With this update, I hope to better match my theory of judging to my habits in practice.

I have found myself nearly obsessed with specific, substantive engagement between the two teams — and increasingly frustrated when one team sidesteps opportunities for well-evidenced clash between arguments in favor of generic, all-purpose positions or supposed trump cards that set aside the majority of the debate. The team at fault — given its responsibility to respond — is often the negative, and on some topics I vote aff at a dizzying clip.

Ironically, many of the arguments that promise a simpler route to victory — theory, T — pay lip service to “specific, substantive clash” and ask me to disqualify the other team for avoiding it. Yet when you go for theory or T, you have ​canceled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debate​ and are asking me to validate your decision. That carries a burden of proof unlike debating the merits. As Justice Jackson might put it, this is when my authority to intervene against you is at its maximum.

Of course, many of the best strategies answer the ultimate question in your favor even while conceding great quantities of your opponents’ arguments. Elegant debating — specific, substantive engagement at the level of what matters — will be rewarded. For instance, a counterplan that solves the aff advantages (relieving you of the responsibility to disprove them), if it competes with the specifics of what the aff is advocating, is an ideal example of substantive engagement.

Unsurprisingly, questions of ​link and ​competition​ interest me greatly. This is our vocabulary for measuring clash. Before determining what’s most important, I determine what’s relevant.

A final note: You will do far better on theory arguments if they inform my decision rather than making it for me. Maybe that means “rejecting the argument.” Maybe that means getting a ruling from me along the way: I am happy to pause the CX for a 30-second intervention on agent specification or conditionality, and we can use the remaining 90 minutes for an entertaining and educational debate.

I’m tabula rasa - blank slate. I’ll vote how you persuade me to vote factoring the things you persuade me to factor. I debated in HS and College and am now a practicing lawyer. The activity is so influential and positive for growth - whether research or public speaking or advocacy or competition - so many aspects of debate are huge values to help us be good citizens. And all are debatable in the round!

Good debates will weigh evidence and make distinctions between quality of evidence, likelihood of links and solvency, and magnitude of impacts and advantages. Counterplans and Kritiks also can shake up the formula, tell me how and why (or why not) and I’ll stand open to reason.

Good luck! Feel free to ask me questions about any specifics!

Background: I have been coaching debate and mock trial since 2006. For over 10 years I was a teacher and coach in the Chicago Debates League and have sent teams to a variety of TOC tournaments. Most of my debate coaching experience has been in Lincoln-Douglas with a growing emphasis in policy over the last several years.

Policy: I am not a fan of high speed spread debates and prefer moderation in speed over an ultra spread style delivery.Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going at a rate so fast that I cannot flow their arguments, then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Given this, I generally prefer to not be on the email chain as it is your job to communicate clearly and effectively in the round.

In the end, I prefer Policy rounds that come down to clear well supported argumentation, solid clash, impact calculus, stock issues, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework are great though I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case, i.e. generic negative arguments are valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. Always open for a great kritik, though prefer that you make clear how it is directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents.

In the end, my preferences are just that, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for them.

Policy Notes: 1) No open cross unless clearly agreed to by both parties before the round begins.

Email for Chains and Whatnot: dheath@pps.net

History: I have been coaching Speech and Debate in South Dakota and Oregon since 2015, with an emphasis on Policy, LD, Public Forum, and Extemp. While Policy and Extemp were the events of my youth, LD and Public Forum is where I have spent most of the last few years.

Event Specific Paradigms

Policy: Moderate speed, I don't like high speed debates. I'd probably be considered more of a "flay" (flow + lay) judge. I'm down to hear counterplans, topicality, disadvantages. I'm only willing to vote on theory if the abuse is obvious. Generic arguments are fine but clear links are necessary. I'm not your K judge. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution.

Yet more Policy: Speed is fine if clarity matches the rate of delivery. If a competitor is going so fast and wild that I cannot flow their arguments then I am not able to effectively consider and weigh them for the round. Counter Plans, Topicality, Theory arguments, Framework, ext. are all fine and I will enthusiastically vote on them, but I feel that they need to have some direct connection and relevance to the actual case. As in generic negative arguments are completely valid, but they need to have some clear and legitimate relationship to the discussion. I fear that I am constitutionally disposed against generic Kritiks, unless they are narrowly interpreted and directly applicable to the affirmative plan and the ideas that it represents. Ultimately I believe that Policy rounds should come down to direct clash, impact calculus, stock issues, solid argumentation, and/or competing interpretations of the resolution. All of this is simply preference, however, and if a team can successfully convey the meaning and importance of any set of arguments I will absolutely vote for it.

LD: I love a values debate. Contentions and criterions are fantastic things to discuss and debate, but I feel that LD is at its best when it comes down to a clash of who upholds a value most successfully, and why that value should be the central consideration in the round. Speed is fine, but I do feel that LD should be a clash of ideas versus a contest of tactics and game theory.

