D6 SoutheastCEDA

2014 — GA/US

All judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Frank Annie Florida State University 1 rounds

David Arnett University of Kentucky 2 rounds

Dan Bagwell Wake Forest University 4 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 3 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.

Judy Butler West Georgia 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 24, 2024 at 12:14 PM UTC

Judy Butler: Hired Gun

Affiliations: Too numerous to list

Experience: High School: 29 years; College: 27 years

I will not attempt to characterize what the purpose or value of debate is in this missive; merely how I tend to evaluate the debates I get to judge. I think of myself as a teacher and the debaters as students and strive to treat them with the respect that relationship deserves. I thoroughly enjoy judging debates from almost any theoretical perspective. I also strive to support new ideas, sources of evidence, academic fields and literature entering debate that have traditionally been undervalued.

I like judging debates where the debaters directly address each other's arguments from the jump as opposed to waiting until rebuttals to compare arguments.

I like judging debates where the arguments/positions evolve in relation to one another as opposed to simply in vacuums - I will totally listen to debates about conditionality and don't have attitude about multiple advocacies.

I like judging debates when the debaters show respect for each other, including their partners - contempt for an argument or position is different than contempt for a person.

I like judging theory debates that have depth as opposed to breadth - five or seven words are really not arguments, nor are they flowable. I ten to shy away from voting on theory arguments that require that I "punish" debaters. I prefer theory arguments that are grounded in the effect on the debate process and the value of including or excluding certain argumentative perspectives and practices.

I like judging debaters that focus on comparison and argument evolution rather than repetition and tend to reward both content and style when apportioning speaker points. Specifically, winning your argument is different than answering theirs: saying why you are right AND why they are wrong is the minimum necessary to answer/extend an argument and put yourself in a position to win that argument in the last rebuttals. Ideally, this level of extension could begin in the 1NC and could continue throughout the debate by all the following speeches.

I promise to be riveted to your speeches, your cross-exes, and my flow. I flow what the evidence says, not just your label. I hope that softens the blow when I say that I don't want to be on the email chain - the debate I'm judging is the one I heard and flowed, not the one I read. If I need/want to see something I will ask - but I need you to be clear in the first place. If you want to understand and comprehend the quality extensions I am asking for in real time, clarity when you originally read your evidence is critical.

PS: Your prep time stops running when you have sent the speech - not before

Happy Debating!

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!

Brittany Cambre Hire 2 rounds

Short and Sweet:

--I have not judged many college rounds since graduation and my philosophy reflects the way I debated. So, weird judging proclivities might become more apparent. I’ll do my best to update this to reflect whatever changes there might be.

--Not familiar with the energy topic so if you’re going for some nuanced and specific disad or cp I can follow but it is probably wise if there’s some discussion on the basic level of what things mean

--I prefer policy. Hard work and specific strategies make debates more interesting and educational and will be rewarded with higher speaker points in all likelihood. If you’re going for a K it needs to be tied to plan action

--Neg leaning on most theory arguments and, with the exception of conditionality, theory is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team

--Execution normally comes before truth. If an argument is blatantly false it should not be difficult to show why.

--Evidence is important. Quality is obviously important but lower quality evidence that is well spun is still effective. You should point out bad evidence and not rely on me to spot it. This is not to say however that if a team does not point out how bad your evidence is I will automatically give it a deferential weight.

Theory:

I’m neg leaning on most theory questions (conditionality, pics, consult, process, agent etc.) However I do think that the neg is pushing the limits with conditionality. I don’t have a clear line for what are too many counterplans, but generally more than 2 seems excessive and 1 is probably more appropriate. That’s not to say you can’t run more if you choose but I will be less inclined to find your theory arguments reasonable. The aff does need to do more than blippy tag-line extensions of the 2AC for me to reject the team.

For theory other than conditionality I generally think the remedy is to reject the argument and not the team.

For counterplan competition, if the 2AR wins that the counterplan is not competitive I default to evaluating the squo vs. the plan

Dropping a two word “vote no” or “not intrinsic” argument in the block is not an auto-loss. If the 1ar provides a warrant for why that makes the DA go away or is a voting issue etc I think the 2NR has a chance to answer since until that point an argument has not been made.

The K:

I’m not going to say I won’t vote for this, but it will probably be a tough sell. I am not extensively familiar with the literature and spent most of my career debating policy arguments. If you do go for the K it should be a kritik of plan action. Methodology and representation kritiks, for me, are not reasons why the plan should be rejected

Topicality:

I like T and have increasingly become a bigger and bigger fan. My biggest problem with most T debates is that there was very little discussion of the impact. Saying it explodes limits doesn’t resonate with me unless you can show how. Evidence proving what the world of an interpretation would look like is particularly persuasive, but examples and hypotheticals work too. If there are competing impacts (ie limits vs. ground vs. predictability etc) there needs to be a discussion of which is most important and why.

I think it’s always a voting issue. For me the resolution/debate in general is always good. Performance teams, I am probably not the judge for you.

Abraham Corrigan Wake Forest University 4 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!

Tiffany Dillard-Knox University of Louisville 6 rounds

Lauren Donnenfeld Vanderbilt University 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 6:49 AM EDT

Director of Debate at Alpharetta High School where I also teach AP US Government & Politics (2013- present)

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

Debated (badly) at Emory (2007-2011).

Please add me to the email chain: laurenivey318@gmail.com

Top-level, I really love debate and am honored to be judging your debate. I promise to try my best to judge the round fairly, and I hope the notes below help you. Most of the below notes are just some general predispositions/ thoughts. I firmly believe that debaters should control the debate space and will do my best to evaluate the round in front of me, regardless of if you adapt to these preferences or not.

I flow on paper and definitely need pen time; I've tried to flow on the computer and it just doesn't work for me.

Counterplans- I like a good counterplan debate. I generally think conditionality is good, and is more justified against new affirmatives. PICs, Process CPs, Uniqueness CPs, Multiplank CPs, Advantage CPs etc. are all fine. On consult counterplans, and other counterplans that are not textually and functionally competitive, I tend to lean aff on CP theory. All CPs are better with a solvency advocate. If the negative reads a CP, presumption shifts affirmative, and the negative needs to be winning a decent risk of the net benefit for me to vote negative. I am probably not the greatest person for counterplan competition debates.

Disads- The more specific, the better. Yes, you can read your generic DAs but I love when teams have specific politix scenarios or other specific DAs that show careful research and tournament prep. If there are a lot of links being read on a DA, I tend to default to the team that is controlling uniqueness.

