought and planning and strategy. When they turn into Foucault vs Derrida I think I'd rather see most anything else. K's probably don't need alts, and usually make more sense without them

Affness: Preference for affs that answer the resolutional question with some kind of a "yes" Affs that don't do this are winnable, but have a higher threshold to overcome. The necessity of things like plan texts and defending USFG action are things to be decided in round by debaters.

Counterplans: As I said before, I have no strong leanings one way or the other on theory questions. The more of them you run at one time the more robust defense you should have on your ability to do so. Robustness can also come in the form of nuance rather than quantity, and this is probably better for everyone involved.

Finally a note on speaker points. Be the best you that you can be. If you're not a very funny person don't try to be funny. If you don't know what sorts of TV shows/Music/Movies I enjoy don't make references, In general points will be awarded based on a combination of strategy, clarity, and fluidity. None of these categories is more dominant than the others in deciding points, a fantastic strategy can give you a boost if you aren't clear, and great clarity can give you a boost if your strategy seems lackluster or poorly thought out.

Ben Hagwood Liberty University 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:12 AM PDT

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
Be rude (-.5 point)
Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

Michael Hall Liberty University 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:35 AM EDT

Michael Hall - Updated 9/15/22

Liberty University

28 Years coaching

Upfront, you should know that I've only judged a handful of debates over the last two years and those were intrasquad practice debates Second, I've developed slight hearing loss that makes it harder for me to pick out voices when there's background noise.

For the email chain: mprestonhall@gmail.com

The comments below reflect how I'm likely to things left to my own devices, but I do my best to evaluate the debate on the arguments made in the round.

Theory: I am not tabula-rosa. Minimally, each argument should contain a claim, some support (evidentiary or otherwise), and an impact. That said, I do my best to minimize my substantive preferences and therefore find myself voting for positions I don’t particularly like. I attempt to use the decision calculus most persuasively advocated by the debaters.

Topicality: I tend to see topicality as a contest of competing interpretations. I probably vote on T more often than most judges and have no problem voting against "core affirmatives" when the negative has a superior interpretation of the topic. I'm most easily persuaded to vote on T when the negative team develop arguments based on a comparison of ground offered under each interpretation of the resolution. I tend to find in-round abuse arguments less persuasive as its hard to determine whether the negative should have a right to those arguments without first establishing a coherent division of aff/neg ground. I am usually more persuaded by arguments about the quantity and quality of affs allowed by each interpretation and the negative's ability to access a core set of negative arguments. Topicality is by nature exclusionary.

Counterplans: I enjoy debates with creative counterplans tailored to specific affirmatives. The affirmative should be prepared to defend the entirety of the plan, and plan inclusive counterplans are one way of making them do so.

I’ve found myself voting against conditional counterplans a little more often in recent years, which I attribute to the quality of the negative’s defense of conditionality rather than a change in my CP leanings. If the negative justifies the conditional nature of the counterplan, other theory arguments are reasons to reject the counterplan not the team.

The text of the counterplan and all permutations should be written out. Trying to win a perm that doesn’t include all of the plan or that contains action not contained in the plan or counterplan is nearly impossible.

Kritikal Debate: I've found myself becoming much less dogmatic about the need for affirmatives to have topical plan texts. I don't know if I can pinpoint why, but I think it's partially due to conversations with various Liberty coaches and debaters and partially due to my own reading interests gravitating more toward critiques of the enlightenment and religious critiques of capitalism. I can certainly be persuaded to vote negative on framework but debaters should no longer assume it’s a hard default.

I don't think much has changed about the way I evaluate negative K strategies. Like any other part of the negative strategy, the more you tailor your link arguments to the affirmative in question, the more likely I am to find your arguments persuasive. Likewise, an overview that details how the kritik turns the affirmative’s solvency, outweighs the case, etc. would be more helpful than several more impact cards.

Style: Given what I wrote in the first two sentences, this is section of my philosophy almost certainly the most important for you remember during the debate. Things you should know in descending order of importance: (1) I am a better critic for those who collapse the debate in the block and 2NR than for those who go for most of their 1NC arguments into the 2NR. (2) I am a better critic for debaters who emphasize clarity over speed. I’ve found this to be especially true in paperless rounds where everyone in the debate except for the judge is reading along with the speech doc. Again, my hearing isn't what it used to be making the need for clarity even more important. I’ll give you verbal and nonverbal signals if I can’t understand you. (3) I have come to the conclusion that the more evidence I read, the less my decisions have reflected the arguments made by the debaters. As a result, I try to read fewer cards after a debate and am more easily persuaded to see a debate through the lens that allows me to do so. (4) If you think an argument is important, find a way to set it apart from the rest of the debate.

Prep time: Prep time stops when the speech doc is emailed.

Andrew Hart University of Georgia 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 16, 2018 at 4:00 AM EDT

Andrew.j.hart@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

James Herndon Emory University 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 2:01 PM EDT

James H. Herndon - FORMER Director of Debate - Barkley Forum @ Emory University

[prefer to be called Herndon - pronouns are he/him/his. Email is jamesherndon3]

2020 update:

I left the game because I wanted to spend more time with my family. Wow, did I get that #ThanksCovid My relationship with debate was not conducive to being the father, husband, and member of my community I wanted to be. But, virtual judging is easy enough. So, why not.

What else is different - I don’t do debate research anymore, I do a lot of economic/financial research now, I do a lot of tech/zoom/Webex presentations.

In my experience I find it easier to listen/follow along when I can see people’s faces (that’s not possible for everyone, so it’s not a judgement thing) but if it can be when speaking it may aid my comprehension.

————————

everything from Jan 2019
If I am judging you and you are freaking out about it, believe there is no way I would ever vote for you, or are just generally making assumptions about my world view, then I ask you to keep in mind that the following list are things I think I think. I have been wrong more often than I have been right. I will do my best to evaluate the debate neutrally. I view myself as an adjudicator first, and do my best to neutrally evaluate the arguments as defended in front of me. I will vote for anything

Though, like all educators I have biases, those follow.

These statements are things I believe to be true about my judging. They aren't rules. But, it is better to disclose:

1. Debate is a game. I view all theory arguments through this lens.
2. If I don’t understand it at the end of the round then I am not going to vote on it.
3. The Aff should have to defend a plan or advocacy statement that they can defend is topical.
4. Topic related critical literature should be debated.
5. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
6. I will reward good cross-x with speaker points.
7.. I tend to evaluate the strength of the link in tandem with uniqueness – neither exists in a vacuum.
8. Counterplans always switch presumption to the aff.
9. I will NOT kick counterplans for the negative. The 2nr is allowed to present me with a reason to vote for them, that is where the debating ended. If the neg says to kick the cp and the aff doesn’t answer it I will kick it. Absent that, I am not kicking arguments for one team. This applies to all speeches.
10. Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applys to everything.
11. literature shapes the topic. and what you get to do with it.
14. Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of.
15. There is value to life.

