Kale Fithian—Erie (PA) McDowell Policy Paradigm

Background: I competed in extemp in high school and speech/LD in college in the early to mid 1990s. I never competed in policy debate. I picked up judging after being trained about 20 years ago. I judge 10-15 rounds a year mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania/Eastern Ohio. I occasionally judge circuit debate and have judged several times at NCFL Grand Nationals.

I would best be described as an experienced traditional judge with some exposure to circuit policy debate. Speed is not something that I am philosophically opposed to but I can probably only handle about 65-70% of the fastest spreading. Clear tags and direction on the flow will help. I will say clear if needed.

I flow on legal pads and don’t access technology during the round. It has to be on my flow for me to vote on it and not just in an email chain.

I am reasonably well versed on current events but do not have any especially specific knowledge of this topic area.

Round Procedure: I will time just in case there is a dispute but otherwise you are welcome to time yourselves. I won’t count any technology time such as flashing information against prep but it is your responsibility to let me know that you have stopped prepping.

Open cross-ex is fine with me but I will not require any questions to be answered during anyone’s prep time.

I am not overly concerned with formality of procedure but I will penalize heavily for clear unsportsmanlike or inappropriate behavior. Treat the activity and your opponents with respect and this should not be an issue.

I will disclose and do a brief reason for decision but I write most of my comments on the physical or computer ballot.

General Philosophy: My goal at the beginning of any round is to be as non-interventionist and tab rasa as possible. It will be the debaters’ job to identify the key issues of the round, argue them and guide me by providing voting issues. If there is a true breakdown of the round or lack of clash I will default to policymaker with an impact calculus as my preferred method of round evaluation.

Specific Arguments:

T—I have a fairly high threshold for T. I will tend to default to a reasonableness argument unless the Neg clearly wins the line by line.

FW—I am always open to either side framing the debate and setting up the importance of the arguments (as noted above in my tab rasa philosophy). I will not vote specifically on FW but if you can show the specific reason your arguments win under a FW I agree with you will most likely win the round if your points truly match the FW. If you can show what specifically you are missing out on if I accept your opponent’s framework that would go a long way.

CP—I am open to CP’s by the neg. If your CP will lead to a better net benefit than the Aff plan then I am going to potentially vote for it as part of the impact calc in the round. Likewise if the Aff plan has better net benefits then the Neg then I would be inclined to vote Aff at least on the plan portion. I am however not opposed to the Aff running T, harms, DA, etc… against a CP.

DA—I will consider both the Aff and Neg running DAs against a plan or counterplan to be fair arguments relating to the effectiveness of those cases. If the DAs outweigh the net benefits of either that can be a key voter in the round.

K—I am fine with Ks being run but it is up to the debater running it to make sure they explain the potential impact/consequences/reasons for the K to be accepted and to show why the topic or case is truly related to the K.

On Case—I am favorable to the Neg being able to attack the Aff case. I am more likely to vote on some sort of harms but will vote stock issues if it is clearly won in argumentation.

Performance Aff/Aff K—I am not very familiar and hold a high threshold here. If this is done it will need to be clearly explained as to why this is clearly better than running a traditional case.

Fiat—I will grant Aff fiat and any non-attacked plan gets full benefits as if it happened (granted harms etc.. could still be argued).

Lincoln Douglas Addendum:

I have been judging Lincoln Douglas for about 20 years and judge about 20-25 rounds each season mostly at local tournaments in Western Pennsylvania and Eastern Ohio. I have very limited exposure to any sort of circuit Lincoln Douglas but since I judge policy somewhat regularly I am still passingly familiar with the style. However I do not feel spreading or excessive speed should be common in Lincoln Douglas. Fast conversational pace should be the highest pace needed.

For all of the round procedures see above from the policy paradigm. For Lincoln Douglas I still try to be as Tab Rasa as possible and have the students determine the key voting issues in the round. However both my philosophy and judging experience leans heavily towards the traditional LD style. So in a close round I will default to who won the value and potentially criterion clash more heavily than practical applications, policy implications, or solvency. I do flow the main arguments and rebuttals for the debate but I am fine with grouping or big picture arguments and cross-application. However it must be clearly explained why an argument successfully counters multiple opposing views or why a cross-application is valid. I value the argumentation aspect of debate in LD more as I consider it to be a truly separate event from policy.