Topicality- I find T debates sometimes difficult to evaluate because they sometimes seem to require a substantial amount of judge intervention. A tool that I think is really under utilized in T debates is the caselist/ discussion of what affs are/ are not allowed under your interpretation. Try hard to close the loop for me at the end of the 2nr/ 2ar about why your vision of the topic is preferable. Be sure to really discuss the impacts of your standards in a T debate.

Framework- Framework is a complicated question for me. On a truth level, I think people should read a plan text, and I exclusively read plan texts when I was a debater. However, I'll vote for whoever wins the debate, whether you read a topical plan text or not, and frequently vote for teams that don't read a plan text; in fact, my voting record is better for teams reading planless affirmatives than it is for teams going for FW. However, I also think this is because teams that don't defend a plan are typically much better at defending their advocacy than neg teams are at going for FW. I tend to think affs should at least be in the direction of the topic; I'm fairly sympathetic to the "you explode limits 2nr" if your aff is about something else. Put another way, if your aff is not at least somewhat related to the topic area it's going to be harder to get my ballot. I do think fairness is a terminal impact because I don't know what an alternative way to evaluate the debate would be but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Kritiks- I am more familiar with more common Ks such as security or cap than I am with high theory arguments like Baudrillard. You can still read less common or high theory Ks in front of me, but you should probably explain them more. I tend to think the alternative is one of the weakest parts of the Kritik and that most negative teams do not do enough work explaining how the Kritik functions.

Misc-If both teams agree that topicality will not be read in the debate, and that is communicated to me prior to the start of the round, any mutually agreed previous year's topic is on the table. I will also bump speaks +0.5 for choosing this option as long as an effort is made by both teams. I am strongly in the camp of tech over truth.

I am unlikely to vote on disclose your prefs, wipeout, spark, or anything else I would consider morally repugnant. I also don't think debate should be a question of who is a good person. While I think you should make good decisions out of round, I am not in the camp of "I will vote against you for bad decisions you made out of round" or allegations made in round about out of round behavior. But, I have voted against teams or substantially lowered speaks for making the round a hostile learning environment and think it is my job as a judge and educator to make the round a safe space.

Good luck! Feel free to email me with any questions.

Ryan Galloway Samford University 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue May 14, 2024 at 8:40 PM EDT

Ryan Galloway

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 leaving 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 University of Kentucky

Kirk Gibson Hire 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.

Ross Gordon Emory University 6 rounds None

Logan Gramzinski University of Georgia 2 rounds

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.

LaToya Green Wake Forest University 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri October 2, 2015 at 8:17 PM UTC

3 years in the Debate-Kansas City Urban Debate League

5 years at Emporia State University

3 time NDT qualifier (1 first-round bid)

NDT octofinalist

CEDA semifinalist

Currently- Director of Debate at Cal State Fullerton

I engaged exclusively in what most people called “performance debate.” As a debater, I made similar arguments on both sides of the debate and interrogated what was perceived to be a “topical” discussion from year to year. The arguments consisted of a criticism of “policy debate”, how it functioned, how it impacted particular people, and the implications it had for the people involved in the debate itself. The crux of our arguments investigated performance and methodology, especially in regards to the relevance of those things inside of the debate space. I want to know why what you do is good for debate, as well as for the people/policies impacted by your plan. I say this to let you know the extent and limitations of my technical debate skills and to give you an idea of the debate(s) I am familiar with and the debate(s) I’m not.

Kritiks: I’ll vote for it. In order for you to get the ballot, the K, like any other argument has to be well explained for me to vote for it. I also believe that in any good K debate their needs to be an obvious link to the case and the alternative of the K must be well explained.

Theory: I’ll vote for it. HOWEVER, I don’t like theory debates that are just blocks or are just spew downs. I like the line by line debate on theory and for the debaters to slow down. I WILL vote on dropped theory arguments- so you better answer them (even if the perm is a test you still need to answer severance).

Disadvantages: I’ll vote for it. Just like the kritik explain your scenario and how it links to the affirmative and we are good.

Topicality: I believe that topicality is about competing interpretations. However, I can be persuaded that topicality is not a voting issue and that normative reasons to vote do outweigh. But in order to win these issues there has to be considerable time spent on these arguments not just blips. I do not necessarily believe all affirmatives have to have a plan text, however, I do believe that you should be able to defend the lack thereof. Again, it is not what you do or do not say, it is what you justify. Affirmatives, if you don’t have a plan or don’t defend the consequences you should have reasons why you shouldn’t have to defend those issues.

A few pieces of advice:
1) Slow down. My ears are not calibrated to the rapid delivery of policy debaters.

2) Read less cards. I think much of what gets read in debates is unnecessary and is usually never even analyzed. I will read cards at the end of the debate only in order to be helpful in my post-round discussion. I prefer to watch and evaluate close readings of evidence rather than the fly-by argumentation that passes itself off as debate. Furthermore, debate for me is about more than empty words, gestures, and actions. It is not only what you say/do. It is also what you justify. That matters more to me than a bunch of random cards you read to fill time.

3) Don’t rely on being tricky or attempting to “out-tech” the other team. In doing so, you will likely out-tech me and your tricks will go unnoticed. I take notes, detailed notes, on every speech but I don’t flow in the conventional manner of lining up argument-for-argument in columns. There is obviously a minimum of technical skills one needs to compete in debate. If a team does not address an entire position or an important nuance emphasized by their opponents then it is unlikely that they will win. For the most part, however, nobody will be “out-teched” in the debates I judge. I will evaluate the debate where it happened rather than where it didn’t happen. This is not merely a personal preference but is, more importantly, a pedagogical intervention on my part designed to force debaters to strive for narrative coherence in grasping and articulating the holistic flow of the debate.

4) I am here to be persuaded. This is a communicative activity. I am not computer, I am a living, breathing person. Pathos+Logos+Ethos=speaker points. I am NOT a point fairy however, I CAN make it rain.

I feel that everyone should know, or at least have an idea of, what their epistemological presuppositions are and be prepared to defend them. Everyone should be prepared to articulate their vision of what debate is and what it could and should be. Also, I think everyone should have a theory of the relationship of debate to the wider institutional landscape. If you feel prepared to deal with these questions in a thoughtful way then you should take me on.

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

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 2 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.

Nathan Holmes Hire 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun February 16, 2014 at 1:39 AM EDT

D6 Southeast CEDA

My Way Way Back(ground)

West Georgia College 92-93

Georgia State University 95-96

The easiest way to introduce myself is to say I debated with Michael Hester. Obviously, that was a long time ago. I spent most of the next 2 seasons away from debate before I returned for my senior year at Georgia State. I'm guessing I last judged an academic debate in 2000.

