GSU National College Debate Tournament

2014 — GA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ben Allen Oklahoma 8 rounds

Frank Annie Florida State 8 rounds

Michael Antonucci Harvard 3 rounds

David Arnett Kentucky 4 rounds

Joseph Autry Liberty 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 29, 2022 at 3:07 PM EDT

Joseph Autry

Affiliation: Liberty University

Debated from 2008-2011

Preferred Type of Debate: Clash of Civilizations

Just wanted to let you know this will my first tournament judging in 4 years. I judged and coached for from 2011 to 2015.

Kritiks:

I have always been a big fan of K's, and I have read most of the literature by the different authors. During my time as a debater, I ran racial criticisms, the Cap K, and Queer Theory. I prefer when the K team spends time addressing the other team's arguments. Too many K debates become really top-heavy and the bottom parts of the flow are missed. Like DA debates, impact and link analysis is key. I will mention that I don't like Baudrillard and Bataille K's, but I have been known to vote on them when the K team wins the flow.

Language Kritiks:

Personally, I don't like when sexist, racist, ableist, or homophobic language is used. I am prone to vote on criticisms of these types of language such as gendered language K. However, like most things my judge philosophy, I am flow centric with this argument, and I will not automatically vote for the K if it is run. The opposing team can still win the debate by winning the flow.

DA:

I love politics DA's, and I love to see a team that is willing to go all in on the politics debate. I have no problem with other DA's as well. Like the K debate, impact and link analysis is key, and impact analysis is the most important to me.

Framework/No Plan Affs:

I am not partial to voting on Framework, and I would prefer if a team uses a K against a K aff, but I was about 50/50 for voting for framework as opposed to the aff during the previous season. I ran affs without a plan text when I was a debater, and I have no issue if a team prefers to run an aff without a plan text. As far as framework, I fill that education is usually the best impact for the team running framework, and the team should make the debate about competing interpretations. I have listened to multiple performance debates, and I don't have an issue with the style. I prefer competing methodologies in debates with critical affs.

CP:

I tend to be aff-biased on CP's, but I will obviously vote for the neg if they win the flow. I don't like Word PICs. The team running the Word PIC can still defend it, but I usually see Word PICs as cheating.

Theory/T:

I have a high threshold for both T and theory, and the debate often becomes about competing interpretations for me. Because I'll vote on the flow, teams can win that they are topical on the flow even if they might not be topical or are questionably topical. Even with my high threshold for theory, I am more likely to vote for theory as the conditional worlds of the negative increase. When the negative teams starts running more than 2 conditional worlds, my threshold for theory starts to decline. I usually flow neg on performative contradictions except for Reps K's. If a team is running a criticism of the other team's representations, I don't think the team should be able to sever their representations in the other conditional world.

Shree Awsare James Madison 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed April 24, 2024 at 8:59 AM EDT

//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Dan Bagwell Samford 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 12, 2024 at 6:39 AM CDT

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Joe Bellon Georgia State

Pre-Districts Update 2015

Plans: I judge the debate in front of me, but I find this trend toward policy teams reading a plan that is nothing but the very generic terms of the resolution disturbing. In particular, if your multiple solvency advocates disagree about the particulars of how something should be legalized and the negative makes that into an argument and they explain how that disadvantages them in an effective way, I'm unlikely to be persuaded by you saying something like "well, that's just the way debate goes these days." That's especially true if you think you get to pick and choose among different advocates to specify how the plan gets done in the 2AC, 1AR, etc. (assuming the negative makes that into an argument too). If you do what I've just described, can you still win the debate? Of course you can. Negatives are bad at running procedural arguments, you could be just better than they are debating, and I'm entirely open to being persuaded that I'm wrong. I will still vote on the flow first. I'm just saying that I will know you're cheating. I'm equally skeptical about the argument that normal means should be interpreted to mean that both sides read cards as to which legislation would be most likely to pass if the general concept of the aff was implemented. I don't think those cards exist, and if they did, would you really be inherent?

November 2013

WHO?: I’m the Director of Debate at Georgia State University.

SUMMARY: I try to let the debaters decide what the round is about, and what debate should be like. I will vote on whatever arguments win -- Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan, Affs with a plan, framework, what people refer to as "performance," etc. The worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is fail to explain your arguments. The second worst thing is to fail to respond to the other team’s arguments. The third worst is to assume you know what arguments I like and make strategic decisions based on your guesswork. The best thing you can do is to make arguments that seem smart to you, and to make them in the best way you can.

