Hey y’all. I’m David and I debated at Newark Science for 4 years on the state, regional, and national level.

College Debate: rundebate@gmail.com

High School Debate:asafuadjayedavid@gmail.com

My influences in debate have been Chris Randall, Jonathan Alston, Aaron Timmons, Christian Quiroz, Carlos Astacio, Willie Johnson, Elijah Smith in addition to a few others.

Conflicts:

-Newark Science

-Rutgers

I coach with DebateDrills- the following URL has our roster, MJP conflict policy,code of conduct, relevant team policies, and harassment/bullying complaint form:https://www.debatedrills.com/club-team-policies/lincoln-douglas-team-policy

Two primary beliefs:

1. Debate is a communicative activity and the power in debate is because the students take control of the discourse. I am an adjudicator but the debate is yours to have. The debate is yours, your speaker points are mine.

2. I am not tabula rasa. Anyone that claims that they have no biases or have the ability to put ALL biases away is probably wrong. I will try to put certain biases away but I will always hold on to some of them. For example, don’t make racist, sexist, transphobic, etc arguments in front of me. Use your judgment on that.

FW

I predict I will spend a majority of my time in these debates. I will be upfront. I do not think debate are made better or worse by the inclusion of a plan based on a predictable stasis point. On a truth level, there are great K debaters and terrible ones, great policy debaters and terrible ones. However, after 6 years of being in these debates, I am more than willing to evaluate any move on FW. My thoughts when going for FW are fairly simple. I think fairness impacts are cleaner but much less comparable. I think education and skills based impacts are easier to weigh and fairly convincing but can be more work than getting the kill on fairness is an intrinsic good. On the other side, I see the CI as a roadblock for the neg to get through and a piece of mitigatory defense but to win the debate in front of me the impact turn is likely your best route. While I dont believe a plan necessarily makes debates better, you will have a difficult time convincing me that anything outside of a topical plan constrained by the resolution will be more limiting and/or predictable. This should tell you that I dont consider those terms to necessarily mean better and in front of me that will largely be the center of the competing models debate.

Kritiks

These are my favorite arguments to hear and were the arguments that I read most of my career. Please DO NOT just read these because you see me in the back of the room. As I mentioned on FW there are terrible K debates and like New Yorkers with pizza I can be a bit of a snob about the K. Please make sure you explain your link story and what your alt does. I feel like these are the areas where K debates often get stuck. I like K weighing which is heavily dependent on framing. I feel like people throw out buzzwords such as antiblackness and expecting me to check off my ballot right there. Explain it or you will lose to heg good. K Lit is diverse. I do not know enough high theory K’s. I only cared enough to read just enough to prove them wrong or find inconsistencies. Please explain things like Deleuze, Derrida, and Heidegger to me in a less esoteric manner than usual.

CPs

CP’s are cool. I love a variety of CP’s but in order to win a CP in my head you need to either solve the entirety of the aff with some net benefit or prove that the net benefit to the CP outweighs the aff. Competition is a thing. I do believe certain counterplans can be egregious but that’s for y’all to debate about. My immediate thoughts absent a coherent argument being made.

1. No judge kick

2. Condo is good. You're probably pushing it at 4 but condo is good

3. Sufficiency framing is true

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

Theory
Just like people think that I love K’s because I came from Newark, people think I hate theory which is far from true. I’m actually a fan of well-constructed shells and actually really enjoyed reading theory myself. I’m not a fan of tricky shells and also don’t really like disclosure theory but I’ll vote on it. Just have an actual abuse story. I won’t even list my defaults because I am so susceptible to having them changed if you make an argument as to why. The one thing I will say is that theory is a procedural. Do with that information what you may.

DA’s

Their fine. I feel like internal link stories are out of control but more power to you. If you feel like you have to read 10 internal links to reach your nuke war scenario and you can win all of them, more power to you. Just make the story make sense. I vote for things that matter and make sense. Zero risk is a thing but its very hard to get to. If someone zeroes the DA, you messed up royally somewhere.

Plans

YAY. Read you nice plans. Be ready to defend them. T debates are fairly exciting especially over mechanism ground. Similar to FW debates, I would like a picture of what debate looks like over a season with this interpretation.

Presumption.

Default neg. Least change from the squo is good. If the neg goes for an alt, it switches to the aff absent a snuff on the case. Arguments change my calculus so if there is a conceded aff presumption arg that's how I'll presume. I'm easy.

LD Specific

Tricks

Nah. If you were looking for this part to see whether you can read this. Umm No. Win debates. JK You can try to get me to understand it but I likely won't and won't care to either.

I've been involved in the debate community for twenty years, as a student and as a coach. I've judged the following kinds of debate: policy, Lincoln-Douglas, and parliamentary debate (and also all forms of individual events). I am an assistant professor of Communication Studies; my area of speciality is rhetoric, focusing on argumentation, public controversies, rhetorics of health and medicine, and gender. I regularly teach public speaking and argumentation.