A Few Initial Thoughts

Dr. Hester suggested I create a judging philosophy on the site so I came right over. I began by reading the paradigms of judges already listed in the pool, more than a few things came to mind. I am going to share some of my thoughts so you can understand the perspective from which I am coming. I am not an educator. My area of study was not Communications, Speech, or Rhetoric. I have not written Post-Graduate or Doctoral essays in any of these areas. I say this for the following reason. My role as a judge will NEVER be to pedagogically influence debate or to make a pedagogical statement. I completely understand why others who have invested multiple decades in debate and have chosen careers in Speech and Communications feel that way, I'm just making it clear that is not me. Put another way, I view academic debate, and the participants within, as being far superior to any public forums for discourse I have encountered in my post debate adult life. The civic meetings, school boards, and regional government organizations, that I have been involved with, have all failed to reach even the most basic requirements of argument and advocacy that we as debaters take for granted. In this regard, I will take academic debaters and their presentation, explanation, and defense of argument as a refreshing change from what happens in my community.

How I Judge

(Tabula Rasa), As Indigo Montoya once said “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” Clean slate is the accepted definition, but in my opinion that is a bit vague. This is what I mean when I say I am Tabula Rasa. As a judge, I expect, hope, and assume debaters will tell me what is important and why. Conversely, debaters will also tell me what is not important and why. Through the process of speeches, point, counter point, and rebuttal, certain in round truths can and hopefully will become evident. These in round truths are superior in my mind(while judging) to what I believe to be true before and after the debate occurs. This is how I minimize my own biases towards ideas, arguments, and concepts. It has been pointed out by many coaches and judges that it is impossible to have an absolute clean slate. I see their point. I do enter the debate arena with a fully entrenched belief in basic Western philosophical notions of reason and logic. For as long as I can remember, there have been those in the debate community that have theorized that this style of judging will allow for morally reprehensible arguments to be made and accepted in debate rounds. This to me is a specious argument. I have never been in or heard of a debate in which a team ran an argument, that on its face, claimed racism good or genocide good. If what I have been hearing over the last twenty years is true, many of the arguments regularly made by debaters over the last fifty years are racist, sexist, and genocidal in nature. The key being these are determinations to be made by debaters in debates and not by judges a priori. I suspect there is an argument that I might refuse to listen to, but I have yet to hear it and have no reason to believe I ever will.

The Arguments

Put simply, do what you do well. Do what you do well. If policy making is what you do well, then do that. If topical affs are what you do well, then go ahead. If 6 disadvantages, CP, topicality, and case is what you do well, take a deep breath and go. If Kritiks are what you do well, then I am for that. If multiple conditional arguments are what you do well, then guess what, do that. If performance or critical arguments that have no plan are what you do well, then by all means do that. This is the district tournament. You are here to get to the NDT. This is no time for me (or anyone else) to be telling you what we do, or do not, want to hear in a debate. We all should understand, I think, the consequences of the argument choices we make and the inherent barriers that must be overcome, for these arguments to be winners.

My last year of debate. I was returning from a 2 year hiatus debating with a partner who had not debated in 5 years. We carried one Rubbermaid tub, in which, you would have found our affirmative, proliferation good and topicality. I have no standing to criticize or pre-empt anything a debater might want to introduce into the debate. Keep in mind, I have been away from debate for about 15 years, and while in this time I have always made an effort to follow the evolution of the activity, I have not “suffered” through an endless number of debates that lacked clash, or promoted bad theory discussion, or witnessed poorly framed kritik debates. What’s old is literally new again for me. One caveat, if the arguments you have been making have not been compelling to my debate contemporaries, then there is a significant risk that your arguments simply are not compelling.

Some Specifics

1. I think the evolution of technology is awesome. I understand very little of it. At the beginning of each debate I will ask both teams to agree when prep time ends and I will stick to that. The whole transferring your speech to the other team before you speak blows my mind. I don’t think I ever knew what I was going to say before I started speaking.

2. Possibly, the only thing you care about, my ears. I have listened to maybe 5 debates on the internet in the last two years. I visited the Georgia State tournament two years ago. It is safe to say my ears are not at their playing weight. Between now and the beginning of the tournament I hope to listen to at least 10 debates on the computer. It is my hope this will bring me back close to 100% speech recognition. You are welcome to ask me before the debate to assess where I believe I am.

3. As long as I have been around debate and debaters, the level of confidence, dare I say arrogance, has been thick. It is part and parcel with the “game” There is benevolent confidence that is unassuming and friendly. There is also a more malevolent kind. I am not, outside of my home, in the business of enforcing niceties. I don’t believe getting loud or “emotional” is an attack or impolite exercise. Some people argue this way and many times it is not personal. I have personally witnessed people who become emotionally tied to their arguments get labeled with ad hominem type arguments used to refute, silence, or discredit them without considering the validity of their argument. That being said, there is a line that can be crossed. As the old saying goes you know it when you see it.

4. Topicality. I think I need to make some comments here, because topicality has relevance not just with division of aff/neg ground with the resolution, but also as a framework argument. If left to my own devices, topicality(and thus framework), is about ground. All the other criteria, precision, fairness, literature, education, limits, and breadth are subsets of ground. Can I be convinced otherwise, sure I can. I make this point because I have never judged a framework argument before and treating it as a ground issue seems to be a good starting place. If you tell me to treat it differently I will. If topicality is important for reasons other than ground that is fine.

5. Speaker Points Wow have these changed. A 28 was a big deal in 1992. If you averaged 28 points per round, you were in the top 10 speakers, top 15 for sure. Clearly, things have changed. The advent of tenths of point has clearly changed the scale, and I will do my best to adjust my scale to reflect how speaker points currently are issued.

My first debate coach Paula Nettles always said one thing “Make it sound pretty.” Speaker points are the aesthetic debate. My points are based on the artistic aspect of communication. The beauty of technical proficiency. The magic of a thundering oratory. The simple and clean delivery of logic and reason. How much did I enjoy listening to you? How well did you convey the interactions of the arguments in play?

Shunta jordan Hire 5 rounds

Joe Keeton Vanderbilt University 2 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 4 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.

Sarah Lundeen West Georgia

Eric Lyons Vanderbilt University 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun October 4, 2015 at 4:55 AM CDT

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

2015-2016 Topic

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

Philosophy

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

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

Public speaking practices

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

Susan Mader Vanderbilt University 3 rounds

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.

Jadon Marianetti University of Florida 6 rounds

Randall Martinez University of Miami 4 rounds None

Erik Mathis Georgia State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 3:43 PM EDT

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

Nicholas Miller Emory University 5 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 6 rounds

William Mosley-Jensen University of Georgia 2 rounds

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.

