Debated for University of Rochester for 6 years in Varsity Policy Debate and BP/Worlds Debate

Coached HS policy debate for 1.5 years

Currently a Clinical Psychology PhD student at Indiana University Bloomington

And yes, I would like to be on the email chain: oabubaka@u.rochester.edu

Borrowed from the Glass man himself: "If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible."

Honestly, just do what you want in front of me and just explain your arguments. I will vote on how you want me to vote (since how I see the debate may not be the same way you think you are articulating).

Also, if you can, I prefer debaters to slow down when in front of me. I am not the best judge for you if you decide to spread as fast as Harvard MS or Northwestern MV (although Arjun is very clear).

If you read high theory, do not pref me unless you are willing to explain your argument. My area of study is in psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and disability studies so I am not hitting up the latest post-modern/structuralist/etc. papers.

Updated 3-7-24

Congrats on attending Nationals. Being at a university with the resources to send you cross-country to represent them is an immense privilege Thank those responsble including partners, teammates, coaches, parents & especially your opponents. People matter. Celebrate, respect and appreciate them while you can.

(NEW) TLDR: K Affs, FW, DA/CP strats, K strats, Procedurals - Fine. You do you. Condo- Ok w Limits (read CP stuff below) Base points - 28.7 If you care about pts a) look at who got 29.4+ from me to see what I like. b) 2NRs that don't spend time on case do so at their own risk. When I'm online, a) get verbal/visual confirmation before you speak b) slow down 10%. Won't litigate past debates, social media beefs etc on my ballot. PRE-EMPT- Read no further at your own risk.

General Approach: Add me to the chain if you have my email already. Start the rd when your opponent has the doc up once you confirm all parties are ready. I don't follow along with your speech docs. Flowing on paper. Pen time good. Be organized, Be considerate. Be ready. Recuts of opponents' ev need to be read in round not just inserted into the doc to be assessed on my flow. Good debaters work extremely hard so I will make every effort to be very thoughtful and conscientious as your judge. Whatever decision allows me to inject myself the least into the interpretations of issues in the round is the one I will attempt to make. Compare positions, ev and tell a story in your last rebuttal that frames the round the way you wish me to decide it. I’ll vote where you tell me if it's coherent. If you have multiple stories, prioritize them. Don't rely on my post-round reconstruction. If you only spend 10 seconds on a key point in your last rebuttal, don't expect me to spend much more than that evaluating it. Most rounds come down to impact assessment and warrant comparisons. An author’s name is not an argument. Provide warrants for why your ev is better than theirs.

Tech vs. TruthTech over truth is an inflection point not a value system. My voting record reflects a tech leaning apparently but that's more reflective of how truth is framed in the 2AR vs. my role to protect the neg. My ballot really comes down to the skills and execution of the particular debaters.

The Aff: Do what you want in terms of policy, K or performance. Explain advantages to your model over theirs. Tell me how to evaluate your affirmation prior to the 2AR if you are performing. Make sure that the role of the ballot is articulated and extended and not a 2AR surprise. My evaluation will come down to offense on the FWK flow based on impacts identified by the debaters unless it's one of those rare rounds where the neg has a viable, specific strat.

The Neg: Well-developed, evidence-based strategies are awesome and will be rewarded. 90% of affs, both kritikal and policy have lit that goes the other way. Cut cards and forward options along with T/FW. If you want to defend your right to a Deterrence DA link or a certain interp, go for it. Presumption matters and is underutilized.

TOPICALITY/FWK: I’ll vote either way on T/FW if you win the relevant impacts to your model of debate e.g. EXTERNAL (why is it or is it not productive?) or INTERNAL (what does it communicate or provide you with in the debate space of importance?). You're more likely to have faith in the credibility of your definition and implicit approaches to the topic than I am so be prepared to defend them. Not a fan of: violations that morph in the block unprovoked, crummy counter-interps or generic TVAs that disregard this 1AC. T against policy affs is underutilized. Elevate your answers from the crap you read in HS. It's disingenuous for experienced debaters to say K-affs about AB, Set Col. or Trans Life were unpredictable or that FW is the ultimate form of violence in the world.