In all forms of debate, my philosophy is to judge the arguments and evidence as presented to me, rather than stating "xyz" form of debate/argument is off limits (for example, I am open to: counterplans, disads, kritiks, topicality, performance arguments (on either/both sides) -not an exhaustive list). I also do not judge based upon what arguments I wish were in the debate (but if relevant will offer those as suggestions for improvement in my ballot/feedback). I view debate as enabling students to find their voices, positions, and to engage in advocacy--thus, I am interested in hearing what YOU want me to hear within the debate. I support inclusion and diversity, in a variety of forms (such as gender, race, class, first generation) and will not tolerate behaviors which actively go against inclusion/diversity.

A note on speed: Although I have participated (both as a student and a coach) in speed debate (I did NDT/CEDA debate for 6 years), I have not done so in quite a while. It would be best to be more moderately paced for me to judge the debate.

I look forward to engaging debates!!

Hey all! I’ve been judging and coaching many different styles of debate for years and years. I have 2 paradigms below, one for LD and one for NPDA. They're pretty similar, but there's some specifics that may only apply to one or the other...and I didn't want to integrate them, so I just put both.

LD PARADIGM

General
My goal is to be as open to what you want to run, but also try and be helpful here with how I tend to view and weigh things.
I approach debate primarily as an educational activity with interwoven game elements. Our in-round discourse has critical, real world rhetorical implications and the debate space functions best when critiquing ideas and power structures, whether through policy implementation or critical framework. While I am very receptive to advocacies of violence against the state or other power structures, I am very opposed to violence targeting individuals in the debate space. This doesn’t refer to a counterplan or procedural run against you that you don’t like, but that our praxis, even in competition, should be kindness towards each other, directing violence towards oppression, power structures and discourses of power and domination.

I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you explain why I should.

Kritiks
I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you.
I definitely prefer critical arguments that are “grounded in the specificity” of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I tend to get bored with highly generic kritiks. Failure to apply your criticism to the topic can put the kiritik at a rhetorical disadvantage and opens the Affirmative up for methodological criticism by the Neg. I also prefer methodological challenges to non-topical Aff K’s rather than topicality procedurals, as the method debate tends to engage more with the substance of the kritik and doesn’t link into replications of structural oppression as readily.
Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know what you mean by them and how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction a criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don’t give blanket blips of “alt solves all” because, no, it doesn’t. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more substantial analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.

Procedurals
I can easily find procedural debates boring, but enjoy them when they’re good. I prefer specific in/out of round impacts over generic ones. I tend to weigh through competing interpretations (make them clear what they are), but am open to consider any strategy you want to pursue with this. I’m probably more inclined to vote elsewhere on the flow, but if they’re run, I’ll look to procedurals first.
I think running disclosure theory is lazy, it annoys me and I will rarely vote on it. I find disclosure theory to be incredibly boring and a waste of time better spent engaging with the arguments in-round or running some more interesting theory. It wouldn’t hurt you to engage in some critical thinking on the spot. Big thumbs down on that one, eh.

Speaker points
25-30. 27-30 is my typical range, 24 and below is typically for abusive individuals. Yep, that’s about it.
Oh! Also, go at whatever speed you want. Personally, I enjoy fast...but actually say words, not just the impressions of words. Also, speed should not be used as a tool of exclusion. I do not enjoy that. Access to the activity only helps us learn and grow.

Counterplans
I tend to view most counterplans as theoretically legitimate and like to leave it up to the debaters to determine what is or is not legitimate in the given round. I will vote for pretty much any kind of counterplan as long as you win any relevant theory. I don’t prefer running multiple advocacies or kicking multiple advocacies. Counterplans and perms can be either textual or functionally competitive, as long as there is a net-benefit or demonstration of non-competition.

I think that’s most of the specific things. I’m always willing to add and modify my paradigm as needed. Always let me know if you have any questions.

NPDA PARADIGM

I approach debate primarily as an educational activity with interwoven game elements. Our in-round discourse has critical, real world rhetorical implications and the debate space functions best when critiquing ideas and power structures, whether through policy implementation or critical framework. While I am very receptive to advocacies of violence against the state or other power structures, I am very opposed to violence targeting individuals in the debate space. This doesn’t refer to a counterplan or procedural run against you that you don’t like, but that our praxis, even in competition, should be kindness towards each other, directing violence towards oppression, power structures and discourses of power and domination.

I really like specific, well run critical debates. They are my favorite, but I'm also totally good with non-critical arguments. So, if critical arguments are not your thing, don't feel like you have to run them in front of me or I won't vote for you. I vote for plenty of non-critical arguments. Likewise, just because you run a critical argument doesn't mean I'm automatically going to vote for you.

I evaluate arguments in whatever framework I am presented with, as long as it's warranted (don't just tell me something is important, tell me why it's important). I usually do not vote on defense alone, and prefer offensive arguments on positions rather than just defensive. When weighing arguments, I default to weighing probability over magnitude and timeframe, but I will weigh them differently if you explain why I should.