16. I am not qualified to evaluate people in the round for or about things that happen outside of the round. Intentions are important & I give people the benefit of the doubt too often for my own good.

17. I feel like fiating the states + federal government might be a step too far. I haven't heard a great debate on this, but since this is for my biases, thought I'd include it. That being said, state fiat is probably okay if there are solvency cards for what you are doing.

18. limited condo is good. the neg's job is to disprove the aff or win a competitive policy option. That being said, if the aff can prove that conditionality was used in a way that undermined the value or competitive fairness of the debate, it is a voting issue.

19. topicality is under-utilized against policy teams and over-utilized vs K teams.

20. future fiat illegit.

Good luck.

Michael Hester West Georgia 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 15, 2024 at 2:36 PM EDT

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:

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.
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.
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.

John Holland Emory University 5 rounds

John Holland
Emory University

I haven't updated this in forever and I think my views have changed a fair bit.
I've judged only a handful of rounds on this topic so that may change how you debate T or some cp competition questions.

Short version:
-Ideal 2nr is some combination of impact turns, politics, case or an adv cp.
-Ideal 2ar is case/impact turns outweighs the neg offense.
-Tech over truth. Drops are true. I think of debate as a game.

T
-The aff should be topical, read a plan, etc. I think this creates the most productive debates and is necessary for the neg to have predictable ground.
-I think T is likely a question of competing interpretations. Usually the neg wins because the aff is light on an offensive reason for why their aff should be included (whether it be an education argument or because its the only aff that can beat the states cp).

Theory/Counterplans
-Conditionality- 2 is good. More than 2 is iffy. I think its pretty unlikely that I'd vote aff if the neg only reads 1 cp.
-Other theory arguments- reject the argument, not team solves everything but conditionality.
-CPs that compete off certainty/things not in the plan- bad, go for the perm.
-States- initially, I thought it terrible for debate, but I'm becoming more open to it. I think that is because no one is going for theory or because no one

goes for states because the aff has crafted a solvency deficit.
-pics- yes. read them. The aff should remember that the words "all" and "every" are not in the plan text and should utilize that for permutations.

Kritiks
-I went for the K 0 times vs policy affs while in college.
-In order to win this on the neg, I think you have to win a turns case argument or an argument for why the alt solves the case. The 2ar that is coming and that

I find persuasive is "we have a big advantage that the alt doesn't solve" so the 2nr has to be geared to beat that.
-Topic kritik (k of transportation infrastructure) > generic kritik (Nietzsche, Heidegger, etc).

Other
-Impact turns. Yes. More of them. I like them and went for them a lot. A 1nr that is obscure impact turns to an addon (eg. water scarcity good or US-Russia relations bad) is great.
-1AR impact turns- There's been a discussion about whether the 1ar gets to impact turn after link turning in the 2ac. I think its legitimate.
-Most of my neg career involved a host of advantage cps and impact turns. Politics was most 1nrs. I would often concede a solvency deficit in the 2nc to make impact turns a net benefit.
-1AR shenanigans in general- usually encouraged. Kicking the case to straight a turn a disad. One caveat- you need to slow down if you're doing anything weird thats not super apparent.
-Ben Dean gives the best 2ars ever. If you've ever seen one, thats how to get high points from me.

Old Judge Philosophy
I’m a freshman at Emory and debate. I debated 4 years at Grady in Atlanta, Georgia.
Rounds on the hs topic- 35
General comments
1. 2NR/2AR comparisons are extremely important yet rarely done even at basic levels like impact calculus
2. I would love if every 2NR was a cp/politics or a case specific strategy. That’s what I like, but I know it isn’t always possible
3. Speed is fine, just be clear.
4. I can flow (mostly). This means I protect the 2NR from new arguments.
5. Offense/defense is king- it is possible to win “zero risk” of a disad, but that’s difficult so I think offense should always be extended in some capacity in the last rebuttal.
Specific issues
Theory- I err on the side of the team that risks losing. So for conditionality/pics, I err neg, severance/intrinsicness/perm theory I err aff. Theory debates are never pleasant for judges to resolve because the debaters generally do very little work and leave it in the hands of the judge to decide. This means if you want to go for theory in front of me, impact arguments. Consult and condition counterplans are probably cheating, but the neg can defend them.
States cp- probably not legit, but no one seems to go for theory against it. I think a well written text solves most affs on this topic.
Kritiks- not my favorite argument, but I have voted for them a few times this year. Framework debates are important, but never impacted. Pet peeve- the aff asks if they get to weigh case against the kritik, neg responds with “after you justify your representations.” I have no idea what that means. I also don’t think the neg should be allowed to sever representations without the aff being able to do so as well.
Topicality- I’m not quite sure what is or isn’t topical as I haven’t researched the topic. I default to competing interpretations. If you go for reasonability, you should have a reason why your aff should be read on this topic (whether it’s the heart of the literature or something along those lines). I think the neg wins T debates because the aff doesn’t extend offense or even write their blocks to include offense.

John Katsulas Boston College 2 rounds

John Katsulas, Director of Debate, Boston College
30 years coaching

Here are the rules for debate:
1) The affirmative side must advocate a plan of action by the United States Federal Government. If you merely read poetry, dance, or play music, you will lose.
2) The negative side must defend a consistent policy position in the debate. The negative may choose to defend the status quo, or the negative may advocate an unconditional counterplan.
3) Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.
4) Conditionality is prohibited.
5) The resolution is worded as a policy proposition, which means that policy making is the focus of debate.
6) Kritiques are not welcome.
7) Performance-style debate belongs in theatre productions.
.
Here are suggestions for debating in front of me:
1) The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical.
2) Agent counterplans are fine. Don’t waste your time arguing PICS bad arguments against them. The legitimacy of international fiat is debatable, but I definitely believe there are far stronger arguments favoring limiting fiat to U.S. governmental actors.
3) Politics disadvantages are welcome. I like to hear them. Affirmatives should attack the internal link stories on many of these disadvantages. This is frequently a more viable strategy than just going for impact turns.
4) Both sides should argue solvency against affirmative plans and negative counterplans. Both sides should attack the links and internal links of impacts.
5) If you are incomprehensible, I won’t re-read all of your evidence after the debate to figure out your arguments.
6) Negative can win my ballot on zero risk of affirmative case solvency. Many affirmatives cases are so tragically flawed that they can be beaten by an effective cross-examination and/or analytical case presses.
7) I am very strict on 1ARs making new answers to fully developed disadvantages which don’t change from the 1NC.
8) Cross-examination answers are binding.
9) ASPEC: I won’t vote on it UNLESS you ask in cross-ex and they refuse to specify an agent.
10) Too late to add new links and impacts to your disadvantages during the first negative rebuttal.