DISADS Fine obviously. Providing reasons why the DA turns case is always a good idea. CAVEAT - Including this since it's come up 2x this year. If there is an Existence question relating your DA or aff story (e.g. a rumored "secret" weapon system, Aliens are coming, etc), try or die only kicks in if you win the Existence question as a precursor.

CPs Smart CPs with solvency advocates improve your strat. If you regularly read CPs with conditional planks leading to 10 different versions or more than 3 conditional advocacies in a rd, I'm not the right judge for you. New or undisclosed 1ACs lend credence to more condo options. Feel free to take advantage of teams that read & react without studying your CP text carefully. Sympathetic to "1AR gets new answers" vs CPs with no 1NC solvency ev. or process CPs with no relqtion to how the US government works. I welcome solvency deficits if the AFF is correct on function indicts. I don't judge kick without specific instruction.

K: For teams that generate links from messed-up, in-round behaviors or focus on the debate space-all good. If teams defend external claims and impacts, winning anti-blackness is a superstructure or capitalist gov't solutions have failed on-balance is necessary but not sufficient. Quality examples are essential and readily available whether you're discussing micro-political movements, capitalism, racial injustice, colonialism, sabotage, disability and/or militarism. Your arsenal needs solid answers to scalability, empirical solvency, and why gov't action will not inevitably be needed. Include good reasons why the K turns case. 3 page long cards don't equal explanations.

Topic Specifics Spent 4 years working with Rev Vernon Nichols at the UU-UNO when he chaired the NGO Committee on Disarmament learning about prolif, movements and miscalc. As far as the 2023-24 topic, I read lots of topic lit from both traditional and nontraditional sources and have judged too much.

Pet Peeves that lower points: 1-STEALING PREP TIME -It's a nasty habit. You are taking time from my life that I will never get back. 2-POOR TECH PREP- I have sympathy for unexpected tech issues not poor preparation that delays the tournament. If you're debating online: a) Check your tech between rds for charge etc. b) Have a back-up (phone, tablet, etc.) in case of lmid-speech malfunctions c) Get verbal/visual confirmation everyone is back before starting speeches d) don't record people without permission e) slow down 10-20% because it's hard to hear/decipher stuff online 3--OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE in your speeches. Don't have a bright line but if you need to ask, you're probably excessive. 4--SLOPPY SOURCING. You say “Read the Jones 10 ev after the rd!” I read it and it sucks. In the post-round, it becomes “I meant to say Roberts, not Jones,” or “There were 3 pieces of Jones ev I meant the 1AR card.” That's a "you" problem. Effective communication good.

***EDITED FOR 2013-2014 DEBATE SEASON on Oct. 15, 2013 ***

I am two years out of college. I qualified to the NDT my senior year and broke to octa-finals at CEDA. I was a novice in college and debated my entire time there, about 5 1/2 years (do to externalities beyond my control).

Overall, I’m open to any kind of argument. I debated primarily the kritik as the neg and both traditional and critical affirmatives. You don’t need to be 'afraid' to run anything in front of me; I’ll listen. But I’ll likely listen to whatever the other team has to say too.

 

Topicality:

I approve of it. I prefer debate that is located around the resolution. Consequently, I enjoy people trying to creatively interpret the topic with their plans and advocacies. And likewise enjoy people calling others out on said creativity.

I am a competing interpretations kind of guy. I am most persuaded by competitive equity as a voter but can be persuaded otherwise. I won’t be very open to reverse voting issues and impacting T as genocidal. I won’t vote you down but unless you have a really good reason, I likely wont be persuaded by it.

Framework:

I don’t *like* these debates, but I think they can be necessary. I also think they can be strategic and I appreciate a team willing to take the plunge. I find them useful to at least force the aff to scope out the intent and breadth of their “advocacy”. Again, I abide by competing interpretations. I can be swayed by the critical reasons to prefer moving away from resolution focused debate, but some part should be responsive to competitive equity as a standard. 

CPs:

They are great! Please run them. I don’t think there is a specific type of CP you can or can’t run, just be prepared to defend your CP. I encourage creativity – this will obviously create some theory issues. Above all, don’t be afraid of argument here. I’m okay with the standard base of CP: PIC, states, XO, etc. I also love advantage CPs.