I have a rather high threshold for spec arguments and need to see clearly articulated in-round abuse, or I will not vote on them. This usually manifests itself as obvious underspecified, groundshift-ready plan situations. Spec arguments generally function best for me as link insurance for other positions. Asking questions are a must when running spec arguments. I tend to think conditionality, and PICs are bad, but a procedural needs to be run and won to get my vote. However, even if an argument is kicked, the rhetoric of the position has already been introduced into the round and I still consider valid link access to that rhetoric.

I tend to protect against new arguments in the rebuttals, but like POOs called when whoever's giving the rebuttal thinks they're getting away with sneaking new arguments in. I tend to grant the PMR access to new articulations to existing arguments from the MO, and the opposition from arguments suddenly blown up in the PMR.

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are grounded in the specificity of the resolution, over generic, over-run kritiks (if your criticism is as important as you say, you can certainly link to and specifically engage with any res/arguments the other team runs). I will vote on permutations and theoretical objections. I also give weight to performative contradiction arguments as deficits to solvency (or however else you would like to use them). I tend to get bored with highly generic kritiks. I do not prefer non-topical Affirmative kritiks, because they unnecessarily exclude the Negative and if the issue is as important as you claim, it definitely has specific topical application that can allow for equitable engagement by the Negative. Failure to apply your criticism to the topic puts the kiritik at a rhetorical disadvantage and opens the Affirmative up for methodological criticism by the Neg. I also prefer methodological challenges to non-topical Aff Ks rather than topicality procedurals, as the method debate tends to engage more with the substance of the kritik and doesn't link into replications of structural oppression as readily.

Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know what you mean by them and how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it's important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction a criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don't drop or omit solvency of the criticism. Also, don't give blanket blips of alt solves all because, no, it doesn't. I understand that argument as a game piece, but if your advocacy is worth voting for you need to have more substantial analysis than that. Use solvency as a way to justify the need for the criticism through analysis of what it actually does.

Recent Graduate and current Vanderbilt Coach; Debated for Vanderbilt 2014-16 (Novice, JV, and Open)

Email chain is usually easiest and most efficient, so use gavin.p.gill@vanderbilt.edu to add me to the chain.

As you can tell from the above description, It's been a few years since I've been in the policy world, so bear that in mind if you're planning on spreading up a storm. When I debated, I could flow with the fastest of them, but I wouldn't count on my ability to track your unwritten analytic arguments in your case at 400 words per minute. That being said, I will always do the utmost to follow everything, and I will shout "clear" if you exceed my rusted limits.

Another important caveat: I currently coach for Vandy with my main focus on developing its new parliamentary team. I've read up on the topic briefly, but don't expect me to be an expert on the acronyms that tend to emerge throughout the year. Expand them the first time you use them, and I am amenable to their use thereafter.

Onto the fun stuff:

I, in somewhat classic Vanderbilt style, mostly utilized policy arguments. While I enjoyed K's on the Neg, I only ran 1 K-Aff as a 2N during my time in college, so be aware of my potential limits in terms of familiarity with the literature. I prefer topical plans, but am adaptive depending on the round. Remember: it's your job to frame the round and explain how I should vote. Do your work to that end in defining and defending, and I'll vote accordingly. If you're running a nontraditional Aff, you'd better explain why I should believe you should win. Make arguments, not mere assertions, that effectively determine the role of the debaters, judge, and the space/round if you want your case to survive.

On Topicality: I love T debates. This is definitely a gatekeeping issue in terms of fairness and the purpose of the debate round, so it should be covered effectively if you're going to go for it. Again, don't waste anybody's time with assertions that lack impact or warrants, as shadow extending a T-Shell is likely not going to do you any favors. Develop and flesh out the debate, as I never have a de facto vote. That being said, I'm sympathetic to fairness arguments so long as they are well made, expanded, impacted, and interacted with the other team's defense. Do your work, or else it's a throwaway argument.

Case/DA's: Specificity is preferred to generality, the argument is only as strong as the link chain, I'm sympathetic to interpretations of probability when evidence supports it, and I need work done on how to weigh the arguments and why if you expect me to vote on them.

CP's: A great tool with a potential for abuse. Conditionality is cool, so long as you don't run too many. My sympathy to the aff's claims of abuse increase with the number of conditional counterplans, so you should have proportional defense if you're running multiple conditional CP's. I will always vote on a fair permutation if the neg can't prove unique net benefits.

Kritiks: I'll admit, I enjoy a really well done K. I like to think I'm decently well-versed in the literature, but I'm not an expert on every esoteric academic out there, and I require a fair degree of work on interpretations and framework if you're going this route. I will say that splitting a Neg in a way where the work on the K assumes a moral high ground that also attacks your other arguments leaves a bad taste in my mouth, but it's not impossible for me to vote for it if the other team doesn't explain why this is bad/unfair/whatever. As noted in the rest of my paradigm, do your work whatever your side, and I'll vote according to what happens in the round.

Framework: The bedrock of the debate. Two teams with radically different frameworks need to clash to define the round with well impacted arguments. Don't just assert your framework is better, or you'll leave it up to my preferences which might not be in your favor (and certainly aren't great for me to impose as a judge, in my view).