Cameron Norris Vanderbilt University 2 rounds None

Andrea Reed University of Kentucky 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 7:35 PM CDT

Kentucky 2017 update: This is the first year since the Europe topic where I didn't attend the season opener. So whatever T/competition things the community "collectively figured out" during the first tourney, do not assume that I am in the know re: that info. I have been reading about healthcare and doing some topic research, so don't over-apply this advice. I know what single payer means, I know what happened to Graham-Cassidy, I know Price resigned, etc. My point is more about the *competitive* direction the topic is heading.

Updated Fall 2013: I added a new section on evidence, clarity, and clipping at the end, given its length, but I wanted to mention it up here (in case of TL;DR)

Crotchety old person complaints: You should flow. You should go line-by-line unless having a purposeful reason not to. You should talk about the other team’s evidence. You should talk about your own evidence. You should have warrants to back up claims, and examples to contextualize your arguments. Historical references are great. Smart analysis > more cards. I will not read cards after the debate to reconstruct arguments that you failed to communicate yourself during your speech. I will read cards that are intelligently contested by both teams. Wiki golden rule- put as much intel up as you expect from other people.

Cross-x: is my favorite part of the debate. I flow it. Being smart in CX can win or lose you the debate.

T debates… things that will help you out: explaining which affs we should be debating and why, which arguments we should be debating and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion, ect. If the neg’s interpretation is more limiting, but the aff can clearly explain why that definition is not predictable, or the affs that the neg allows are not good affs or exclude critical parts of the literature, ect, the aff will be in a good place. Limits are not the end all, be all. Discussion of sources of definitions also important for the aff to win if their counter-interpretation is not going to be more limiting.

Theory debates- happen at a speed where its impossible to get all of the 2ac/2nc/1ar args... if this describes you (and it almost certainly does) and the aff wants theory to be a real potential option for the 2ar, know that you should slow down to around 75% speed. I lean neg on most counterplan theory questions by default, but its all up for debate.... assuming I can understand what you are saying.

Ks- I am not a judge that you cannot go for the K in front of. Judges get siloed in some weird ways based on presuppositions about how they think, and philosophies are meant to clear that up. SO! I evaluate kritik debates like any other strategy- superior analysis and refutation in the final rebuttals over the key questions will win you the debate. Negs should focus on why the alternative remedies their link arguments (and solves the aff's 1AC impacts, if you are trying to do so). If there is no alternative or you posit that your framework is your "alt," you do need to explain why this instance of rejecting the aff/their representiations is alone/taking an ethical standpoint in this debate is sufficient action to avoid the impact that is identified by the K. The one thing I will say for the neg is that there is some tension in my mind between the common neg claim that "the aff doesn't leave the room, there is no "spill up," the state never hears them, so they can't access their impact turns" with the neg's alternative solvency claim that "rejecting this aff solves our terminal impact which is global extinction from neolib/militarism/antiblackness," etc. Is there "spill up" to one debate judge's choice or not, and if not for the aff, why is it assumed for the neg? I think this is best remedied by the neg narrowing your impact framing to the types of things that ARE clearly within the judge's purview-- epistemological choices behind scholarship presentations matter, single ethical choices made by individuals matter, representations even within academia matter, and so on.

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s argument as possible... not impressed with the aff that recycles the same 4 cards against every kritik. Same for the neg- if you mix it up every year with kritiks that are tailored to the topic, I will be a good judge for you. If you've been doin more or less the same thing for the better part of a decade.. meh, there are better judges for you. The aff should say what their permutation actually means in the 2ar. I've found most framework debates in policy aff v. neg K debate to be vacuous. Everyone wants to meet in the middle. The neg rarely seems to go as far as to say "no aff," and the aff is too afraid to say "no alt," and we all can never get those 120 minutes of our lives back.

In terms of K affs, though my default is that the aff should discuss the benefits of hypothetical topical action by the USFG, affs should at a minimum demonstrate topic-relevance. If you are reading an aff that very explicitly ignores the topic, I'm not the best judge for you, though if you do find me in the back of the room, you should be sure to explain fully why departing from the topic is essential to whatever your thang is. Bottom line, my default is the topic, but you should always do what you think will maximize your chance of winning, rather than comporting to what you think my own leanings are. Debate is hard and you should do what you are best at. All arguments have a chance of winning if they are well reasoned, and if its clear why I should prefer them compared to your opponents arguments.

Paperless stuff- your prep time ends when you are ready to send the email or give the jump drive to the other team. The more time you waste, the less decision time I have, so be mindful of that.

My only request to you when you debate in front of me is to please be civil to your opponents. In CX's, post rounds... coaches getting in post rounds. Yuck. Having your judge cringe at you is never a good thing. I dislike debaters who visibly or audibly react negatively to the other team's final rebuttal. You get your last speech and thats it. I dont need the 2N to be a one-person peanut gallery during the 2AR. Its distracting to me and rude to the other team. You have now been warned re: your speaker points. You should be able to tell how I’m feeling if you look up once and a while.

**New section on evidence and card clipping:

Evidence- this is getting out of control. First, the ethically problematic and academically lazy practices:

--highlighting to the point of creating new content- if you are making new arrangements that the original author did not intend, that is a problem. Let’s call “creative highlighting” what it actually is: fabricating evidence. If your highlighting of evidence is making stuff up and then wrongly attributing it to the author to give it false credibility, that is fabricating evidence.

--ending cards before the end of the author’s original paragraph- I thought this was a universal norm but apparently not.

Second, these practices are not unethical per se, they just make you worse at debate:

--removing warrants from the tag- its hard to flow evidence where the tag is 2-3 words long. I do my best to flow the warrants in each card, but its impossible to get everything said at 300 wpm for 9 mins straight. Debaters should be highlighting the critical parts of evidence in your tags and then deliver them clearly.

--cutting strawperson evidence- lazy research, period. This wouldn’t fly for academic work, so it shouldn’t for debate research either.

--having things that hurt you in the 2-point font of your card. Lets be honest, blowing that stuff up is the first thing I do when I see that in a card. You can expect to find good stuff here usually. This makes it pretty easy on your opponents.

--"abbrev"s make you sound dumb. Why are you highlighting "targeted killing" as just T....K...? "Nuclear weapons" as "nuc.........s"? You are being the characture of policy debate that everyone ridicules.

Clarity- If I cannot understand you, I won’t read your cards after the debate to reconstruct your arguments for you. Debate is a communication activity, love it or leave it. Delivery is a big issue here obviously, but so is form. If your speech is a string of debate “abbrevs”, its pretty hard to flow. Clarity in content is important. If you aren’t contextualizing your arguments and giving examples in your final rebuttal, you leave the judge no choice but to have to input their own analysis to resolve the debate.