A word on Conditionality: I think having multiple conditional advocacy positions is good as long as its reasonable. I like neg flex and think it produces the best debates. But, hypo-testing is probably excessive, as are like 4 mutually exclusive Ks. Multiple worlds to a limit.

 

DA:
Link stories are good. And impact calculus is a premium here. Wish there was a better PTX scenario than debt ceiling but so be it. Again, would like creativity here. Ux can be interesting if there is analysis that contextualizes the minutia of cards rather than just a card dump.

Kritik:

I like this style of debate. I’m fairly well read in many schools of thought. I’m a fan of Zizek, obviously, Marx, Nietzsche, Foucault and feminism. But, please explain your position regardless with how well acquianted I may be. I think the alternative is the most important piece of this puzzle (though not 'necessary'). Please don’t ignore it. I want to know how the alt solves the harms in the link story. Next important is the link story. I’m interested not in the fact that the aff links but how severely they are culpable to the accusations presented by the links. Lastly, impact calculus, please!

Affirmatives:

I’m a fan of either policy or kritik debate. I’m  interested in how the plan functions and how it specifically resolves the primary issues debated in the round. I think inherency is a pretty powerful argument, albeit “defensive.” Don’t really understand “underviews” most of the time, I would prefer specific advantages that would address the predicted criticisms or a bevy of impacts to outweigh whatever K you face. I prefer implementation and will be much impressed with an implemented K aff.

I’m a fan of the permutation, if used well. I do, however, believe it is a test of competition and perceive it as an argument about opportunity costs relative to the functionality of the CP/alt. I think it is a great tool for contextualizing key issues in the debate and framing your overall narrative and reason for me to prefer you. I think the perm is especially key against the criticism because usually those alternatives just don’t make much sense. Lastly, I’d like to hear what your interpretation is for “all non-competitive parts of the alternative”, for example, means in the context of the debate at hand.

 

I will end my overall “philosophy” with a quick note: please have fun and please enjoy it. And above all, please be courteous. You don’t have to be a saint, but you also don’t have to push the line. Respect one another! 

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

Cecilia Hagen

What is important to me:

Clarity is important to me. If I cannot understand you I won't be able to flow you. Be knowledgeable about your arguments and be ready to defend your links and impacts.

Novices* Flow the debate so you don't drop important arguments or miss key details.

J.V. and Varsity* Please explain things for me, I am not always up to date on the topic and it is better to cover all your bases and have a nice clean and clear debate.

For Performance, critical teams and any others* In general I have voted for many arguments. The most important aspect of the debate for me are clarity- being clear and concise, also taking the time to explain arguments for me.

Feel free to ask me specifics before your round if you have any more questions.

Debater for NYU for four years. I've since graduated and only judge/assist with rounds a few times a year. As a result, note that I am not living and breathing the topic like the rest of you!

The main thing you should do in debate is have fun!

But if you're competitive too, here's what you should know about how I judge:

I vote on a mix of tech vs. truth. I vote based on the flow and the way you frame the debate/what my ballot means in the rebuttals. However, if I don't know what your arg is before the rebuttals, I won't evaluate it i.e. no sandbagging. Be responsive to other teams' arguments and give a roadmap. Spreading is fine. However please be mindful - If you're fast, project and enunciate, it's all good. If you're fast and have no clarity or a very low volume, you're in trouble. Slow down on your overviews and analytics. What I hear is what's on the flow. If you want something flagged, tell me to flag it. If you're going to a new sheet, say so. If you want me to understand a crucial point, sit on it. If you go acronym crazy, you might lose me. If you're playing any music/video/other media, it's in your best interest that I can hear you over whatever you're playing. Don't cut cards. Mark cards sparingly. Know the difference.

Theory, T and Framework can be voters if you give legitimate reasons why they should be. I will vote on Ks of Theory, T or Framework, but you MUST HAVE A COUNTERINTERPRETATION. ROBs are self-serving when you assume saying "role of the ballot" creates an automatic d-rule. ROBs are good when you tell me why yours specifically is good. This means having warrants as to why I should vote on the round that way.