Certified PA Social Studies teacher for 8 years now. 4 of which I have taught Government and Economics. 2020 is my first year participating in Speech and Debate and I'm eager to continue to learn more. I do prefer a moderate pace when speaking rather than a speedy rate since I would rather hear your argument than judge based on how many words you can get in within the timeframe. Follow the three guides below for a sense of what I look for!

1. Engage arguments with discernment. Disagreement is always welcome, however, engage with the specific argument and not your prewritten counters.

2. Be consistent in your debate. Beginning, End, and throughout your counters/rebuttals. Build your story/argument and do not deviate, Instead, defend a cohesive worldview throughout the round – and pull that story through extending both warrants and impacts.

3. Be respectful: Exercise good judgment. If you do something that a majority of reasonable people would find unkind, offensive or rude I will stop to give a violation.

I'm a first year judge with speech and debate, but have competed in other speech/debate programs not affiliated with PHSSL. I competed for 4 years in Congress-style debates. I study social studies education at Penn State, and have backgrounds in history, political science, and justice in education. My expectations of speakers/debaters are as follows:

1. Debate arguments, not people. Speaking and debating is about ideas and not the individual person themselves.
2. Present your case clearly. If you are making a point, avoid dwelling on uncertain or undefinable parts. Use your evidence to make your point, or keep it concise.
3. Show your personality. Speech and debate is about blending your speaking style with the argument you are making. Arguments with no tone are hollow.

TLDR: my paradigm is intended to

a) facilitate a fair debate and actively intervene against slime like making new arguments in the last speech, forcing progressive debate on unprepared teams, and misconstruing evidence.

b) emphasize the importance of preparation, research, and evidence interpretation.

c) encourage pre-round agreements between debaters in order to improve the quality of the round.

I’ve debated a mix of public forum and policy in high school and have judged PF, LD, and CX (not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I will occasionally coach one really strong PF partnership. Please mention the credentials and methodology for your evidence! If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about causality, confidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without empirical proof, your warrants are just claims.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your cards to me and your opponents:

frankielidc [at] gmail.com

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In LD and CX I am tabula-rasa (I don't prep the topics for these formats anyways) with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, I don't like listening to extinction level impacts but will vote on it, and I evaluate Theory above Ks unless the K interacts with our concepts of debate, fairness, education, or competition.

I am impartial to speed in most cases but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand and "Louder" if it is too quiet. Please don't spread faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

PF Specific: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. If for some reason the running late and flagged by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round. This implies that you aren't forced to frontline in second rebuttal.

If you read anything new in second FF, I will drop you with the lowest speaker points. If there was a new argument in first FF, I will drop them with the lowest speaker points. A quick "z is new in FF" will make it easier for me to identify it. If both teams do it, I'll judge based on other parts of the round and just dock speaks.

You can loosely abstract that out to the other speeches in other debate events for my preferences there--just ask a question anytime during the round if you are unsure!

Citing Cards: Citing the affiliated organization or academic journal > a random last name. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down. I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation of the evidence up to me. I will call cards out of interest and I will drop teams based on NSDA evidence rules.

Calling Cards: If you enter "it says x; no it says y" over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

TOC update: If you read disclosure or paraphrase theory [especially given what I said about consent between both teams] I will automatically drop you with lowest speaker points and end the round.

Less serious stuff:

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate with a quick statement or brief question. It isn't a 3 minute speech, just don't be excessive and don't raise your volume.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Don't say "Outweigh on scope, we have the largest number in the round."

On topics where I am actually coaching a partnership, I will know every single study back-to-front on the topic.

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

No off-time roadmaps. We all know you're trying to compose yourself before the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct. If you're incorrect, I'll deduct speaks.

Down to listen to fun cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

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

Contention 2 is Drowning in Debt:

In states without right-to-work laws, companies anticipate demands from union negotiations and naturally increase their financial leverage, which the Corporate Finance Institute ‘22 defines as the amount of debt used to pay for a company’s expenses. This happens for two reasons:

First is To Limit Union Demands. Deere of the Quarterly Journal of Economics warrants, a union can demand no more than the value of future revenues. By borrowing money, a firm must pay the creditors and shareholders a portion of future revenues first. That’s why shareholders prefer unionized firms that use financial leverage.