So, I hope it's clear that I'm game for whatever you bring to the round, but you'd better bring it. You don't win without clear and effective clash and framing, and I'm happy to vote for whomever does what is necessary to clash well, fairly, and with proper work done in the round.

Good luck, have fun, and enjoy the sport.

I am a reformed policy debater. I love theory but hate speed. I believe that debate is a communication activity, and that speeding makes the activity inaccessible and less valuable. That said, I am usually OK with critical positions run on the Aff or the Neg (though Aff K need to have substantial "role of the ballot" discussions). Topicality, along with other procedurals, is always a fun position; I especially prefer good debate on the standards/reasons to prefer level. Counterplans do not have to be non-topical (with theory to support), but mutual exclusivity is important to avoid a permutation, which usually does not have to be understood as advocacy (but this can be challenged).

The two areas, besides my distaste for speed, that might be understood as more conservative would be regarding the neutrality of political assumptions and my skepticism of performative advocacy cases. I am open to political arguments from anywhere on the political spectrum. I will not take as an assumption "Trump bad," nor the contrary "Trump good." Defend these positions. For performance, perhaps my skepticism comes from the fact that I haven't yet heard it run well. Perhaps you can convert me. Identity positions have a higher threshold to clear.

With value-based debate, I expect clear discussion of the value and criterion. I enjoy getting into the philosophical weeds. I am a philosophy professor who specializes in 19th and 20th century continental philosophy. I also have an economics background, so feel free to get wonky.

Competed in: BP, CX, PF

Judged: BP, Civic, CX, LD, PF

Currently an Assistant Coach @ Vanderbilt

email chain: Brandon.M.James@vanderbilt.edu

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

If you see me in the back of the room, then that probably means that I am essentially being paid to listen to you speak and adjudicate a round based on the arguments you’ve made. To me, part of that duty requires keeping an open mind. I’ve run, debated against, and judged a variety of events and argument styles. Absent any behavior that negatively impacts my ability to get paid or my ability to foster an inclusive environment, I don’t particularly care what you run or how you debate.

With that said, to make things easier for all of us, here are some things to keep in mind:

Topic Knowledge: I’m more of a “team judge” than a “team coach”. I likely haven’t done a lot of research on whatever topic you’re speaking about, so I won’t know what each acronym means or instantly recall what each card you read says. Try to explain terms that may not be intuitive, and if you’re extending evidence be clear about what you’re extending.

Kritikal Knowledge: I spent the most involved portion of my debate career running Kritikal Affs/Negs about antiblackness against some combination of framework, a policy advocacy, and a capitalism kritik. This isn’t an invitation to run these arguments or me saying that I am happy with less explanation in these debates, but it is to say that I probably feel at “home” here and understand the terminology. For K’s outside of this domain you shouldn’t assume I’m as familiar with the literature as you are.

Non-Traditional Argumentation: In general, the further you stray from the norms/expectations of the activity you’re participating in, the stronger your justifications for those shifts need to be. I have no problem listening to these arguments, but also have no problem listening to how these arguments may be bad for fairness or education, particularly when the rationale for these arguments being run is weak.

Delivery: You should be going at a speed at which the slowest flower involved in the debate can understand, and a volume at which everyone involved at the debate is comfortable. If I ask you to change how you’re speaking, it won’t impact your speaks unless you seem to continuously refuse.

Specific Issues:

1. I’m a believer in the idea that ridiculous arguments require minimal responses. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on your trolly argument or sneaky trick, but it does mean that the bar for a substantive response is lower here. If you’re stomping on the flow here or need a Hail Mary, feel free to go for it, but if there’s at least decent engagement here please look elsewhere.

2. I have a tendency to vote against teams who fail to actually describe what they defend, even when they may be more technically proficient. Trying to dodge every cross-ex question or refusing to say what you advocate for so you won’t “link” to things is lazy to me and creates bad debates.

3. Do not force me to listen to a definition debate where the two terms are not meaningfully different, or a debate about a trivial distinction/clarification point. A pointless debate somehow becoming a sticking point of the round is probably the pettiest reason I will drop speaker points.

Accommodations: Please let me/the competitors know how we can make this space more accessible, as soon as possible.

RFDs: My RFD style is very conversational. I will walk you through my decision while also highlighting any issues/confusions I had during the debate. I may ask you questions about why certain choices were made in the debate, even if they aren’t directly related to my decision, if I think they could be issues in other rounds. If you have questions you should ask them. If I’m not making sense you should tell me so. You’ve given up an hour or more of your time, so you should leave the room feeling like you know why I voted how I did.

I feel the need to fix this huge communication issue in the debate community it will start with my judging philosophy. If you are a debater who say any of the following "Obama is president solves for racism" or "we are moving towards less racism cause of Obama or LBS" and the opposing team reading a racism arg/advantage or colorblindness I will instantly vote you down with 25 points for the debater who said it.