Cross reading, “clipping cards”, stopping short on evidence or not marking cards and then misrepresenting what you have read in a debate are unethical practices. If a team suspects another team of doing this, they should stop the debate and present their evidence. I would be willing to listen to any video or audio recording in the room that is available to me. For me, the important thing is the actual result (did the audio of the speech as presented include all of the text submitted into the “record” of the debate?), since intentionality is impossible to prove either way. And I will say this: if a debater’s performance is SO unclear as to look exactly like what cheating looks like, that is still a huge problem.

Sean Ridley Appalachian State 4 rounds

James Roland Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 21, 2014 at 9:52 AM EDT

James Roland

Emory University

13+ years coaching debate

You can plan for the picnic, but you can’t predict the weather.

-Outkast

Debate is AWESOME! It is the best vehicle I have found to date for learning. I did quite a bit of debating, and judging back in the day, but not so much now. This means I know little about the topic, but I work hard to listen to the debate in front of me and evaluate it on its own merits. Let me share a metaphor that might help. I feel my role as a “critic of argument” is not to foreclose your opportunity to eat off the grand buffet of argument, but to let you “fix” your plate. A good debate will provide me with the explanations, links, impacts, etc. for why I should eat off your plate versus your opponents. But understand once the debate is over, I am totally comfortable with my role as a “food”/argument critic. So just because you fix the plate doesn’t mean I will automatically eat it.

Regardless, I will honestly listen to pretty much anything, and as a result I have judged just about every type of debate imaginable. Despite providing such argumentative latitude, I am still big on respect in all its forms. Debate is a laboratory to explore argument in both form and content, but the educational and social benefits of debate lessen when we lessen our commitment to “doing” debate that is build upon a foundation of respect and love.

Here is how I see some specific areas of the debate:

Theory

Do whatever you like, as long as you thoughtfully weigh the impacts of the competing interpretations of any given theory debate. Most theory debates tend to be each side just reading blocks at each other – contextualize the debate. Explain why in the context of this debate why you are right and your opponent is wrong (or less right). Explain what values or goals are furthered by your theoretical framework. Like just about every type of argument in the debate – be clear about the link(s) and impact(s).

Topicality/Framework

See the section on theory. As a reminder, you should focus on the implications of your interpretation as a whole, compared with the other team’s interpretation (or lack thereof).

Counterplans

See the section on theory. I am open to all types, but most of the debates I have judged - the perm tends to be the part that becomes the most important to my decision, so take that bit of info for what it is worth.

Critiques, Performance, etc.

Make sure to get to the core questions as early as possible in the debate. For example, I usually see the core questions as; the link; establishing frameworks for how the case and the alternative for the K interact, etc. Still want to see the link and impact to your critique/performance/etc. Open to hearing new and creativity things, but just because I will listen doesn’t mean I will automatically vote for you. Each debate must/should be debated on its merits.

Cross-X

Make them meaningful. Few things are better that a strategic and purposeful c-x. Many debates can be won (and lost for that matter) with an effective cross-x.

Evidence

Open here too. I believe evidence can come in multiple forms (cards, music, spoken word, etc.). Regardless of the form I want to see good evidence comparison by both sides. Don’t take it for grant I know what you want your evidence to mean or be applied.

Style

Do you! I like funny, but if you are not – guess what? This is not the time to practice your stand up routine. I am cool with fast, slow, or in between. That is for you to decide. I will let you know if you are unclear. Be comfortable in your skin, and passionate about your arguments. Remember you are participating in one of the coolest activities on the planet – appreciate the moment!

Sure I am missing something you really want to know, so feel free to ask.

Much love!

Sandoz Sandoz Vanderbilt University 2 rounds

Jim Schultz Wake Forest University 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 5:30 PM EDT

Current affiliation: director at Purdue & assistant at Head Royce.

Did you know Purdue is a public University with over 40,000 undergraduate students? Despite our excellent reputation for our engineering and computer science programs, as well as our success in the NCAA basketball tournament, we are in fact a public land-grant university in West Lafayette, IN. Tuition is less at Purdue than it is at Indiana University.

Past affiliations: Weber State, Wake Forest, Loyola Marymount, Idaho State, West Georgia, as well as College Prep, Georgetown Day, Bishop Guertin, Chattahoochee, and many other high school programs.

I love debate. I chose to return to debate after spending a few years working at a consulting firm. I make less money now, but enjoy the work much more. I appreciate your participation in the activity and will do my best to determine a winner, as well as help you improve in the time I spend judging your round.

I will default to flowing on paper. I appreciate efforts to be organized and go line-by-line; I will reward speakers that make flowing easier.

I will not read along with the speech doc. I believe debate should be a persuasive activity. I think following along with the speech doc is a poor practice, and I feel some type of way about it. I would like to be on the doc chain; everybodylovesjim@gmail.com& hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

If the round has started and there is no timer going, please don’t prep. I’ll kindly ask you to stop prepping if I notice you prepping while no timer is running. I think remote debate may have contributed to lax prep time standards, and I feel some type of way about it.

I’m a fan of multiple flavors of debate. I’m somewhat of a dinosaur at this point, but I still appreciate attempts at innovation. I’ve voted for and against all sorts of arguments. I’ve coached teams on various flavors of arguments. I’m generally agnostic. My best piece of advice for debating in front of me, or any other judge; debate powerfully, make the judge adapt to you.

I love cross ex! It’s generally my favorite part of the round. I usually flow it. I always pay attention to it. If you make gains in cross ex, please leverage those gains in your speeches. I will reward speakers for a well executed cross ex. I prefer you don’t treat prep time as cross ex time, I frequently leave the room during prep time and appreciate these opportunities.

I will reward speakers that focus on clarity over speed. If I ask you to be clear, please make an effort to adjust.

I start the process of deciding who won by establishing the most important issue(s) in the debate and determining who won the core controversies. I ask myself who won the round if both teams win their package of arguments. I frequently write a rough draft of a ballot and then try to argue against that decision to check against overlooking something. I try to edit my many thoughts to keep things more brief in delivering my RFD, particularly when on a panel. Sometimes when I sit I ask to give my RFD last - sometimes this is so I can get a sense of where the other judges are at, sometimes it’s to circumvent judges from editing their decisions when I’m confident in my RFD.

Nick Sciullo Georgia State University 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 5, 2018 at 12:09 PM CDT

2018: I've gotten out of debate coaching as a full-time profession in order to focus on my research on the tenure-track. I'll still write and speak on debate in journals and conferences, respectively. I'll likely judge at some local high school tournaments in South Texas and may do some judging in the Texas area at both the high school and college levels. I very much enjoy debate and will still be a strong advocate for it. I'll just be doing less of it as a career. In 2018, I was fortunate enough to win the Forensic Educator of the Year for Southern States Communication Association and Coach of the Year from SE CEDA. I also won the John Cameron Turner Memorial Novice Critic of the Year Award from SE CEDA, which probably means more to me than any debate award I or my debaters have won. I will still be a good judge in race, cap, and high theory debates, but my reading on the topic won't be that great.