For folks who decide to forfeit ballots to have an open discussion/forum in lieu of a formal round - you will not convince me to stay for the discussion. This is because I do not agree with such teams. Yes, there is an educational benefit to having open discussion, but these don't have to happen in lieu of debate rounds. I think most of us in this activity can agree there is an educational benefit to debate rounds for BOTH teams - including when a team doesn't feel they have a "winning" strategy or complete understanding of the other team's arguments. On top of that, forfeiting poses the losing team as the martyr of the round and the winning team as the sole authority on a specific issue. To me, that's not right. Main point: other educational methods can happen on your own time.

Args that will place you on an uphill battle to convince me:

• Our ROB is to vote for us (as stated above)
• Args not clarified until the rebuttals (sandbagged args)
• This "ism" is the root cause of all "isms"
• Sweeping solvency claims
• "We don't know/can't tell you what X will look like but we're advocating for X"
• Links of omission

Timing is on you. You don't have to count flash drive time but don't be obnoxious. Don't steal prep. I will not pause time if your speech has already started (except if there are serious issues, including tech issues within reason). Don't be disruptive during the other team's prep (even pre round prep). Be respectful to the other team, but especially to your partner.

Ken Johnson 
University of Rochester 

 ** Please Note ** I have an ongoing issue with my arm that might prevent me from flowing quickly. I cannot take notes like a machine. The mind is sharp, but the pen is slow.**

My judging philosophy is that the debaters should set up the debate they want me to judge. There are a handful of presumptions I hold that I’ll share with you, but please understand that I try to be open to your persuasion.

I enjoy debates that explore the potential for the liberation of all living beings.

My disposition is towards action in the face of suffering.

A good old fashioned case debate with disadvantages and counterplan is a joy to watch. I support the idea of cutting topic specific evidence and enjoy clashes on the topic literature base. 

I also enjoy watching well explained kritik debates. That means specific links and alternatives – I don’t want to hear the same old rehashed generic “state-bad / money-bad / morality-bad” kritik that could also easily apply to last year’s topic. I want something specific and interesting.

I have often thought that theory & framework & T debates are a weakness of mine. If your strategy is to go 100% for framework / theory / etc., then I might not be your guy. If you are able to weave your substantive arguments with your demands for ground and greater access into the debate, I might be more of your guy. 

Fast is ok, but slow is also enjoyable. I enjoy depth over extensiveness of arguments. But I also appreciate the strategic elements of a spread strategy.  ** Please Note ** I have an ongoing issue with my arm that might prevent me from flowing quickly. I cannot take notes like a machine. **

Creativity is appreciated. Doing debate in a different way is exciting for me. 

I believe that it is important for debaters to show respect to each other and to the subject they are debating about. Simple rules of decorum: Be polite, turn towards the judge, be ready to answer questions when Cross-X begins, do not waste our time with your cigarette breaks. 

This is a critical thinking game. Enjoy it. 

Thank you for considering me as your judge. 

 

Updated for 2014-2015 debate season.

 

I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. However, I still strongly believe that if you care about the environment, racism, or injustice that you should register at tournaments vegetarian or vegan. Tournaments will provide for your nutiritional needs and you will have abstained from using your registration fees paying for the slaughter of sentient creatures whose death requires abhorent working conditions for people of color, massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the death of individuals. 

 

What people decide to consume is a political act, not a personal one. Deciding to consume flesh at debate tournaments continues the pattern of accepting violence and discrimination. This happens for workers, for people living in food deserts, people living in countries across the world, and for the non/human animals sent to slaughter. Tournaments are not food deserts. Your choice to consume differently can make a tangible impact on debate as a community and beyond. Your choice has global and local ramifications. I urge you to make the correct choice in registering your dietary choice even if it has no impact on your speaker points. Several people said that they didn't want to be coerced into making the decision to go vegetarian or vegan at tournaments for speaker points. Now is your chance to make that choice without the impact of speaker points.

 

All that being said, how you choose to debate is a political choice as well. You can debate however you like but you should realize that the methodology and the content you put forth are not neutral choices. Whatever choices you make you should be ready to defend them in round. “As Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen emphasize in Channels of Desire: The politics of consumption must be understood as something more than what to buy, or even what to boycott. Consumption is a social relationship, the dominant relation-ship in our society – one that makes it harder and harder for people to hold together, to create community. At a time when for many of us the possibility of meaningful change seems to elude our grasp, it is a question of immense social and political proportions.” (hooks 376).