Jumping: Novice please don't but if you must which you all will you have 20 seconds after you call for prep to be stop till I consider it stealing prep and instead of restarting prep I will just measure it by the ticker timer in my head (which you do not want). I suggest that you carry a debate jump drive, viewing computer or the cloud system. For Open debaters I get even more angry with the lack of competence you guys have with being responsible when it comes to jumping files and card. I have a soft warmness for debaters who are mostly paper and may involve me smiling like a boy with a crush don't be alarmed it is just me remembering my old days.

Speaking: I believe that clarity comes before all other ideals of what we often fantasize a good speaker to be, a debater has to be clear so that I spend more time analyzing and processing what is said then trying to comprehend what the hell is being said. This helps in the rebuttals when there is more cross applying of arguments instead of me sitting there trying to ponder what argument reference is being made. Speed is something I can adjust to not my general forte yet if you are clear I can primarily make easier adjustments (look I sound like a damn metronome). I tend to give hints towards the wrongs and rights in the round so I won’t be put off if you stare at me every now and then. Debates should be a game of wit and word that upholds morals of dignity and respect do not be rude and or abrasive please respect me, the other team, your partner and of course yourself

The Flow: My hand writing is atrocious just incredibly horrible for others at least I generally flow tags, authors and major warrants in the world of traditional debate. Outside of that with all the other formats poetry, performance, rap, theatricals and so forth I just try to grasp the majority of the speech incorporating the main idea

The K: yeah I so love the K being from a UDL background and having running the K for a majority of my debate career, yet don't let that be the reason you run the K I believe that a great K debate consist of a in-depth link explanation as well as control of the clash. There should be Impact calculus that does more then tell me what the impact is but a justification for how it functionally shapes the round which draws me to have a complete understanding of the Alt versus the plan and there must be some idea of a solvency mechanism so that the k is just simply not a linear disad forcing me to rethink or reform in the status quo (K= reshape the Squo)

The T debate: First I find it extremely hard to remember in my entire debate career where I cast a ballot for topicality alone yet it is possible to get a T ballot you must have a clear abuse story I will not evaluate T if there is not a clear abuse story. Voters are my best friend and will become a prior if well explained and impacted, yet I do believe education and fairness have extreme value just want to know why.

The D/A: Well I actually find myself voting more on the Disad then the K I just think that the disad debate offers more tools for the neg then the K yet it is the debater who optimize these tools that gain my ballot, link debates should contain at least a specific link as well as a an established Brink generic links are not good enough to win a D/A ballot and any good aff team will destroy a a generic link unless there is some support through a link wall. Impact debates must be more than just nuke war kills all you have to place comparative value to the status quo now and after plan passage. Yet a disad is an easier win with the advantages of solvency deficits and the option of competitive counter plans.

The Counter Plan: Competition is key if there is no proof that the end result is not uniquely different from the aff plan it is less likely to capture my ballot. So C/P solvency and competition is where my voter lies on the C/P flow this involves establishing and controlling the clash on the net benefit. PIC's usually rely on proving that the theoretical value of competition is worth my jurisdiction.

Theory: cross apply T only thing with a theory debate that is different is you must be able to show in where the violation actually happens yet I find theory to be easy outs to traditional clash.

Framework: this is where my jurisdiction truly falls and it is the teams’ job to not only introduce the functioning framework but to uphold and defend that their framework is worth singing my ballot towards. I have no set idea of a framework coming into the round your job is to sell me to one and by any means my job is not to look at what framework sounds good but which is presented in a manner that avoids judges intervention (really just the team that prevents me from doing the bulk of the work if any).

In general: I love a good old debate round with tons of clash and where there is an understanding and display of your own intellect I find it hard to judge a round where there is just a display of how well a team can read and make reference to evidence, usually I hope that ends or is done less coming out of the 1AR. I'm a man who finds pleasure in the arts and execution of organic intellect and can better give my decision and opinion based mainly on how one relates back to competitive debate, if debate for you is a card game then it forces me to have to make decision based off my comprehension of the evidence and trust me that is never a good thing, yet a round where the discussion is what guides my ballot I can vote on who upholds the best discursive actions.

Howdy folks.

I participated in four years of Parliamentary Debate and a year in Social Justice Debates. I am now three years post-grad and have been out of the debate circuit during that time. I am going to offer some general positions I hold as a judge in hopes it provides some use to you in round.

First, I want a clear weighing mechanism for how I will be evaluating the round. I am a flow judge and will be voting in the scope of the best articulated role of my ballot. Do not just say how I should be viewing the round, tell me why it is I should be viewing the round that way. Winning this and bringing it through in your rebuttal makes it quite likely I will vote for you.

Second, well delivered rebuttals are crucial. I will not weigh new arguments but also would like debaters to point out if the other team makes one. I've been out of the game a while and would hate to miss one, so please do not assume I will automatically catch everything. Along with rebuttals, tell me exactly why you won the round and pull across your arguments. I spent a lot of my debate career trying to perfect my rebuttals and appreciate a well delivered and articulated last speech. Narrow the round for me and explain clearly why you are the winner. I do not want to do work for you.

Third, I don't LOVE spec arguments. Obviously run one if there is clear in round abuse, but these kinds of arguments were never my specialty, so if you're going for it, explain to me in clear detail why the argument is necessary.