2016 Updates: I continue to think debating is good for education and that many different styles of debate have merits. I still prefer critical arguments to policy arguments, although much to my chagrin, I'm not the worst policy/policy debate judge. Judges are not neutral when they enter a room. We should stop pretending they are. I prefer certain arguments, I've read more critically certain books, I've written things I stand by, and I find some debates more interesting than others. I do not think debaters should have to agree with me or only read arguments I'd like to read, however. I was a 2N/1A most of my life so that's often how I think about debates. I never was to sure what that meant, but since it's in many people's philosophies. I judge a lot of debates in all divisions, although now I'm judging a lot of novice debates as a result of coaching novices. Novice debate is important to this activity, and we should be kind to our novice debaters. I recently returned from Barcelona studying decolonization and also spent significant time in Germany working broadly on communication tragedy. I don't care what pronouns you use to describe me. I use he/his/him. I appreciate people not using "guys" as a gender neutral pronoun and that you make a good faith effort to call people what they want to be called. It's also important to engage the substance of arguments you might not like, which probably means framework arguments are not always the best in front of me, although I have voted on them. I think Sean Ridley and Erik Mathis are good judges and good people, which may say something about me as a judge or a person. I'm currenty reading a lot of Lacan, which has always been the case, and thinking through some issues of leadership and social mvoements. Have fun!

2015 Updates: I continue to be a good judge if you run arguments that address issues of race, capitalism, and ideology. I recently completed my dissertation on George Jackson's Soledad Brother and I actively write about race and (rhetoric, law, capitalism, counter-terrorism and national security). I am starting a new policy team this year so that will likely reduce the critical literature I am personaly reading, although that ought not change my judging philosophy. I continue to think debaters should be nice, fair, and honest. I want everyone to come away from this activity invigorated, feeling as though they are better thinkers, students, scholars, and activists. Although I am clearly a critical style debate person, I am more than competent at judging traditional policy style arguments. Just don't expect me to call for and read your 10th uniqueness card with the same interest I'd put into a piece of Anthony Farley, Charles Mills, or Carlos Mariategui evidence. And yes, I did cut a piece of evidence and cite it as "Saint Alloysius, 400 A.D. or something" for my NDT-qualifying team of GSU NS. I'm a fan of the odd. Have fun, be smart, argue passionately!

The philosophy... more or less...

Explanation and analysis over random card reading. I’m open to hearing any arguments and not disinclined to vote on any argument. If your strategy is politics DAs and Counter Plan theory—read ‘em. If you love reading Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida—read ‘em. I thought about writing my philosophy for every conceivable argument, but that would probably lead folks to think I had a strong preference for or against arguments which really is not the case. All critics come into rounds with experience in different areas just as debaters come into rounds with different majors. It’s your job to convince me, not my job to tell you what I want to be convinced on. I am ultimately a kritik-oriented debater and coach. I prefer to hear these rounds and am probably more qualified to judge these rounds. I love performance, memory politics, poststructuralism, identity politics, and feminism particularly.

Debate is subjective, but I try to come into each round with as open a mind as possible. That being said, I have a strong background in critical theory, critical race theory, feminism, and rhetorical theory, but that does not predispose me to vote for poorly constructed arguments that claim to engage those ideas.Because I’m more involved (reading and writing) in those areas, I probably am a better critic in those rounds.Again, not because I have a preference for those areas, but because that’s where a lot of my intellectual energy has gone over the years.BUT, I also worked the in DC Metro Area in government affairs, so I have an on-the-ground sense of how politics actually works.

Your ultimate goal should be to convince me why you win the round.That can come about using not only many different arguments, but also many paradigms. I value your performative consistency and gender neutral language.Debate is an open canvas upon which debaters can construct communities of action. The ballot can be a tool, but before you assume I’ll vote on something, you need to explain why your paradigm makes sense in the round. If you believe my ballot sends a message, explain why I should feel the same way. If you feel like we are policymakers, then explain why my position as critic upholds sound policy decision-making. Inspire me to take action with you.

I prefer not to call for cards after the round, but if you feel I must, then provide some darn good reasons. Explain why your evidence is better. What are the qualifications of your author? The warrants behind her or his arguments? The inconsistencies of the other team’s authors? I have a good flow, but I’m not perfect. It’s very important to me to flow things in the appropriate place and make sure that I can follow arguments from start to finish. I value debaters who are organized. I usually don’t flow CX, but if I hear something that sounds particularly relevant to the resolution of the round, I’ll jot it down.

Speed does not matter, but speed should not be a substitute for persuasion. Sometimes speed gets valued over persuasion, and that’s not helpful for anyone. It’s great that you read 7 internal links, but how do they matter to the round and why are they better than your opponent’s answers. Don't make speed a substitute for argument.

I've voted on T, DAs, CPs, Ks, Turns, Perf con, Condo, the various Specs. For theory, I am very concerned with education in the debate round. I find a lot of theory unpersuasive, but if you can explain why the other team hurts your, their, or my learning in this round, then you'll be in a good place.

Have fun, be humorous, don’t take yourself too seriously. This is a competative activity, but it's also a fun activity.

Other debate information…

Coaching Experience:

Director of Debate, University of Central Florida (17-18)

Director of Debate and Forensics, Illinois College (15-17)

Assistant Coach, Georgia State University (11-15)

Assistant Coach, United States Naval Academy (09-11);

Director of Debate, T.C. Williams HS [VA] (07-12),

Assistant Coach, West Virginia University (03-04)

Head Policy Debate Coach, Midlothian HS [VA] (00-03)

Debate Experience (all policy): Middle School, Tallwood High School [Virginia Beach, VA], University of Richmond

Education:

Grad. Cert., University of Central Florida (women's studies)

Ph.D., Georgia State University (communication, track: rhetoric and politics)

M.S. Troy University (international relations, concentration: national security affairs)

J.D., West Virginia University

B.A., University of Richmond (history, urban practice and policy, rhetoric and communication studies)

Jonathan Shane Florida State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 8, 2014 at 8:19 PM EDT

Jonathan Shane

Head coach at Florida State University

Debated at Georgia State and South Florida

Updated September 2014

I don't have many biases that should affect your debate choices. I've heard, read, cut, voted for and voted against just about every style of argument and don't reject anything on-face.

That said, I do tend to be most impressed by clever and nuanced strategies more so than metaphorical (or literal) podium pounding.

I also tend to strongly prefer specificity over generics.