THINGS I WOULD LIKE:

1) Engaging debate. That's a broad imperative, but there's too much debate these days that's mechanical and boring. Too many people talking to their laptops instead of the judge or their opponents. Be clever, be passionate, be funny, be original, be effective, be whatever it is that you can be that's not just another bloodless read-through. Ask interesting or effective cross-ex questions. Deliver your speeches as though they matter. This is not an exhaustive list. You're smart and creative. I'm easy to please.

2) Debaters that fight hard but respect themselves, their partners, their opponents, the process, and the community. I will give you my respect as a person, as a judge, and as a fellow member of the community. Intolerance and pointless hostility are both awful.

CURRENT PET PEEVES:

1) When I say "clearer" and you ignore me. If that happens, I will deduct speaker points. If that happens, I am very likely to stop flowing you. I am even more likely to assign arguments that I can't understand less weight. I am yet more likely to let a clever opponent persuade me that I should completely disregard arguments that were made in an incomprehensible fashion after I had requested greater clarity. All this can be avoided by responding to my simple request with greater clarity.

2) Failure to label off case positions in the 1NC when there is more than one of them. Label all of them. Even the first one. ESPECIALLY the first one. Don’t make me hurt you.

3) I will dock your speaker points by .2 every time you say "thumper." You're better than that.

THE SPECIFICS:

I try to have no substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. Basically, this means you get to argue why you should win. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you convince me that the other team should lose because they have no fashion sense, I'll pull the trigger. This puts a huge onus on all of you to explain why you should win. If you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you to make things up. No, seriously -- explain your arguments or I may simply not understand them.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE STUPID ARGUMENTS. It means that I want to let debaters debate, and I have some humility about my own ability to decide ahead of time what arguments are good or educational or whatever. In this vein, let me say that debaters often do not explain things like how the counterplan wins/loses the round, how the kritik relates to the counterplan, whether topicality trumps the kritik, and so on. Don't be like those debaters. Explain the hierarchy of decisions in the round.

TOPICALITY: If you’re good at it, I am a lot better for you than some of these jokers who seem to think T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it (and you win it's a voting issue), I will vote for you even if all the cool kids think the aff is topical. However, I have also voted on arguments like T is genocidal and whatnot. The point is not that I'm eager, but that I'm willing.

READING EVIDENCE: Debates where I have to read a lot of cards are either really good or really bad. If the debaters in the round don't do their job to resolve major issues for me, I am not about to read 50 cards to overcome their ineptitude and/or replay the round in my head. Instead, I'll try to identify a few key cards and read those instead. If you want me to read a piece of evidence after the debate, you should cite it by author name and explain why it's important. In fact, if you do this really well and the other team doesn't respond, then I may just take your word for what the card says and not call for it at all. The bottom line is that, if you want an argument to influence my decision, you should say it out loud during a debate.

COUNTERPLANS: I love me some tricky counterplans. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. In my experience, most of those kind of theory debates get unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve. Every once in a while, though, I do like to see someone get decapitated on CP theory.

KRITIKS: I know them, I write them, I have read a lot of so-called postmodern stuff. This means that if you are a team that relies on the judge being mystified by big words, you don’t want me. However, some of y’all read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like fast debate, but if you read the overview to your torturously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, feel free to punch it. For those of you that hate the K, don’t worry. I will vote on framework or the perm or your turns too, as long as you win them.

PERFORMANCE: I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. I also want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say. Is that too much to ask? If it is, you don’t want me. If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me. If you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine for you. If you answer performance arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you want me, too.

CARD CLIPPING: It's cheating. I'm going to start recording debates that I judge. If a recording of a speech where a clipping accusation is made is available, I'll stop the debate, review the recording, and make a determination. If there was clipping, the offending team loses. If I feel that clipping occurred, I reserve the right to make that determination without an accusation from the other team, again using recorded evidence.

SPEAKER POINT SCALE. For the time being, here's how I'm assigning points:

30: I can't imagine how you could have been better. I haven't given one in years.

29.0-29.9: Damn, you're good. Overall, you were great and there was at least one "wow" moment in your speeches.

28.0-28.9: Nice job. Particularly solid work.

27.5-27.9: Meh. You did well, but your execution was lacking and there was nothing special for me.

27.0-27.4: Not up to par. There were some *major* flaws in your performance.

26.0-26.9: Really poor. Either I didn't think you were trying hard or you were annoying.

Below 26: You did something to really piss me off, and after my critique you will have no question as to what it was.