I have a low threshold for dismissing non-real world arguments like nuclear war good and wipe-out.

Joe Keeton Vanderbilt University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 20, 2018 at 9:40 AM CDT

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.

Edward Lee Emory University 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:53 AM EDT

Ed Lee

Judge Philosophy

Emory University

ewlee@emory.edu

Revised: November 2013(Remixed by KRS One)

My Philosophy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Judging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specifics

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Critiques

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

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

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

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

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

Disadvantage

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Creating a hostile environment – Respect is a non-negotiable for me. It always has been. It is the primary reason I go out of my way to be civil and cordial to everyone I interact with. I know that there is no chance that we will have a productive conversation unless you are willing to speak to me in a way that acknowledges my humanity. I not only have that expectation for the way you communicate with me but the way you communicate with each other. It is not healthy for me or anyone else in the room to watch you verbally assaulting your opponent. If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors or the president of your university then you should not do it in front of me. I am more than willing to have a conversation with anyone about where this line should be drawn. That conversation is long overdue.

My scale

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

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

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

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

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

28 – 28.4: You are working to get better

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

Carly Lehrich Georgia State University 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 29, 2015 at 10:51 AM EDT

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.

Jim Lyle Clarion University 3 rounds

Jim Lyle
Director - Clarion University

Constraints: UMW

Shirley 2013: I intend to follow the suggested speaker point guide posted by WFU as best I can.

General Statement

1. I see debate as first a competitive activity, and second as an educational activity. Allow me to clarify. I love the educational aspects of debate, but the thing I love the most is that we get to use education in the context of a game. I find myself most interested in the preservation of debate as a fair, competitive activity for both the affirmative and negative teams. If protecting the competitive dimension of the game isn’t our priority in considerations about how debate should operate, then we should all stay back at our respective schools on weekends and discuss these issues on Saturdays in college libraries with other interested people and save the expenses associated with traveling to debate tournaments.
2. I also love that the game allows us to play with a lot of arguments that might remain out of reach of institutional policymakers. Debate is an activity that allows us to play with more controversial positions, and advocate ideas that can not be articulated elsewhere. This teaches people how to argue on a host of fronts, and develops/enhances critical thinking skills.
3. I think I am in the same place as a number of judges regarding evidence quality. This is never an issue in the round and the consequence is that teams get away with a slew of claims being advanced by unqualified authors. Additionally, there are a number of instances where a smart argument can beat a card but teams don't bother.

Topicality
1. It’s a voting issue.
2. The key to debating topicality for me is the ability of both teams to concretize their arguments with examples of affs/arguments that allowed and/or disallowed by a particular interpretation. The team that does a better job demonstrating the effect of an interpretation on the game generally probably is gonna win the argument.
3. Competing Interpretations vs Reasonability. I’d guess I’d say I’m a fan of reasonability. I say that because I generally see all T debates as a question of what is the most reasonable interpretation, and between the aff and the neg we have two…which compete. “Do vs. justify” just doesn’t make much sense if both sides are willing to allow the specific aff in question to be topical.

Theory/CPs
1. Most of these debates tend to go for the team seeking to not lose on theory simply because the debates are too fast and too jargon-laden.
2. The number of debates where fairness is the end-all-be-all on Theory Issue A and education is the end-all-be-all on B is bewildering. What may be worse is that this is never called out.
3. I think affirmative teams are cowardly lions on theory.
4. I think conditionality is good and presume the counterplan is conditional. Logic says stick with the status quo if both the cp and plan are bad ideas. Does this mean all conditionality is off the argument table? No. Multiple conditional advocacies may have issues. Certain types of counterplans run conditionally may be problematic (i.e., a conditional consultation counterplan)… Advocating the perm also seems logical.
5. Think some PICs legitimate, some ask key questions about the desirability of the affirmative plan. Think agent CPs are legitimate, however, I think affirmatives tend to let the negative get away with a lot more in fiating things for counterplans. If we are gonna use fiat, it needs to be reciprocal and predictable/real world for both sides. For instance, if it can be proven that acting on “x” is out of the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then perhaps the negative (or affirmative) doesn’t have right to that action (unless the opposition is given an equal use of fiat). Think we are asked to evaluate things from the perspective of the federal government. Not a fan of multiple-agent counterplans (i.e., CP has states and federal government act). Don’t like object fiat. Don’t care for international fiat. Specific solvency evidence does wonders in helping justify a particular counterplan, and if it’s from an affirmative solvency author then you get what you deserve.
6. “This justifies severance perms”….then do it. Reciprocity is good.

Cross-Examination
1. Still flowing it.
2. I “check-out” during the prep time and although I hear things, and may remember them, I will not go back and add to the “flow.” So, use CX strategically.
3. I generally hate flowing the CX because debaters undervalue it.

Critiques and so forth
1. I view myself as a policymaker. I view the question for the debate to be whether or not the plan is a desirable policy option given the status quo and competitive alternatives.
2. Does this mean I exclude the K? Maybe. Maybe not. I would argue that it doesn’t exclude the K, but rather shapes how I understand the K and how you need to frame the argument.
3. You can argue that I shouldn’t evaluate as a policymaker, but I will evaluate the consequences of the non-policymaker mode versus the policymaker mode of evaluation.
4. I “understand” the argument that the K is a “gateway argument” that has some if/then-thing going on when it is run with a bunch of DAs and CPs but am not sure why the AFF doesn’t get to access impact turns to the K when the K is kicked. I guess I am saying that I find it a bit confusing that the K operates somewhere in between DA world and CP world and that this creates potentially interesting, but generally unexplored, lines of argumentation.
5. Performance. See above. Odds are that if you are a performer, I’m not the judge you want.