Lastly, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, be kind y'all. This is a really small community where we get to come together and discuss ways we could positively change the world. Nothing irks me more than teams that walk into the room like they are better than anyone else. This is an activity we elect to participate in so be sure to make it inclusive and encouraging. Nothing will make me vote against you faster than seeing rude or abusive behavior. So do not talk over people in cross ex, do not make rude remarks about the other team in your speeches, and win your arguments simply because they are better arguments. It's pretty simple but I have seen too many teams make it pretty hard.

Talk clearly, talk logically, talk kindly, and you will do well. (:

Justin Morgan Parmett
University of Vermont

Assistant debate coach, Lawrence Debate Union

I have been involved in Policy debate at many levels (high school, college, regional, national, novice, JV and varsity) since the mid 1990’s. I did a brief stint in NPDA/NPTE (parli debate) for a few years recently, and have been back at UVM coaching BP debate for the past 4 years. You will find me very open minded and above all I want people to have fun, be nice to each other and develop your arguments thoughtfully. I am competent flowing at high speed and will do my best to deliver a fair decision. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions you have prior to the round. Here is a bit more detail:

My judging philosophy seems to be contextual to the round that I am judging. You can run whatever type of argument that you want to in front of me, however, I do have my preferences and they tend to be more towards the critical side of debate. I am not so likely to vote on topicality or FW arguments that are based in the assumption that this is the wrong place for the argument unless you not only win that there is some ground abuse, but also demonstrate that this ground loss is important. Do not just say that you can’t run your agent CP or your politics DA without saying why that ground is important. Likewise, I am not so likely to vote on theory arguments that say that I should reject a team for running a particular argument, usually the K. Theory arguments can operate effectively as defense, but rarely as offense for you. I would generally prefer that people attempt to answer each other's arguments rather than trying to frame each other out of the round. I also prefer for debaters to be nice to each other in rounds as meanness will hurt your speaker points and your credibility. This does not mean that you will lose the debate, but if I have to do work at the end of the debate to figure out what is going on, this will come into play as to which side I do work for. Also, I am not likely to be persuaded if you tell me that I am a policy maker so I should not look at arguments that are philosophically based. This does not mean that I should not consider myself a policy maker, but that this role includes me questioning assumptions behind our actions. Basically, this means that I do not believe in the pre/post fiat distinction. I think that affirmatives have a right to frame the debate in a reasonable manner. You do not have to uphold some standard as to what the resolution is supposed to mean for everyone and I don’t see why it is productive for us all to be stuck to thinking exactly the same way about the topic. This being said, if you are going to talk about things that have nothing to do with the topic at all (I don’t know, maybe you want to talk about sports or music or something) you should have good reasons as to why you should do that. To be clear, proving that debate is structurally flawed is a good reason, but you should still ask me to vote on the argument you are making rather than the fact that debate is exclusionary. That is a start to your argument, but not the end. I could otherwise be persuaded to vote on a topicality arg in these cases. I think that this is enough to get an idea of where I stand. The debate is for you, but I also am going to be a part of it if I am watching the round. If there are any questions that you have, you should ask me at any time.

In general, I take a real world approach to debate. I am not persuaded by tenuous links to a nuke war impact and would rather vote for real arguments based on likely consequences of policy proposals in the case of policy debate. I believe parliamentary debate should not always be limited to a policy framework and that debaters should structure the debate as the resolution dictates. I am a limited tab judge, which means I won’t divorce my common sense from the evaluation of your arguments and if you state things that the an average intelligent person knows is not true, I won’t give it credit (e.g., Kanye West is the democratic nominee for President).

Experience

I have participated in and/or coached every form of debate.  Currently, I am the DOF at Morehouse College where we engage in NPDA, BP, IPDA, and some times Public Forum. I have coached teams to Pi Kappa Delta National Championships in NPDA debate 4 times in the last three years, and Morehouse finished 6th in NPDA Sweepstakes.  

Topicality

I believe the Gov has an obligation to present a Topical case.  If it doesn’t then I believe Opp should run T and challenge their interpretation of the resolution.  If they don’t, then it’s accepted.  Your standards (or counterstandards) on T are up to you, but I’m not a big fan of debatablity or education.  You can be debateable and educational and still be nontopical.  The correct/best interpretation of words is a real issue in debate and the real world.

I believe T is always a voting issue and never a reverse voter. I expect any critical Govs or performance based advocacy to be topical.  If your links to the topic aren’t strong you should reconsider running it against me.  I am still Tabby, but you will start off at a disadvantage without solid links.

Trichotomy

I believe strongly that Parli debate should some times be Policy, sometimes Value, and sometimes Fact.  I also believe that on some resolutions people can reasonably disagree.  I enjoy a good substantive discussion about the round and the framework that the debate should operate under, but by all means don’t argue this for the sake of arguing it or because I said I like it.

DAs

If there is a plan in the debate and you’re Opp, you should have some.  However, I will vote on traditional stock issues if you win there.  Please don’t feel the need to state large impacts with tenuous links just so your impact calculus sounds better.  I more realistic and likely

Counterplans

For me, these must be nontopical, mutually exclusive, and net beneficial.  I don’t like conditional counterplans in Parli – too much room for abuse. Any other questions just ask. Also, no CPs in the MO.