I can keep up with any speed and I'm a pretty good flower. But if you're disorganized (jumping between flows, not sign posting, reading random cards without any clear purpose) you might lose me.

Focus on warrants and explaining things in a comprehensive manner. Tag line extensions are a waste of time.

I understand that 2ACs use condo and the like as strategic devices so I can appreciate them from that respect. But I'm not super likely to vote on the tacky theory violations unless you're willing to do more than just read off some camp theory file from 2003.

I am not biased one way or another on the CP-specific theory arguments (agent, int'l, condition, etc.)

Just like a disad/case debate, I expect theory to be framed in the context of impacts (i.e. standards).

As far as the "clash of civilization" debates, please, for god's sake, don't focus solely on your own offense. Spend some time directly responding to your opponent--without actual clash, these debates are the pinnacle of repetitive rubbish.

Kritiks should portray the alternative as a solvency mechanism and explain it as such. Explain exactly how your alternative works and what the ROB/a priori value of the debate is.

I don’t give a shit about cursing or decorum. Just be respectful.

***Assuming there are no more non-paperless teams out there: Prep time ends when the usb drive leaves your computer. None of this 20 minutes to save the file bullshit. I suggest having your speech doc already on the drive so you can just hit save and be done.

Feel free to ask questions before the round or email me

jshane@fsu.edu

Sean Slattery Samford University 6 rounds

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 6 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.

Matt Struth Wake Forest University 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:22 AM MST

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Thomas West Georgia 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 14, 2014 at 5:36 AM EDT

James Thomas (updated 9/14/14)

TL;DR? Scan down and look at the bold parts.

Who I am

I debated for Pace in HS, graduated 2001. I debated for West GA in college, graduated 2005. I then coached for UWG, Cornell, and Kansas State. I am now a criminal-defense lawyer in Atlanta. I have not really been actively involved in debate in several years, aside from judging the occasional tournament here and there.

How I judge

I don’t read evidence or any debater work-product after the round, ever, for any reason. I try to make my decision fairly quickly, without having to do much work for the debaters. I consider how each 2nd rebuttalist framed the debate, determine what questions I’m supposed to answer with the ballot, and go from there.

I flow on paper. My handwriting is terrible, so I don’t do a great job of it. For how I judge, I don't think it matters too much anyway -- I'm much more big picture than little detail oriented.

As to procedural arguments / theory “voting issues” / whatever, I feel like my threshold is a little higher than most. It’s not insurmountable--I just need to know why what the other team did makes the playing field so unlevel that you can’t fairly have a chance to win the debate otherwise. (At least, I don't think that's insurmountable. Countless teams I've voted against on stuff like this may disagree.) “Conditionality makes it harder for us to keep track of how many arguments there are, thus: voting issue” or “if this aff wasn’t topical, then the topic would look like X, which would mean we’d have more debates about Y, which would be neat, so vote neg” = not persuasive. (If you want to lower the stakes, and say your theory argument doesn’t mean the other team should lose, but that it justifies reciprocal transgressions on your part, that may work.)

"Wait, how do you punish teams for clipping cards if you won't read evidence after the round?"

*Think about it. I don't call for cards. I judge the debate based on what I hear. Only what I hear. That's it. If the other team is clipping cards, they have bigger problems to deal with than accusations of cheating. If the negative block is 15 minutes of blurred speech, with the occasional tag-line that is audible, and if I don't know the warrants behind the arguments are at the end of it, they might as well have not given a speech at all. You are in much better shape than you think.*

"But they're going to extend all this evidence in the 2NR that they didn't really read . . . "

No they won't. They'll be making new arguments, because I couldn't hear what they were saying the first time. You are in much better shape than you think.

"What should we run in front of you? Didn't you used to be weird? Are you still weird?"

If my reputation as to what I used to do when I debated precedes me, don’t let it overdetermine your argument choices. I don’t pick sides in the battle of civilizations, if that's even what the kids are calling it these days. I think debate is for the debaters and you should do what you want to do, and as it turns out, I used to be a pretty normal debater before things got weird.

That being said, if your bread and butter is a big-stick hegemony or economy debate (for example) and your options are limited otherwise, I’m not going to blame you for looking elsewhere on your strike sheet. That sort of thing isn’t a research interest of mine now and it wasn’t then, so there are more brainwashed qualified judges in the pool, I’m certain. I don't read high theory for fun either -- I used to be more of a "kritiky" debater, I suppose, but I'm not going to know what's hip on that front either, but I'm certainly open to hearing it if you're open to breaking it down for me.

Just please don’t think you have to debate like I did. “ . . . Hov did that / so hopefully you wouldn’t have to go through with that . . .” (Jay-Z, 2001)

THAT BEING SAID . . . I've heard through the grapevine that the rift between different styles of debate has recently grown deeper and much more vacuous than I could have ever imagined. I am not on Facebook, but I've heard that stupid things have happened there on this issue. Just one more reason I'm glad I'm not on Facebook. Anyway. I hear it's bad. Look, the point of the WGLF -- even if it went over everyone's heads -- was that there's a pox on all y'alls houses. Before the weird folks can figure out how to make debate transgressive, and before the squares can figure out how to make debate predictable and fair, all y'all need to figure out how to make debate worth a damn and resemble a communicative activity that is worthwhile. It sounds like everyone is still working on that.

"Oh God. What have we gotten into. You're judging us. What should we do?"

There needs to be a chunk of time at the beginning of the 2NR and 2AR that gives an overview. An overview is not a list of arguments that are in the debate. An overview is where you reveal what the puzzle looks like once the pieces fit together. An overview is where you do some macro-level work as to why the debate should be framed one way instead of another, why some things should be valued more than others. An overview is where you step in my shoes for a minute (or 25 seconds, or 45 seconds, whatever works) and pretend like you’re explaining to the other team why they have lost in a way that would satisfy even them. An overview is where you write my ballot for me. (Do people ever write ballots anymore? Or do you just tweet who you voted for and put #block30s if their politics align with yours? Plz let me know.)

That last paragraph is the most important thing on here if you're trying to figure out how to win my ballot. If you take away nothing else, take away this: if one team gives an overview at the top of the 2NR/2AR that does something like this, and the other team doesn’t, the overview team will probably win, even if their evidence is worse, even if their arguments are worse, even if how they perform on the line-by-line is worse, even if they are flat-out worse. Framing is of utmost importance. Give me a frame.

Not only do I stubbornly insist on not reading evidence, but I’m not an active coach or judge, so my ears aren’t as attuned to the "hum" of debate as it used to be.

Clarity, enunciation, fluctuating your voice to reflect your passionate investment in particular arguments, etc. -- all this is very important and will be rewarded.