Paperless
1. I think prep time ends when the debater pulls the flash-drive out of the computer and says they are ready to jump it to the other team. I understand there are some tech issues to still be worked out but this is one issue that shouldn’t be a problem (especially since Whitman 3.0, I and I believe Synergy, have functions that allow for speeches to be saved automatically to the jump drive).
2. I think paperless teams need to have a viewing computer available for the other team. I have no problem if the other team doesn’t wish to use the viewing computer but think it needs to be available. That said, I personally don’t get the “can we jump it on our own computer” phenomena. Why create a risk of being exposed to a virus?
3. What if a paperless team reads additional cards in a speech that are not in the initial document? At the end of the speech, the paperless additions should be immediately jumped over. The paperless team should have to use prep for this.
4. What if a paperless team jumps a file with 100 cards and basically forces the other team to find the evidence read? Not acceptable.

Presumption
I’m sure this is a little odd to see in here for most of you but I must admit that I am historically a bit of a neg hack and a large part of this is based on my willingness to vote on presumption. If there’s no clear advantage to doing the plan a tiny risk of a DA seems to be enough to say “don’t chance it.” I guess my point is that I prefer a well-developed advantage over 3 under-developed advantage.

Delivery
1. Be clear.
2. I tend to let people know if they are being unclear, unless I can’t see your face. If you can’t look at me, I can’t let you know when you’ve lost me.

Got questions? Ask.

Mikaela Malsin University of Georgia 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:28 AM EDT

**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.

Beth Mendenhall James Madison University 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 25, 2019 at 3:28 AM CDT

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.

Nicholas Miller Emory University 2 rounds

Things I think:

1. Debate is a public speaking and communication activity. Good debaters engage the judge, speak clearly, and are able to explain their arguments and be funny despite time pressure. Debaters who look up from their flow while speaking will benefit from being able to see my reactions to arguments. Debaters who are clear will benefit from my ability to understand or flow the warrants of their cards. If I don't understand it/get it/know why it matters, I won't vote on it. I should know an argument is important from the way you extend it, both in terms of content and style.

2. Qualified evidence is very important, but only reaches its maximum value if it is unpacked and explained. Evidence or arguments that are comprehensible or well explained during the course of the debate are almost always preferable to evidence that I have to read after the round to understand, even if the latter evidence is "better". Well explained analytic arguments can slay bad advantages, disads, alternatives, and counterplans. To wit: I will privilege explanation in debates over reading I have to do after them.

3. I fucking love Cross-X. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your Cross-x well (eg, if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are used in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase.

4. I like smart debates about the case. Case offense, case defense, the case and a disad, a counterplan the interacts with the substance of the 1AC, a K that is deployed in a case specific matter--those debates are awesome to watch. Process counterplans designed to avoid clash with the majority of the 1AC, generic Ks, and debaters who think impact defense constitutes case debate make me sad.

5. Topicality: T is a voter, but if the aff has a good interpretation, the fact that the negative’s interpretation is slightly better isn’t really a persuasive reason to vote neg.

6. I think the idea that I can kick the CP or Alt for a team is kinda silly. Defending something is your job. Make choices yourself.

7. Don't be a dick to your opponents or your partner.

--

Please ask me about Emory KT - Klimchack and Tankersley - of late 1970's fame. They were the two greatest and most revolutionary debaters of all time.

Andy Montee University of Florida 8 rounds

William Mosley-Jensen University of Georgia

Judge Philosophy – Will Mosley-Jensen

Edited 9-19-12

***Short***

1. Win an impact. (If you can’t do that, join the band)

2. Compare that to the impact you think they win.

3. Compare evidence in steps 1 & 2.

4. If you are fast repeat steps 1-3. If not focus your efforts on steps 1-2 with a sprinkling of step 3.

5. Have Fun! Clarity, Humor, and Civility all help your speaker points.

6. Specificity > Generality

***Long***

General Comments

When making a decision there are three factors that precede other considerations first, the status of direct counter-arguments, has an argument been dropped; second, the quality of evidence supporting an argument, is the evidence superior, average or inconclusive; and third, the correspondence of an argument to reality (or the relative “truth” of an argument).

It is important to note that none of these factors is fixed prior to any given debate, but rather that the debate itself determines them. I should also hope that it is clear that my ordering of these factors represents merely my fallback position if there is no re-ordering argued for in a debate. Some of the factors, such as evidence quality could, and should, be a part of the ways that debaters compare their arguments and establish the relative priority of their argument. If this is not done in a debate, then I will evaluate the debate utilizing the order that I have established.

Specificity is important in all debates. If you say that your disadvantage “turns the case” because Romney will destroy hegemony, then it is probably important to compare this warrant to the affirmative warrant for why they solve for US credibility abroad. The best debates are a comparison of warrants; the worst debates a battle of claims, with most debates falling somewhere in the middle.

Specifics

Topicality debates-

Against Non-traditional (not topical and proud of it) teams

I find that I have a very strong bias that affirmatives should be topical. Most of the reasons that teams advance for why they do not need to fulfill this most central of affirmative burdens pre-suppose several problematic propositions. First, that there is some value that is external to the debate community that can be gained from not affirming the topic. Second, that participation in debate trades-off with other types of activism, rather than occupying a supplementary role. Third, that the value of debate is not intrinsically tied to the identification of a common topic of discussion. Finally and most heinously, that debate is sustainable without the minimum of fairness that is provided by having a shared topic. These assumptions seem to me to be easily answered by a team that is properly prepared.

Against traditional (ostensibly topical) teams

A well-executed topicality argument is one of the most enjoyable debates to judge or watch in my opinion. If it is thoroughly researched and considered by the negative, topicality can represent a strategic tool in a wide variety of debates.

That said, I think that the negative needs to clearly articulate the method of evaluating topicality, and avoid statements in other parts of the debate that question the assumption of the competing interpretations framework. It is not unusual to hear a negative argue that “hard debate is good debate” on conditionality and then extend a topicality argument that is based on some trivial loss of ground. Affirmative teams should capitalize on such inconsistencies when arguing that their interpretation does not make debate impossible but improves it by creating strategic bottlenecks for the negative.

Framework debates-

I find that these debates usually come down to what the role of the critic should be. Namely, should the role of the critic be that of an impartial observer that evaluates the relative advantages and disadvantages of government action versus the status quo or a competitive policy option or should the role of the critic be something else? I can be persuaded that this role includes things not traditionally associated with the assumption that I am an impartial observer, but it helps if you provide some specific articulation of the benefits of deviating from the accepted norm. I enjoy policy debates and am sympathetic to a well-argued defense of the educational and fairness benefits of this approach. I will say that most of the time if the affirmative defends a topical plan that is usually enough to facilitate a productive debate, and in that case it is generally wise to question the solvency of the affirmative. In other words, if the affirmative team has read a topical plan text and the crux of your negative framework argument is “they are not policy enough,” I am likely to vote affirmative.