Kritiks

Please don’t assume I have read any of the philosophical or critical literature upon which you base your arguments. I expect debaters to explain their positions sufficiently in round to justify me voting for it. I am generally open various philosophical approaches to the round.

Things I don’t like:

Tag team POIs – it’s your partner’s speech let them answer.  If they can’t it will hurt their speaker points.

Splitting the block – you just can’t do this in Parli.  MO must respond with any new arguments Opp wants in the debate or to respond to MG.  I am ok with new examples and new analysis in the LOR, but they must connect to preexisting arguments from constructives.

Excessive Speed – Twenty years ago I was a policy debater.  I was fast, but not the fastest for sure. My dislike of speed (particularly for speedsake or loading up the flow) now comes not from my inability to flow it, but for my preference in parliamentary debate that the manner in which you speak is as important as the matter or substance that you deliver.  I enjoy hearing speeches that could persuade anyone (i.e., not only debate coaches and former debaters).  Some people naturally speak fast, and that’s ok with me as long as you are articulate, have good structure, and sign post well.  I also think debaters should make conscious decisions about what positions to run and not attempt to throw the kitchen sink out and see what sticks (or what is dropped).  I will vote on dropped positions, but you are unlikely to win the round just because your opponent dropped your little 3 on Advantage 2, Subpoint A. 

Performance/Project – I believe that Gov should be topical no matter what style case they decide to run.  I believe that Parli debate is about the resolution so you should make sure that your case has a clear link and also see my comments on T.

Policy Judging Philosophy—David Romanelli Loyola University Chicago

I have been judging for 28yrs (Old CEDA, NDT, CEDA/NDT, NPDA, and for the last 6 years BP). I have not judged a lot of policy in the last 6 years. This will be my first tournament on this topic.

I think the resolution is the focus of debate. If the affirmative team does not support the resolution, I have a very low threshold for voting neg. I like a well-organized flow. I prefer line-by-line debate. I prefer well developed arguments to warrantless tag line debate. I am not a fan of K debates unless the wording of the resolution demands it (the resolution is the focus of the debate). K affirmatives are generally not welcome unless the resolution demands it. That does not mean that the impacts have to be war etc. You can and should make arguments about how impacts should be evaluated. That being said, I also reject the policy maker paradigm. We can and should image a better world through debate.

Speed up to a point is fine (slow down on plan text, theory dumps etc.). Debaters should adhere to the guidelines of their institution and that of the host. Contradictions can cost you the debate if the other team knows why.

Topicality. I have no problem with T. There are a variety of ways you could win it. That being said, most will not. You need to explain how it works and answer their arguments. A well explained definition and violation with clear standards is the key to my ballot on T.

Counterplans C/P status is conditional unless explained or asked about;(I would ask). Net benefits are my default for competition.

It is your job to compare and contrast impacts. If neither team has in the debate and I am now forced to intervene. No one is going to be happy including me. I have no set way to decide these issues. Lots of dead bodies normally = victor

*Last updated 11/7/19*

Background:

Schools Attended: Boca '16, FSU '20

Teams Coaching/Coached: Capitol, Boca

Competitive History: 4 years of PF in high school, 2 years of JV policy and 2 years of NPDA and Civic Debate in college

Public Forum Paradigm:

TL;DR: You do you.

General:

1) Tech > Truth. If you have strong warrants and links and can argue well, I'll vote off of anything. Dropped arguments are presumed true arguments. I'm open to anything as long as you do your job to construct the argument properly.

2) The first speaking team in the round needs to make sure that all offense that you want me to vote on must be in the summary and final focus. Defense in the rebuttal does not need to be extended, I will buy it as long as your opponents don't respond and it is extended in the final focus. The second speaking team needs to respond to turns in rebuttal and extend all offense and defense you want me to vote on in BOTH the summary and the final focus.

3) If you start weighing arguments in rebuttal or summary it will make your arguments a lot more convincing. Easiest way to my ballot is to warrant your weighing and tell me why your arguments are the most important and why they mean you win the round.

4) I don't vote on anything that wasn't brought up in final focus.

Framework:

Frameworks need clear warrants and reasons to prefer. Make sure to contextualize how the framework functions with the rest of the arguments in the round.

Theory:

I will listen to any theory arguments as long as a real abuse is present. Don't just use theory as a cheap way to win, give me strong warrants and label the shell clearly and it will be a voter if the violation is clear. Also, if you're going to ask me to reject the team you better give me a really good reason.

If you are running theory, such as disclosure theory, and you want it to be a voter, you need to bring it up for a fair amount of time.

Kritiks:

I was primarily a K debater when I competed in policy in college, so I am familiar with how they function in round. However, I don't know all the different K lit out there so make sure you can clearly explain and contextualize.

Offense v. Defense:

I find myself voting for a risk of offense more often than I vote on defense. If you have really strong terminal impact defense or link defense, I can still be persuaded to vote neg on presumption.