 

If it is not already clear, I will say it outright: I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. This does not mean I won't vote on framework or counterplans. What it does mean is that the arguments that I will find most appealing are those arguments that speak to how traditional approaches to debate are beneficial to us as individuals to create a better world. It is not that fairness is irrelevant, but that fairness is relevant only to that extent. Fairness plays a part in constructing meaninful education and activism but is not the sole standard to enable good debate. Concepts of fairness are not value-neutral but it is a debate that can be defend and won in front of me since I do not think fairness is irrelevant either. For teams breaking down such structures, you still must win the debate that your approach to debate is better for advacing causes of social justice. If you like policymaking and are running counterplans you merely need to win that your counterplan is a better approach. The same applies for theory violations. I will vote on them if you win that the impact to the violation is important enough for me to pull the trigger. The same is also true for kritiks and other styles of debate. Win that your approach and your argument deserves to win because of the impact that it has.

 

Again, to be clear, this does not mean that I intend to abandon the flow or vote based upon my personal beliefs. My belief is that debate is more than a game and that the things we say and do in it are not neutral-choices. This does not necessarily mean that so-called traditional policy debate is bad but that the way it should be approached by those teams should not be assumed to be neutral.

 

Whether it is what you eat, or what you debate, your choice is political. Our world can change. It is up to all of us to make it happen. Movements are already happening all around us. Don't let the norms dictate what you debate or what you consume. Debate should be at the forefront of these initiatives. Use the education you gain in debate to say something and to do something meaningful both in round and beyond.

 

 

 

 

I'm a fourth year debate for University of Rochester and I started debate in college as a novice. I've judged several rounds this year and debated the topic as well, so I'm pretty familiar with the literature and arguments that have been run. I remember how it was for me as a novice to get RFDs from judges and what was most helpful for me, so I'll try and be as helpful and clear with my decision-making in rounds that I judge. I've run both K and policy arguments so I'd like to think I'm pretty flexible with arguments. I try to keep my own ideology and beliefs out of the debate space and let you as debaters determine the framing of the round because my pet peeve as a debater is judge intervention, so I won't subject you to that.

 

At some level, however, I know certain judges have certain biases so I'll explain what I've noticed about my decisions so far, and they're usually about "clash of civilization" debates. I do think Ks require more explanation than things like DAs and CPs, especially with the more jargon-heavy critiques. The more nuanced you can make your critique instead of giving me a general idea of why the plan is a bad idea, the easier it'll be for me to make a decision at the end of the round. Similarly, the uniqueness/link/impact components to your DAs should be fleshed out and well-justified in every speech.

 

I find myself voting on whose impacts outweigh at the end of the round, and then whether you have a mechanism to solve for these impacts. This may mean that affs usually have a more coherent story for solvency, but that doesn't mean you can't explain why rejecting the affirmative or voting negative or rejecting X system is preferable.

 

I am least familiar with theory arguments, except for the usual (condo debates, basic T args, FW) but you should always answer them! I've been on the aff side of the FW debate a lot, and less on the negative side. Where I lean usually depends on the kind of "K aff vs FW" rounds that I'm in. I do think that critical affs that try to be topical and still give some ground to the negative (for instance just spiking out of the USFG link) is reasonable, and I am less sympathetic to affs that don't talk about the resolution or just reject it altogether. Please have an advocacy statement instead of just a ROB claim right in the 1AC. I usually default to the idea that ROB is who did the better debating and even if you have another ROB, I don't think it will override the former. So an advocacy statement will help me know what I'm voting for.

Finally, halfway through the year, copying my philosophy over from last year. I will say, there are a few big additions are up at the top. Those of you that pref me regularly probably know about them already.

1. I'm flowing on paper again. This means you have to spend time on the arguments you want ink on. This was a deliberate choice. It's meant to make you exlain things. Teams that think they can say a word (statistics, scholarly consensus, winners win, bioptix good are frequent ones I hear) and think it's a full argument will suffer. Sorry, life ain't kind.