Criticisms

I am pretty firmly rooted in a Western metaphysics of presence and the value of enlightenment rationality. I am also of the mind that adjudicating debates requires assumptions of rationality and so if you want me to adopt a different framework of evaluation it will require some pretty solid reasons on your part. That is not to say I do not enjoy critical debates, there are some fine criticisms that are firmly grounded in modernity. If you are going for a criticism in front of me, it is likely that I have at least a passing familiarity with the foundational literature of your argument (I got my B.A. in philosophy and my M.A in rhetoric) but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go out of your way to explain the specific application to the affirmative. Similarly if you are reading a critical affirmative you should be careful to explain the reasons that your affirmative renders parts, or all, of the negative’s strategy irrelevant. For example if you are arguing that epistemological considerations precede policy considerations you should explain the nature of that relationship.

Counterplans

In most circumstances when negatives read counterplans that are questionably competitive/legitimate (process, consult, conditioning) I find that aff teams are unwilling to engage in a protracted procedural debate and so become competitive/legitimate by default. Usually going for a permutation is a time intensive process, but can be rewarding if you spend the time to work through the competition theory that purportedly supports the negative’s counterplan. Advancing theory on a counterplan should always include controlling not only the specifics of the theory debate, but also the meta-questions. For example, a robust defense of competing interpretations is generally necessary for the affirmative to win that multiple conditional counterplans are a voting issue. Most affirmative teams tend to simply spot the negative that it is not a question of competing interpretations but rather a question of whether the counterplan makes debate impossible for the affirmative (which almost no counterplans, save fiating the object of the resolution, do).

Speaker Points

Although debate is a competitive activity that doesn’t mean that people can’t be civil with each other. Your comportment during a round can easily affect your speaker points as much as the quality of your arguments. Debate is a fun, rewarding activity and the people that I regard with the most respect are not only great debaters but great people as well.

Robert Mulholand University of Georgia 2 rounds

Generally, I consider myself relatively flexible about what sorts of arguments I'll evaluate. In most circumstances, the debate seems to come down to the affirmative defending their advocacy against the negative's attempt to establish that an offensive position is competitive with and outweighs the Aff.

The debaters who tend to get my ballot (and good points) are good rebuttal debaters. I most respect the debater who can zero in on the central question and explain 1) why that is the central question and 2) why they're on the right side of it. This requires an ability to isolate the finer distinctions involved and debate those as well (e.g. impact calculus often doesn't just require the statement "our impact is bigger because of timeframe, magnitude, and probability," but rather "our impact accesses a faster timeframe, and timeframe is a more relevant consideration than probability because ...").

I'll add more specific things below:

-- If your opponent deliberately concedes an argument you made, that argument is treated as 100% true. I'm potentially willing to consider cross applications and the like in the instance of an incidental concession (this is subject to debate - see the "finer distinctions" discussion above), but I think you're fully responsible for a claim you made if your opponent decides to strategically concede it.

-- I find myself voting Aff on "try or die" style arguments all too often. If you want me to reject the Aff in favor of the status quo, you need to win that extinction is not inevitable in the status quo. If you want me to vote on a disad, you need either a CP or "status quo solves" case arguments - not merely "aff doesn't solve" case arguments. I do believe that the debate can become close to irresolvable if the Aff wins that extinction is definitely going to happen if I don't vote Aff and the Neg wins that the Aff is more likely to cause another scenario for extinction than it is to solve the advantage (in which case the finer distinctions of impact calculus become decisive). Nonetheless, protect yourself from logical quagmires.

-- I get the sense I care more about "precision" as a link argument for the T disad than some other people. I can understand the objection that certain T jargon ("ground," "predictability," etc.) gets thrown around in a way that begs the question of other issues (namely, the determinable qualities of the interpretation). But, I do not believe that limits (i.e. how many affirmatives does this interpretation allow?) is the only issue that matters, since questions such as the evidence's intent to define, the quality of the source, and so forth are also determinable qualities of the interpretation that access the internal links ("ground," "predictability," etc.) in the same manner as limits.

More to come.

John Nagy Liberty University 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 9:22 AM EDT

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.

Len Neighbors Wake Forest University 2 rounds

Len Neighbors Judging Philosophy
Wake Forest University

Technical Information You Should Know.

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

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

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

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

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

Proclivities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Danielle O'Gorman Navy 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:27 AM EDT

I've been the Director of Debate at the US Naval Academy since 2005. I debated at Catholic University in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Put me on the doc thread: danielle.verney@gmail.com. Please use the wiki as much as possible!

Four things I hate--this number has gone up:

1. WASTING TIME IN DEBATES--what is prep time? This isn't an existential question. Prep time is anything you do to prepare for a debate. That means when it's start time for the debate, everyone should be READY TO START--restrooms visited, water gathered, stand assembled, doc thread started, timer in hand, snacks ready for your judge (jk). Any of these things that need to happen during a debate are technically prep time and thus should probably happen either during your prep or the other team's prep. The 2:15 decision deadline is an unequivocal good because it makes me 100% more likely to get a reasonable amount of sleep at night which makes me a better judge/coach/administrator/human, but y'all need to get better at managing your time to make it work.

2. Elusiveness (especially in Cross-Ex but during speeches too): “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. Taking your questioner on a goose-chase for the answer to a simple question is not. Pretending you don't know how the plan works or what it does or that there are a whole bunch of ways it MIGHT happen is not persuasive to me, it just makes it look like you don't know what's going on. Answer the counterplan; tell me it's cheating--I'm one of the like 5 judges in the community who believe you.

3. Debaters who get mad that I didn’t read their one piece of really sweet evidence. If you want me to understand the warrants of the evidence and how they compare to the warrants of the other team’s evidence, maybe you should talk about them in one of your speeches. Read less bad cards and talk about the good ones more--tell me how your one good card is better than their 12 bad ones.

4. Rudeness. Don’t be rude to your partner, don’t be rude to the other team, and DEFINITELY don’t be rude to me. Excessive cursing is frowned upon (louder for the people in the back). Conversely, if you are nice, you will probably be rewarded with points. Entertain me. I enjoy pop culture references, random yelling of "D7", humorous cross-x exchanges, and just about any kind of joke. I spend a LOT of time judging debates, please make it enjoyable, or at least not uncomfortable.