Weighing:

I hate being in a position where I have to do work to vote for a team. Tell me why your argument is better/more important than your opponents and why that means I should vote for you. Strength of link and/or impact calc is encouraged and appreciated.

Evidence Standard:

I will only call for cards if it is necessary for me to resolve a point of clash or when a team tells me to.

Speaks:

- If I find you offensive/rude I will drop your speaks relative to the severity of the offense.

- I take everything into consideration when giving speaks.

- The easier you make my decision, the more likely you are to get high speaks.

Misc:

- I'm fine with speed, but if you're going to spread send out speech docs.

- Keep your own time.

- I will disclose if the tournament allows me, and feel free to ask me any questions after my RFD.

- I only vote off of things brought up in speeches.

Bottom line: Debate is supposed to be fun! Run what you want just run it well.

If you have any questions email me at joshschulsterdebate@gmail.com or ask me before the round.

I am a pretty open-minded judge. Analysis, framing, and a hint of ethos will win you the debate. A few general comments and then onto my specific feelings about arguments.

General

-CX is important and binding, use it well

-One well highlighted and warranted card is better than three low quality one liners

-Flashing does not count as prep time

DA

-The more specific the better, explain how the link works

-Defend the impact well, the affirmative can often subsume a DA with their impacts

-If you can please read something which is not a Politics DA

CP

-Give me a good solvency debate, why is this a preferable idea?

-Make them clever, I will entertain all manner of odd solutions

-Constitutional Conventions will increase speaker points

K

-I like these arguments

-That being said please explain your arguments, don't read a bunch of postmodern philosophy and expect me to make sense of it

-Run a cap K with a reject alt and you will probably loose

-Run a cap K with a historical materialist alternative and you might win

-I am not persuaded by ridiculous alternatives, I will usually view the alternative as vote for the status quo because the K is a prior question to policymaking

-Do good link work and impact framing and you will be able to sell me on the alternative better

-Winning a prior question framework is important

T

-I generally default affirmative if they are reasonably topical

-If there is a blatant violation which is well explained I could be persuaded to vote negative

Framework

-Negative's best weapon against advocacy and no plan affirmatives

-If framework is questioned it becomes very important for me. A question of what we are debating about comes before the debate itself.

Theory

-Condo is probably not a voter as long as there is not blatant contradiction or extreme abuse of multiple worlds

-PIKs might be cheating

-Floating PIKs are definately cheating

Performance 

-Not a huge fan, but I will evaulate it how you tell me to

-If your strategy is to make the other team uncomfortable by using offensive or loaded terms please do not do this. Debate is a location where everyone should be able to participate and learn, don't make the other team feel inferior or threatened. 

Any questions just ask me!

elijahjdsmith AT gmail.com

My General Thoughts on Debate

Debate is what you make it. I have an extensive history in circuit policy/ld and college policy debate. I care about education more than fairness, good cards over the quantity of positions, and quality arguments over the number of arguments in a debate.

An argument has a claim, warrant, and impact in a single speech.

The role of the affirmative is to affirm and the role of the negative is to negate the affirmative in an intellectually rigorous manner. However, I would personally like to hear the affirmative say we should do something. I would prefer to hear about an actor outside of the folks reading the 1AC (Nonprofits, governments, the debate community as a whole, etc) do something but that is not a requirement. Most of it sounds good to me.

Please don’t say racist, sexist, ableist things or things that otherwise participate in -isms . Sometimes these are learning moments. Sometimes these are losing moments.

If there was an accessibility, disclosure, or other request made before the debate that you plan to bring up in the debate please inform me before the debate. I would like to evaluate the debate with this information ahead of time. More personal issues/things that someone did last year are difficult for me to understand as relevant to my ballot.

I decide debates by figuring out 1. framing issue 2. offense 3. good defense 4. if the evidence is as good as you say it is 5. deciding which world /side would result in a better outcome (whatever that means for the debate in front of me)

These thoughts are fairly general yet firmly how I think about debate.

My RFDs have been less "little c, little d mattered to my ballot" and "let's talk about the conceptual, big-picture things that both sides missed that will help you win the next debate". If you want the small line-by-line issues to matter as much you have to give them weight in your final speech. That requires time, investment in explanation, and comparative claims.

LD***

Tricks, silly arguments, etc. Please skip. I haven't read your ethics phil but I've voted on it when it makes sense. 4+ off is grounds for a condo debate. K links require longer than 15 seconds to explain.

Public Forum****

If you already know what evidence you are going to read in the debate/speech you have to send a document via email chain or provide the evidence on a google document that is shared with your opponents before the debate. Those cards have to be provided before the speech begins.

You don’t get unlimited prep time to ask for cards before prep time is used. A PF debate can’t take as long as a policy debate. You have 30 seconds to request and there are then 30 seconds to provide the evidence. If you can’t provide it within 30 seconds your prep will run until you do.

The Final Focus should actually be focused. You have to implicate your argument against every other argument in the debate. You can’t do that if you go for 3 or 4 different arguments.

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.