Sounding like a buzzsaw for the duration of your speech -- not good. Not good for so many reasons! Given that I don’t read evidence afterwards, reading a dump of more and more evidence is rarely a wise choice. Look me in the eye and talk to me about what’s going on and why I should care! Make an argument!

This doesn’t mean you need to talk at a conversational pace. Go ahead and talk briskly (unless you’d prefer not to, which is fine too). Just know that I understand the debate round to be an exercise in communication, not an exercise in stacking up research side-by-side and picking the better collection of evidence. I’m a trial lawyer--style and considering the needs of your audience are important to me.

And if nothing else, please, please, please don’t let your laptop block your face while you speak. You know how everyone has that one thing that you just shut down and get all judgy if you see someone wearing it or doing it? This is that thing for me. If you are about to give a speech and your laptop is blocking your face from my view, I'm going to assume that you didn't read this, and I'm going to assume a lot of other things about you that you do not want me to assume about you.

Oh, prep time: I'm not going to keep track of it. Y'all do that. When I was your age, we always kept meticulous track of both team's remaining prep time, because that affected our strategy. If the opponent only had 30 seconds left to prep their 2NR, that affected whether we'd give a stand-up 1AR, etc. If the other team was stealing prep, we'd shame them out loud before the judge had a chance to. You have so many bells and whistles these days that I'm shocked when people aren't keeping track of everyone's prep and what they're doing. You need to! I'm not going to impose rules for how transferring files affects prep time. Control your domain.

Specific follow-up questions to this before the round are always fine. "Do you have any preferences?" is always not fine.

But above all, have fun!

John Turner Emory University 5 rounds

T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are important. I consider T an argument that doesn't specify the relationship between the debaters and the resolutional actor (i.e. how the debate is evaluated and what the role of the judge for evaluating the debate is still in question). To me, framework is a category of arguments that establish a limit that restricts not just the resolution but the role for the judge. I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are difficult for me to accept, while criticisms of framework have frequently been successful.

DAs- I’m unlikely to assess uniqueness/link in absolute terms. It tends to be easier to get me to consider direction/quality of link & internal link over uniqueness. Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give analytic and defensive arguments more weight than many judges.

CPs--I've rarely voted against CPs for theory reasons. This probably has more to do with what affs are willing to do/commit time to more than it demonstrates any real appeal of certainty-based competition arguments.

K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to not being obnoxious in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags. Historical examples help a lot for either side.

Theory—I tend to dislike theory debates focused on narrow comparison of interpretations. For the most part, people would be better off discussing the logical implications of a practice rather than a potentially arbitrary implementation of that practice (i.e. conditionality rather than "neg gets 1 CP and 1K"). I am biased in favor of conditionality, though not that strongly. To me, "status quo is always a logical option" or other logic-oriented defenses of conditionality require a judge to evaluate the plan versus the status quo even if the negative goes for their CP. I say this for clarifying purposes -- this has very rarely changed the outcome of a debate that I have judged. I often judge debates that do not presume conventional plan-focused models for debate yet still contain theory arguments that presume a plan-focused terminology and its resulting constraints. I point this out only to suggest that I think debaters should devote some time to thinking about the consequences of strucutral changes in the form of debate that they advocate for the smaller theoretical practices that occur within those debates.

Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the 2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely dislike random unqualified internet evidence.

I prefer cross-ex strategies premised on listening to an opponent's answer and using it in a subsequent speech, not posturing/arguing as though c/x were another speech.

I'm a bit of grump, especially when it comes to my consistent facial expressions in debates. It's not often that is about you, the debaters. I often talk a great deal after debates.

I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is lower than our current average. I've tried to get more in line with current norms so as not to punish people for speaker point inflation. That said, for high points (28.5+) I still need to be impressed.

Christopher Vincent University of Louisville 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:20 PM CDT

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

Patrick Waldinger University of Miami 4 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.

Ryan Wash Wake Forest University 4 rounds

Hays Watson University of Georgia 2 rounds

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.

Stephen Weil Emory University 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 8:25 AM EDT

Updated 9/9/2016

A few firm rules:

-Speech times are 9 minutes for constructives, 6 minutes for rebuttals, and 3 minutes for CX. Prep is determined by tournament invite. Each debater should give one constructive and one rebuttal, with only one debater giving each speech.

-Note on CX: you get 3 minutes of CX time. If you ask the other team clarification questions during prep (“Did you read this card?” “Can you confirm your CP text?” etc), it would be pretty rude of them not to answer, but I will not flow this/treat it as argument-development time like CX.

-I will use my ballot to decide the debate in front of me. Debaters can advance various criteria for how I should evaluate that debate, but I can’t render a decision on the basis of something that did not occur in the debate I have been watching.

-Be transparent about your evidence. The other team should receive the same speech documents that I do. That doesn’t mean you are obligated to include analytical arguments – people should also flow! Also, mark stuff during the speech, you probably aren’t going to remember each word you stopped at once the speech is over.

A few argument leanings:

-I am pretty convinced that competitive debate requires a point of stasis. That doesn’t mean I think there is only one way to read/interpret the resolution, but it does mean that I am most persuaded by affs that relate themselves to the resolution in a way that they can argue provides predictable points of contestation for the neg. In short, Predictability/Argument Testing Good > Policymaking Good.

-I like plan/CP texts with some specificity. If your plan text is just a re-printing of the resolution, it will probably annoy me. If a team is vague about their advocacy, I am more likely to give the other team leeway in interpreting how it would play out through evidence.

-I am more sympathetic than average to aff theoretical objections (conditionality and multi-actor fiat stand out). If theory debates reflect well thought-out visions of debate rather than regurgitation of stock phrases, then I actually enjoy them.

-I can be persuaded that theory arguments are a reason to reject the team, and not simply the argument, if persuasive reasons are given. However, my default position is always to reject the argument (conditionality is an exception; rejecting the argument would make it conditional, so teams are encouraged to explain an alternative remedy), unless a developed warrant is made to the contrary.

A couple general reflections on my judging:

-I think I care more about evidence than I did a few years ago. Debate requires skill in framing arguments and making comparisons, but also in finding good evidence to support your claims. Obviously I prefer to watch debaters do good evidence comparison, but it’s often hard to fully interrogate every piece of evidence in the debate. If a team has invested good effort in evidence comparison, I will try to extend their skepticism in a limited fashion as I read other evidence after the debate.

-I give the best points to debaters who have a good big-picture strategic vision of the debate and how the relevant arguments interact. If debaters invest their time in the right places and explain their strategic decision-making, I am more likely to view the debate the way they would like.

Login to Tabroom

D6 SoutheastCEDA

2014 — GA/US

All judges Paradigm List

My Philosophy

Judging

Specifics

Speaker Points

James Thomas (updated 9/14/14)

Judges