Second is To End The Negotiations. Bronars of the Quarterly Journal of Economics explains what happens when a union doesn’t back down. As debt rises, the firm declares bankruptcy, forcing the union to now bargain with the creditors, who could simply replace the union with nonunion labor and restart the firm.

For these two reasons, Dalia of ISU ‘15 empirically concludes, a 0.1 percent increase in the probability of unionization increases a company’s debt by one million dollars and increases its debt-to-equity ratio by 12.3 percent. This relationship only exists in states without right-to-work laws as Chava continues, firms immediately decrease leverage within one year of right-to-work’s implementation. Thus, Dalia furthers, firms in right-to-work states use 13 percent less leverage than firms in non-right-to-work states.

The impact is a financial catastrophe. Debt quickly piles up as Patti of the Italian Economic Journal ‘14 quantifies, a 10 percent increase in leverage raises the probability of default by 6 percent. Disastrously, Campello of the Review of Financial Studies ‘17 reports, each bankruptcy of a highly unionized firm costs an additional $343 million to the firm and $51 million to shareholders. After the dust settles, Dalia concludes, firms in non-right-to-work states underperform by 9.5 percent each year.

We urge a negative ballot.

I was a policy debater and I love to hear cases that present those real world scenarios.  My Aff philosophy places the burden of proof on the affirmative case for solvency and impacts.  Many times you can win because the Neg does not address case advantages and impacts.  Good impact calculus in the rebuttals is all that is required.

I like an aggressive cross-X and I will not chastise anyone for being snarky unless you get personal.  I like speed, but I need to clearly hear tags and cites.  Don't rush through these or I will stop flowing.  Analysis is critical.  It is not possible for me to read all of the evidence, so you need to tell me how it pertains to your case.

NEG Philosophy -- I am pretty happy with anything you want to put forth.  Disadvantages and CounterPlans can often beat the 1AC.  On K's, I really like to hear a real world impact in the alternative.  I can easily vote for that.  Otherwise, I will give more weight to the AFF impacts.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

UPDATED slightly on 3/2/24:

PLEASE EMAIL ME CASES BEFORE THE ROUND SO IT IS EASIER FOR ME TO FOLLOW THEM: ppaikone@gmail.com. THANK YOU!

Personal Background:

Since 2023, I am the speech and debate coach of George School in Pennsylvania. From 2000-2023, I was a coach of the speech and debate team of University School in Ohio. I have coached and judged virtually all high school speech and debate events over the years, but I’ve devoted the most time and energy to Public Forum debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate. I have experience at all levels: national, state, and local. Probably my biggest claim to fame as a coach is that my PF team (DiMino and Rahmani) won the NSDA national championship in 2010. If any of the points below are unclear or if you want my view on something else, feel free to ask me questions before the round begins.

LD Judging Preferences:

1. VALUE AND VALUE CRITERION: I think that the value and the value criterion are essential components of Lincoln-Douglas debate. They are what most distinguish LD from policy and public forum. If your advocacy is NOT explicitly directed toward upholding/promoting/achieving a fundamental value and your opponent does present a value and a case that shows how affirming/negating will fulfill that value, your opponent will win the round – because in my view your opponent is properly playing the game of LD debate while you are not.

2. QUALITY OVER QUANTITY: I think that speed ruins the vast majority of debaters, both in terms of their ability to think at a high level and in terms of their effective public speaking, which are two things that are supposed to be developed by your participation in high school forensics and two things I very much hope to see in every debate round I judge.

Most debaters cannot think as fast as they can talk, so going fast in an attempt to win by a numerical advantage in arguments or by “spreading” and causing your opponent to miss something, usually just leads to (a) poor strategic choices of what to focus on, (b) lots of superficial, insignificant, and ultimately unpersuasive points, and (c) inefficiency as debaters who speak too fast often end up stumbling, being less clear, and having to repeat themselves.