This also means I'll, more than likely, show up to the round looking for a pen and paper. Sorry.

2. Lately, if you remind me, I'll give you a movie to make references to for extra speaker points. More often than not, it will be Good Will Hunting. 

3. paperless debating -- I don't know why anyone would make you kids use prep to flash. paperless debate seems to be one of the few things our community has managed to get right about practicing what we preach, so I'm willing to put up with the extra few minutes of waiting. I'll more than likely use the time you folks are flashing things and make bad jokes, and silly puns like "all the cards they're jumping you are so stupid, they might as well call that thing a 'JUNK drive!'" and then dock your speaks when you don't laugh.

4. I've been thinking more and more about deleting all of this crap and just posting one line as my paradigm: I'm a banana. 

I dream of the debates I would see. I envision young, smart, indifferent people all preffing me highly -- like at every D8 tournament there's a secret room somewhere where intensely smart performance debates are happening, but they only allow the craziest, snarkiest, least socially adjusted in the pool to judge it. 

Then I think about the other possibility -- I don't get preffed at all. That idea doesn't bother me either, really. The only thing that really deters me from doing it is not being able to say "just look up my paradigm" to people when I walk into a room and debaters, frustrated that another judge pulled the trigger on limits in their last round and wanting to know if I care that they're not topical, ask my "do you have any preferences?"

I mean, I would prefer not to, I guess. I'm not sure I can tell them that though. I prefer that debates happen where there is significant impact analysis, a point of stasis about the issues being discussed (srsly, in these deleuze v zizek debates, it'd be helpful if you could help me resolve what capitalism even is)  and depth on a few key issues.

*****

So, I debated at Vermont from the ag topic to immigration. I didn’t really run a plan my last few years debating, so those of you who are looking just to see if I'll listen to your business even though you don't have one, I will -- but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to vote on framework , either. make sure you’ve got a legitimate answer to it that’s a little more nuanced than an impact turn -- some topic specific defense is generally clutch in a situation like that. 

Everyone who's rolling their eyes now because you think I'm a k hack, hold up before you take out your heg impact and substitute in some security k advantage you 

a) aren't familiar with or 
b) don't really feel like running. 

I’d rather hear you do what you feel comfortable with. 

It occurs to me I should begin by telling you what types of debates I enjoy watching. I’d say I probably enjoy watching what more and more people are calling “non-traditional” debates best -- no offense to those running the EU counterplan, it’s just slightly boring to me. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think a beautifully run terror disadvantage isn’t fun to watch -- but when it’s not done really well, it can be agonizing. 

So, because I ran more critical args, I’m more familiar with them. I also think knowing your bias and admitting it is better than pretending I don’t have one and then not really understanding a teams arguments when you’re in round because you expect me to be deep into the realism lit -- so, you may have to slow down and be a little more explanatory. On the flip side, don’t expect me to know what’s going on with your k just because I ran a couple of them. 

Now we’re hitting the part of the judging philosophy where people list types of arguments and people say “I like them!” or “ehh, I’ll listen to it, but whatevs” -- since I’m assuming as a coach my first year out I’ll be hearing a lot of novice debate, I’m going to do you one better and tell you what to do with each of these args to get my ballot, or at least higher speaks than you’d have gotten. I’m operating under the (maybe faulty) assumption you’re a novice reading this, and not just a coach trying to decide to pref me or not. 

topicality -- think of T as a disad. just because you can prove their business doesn’t fit your definition of substantial doesn’t mean you get my ballot. your interpretation is an example of how the resolution should be interpreted in not just this particular debate round, but every debate round. People lose sight of this I think, and because of that, impact analysis can fall to the wayside. Admittedly, this is what would happen with me, at least. If you’re going to go for T, make sure you outline what args are permissible and impermissible under your interpretation, and what this means for the negative. It helps to have contextual examples specific to this topic, and as the year goes on, it becomes more important. 

Theory -- I probably have an abnormally low threshold for voting on theory, to be honest. If you are going for it in front of me, make the same impact analysis I’m calling for in a T debate, please. Lay out the worlds of debate, which is better, which is worse, and why. 