Performance/Ks of Debate:

I’m going to be painfully honest here and say that I don’t like performance debate or critiques of current debate practices. I’m also going to state the obvious and say that I really like policy debate. Why? Well, I guess it’s the same reason that some people root for the Yankees over the Red Sox—I’m evil. Actually, it’s because I think there are a lot of specific educational benefits to traditional policy debate that you can’t get anywhere else. There might be a lot of educational benefits to performances, but I think that you can get those benefits from doing other activities too, which isn’t necessarily true of policy-style debate. If this makes you want to strike me, I heartily encourage you to do so.

HOWEVER--the opposing team would need to advance those arguments to win the debate. Do I think status quo debate is good? Yes. Will I vote on "debate is good" without that argument having been made? No. If the opposing team concedes the framework debate or doesn't advance "status quo debate good" as their framework arg, I'm not going to vote on it, obviously; the debate would proceed as agreed to by both teams. I have judged these debates before and have voted on the arguments in the round.

Kritiks:

Whatevs, if it’s your thing, you can do it in front of me. I’m pretty smart, which means I attempt to avoid reading post-modern philosophy as much as possible, and the only languages I currently speak with any level of fluency are English and Pig Latin. This means you should probably SLOW DOWN and find a convenient time to define any words that are Greek/German/made up by an aging beatnik. The problem I have with most Ks is that they have totally sweet, awesome impacts but there’s little link to the aff (or no harder link to the aff than to the status quo), so maybe that’s something that both the aff and neg should work on in the round. I really prefer Kritiks with alternatives, and I prefer the alternative not be “reject the plan”.

Counterplans:

I think lots of counterplans (consult, international actor, conditions, etc) are probably cheating. As a director of a small school, I don't have a huge problem with cheating if you can defend it and do it well. I wouldn't make this the "A strat" for me if you've got other options, but I appreciate that there sometimes aren't any and I promise not to throw things or set the ballot on fire if you've gotta roll with it.

Not to sound like a grumpy old person (though I am) but I think conditionality run amok is hurting debate. I'm probably okay with 1 CP, 1 K, and the status quo as an option until the 2nr (test the rez from a variety of standpoints, etc). Any more than that and you're pushing my buttons. I'm about as likely to "judge kick" a CP for you as I am to kick a winning field goal for the Steelers (not gonna happen).

Disads:
There’s nothing better than a good disad. What do I mean by a good disad? Well, it should have a pretty clear, and ideally pretty specific, link to the affirmative. It should also (and here’s the part lots of debaters forget about) have some form of internal link that goes from the link to the impact. Aff—if the neg doesn’t have one of those things, you might want to point it out to me.

If your disad makes my internal BS-ometer go off I'm gonna tank your points.

Topicality/Other Procedurals:
I don’t evaluate T like it’s a disad, which I think is the current fashionable thing to say, because unlike lots of people, I don’t think your aff advantages can outweigh T in the way that the aff could outweigh a disad. So I don’t focus as much on the “best” interpretation—if the aff interp is good but not as good as the neg’s, the aff will probably win in front of me. This means I think the neg really needs to focus on the ground and limits debate—here is where you can persuade me that something is really bad.

I think topics are becoming more broad and vague, and understand negative frustration at attempting to engage in a debate about the plan's mechanism or what the plan actually does (often the very best parts of a debate in my opinion). I feel like I can be fairly easily persuaded to vote against a team that just uses resolutional language without a description of what that means in a piece of solvency evidence or a cross-examination clarification. I think neg teams will need to win significant ground loss claims to be successful in front of me (can't just roll with agent cps key) but I think I am more easily persuaded on these arguments than I have been in the past.

Jackie Poapst George Mason University 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:33 PM EDT

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

May be an image of ‎text that says '‎Fabulous Percentile 100 100 99 98 97 96 Excellent Good Median Point 30 29.9 29.8 29.7 29.6 29.5 29.4 29.3 29.2 29.1 29 28.9 28.8 28.7 28.6 28.5 28.4 28.3 28.2 28.1 28 27.9 27.8 27.7 27.6 27.5 Below Average 93 89 84 77 69 60 50 39 28 20 13 Ùˆ 6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 Poor Very Poor‎'‎

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

Saad Rehman Vanderbilt University 6 rounds

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.

Sean Ridley Appalachian State 6 rounds

Kyle Robisch Vanderbilt University 3 rounds

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

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

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

Framework:

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

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

Topicality:

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

Nick Ryan Liberty University 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

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.

Sandoz Sandoz Vanderbilt University 2 rounds

Will Scott James Madison University 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 11, 2014 at 10:59 AM HKT

Will Scott
2nd year Graduate Assistant at James Madison University
Debated for three years for Liberty University (Nukes, Immigration, Dem. Assistance)

Argument Types

Kritikal/Performance Debates

I like these debates, partially because it’s what I did as a debater. I definitely prefer it when you explain your K to me in very concrete terms by the end of the debate. If I can’t understand the thesis of your argument until late in the debate, I will give the other team some leeway in new arguments. I don’t spend my free time reading lots of white philosophers, but I’ll listen to them.

Policy Debates

Know your plan and defend it. I hate sheisty plans that refuse to say what they actually do. I will judge whatever DA/CP/K/Case arg you want to run, but you should make sure you explain your argument so that I can understand. I keep up with what’s going on in the world, but I'm probably not an expert on your specific scenario. I spent this election season focusing a lot on local politics, so I'm not as familiar with current national issues in Congress.

Framework/Clash Debates

I’m a strange creature in that I really enjoy a clash debate. I prefer it when the negative tries to engage the aff that rejects being topical/resolutional with more than Shivley and Steinberg and Freeley. These are the debates I was in most as a debater, so I feel comfortable here. You need to be telling me what my role as a judge is and what the purpose of the ballot is, or you run the risk of me making that decision on my own (which I doubt you want).

What you should know about me

-- Debate means different things to everybody. For some people it is a game, for others it is a place of advocacy, activism, and/or liberation. I'm not here to dictate what debate is to you, but you should know that for me debate is a place that has been a home for me. There have been times when debaters from both my own school and others have stood in for my family when I lost family members while at tournaments. I see the debate community like a family: we all have people in our family that have beliefs that are fundamentally different from our own, but when push comes to shove family is there for each other. I wish this was true of more people in our community.

-- I’ve found myself learning more and evolving as a judge now that I’m coaching. A lot of this change has been influenced by coaching with/under Lindsey Shook, if that tells you anything.

--I am very expressive, which can give you a clue to what I’m thinking.
--I do think that speed is only persuasive insofar as I can understand what you’re saying. I still flow debates on paper, so I need pen time, especially on analytics and theory blocks.