I would encourage debaters to speak at a normal, conversational pace, which would force them to make strategic decisions about what’s really important in the round. I think it is better to present clearly a few, significant points than to race rapidly through many unsubstantial points. Try to win by the superior quality of your thinking, not by the greater quantity of your ideas.

While I will do my best to “flow” everything that each debater presents, if you go too fast and as a result I miss something that you say, I don’t apologize for that. It’s your job as a debater not just to say stuff, but to speak in the manner necessary for your judge to receive and thoughtfully consider what you are saying. If your judge doesn’t actually take in something that you say, you might as well not have said it to begin with.

Because I prioritize quality over quantity in evaluating the arguments that are presented, I am not overly concerned about “drops.” If a debater “drops” an argument, that doesn’t necessarily mean he/she loses. It depends on how significant the point is and on how well the opponent explains why the dropped point matters, i.e., how it reveals that his/her side is the superior one.

As a round progresses, I really hope to hear deeper and clearer thinking, not just restating of your contentions. If you have to sacrifice covering every point on the flow in order to take an important issue to a higher level and present a truly insightful point, then so be it. That’s a sacrifice well worth making. On the other hand, if you sacrifice insightful thinking in order to cover the flow, that’s not a wise decision in my view.

3. WARRANTS OVER EVIDENCE: If you read the above carefully, you probably realized that I usually give more weight to logical reasoning than to expert testimony or statistics. I’m more interested in seeing how well you think on your feet than seeing how good of a researcher you are. (I’ve been coaching long enough to know that people can find evidence to support virtually any position on any issue….)

If you present a ton of evidence for a contention, but you don’t explain in your own words why the contention is true and how it links back to your value, I am not likely to be persuaded by it. On the other hand, if you present some brilliant, original analysis in support of a contention, but don’t present any expert testimony or statistical evidence for it, I will probably still find your contention compelling.

4. KRITIKS: While I may appreciate their cleverness, I am very suspicious of kritik arguments. If there is something fundamentally flawed with the resolution such that it shouldn’t be debated at all, it seems to me that that criticism applies equally to both sides, the negative as well as the affirmative. So even if you convince me that the kritik is valid, you’re unlikely to convince me then that you should be given credit for winning the round.

If you really believe the kritik argument, isn’t it hypocritical or self-contradictory for you to participate in the debate round? It seems to me that you can’t consistently present both a kritik and arguments on the substantive issues raised by the resolution, including rebuttals to your opponent’s case. If you go all in on the kritik, I’m likely to view that as complete avoidance of the issues.

In short, running a kritik in front of me as your judge is a good way to forfeit the round to your opponent.

5. JARGON: Please try to avoid using debate jargon as much as possible.

6. PROFESSIONALISM: Please be polite and respectful as you debate your opponent. A moderate amount of passion and emphasis as you speak is good. However, a hostile, angry tone of voice is not good. Be confident and assertive, but not arrogant and aggressive. Your job is to attack your opponent’s ideas, not to attack your opponent on a personal level.

PF Judging Preferences:

I am among the most traditional, perhaps old-fashioned PF judges you are likely to encounter. I believe that PF should remain true to its original purpose which was to be a debate event that is accessible to everyone, including the ordinary person off the street. So I am opposed to everything that substantively or symbolically makes PF a more exclusive and inaccessible event.

Here are 3 specific preferences related to PF:

1. SPEED (i.e., SELECTIVITY): The slower, the better. What most debaters consider to be slow is still much too fast for the ordinary lay person. Also, speed is often a crutch for debaters. I much prefer to hear fewer, well-chosen arguments developed fully and presented persuasively than many superficial points. One insightful rebuttal is better than three or four mediocre ones. In short, be selective. Go for quality over quantity. Use a scalpel, not a machine gun.

2. CROSSFIRES: Ask questions and give answers. Don't make speeches. Try not to interrupt, talk over, and steam-roll your opponent. Let your opponent speak. But certainly, if they are trying to steam-roll you, you can politely interject and make crossfire more balanced. Crossfire should go back and forth fairly evenly and totally civilly. I want to see engagement and thoughtfulness. Avoid anger and aggressiveness.