Case -- Not sure what to say here. Put something on. It’s easier to pull the trigger on a k or d/a if there’s a solvency deficit arg that’s persuasive on case. 

Kritiks --zero point of the holocaust is not an impact. It’s cool if you want to go conceptual, I’m down, but you want to 

a) have specific examples of the way your impacts play out that have some bearing on the topic, and what that means for people, and 

b) a clear idea of what the alt is, and how to explain it in simple terms. Be careful about assigning a role of the ballot, because that can get confusing fast. 

Other than that, this year it’s going to be easy for k debates to get stale, because the topic seems to lend itself to stale/generic links. Points for creativity. 

When answering a K with a straight up aff, the link turn is key -- use your 1ac please -- I won't be persuaded by a block of cards and then a brand new 2ar that articulates the link turn. It also helps your partner out when he/she is giving the 1ar, and helping your partner out is a good thing. 

D/A’s, CP’s -- These are way less conceptual, just make the smart argument and justify your business. Aff people who are answering these, remember to isolate the parts of case the cp can’t possibly solve for, and make that the most important thing in round, be it an ethic, an ontology, or a gw advantage. If you’re going for the d/a in the 2nr, make sure you’re weighing the impacts, and probability and magnitude are probably most important in the end. that doesn’t mean drop timeframe though. 

performance -- I don’t think I really have separate advise for this because I don’t think of it as a different category of argument from the above per se. Make sure you’re making those basic arguments about what your performance does to disrupt x problem. Do me one favor though, don’t use your performance as a reason why you don’t answer obviously important business because of your speed is exclusionary, going multiple off is bad, or whatever other generic arg you’re making is. Plenty of good teams are slow and don’t brush off important arguments. That also doesn’t mean I’m not persuaded by speed is exclusionary, it just means you’re going to have to be smart with your time. 

That being said, there are things people will tank your speaks for doing but in good humor, I think you should totally do them in front of me as long as you’re not being serious -- I’ll give you an extra speaker point or two, just because. They include, but are not limited to: 

1. using the phrase “jack taco.” 
2. saying “don’t do the work for them” 
3. stating “this was cold conceded” -- bonus points if it was not conceded. 
4. calling a piece of evidence “on fire.” 
5. saying “I don’t get a 3nr” 

But, in all seriousness, you should be respectful to those you are debating, and your partner as well. And have fun! Debate is hard, might as well enjoy yourself while you’re doing it.

General: Be sure to explain how specific args on the flow should affect my overall evaluation of the debate. In many debates, both teams have offense on different pages of the flow after the final speeches. When this occurs, comparing your impacts to those of your opponents is critical, as is explaining the relevance of these impacts to my decision. The 2NR/2AR should compare the world of the affirmative to the world of the negative. 

Cross-X: I view answers in cross-X as binding unless told otherwise. Feel free to be funny if you can, but don’t be rude, and there is a fine line. 

Topicality/Procedurals: Negatives going for topicality should provide specific examples of ground that they lose and why that ground is important. Generally, quality of ground (on both sides) is more important than quantity of ground. 

“Nonpolicy” affirmatives: I am open to affs that do not defend a specific policy action; in fact I hear them quite frequently. Negatives going for framework need to impact their arguments beyond just “fairness” and “education.” As with any other debate, both sides should engage in impact comparison. 

Counterplans: I’ll listen to just about any counterplan you want to run. I tend to lean negative on most counterplan theory questions, although I don’t find claims of “aff side bias” very persuasive. I can be swayed to vote aff on theory if the negative does not specifically justify their type of strategy. For example, if the negative reads a critique and a counterplan that links to the K, the affirmative can make arguments as to why contradictory positions are uniquely bad. In this case, the negative should justify not only conditional positions, but conditional args that link to each other. Teams should be clear on what the different CP statuses entail. Does conditionality mean that the status quo is always an option when I make my decision, or does the negative have to make a decision in the 2NR? If dispo means that the aff can make you go for the counterplan by straight turning it, then what constitutes a “straight turn?” I assume that permutations are tests of competition unless told otherwise. 