Public Forum: Direct clash, clearly identified voters, and framework are the things that I initially look for in a round. Speed is fine, but clarity and rhetorical skill should be the primary skills demonstrated. Try to demonstrate how one case is better than the other, however the idea of better might be defined within the round. By the Final Focus speeches there should ideally be a couple of clear and distinct voting issues that provide some level of clarity on the round. If the round turns into a deep and meaningful framework discussion I am completely fine with it.

I am open to any and all arguments, just be sure to be clear and articulate, especially if you are spreading (speaking quickly). For context, I debated policy for all four years of high school on the national circuit and ran/encountered every type of argument. I competed in parliamentary debate in college for all four years, as well as Moot Court (constitutional law) competitions throughout. Now, I am in law school focusing on Environmental/Renewable Energy Law, but again please feel free to run arguments of your choice.

The only thing I will say about Topicality is make sure it has all the components (definition, violation, standard, etc.). If you choose to go for this as a winning argument, don't expect to win just talking about it for two minutes, unless the opponent simply never addressed it throughout the entire debate. But that is also applicable to other arguments - narrow down what you are winning on and give it your full focus and tell me WHY I should vote for you. Looking forward to hearing all of you debate :)

I like good theory debate, don't like bad theory debate (Duh). A good theory debate would involve teams providing their interpretation of the theoretical issue, warrants to justify that as the superior interpretation and indicts of their opponents interpretation. Bad theory debate almost always lack the third and frequently the first. I have little problem pulling the trigger on a theory debate as long as those implications are clearly identified and explained early in the debate.

I like well-applied evidence. I don't mind sifting through a bunch of cards to decide a debate, but I'd rather not. At that point I am forced to make my own evaluations to the quality or comparative value of evidence that you might not agree with. So help make those comparisons for me. Final rebuttals (or even earlier speeches) that isolate the warrants in their evidence and use that to make comparisons will save me a lot of trouble and you a lot of disappointment if I see things differently.

Style tends to be a matter of taste. I am encouraged about the willingness of teams to expand the stylistics of debate, but remain deeply committed to the core principle of rejoinder. In other words, the ability for critical debate. I welcome performative arguments, but I think you must provide a point for your opponents discourse to engage and respond or, absent that, accept your opponents' attempts to do so.I have some problems with being asked to simply affirm a performance as that seems at cross purposes with the nature of this activity. Other than that, BE NICE! Zero style points for being a jerk.

I'm a pretty flexible judge. Tell me what to do and I'll generally do it. I have a set of assumptions and criteria about how to evaluate a debate that I will fall back to absent instructions from the debaters. If you have any questions about that, just ask before we start. Most importantly, I like impact and issue comparisons in the final rebuttals. Statements like "Even if" or "Regardless of if they win" or "My impacts should always be preferred because" will go far to win my ballot. Too many debates are reduced to trying to stack a bunch of impacts on your side and hope it is enough to outweigh. Don't be that kind of debater, give me a big picture and weigh it out for me.

My background is in policy/cross-x. I debated for Michigan State for four years in undergrad and also for four years at Pine Crest in Florida in high school. I competed at the NDT multiple times in college, so I have experience with high-level college debate, but also have experience judging all levels of high-school debate. Other than judging PUDL a few times a year and an occasional lecture, I have not been directly involved in the activity for several years. I will likely have little to no background on the topic itself, so please don't throw a bunch of acronyms at me assuming I will know them.

I will aim to remove my personal views about debate or specific arguments from any of my decision-making. Debate should be about the arguments being made by the debaters, not about what I like or agree/disagree with. That being said, I will share just a bit about my background. Having debated for Michigan State, my experience is mostly in traditional policy arguments and I was mostly a "2A" in college. I am open to critiques and planless affirmatives if the rules of the tournament allow, but I will not fill in the gaps for a debater who fails to adequately explain their arguments.

Presentation matters. I will ultimately judge the debate based on content but how you convey information influences how persuaded I am by your arguments. That being said, I do not have a fixed view of what a good presentation looks like. Every debaters should have their own style, I want you all to be the best versions of yourselves.

Here are some things I will appreciate from debaters:

1) At some point in the debate I expect debaters to pick their heads up from their cards (or tags) and actually explain their arguments. It is more valuable to me to have one or two arguments well explained than 10 arguments tag lined extended. Along with this, I value any well thought out and explained argument. Yes, evidence is helpful, but a well explained analytic can persuade me as well.

2) Please listen and respond to your opponents. The best way to get high speaker points from me (And to win the debate) is to show you took into account what your opponent argued had a response to it. Do not discount an argument simply because you feel it is non-responsive or a card was not read on it. I expect debaters to show respect to their opponents, including by respecting their arguments.

3) Debate is a technical activity. Dropping arguments early in the debate may make it too late to make new argument later. On the flip side, just because your opponent dropped an argument does not mean you win. There are numerous creative ways to cross-apply arguments made elsewhere or to get back into the debate, but generally speaking, if the first time you are responding to an argument is the 2NR/2AR it may be too late.

4) Do not forget to do an impact analysis at the end of the debate. Nuclear war is really bad, but unlikely to take place. The ongoing deaths of thousands does not have the magnitude of major war, but the probability is high. A well developed impact analysis in the final speeches can win you the debate even if you are behind in other areas.