--Any evidence tagged along the lines of “more ev” will result in a loss of at least 0.5 speaker points.

--Saying they violate ADA/AFA/NDT/CEDA rules as an argument on framework will earn you a very hearty laugh from me and a loss of at least 0.5 speaker points.

--I like to have fun in the debate. We have to be together for 2.5 hours, we might as well have some fun.

Policies

Read as necessary. I write these as things happen, so these are in response to something I’ve either seen happen, heard of happening, or have been a part of.

Paperless-

If there is a question by either team, I'll default to: Your prep time stops when the flash drive is ejected. I expect paperless teams to be courteous and helpful to non-paperless teams.

Computer fail-

If your Word crashes, I will give you a chance to revive it and save your document. If your computer crashes, I will give you a chance to start your computer and save your document. If your document doesn't revive and you have to rebuild your speech, that is prep. I know this is harsh, but you take a risk by having your whole speech on the computer. If there is a serious tech issue you can't resolve, don't be afraid to ask for help.

Jumping too much/wrong files/too little-

If you jump your opponents a huge file or a substantially incorrect file before a speech, you will use your prep directly after the speech to jump them a file of the cards that you actually read. Additionally, if you have an unreasonable number of cards that were read and not jumped, you will use prep to jump them directly after the speech. I understand that sometimes there are a couple of new cards that your partner pulled up, or a card or two is skipped, but many teams are abusing this.

Recording (for district qualifying tournament)-

I will be recording every debate I judge in the qualifier division. I will also ask that I be included in all speech jumping, email chains, or however else evidence is being shared. If either team wants a copy of the recording, I will be glad to get it to you after the tournament.

Cheating/Clipping/Ethics Challenges-

If there are accusations of cheating (card clipping, evidence fabrication, etc.) that rise to the level of calling an ethics challenge, I will use the recordings and speech docs I have been given to evaluate it, as well as any other evidence available to me. They should never be used as a strategy to win a debate. I take these accusations as very serious ethical questions that end the debate immediately and will be the only thing I evaluate the debate on. The team losing an ethical challenge will receive 0s for speaker points and lose the debate. Anything less than one hundred percent proof is unacceptable.

Lindsey Shook James Madison University 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:43 AM CDT

EMAIL lindseyshook@gmail.com

Currently - Director at the University of Oklahoma

Previously – Director at James Madison and Univ. of Central Florida

Way previously – graduate student coach at Univ. of Kansas

Long long ago – debated for the Univ. of Central Oklahoma

BIG PICTURE

My default way of viewing a debate is as follows – I am deciding between hypothetical worlds. In general debates are either about the world at outside of our activity (fiated plans, CPs, and critical advocacies that are about what society at large should do or think or change). Or debates are about debate as an activity (topicality, theory, critical advocacies that are about endorsing or rejecting particular kinds scholarship or argument or forms of presentation).

In either case I assume I am being asked what is the preferrable world? The world where the aff plan is enacted into law? The status quo? The world of debate where everyone meets your version of the topic? The world of debate where no one reads conditional advocacies? Etc.

Arguments that directly challenge this are things like reject the team for reasons of fairness or because they did something problematic. I have and am certainly willing to vote on those reasons but they need to be clear and specific to what has gone wrong in the debate you are in. Ideally not a generic set of reasons (at least by the last rebuttals).

I can certainly be persuaded to understand debate in a different way or to evaluate your arguments from a different perspective but just so you know that is where I start.

OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES

- - A drop matters if you make it matter and if it actually implicates the round

- - I am not offense defense oriented. You can win on defense alone particularly against poorly written advantages and disadvantages.

- - It is hard but not impossible to win you link you lose style debates. You are better off with some version of an alt or a more specific framing argument in front of me.

- - I flow on paper. I can generally keep up with speed but the less you sound like a person reading fast and the more you sound like a robot spitting out random words with no rhythm or cadence the harder it is for my brain to process what you are saying. So if you know you are in the wordwordwordwordwordword spreading habit either slow down a bit or work on getting some normal speech patterns into the reading.

- - I’m old so I try to line arguments up on my flow. This makes me annoyed with overviews and people who don’t do the line by line. I will still flow it but I will try to line things up until I can’t keep up with you and line things up. Then I will flow straight down but it makes my decision take longer at the end so be warned.

SPECIFICS

Case – more case debate is good. Always. In every kind of debate. The more specific and in depth the better. I think that is coldest take in debate at this point.

T – I mostly judge clash debates and I don’t hate judging them or T. If the aff can be used as offense against your topicality argument you would do well to have specific arguments to neutralize that (not all TVAs or do it on the neg etc. are good and having a bad one is a waste of time). You can win fairness comes first. Again it helps to have some specificity about why this round or affs like this one are so bad. I am not convinced affs have to have a counter interpretation to win. Impact turning the neg. interpretation can be enough.

Kritiks – framework against the K from the side of a traditional policy aff is generally meh. You get to weigh your impacts if you win that those mechanisms are good. Util? policy making? Extinction? If those are good things to value when I make a decision win that. Fairness is useless as a standard. They get a K. Stop it. See above for alts are preferable. Floating PICs are generally useless. Most K tricks are tricks for a reason they don’t work in the face of answers. I still have no idea what no perms in a method debate is supposed to mean.

CPs – I love theory and think it is absolutely crucial for most 2As (including critical affs) to help fend off counter advocacies and counter plans. CPs are probably the easiest way to neutralize the aff – I probably care more about how they solve than most judges so more time on solvency deficits in both directions is a good idea.

Disads – great arguments with often terrible evidence and spin. If your ev is bad debate well enough that I don’t have to read it. You are better being honest about your evidence and making up for it with spin and common sense than pretending your cards are amazing only for me to figure out that’s not true.

Spiker Spiker James Madison University 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 23, 2014 at 11:25 AM EDT

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

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

Sarah Spring University of Houston 10 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 13, 2014 at 8:05 PM EDT

Edits - minor 11/13/14

Director of Speech & Debate - University of Houston

Previously coaching at (Iowa, Miami (Ohio), Wake Forest)

As of the 2014 Shirley - I have judged (according to Debateresults + tabroom):

475 - College Debates

I have voted AFF in 226 of those debates (47.5%)

I have voted NEG in 249 of those debates (52.4%)

First rule of judging - judging is subjective.
Second rule of judging - get over it.

Judge philosophies are in fact an attempt to compensate for this inevitably subjective activity. We try to minimize personal opinions, but in the end who you vote for is more than often related to how you feel and the style of the debaters as much as it is about any particular argument. You have to convince the judge (me) to vote for you. This is as subjective as really any other activity.