3. THEME OVER TECHNIQUE: It is very important to me that a debater presents and supports a clear and powerful narrative about the topic. Don't lost sight of the bigger picture. Keep going back to it in every speech. Only deal with the essential facts that are critical to proving and selling your narrative. If you persuade me of your narrative and make your narrative more significant than your opponent's, you will win my ballot - regardless of how many minor points you drop. On the other hand, if you debate with perfect technique and don't drop anything, but you don't present and sell a clear narrative, it's highly unlikely that you will win my ballot.

For online debate:

(1) GO SLOWLY. I cannot emphasize this enough. Going more slowly will greatly improve the thoughtfulness of your arguments and the quality of your delivery, and doing so will make it much easier for me to comprehend and be persuaded by your arguments. No matter how many pieces of evidence or blocks or turns or rebuilds you present, if your opponent just clearly presents ONE intelligent point that strikes me as pertinent and insightful, I am likely to side with him/her at least on the particular issue, and perhaps vote for him/her altogether.

(1a) In terms of your case, to be as specific as possible, in the hopes that you will actually heed my words about speed, the ideal PF case should be no longer than 600 words total. If your case is much longer than that, and you go faster in order to squeeze it into 4 minutes, it's highly likely that I will simply not catch and process many of your words - so you may as well not have said them in the first place.

(1b) In terms of the later speeches in a round, be selective, be strategic, and sell me the goods. In rebuttals, give me your ONE best response to your opponent's argument - maybe two responses, at the very most three. In the second half of the round, collapse to your ONE best voting issue and give your ONE strongest reason why it is true and your ONE strongest reason why it should be considered significant. I'm not going to count all your points just because you said them - You just have to make ONE good point count. (But don't try to do that just be repeating it again and again. You have to explain why your opponent's attack on it should be considered insufficient.) And point out the ONE most critical flaw in your opponent's argument.

(2) More advice on presentation: because we are doing debate through Zoom, it is MORE important that you pay attention to your delivery, not less. It's much harder to hold people's attention when you are speaking to them online than when you speak to them in person. (I'm sure you know this to be true as a listener.) So if you just give up on presenting well, you're making the obstacle practically insurmountable. On the other hand, if you put some real effort into speaking as well as you can in this new online format, you'll likely stand out from many of your opponents and your points will likely be understood and appreciated more than theirs.

(2a) Be clear: Do everything you can to be as clear and easy to understand as possible, both in your writing and your speaking.

(2b) Vary your delivery: Indicate what are the most important points in your speeches by changing up your voice. You should emphasize what is really important by changing the pace, the pitch, the volume, and the tone and also by using pauses. Your speech should not be one, long unbroken stream of words that all sound the same.

(2c) Eye contact: I know it's very hard but try to look up at your camera as much as possible. At least try to show me your face as much as you can.

(3) I don't believe that theory or kritiks should be a part of Public Forum debate. If you run either, you will almost certainly lose my ballot. I don't have time now to give all the reasons why I'm opposed to these kinds of arguments in PF. But I want you to have fair warning of my view on this point. If your opponent has not read this paradigm (or is blatantly disregarding it) and runs a kritik or theory in a round and i am your judge, all you need to say for me to dismiss that argument is that PF debate is intended to be accessible to all people and should directly address the topic of the resolution, and then continue to debate the resolution.

Hi, I've been judging for around a year now.

I will judge you based on what I can understand; please please please NO spreading.

I enjoy well thought out questions which really make your opponent's wonder.

I will not tolerate any sort of disrespect, be it to the audience or any of your opponents.

When your opponent is speaking, please make sure you are actually listening to them and not mocking or interrupting them in any sort of way.

My topmost criteria, in judging is:

1. defending your argument during questioning.
2. Good delivery of your speech.

Remember to enjoy yourself and have fun! :)

Regardless of speech or debate, all competitors should emulate good sportsmanship and be respectful during the competition. Examples of what this means:

> Paying attention while your opponent/competitor is presenting. (NOT goofing off on your phone or talking with a friend in the room).

> Being respectful and courteous, whether after a presentation or during debate cross-fires.

Debate Event Specific: Clear articulated and respectful debates. The pace of speaking should not be so rapid that the judge cannot clearly discern arguments being made. Additionally, while debate clashing is key, debate is still an exercise of public speaking, so be mindful of presentation skills.