Disads: The more case-specific the better. Direction of the link is key; if the aff wins the entirety of the link direction, I view this as at least terminal defense for the aff, even if the negative is winning the uniqueness question. If you’re going for a d/A in the 2NR, weighing is always important. While timeframe is still important, I view probability and magnitude as more essential factors in the decision calculus. 

Kritiks: Impacts! Negatives running critiques often focus too heavily on the link level, forgetting why the K is important. That said, specificity of links to the aff is still key when answering permutations. Be sure to explain the way I should evaluate the implications of the K against the impacts of the aff. An analysis of the role of the ballot is helpful. It helps to have an alternative, but if you can win that the K functions as a case turn, you don’t necessarily need an alt. For affirmatives: don’t let your case go away when answering a critique; be sure to extend the 1AC. Aff framework args are more powerful as substantive rather than theoretical questions. That is, “critiques are cheating” is not a compelling claim, but the aff can use framework args to instruct the way I should evaluate different types of impacts. Oh, and please don’t make “aff choice” one of your framework args. 

Good luck and have fun! 

I coached and judged CEDA, NDT, BP, IPDA in my 20 year coaching career. Aside from some online coaching during the pandemic, it has been 8 years since my day to day involvement with a debate topic. I have judged CARD for the last few years and enjoy the format immensely. I really have no argument or style preference anymore. I want to hear well constructed arguments about the topic. I will be clear when I see them and will not hesitate to explain why I didn't feel they were well constructed or about the topic. I will take good notes about the debate but I will not transcribe the debate. If it is not in my notes it is usually because I didn't feel you made it seem important or relevant. Please ask me any questions before or after the debate .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  Sam Nelson Cornell University Director - Cornell Speech and Debate Society   Years Judging: 33     I have come to believe that these judging philosophy statements are of little utility and sometimes are harmful because people describe how they want to be seen as a judge by the community and this often has no connection to how they really judge. Thus, these statements tend to mislead more often than not. As Camus said: "Human beings are not rational animals, they are rationalizing animals." Realizing that I am no exception to the above, I describe myself as judge that asks the question: "Which side did a better job of debating?" not "Which side made arguments that more closely match my personal preferences?" This means I start out by trying not to intervene with my personal opinions unless a strong case is made why I should. When a strong case is made why I should intervene with my personal opinions, I ask myself two questions before I vote: "Is it fair?" and "Does it matter to anyone outside of this debate which way I vote?" If the answer is "yes" to both questions I often find myself voting for some very unconventional positions. If the answer is "yes" to one and "no" to the other, I am in a quandary and usually side with the fair option, but not always. If the answer is "no" to both, I try to vote on my flow regardless of my personal position on the argument. Likes: People that enjoy and have fun debating, humor, courtesy, profound and creative arguments, passionate speakers. Dislikes: Rudeness, people that take themselves too seriously, incomprehensible speakers (I will yell "clearer"), card clipping. Additionally, I take evidence challenges very seriously and will stop the round and make my decision on the merits of the challenge. Don't make the challenge unless you have access to the original. If you have any specific questions, please ask me about them before the round.

Good luck

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

Daniel Yoon

Lexington High School, MA - 3 years
Cornell University, NY - 3 years

Do what you are good at, and you will be fine. I would prefer to watch a round in which both teams know well what they are reading although I may dislike the argument compared to a round where I love the arguments, but both teams have no idea what it means. Debate is for the debaters, and I'm just observing. Make your moves, and make your own decisions.

I've mostly debated as a straight-up policy debater with CP-DA or DA-Case. I love the Politics DA when the links are there. I'm not very versed with critical literature, but I have an understanding of at least what the basic arguments are.

If you come ready for a DA CP debate, YAY. If you have a 9 minute 1AC dance performance, I'll listen and watch. Be aware though, I'll need a pretty strong reason to vote for you in these cases. I do admit however, that the most fun and interesting rounds that I have had have been rounds involving "non-traditional" arguments such as performance. Its a much much higher threshold, but its still there.

Don't steal prep. Prep ends when the jump drive leaves the computer.

Be clearer when reading CP Texts, Plan Texts, Alts, etc

Conditionality is probably good. Multiple World Conditionality (3+) is probably bad. "Reject Arg Not Team" applies for most theory arguments.

Otherwise, Have Fun!