T - A paradox - I am a bad judge for T. I love T debates.

Competing interpretations doesn't make much sense to me because the aff can't win on T. Reasonability is largely good (I am not a good judge for trivial interpretations like "and/or means both") - see above re: subjectivity. Reasonability is also a good answer to most affirmative theory complaints.

Legal topics are ideal for T debates, given that the law is all about definition. I find these questions interesting, but in order to win on T with me as a judge, you typically need to have insightful argument and some decent evidence about the educational harm (and not just to negative ground) of the affirmative's interpretation. These arguments, of course, can take many forms, but be careful.

Avoid specification arguments. Please. While implementation might be 90% of whatever, ASPEC is still not a reason to reject the affirmative.

I think T is an important check against non-topical affs, you have to read a plan and defend the federal government and your plan, reading the resolutions does not seem to be enough. Switch-side debate is a good thing.

Framework/Non-plan Topicality arguments -

Framework debates are not fun. I judge them a lot.I think that these debates have both gotten stale and also very detached from the actual arguments at hand. Both sides would do well to connect their arguments to the actual positions relevant to their debate. My previous statements about reasonability tend to apply in these questions as well. A small advantage to an very limiting interpretation is often not enough for me to justify a ballot.

The best framework debates don't read the Shively card.

My suggestion is to try to have a good interpretation that takes the middle ground, this will make me much more sympathetic and open to listening to your arguments. A violation is often overlooked by both sides, but is often where the crux of the decision lies - don't neglect this (or the "we meet")

Theory – I think in general most aff theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument not the team. That means theory is rarely rarely a voting issue for me.

Conditionality - I think conditionality is a good and necessary thing. Dispositionality is not a thing. I am open to kicking CPs on my own (without the encouragement of the negative) - I do indeed possess that power.

PICS (or whatever) is not a reason to reject the team, only the position, in these cases if the CP goes away the aff would still win.

International agent fiat, in some cases, may be a legitimate test of the necessity of USFG action.

50 State Fiat - eh?

Consultation/Condition - Not a fan.

Disads – Politics DAs are my favorite.

I won’t vote on 1% risk.

Magnitude and probability are far more important than timeframe.

"DA turns the case" by itself is not a full argument.

Also "DA turns the case" is often wrong, the DA impact must complicate the aff's ability to solve or access the internal link to the impact, not just be the same impact. The aff should point this out.

Don't read a bunch of new impacts in the block unless you've got a real reason to do so. Most teams won't have a reason beyond, we didn't feel like answering their arguments.

Case debate. I think debate should be more in depth debating of the specifics of an aff, I will reward hard work and understanding on the topic, which is often demonstrated in good case debating. The more specific your strategy is, the better.

Reading impact defense to all of their impacts does not count as a case debate (maybe necessary, but certainly not sufficient).

There are rules for debating the case - http://goo.gl/FliJY The treaties topic was awesome because of case debates.

CPs – Most are good. I really like a smart advantage CP. Consult CPs and Condition CPs are cheating. How much cheating? It depends. See above on theory.

Ks -

Critiques are often times strategic and I also think can be won very easily because the aff doesn’t attack the argument at its weaknesses. Weakness include, the alternative, the links to the aff (and not to the law, society, etc), other stuff. I often end up voting for Ks when the aff fails to contest these issues.

Framework arguments are usually underdeveloped on off-case Ks, this makes me not vote on these arguments.

Like any other argument, it has to be well explained. I also have an inherent distaste for generic backfile Ks (or consult CPs or Framework ....) that you have resurrected year after year because you were too lazy to do any work. I like debating new topics, don’t just cut one new Zizek book and consider your work done.

As an academic, I think I know a bit about critical theory and so forth -as a rhetorician there are things I like by trade - critiques of rhetoric, language and discourse, well executed understandings of theory, that is to say criticism of actual instances of things that are objectionable. Things that I don't like (or understand very well) include vague psychoanalytic theory (ie Zizek) or rabbit-holes of very complicated post-structuralism - the event of the non-part or something.

Other things – I don’t like reading a lot of cards after the debate, although I know I will at times, I change my mind on this every couple of months. Right now, I'll probably skim a lot of cards and read some carefully.

I will also probably be open to getting emailed your evidence during the debate, but won't really want to look at it until the end of the debate. Maybe during CX or prep to figure out something I missed. Maybe. I do think it is incumbent on the teams in the debate to communicate to the judge verbally, not via email.

If I have to reconstruct the debate I might not see it like you think it happened. The final speeches MUST do this for me.

I've taken to answering some questions in CX, particularly informative questions, especially if I think an answer might be confusing. How many perms? I'll answer. If you are just wrong about something, I might say something.

I'm very emotive during debates, you should look up and see if I'm scowling or nodding, this can be a clue (to what? I don't know, but to something).

Underviews are the worst thing ever.

I also think the 1NR should not be used to make new arguments. It is a rebuttal not a constructive.

Terms that have lost meaning to me - "Role of the Ballot," "the debate space" (more later)

Speaker Points – I think I give fairly good points, simply because I think most debaters deserve a chance at clearing if they have the wins.

My scale goes something like this;

26.5 and below – bad debating,

26.6 - 27 - Needs a lot of work,

27 -27.5 – average, but has a way to go,

27.5-28 - better than average, some things to work on,

28-28.5 – Good varsity debating.

28.6 - 29 - Very good - should be in contention for a speaker award.

29-29.5 – Excellent debating

29.6 - 29.9 - Almost Gabe.

30 – Gabe

I will punish your speaker points for lack of clarity, rudeness, or inappropriate language (these issues could also result in a loss).

I think clipping is bad, though I'm not sure what the threshold is to warrant a ballot. These questions stop the debate. If you are making an accusation of cheating, I will decide the debate on that question. You need to be fairly certain to make this kind of claim, so be ready to explain.

David Steinberg University of Miami 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 12, 2019 at 11:18 AM EDT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rebecca Steiner University of Florida 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:39 PM EDT

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.

Joshua Turnage Liberty University 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2013 at 7:19 PM UTC

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 University of Miami 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 9:27 AM EDT

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 University of Georgia

Last changed on Sat October 7, 2023 at 3:32 AM EDT

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.

Whit Whitmore Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM EDT

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.

Login to Tabroom

University of Georgia Bulldog Debates

2014 — GA/US

all judges Paradigm List

My Philosophy

Judging

Specifics

Speaker Points

Judges