Cole Bender Liberty 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 15, 2022 at 9:14 AM EDT

Cole Bender

Debate Experience:

Assistant Debate Coach, Liberty University (2011-Present)

Years Judging: 2008-present

Former varsity debater at Liberty University

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

ADDITIONS FOR SPRING 2015 (This section supersedes any subsequent, older part of my philosophy.)

The cliff notes version is: I'd prefer you speak conversational speed, my default assumption is that you have to have a reasonable chance of solving in order to have "presumption" on your side (not just .1%), stop powertagging / overclaiming / making arguments that violate all rules of reasoning and logic, and follow the rules of the sanctioning bodies of the tournaments you attend (which includes but is not limited to having a topical plan at ADA tournaments and addressing the resolution at CEDA tournaments.

I have substantial modifications to my judging philosophy that will radically change how teams pref me. I have listed the changes below.

CHANGES:

1. I will continue to flow, but I would like to hear debates at a conversational pace. I still believe in the existence of common sense and that most people have a sense of how fast “conversation pace” is, but in case you need more specific guidelines, the average conversation speed of speakers using the English language is 150-200wpm. A person not trained in college debate should have no difficulty hearing and processing each individual word being said during your speech. If you’re going too fast, I’ll ask you to slow down. If both teams refuse and go fast, I’ll still prompt you to slow down, but I’ll flow the debate as normal. If the neg intends to go slow, they need to inform the aff before the 1ac begins. If the one team goes slow and the other team goes fast, I’ll default to the slower teams’ arguments and evaluate the debate largely in truth over tech terms. Speaking too fast will impact speaker points because speaker points indicate the level of clarity, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of your communication, but it is not an automatic reason for me to vote against you.

2. I see the role of the judge as being a critic of argument. My threshold for what constitutes “making an argument” was already fairly high relative to the average judge. In addition to this, I think it’s the burden of the team making the argument to produce an argument that is minimally coherent, demonstrates some level of rational consistency, and avoids obvious logical fallacies. The net effect of this is that the rational strength of the argument matters, even if the argument is dropped. Tech still matters, but my calculus for argument is shifting some toward the direction of truth. For example, your advantages in your policy affs are not deductive arguments that yield logical certainty. Doing your plan is not the one and only policy that can stop the 3-4 guaranteed extinctions that will happen in the status quo. Likewise, for non-policy arguments, ‘X’ philosophical system is not the root cause of all violence, nor is a given resistance strategy the one thing that will lead us to utopia. Evidence quality, reasonable extrapolations from evidence, and warrants matter much more in front of me. I’d vastly prefer if teams who intend to debate in front of me would re-structure their arguments to avoid overclaiming / powertagging / general disregard of rationality. I’d also appreciate if you read the qualifications of your authors. Teams that make reasonable, smart arguments will be rewarded with speaker points, and, if their tech is close to as good as their truth, they will be rewarded with ballots.

3. My default position is that I do not think 1% risk is high enough to keep / shift presumption in your favor. You can argue otherwise, but absent an argument in the debate, this is my position. For example, in a policy debate, the affirmative has an obligation to read a plan that has a reasonable chance of solving before they have proven the resolution true (my default assumption is that reasonable means 5-10%). Similarly, if the neg reads a CP, then the risk of the net benefit has to be reasonable (5-10%) in order for presumption to shift in favor of the CP instead of the plan. For non-policy debates, it’s increasingly unclear what presumption does mean or even what it should mean. I tend to be easily convinced that the affirmative ought to at least defend that that something material be done to change the status quo.

4. I will be following the rules of the sanctioning bodies of any tournament I attend, and I will expect those who debate in front of me to do the same. All the remaining tournaments I’m attending are either CEDA or ADA sanctioned tournaments. You can see a tournament’s sanctioning on Tabroom. The CEDA rules are available here (http://www.cedadebate.org/) if you log in, and the most recent copy of the ADA rules is located here (http://www.liberty.edu/academics/communications/debate/index.cfm?PID=22660). I encourage all participants to familiarize themselves with the rules of the various tournaments they agree to attend.

A short summary of how this impacts non-topical affs:

For CEDA tournaments: the CEDA documents only indicate that the debate should be about the resolution. The minimum affirmative burden is therefore to discuss the resolution in some capacity and to affirm something in relation to the resolution. Obviously I can be convinced through a process of debate that the affirmative ought to do much more than this (standard topicality and framework is still a viable strategy). But I cannot be convinced by arguments in the debate that the affirmative can do less than this.

For ADA tournaments: the ADA documents indicate among other things that the affirmative must present a topical plan of action and that topicality is a voting issue. (I’d encourage negative teams to look at the section on critiques as well.)

I will not intervene to make an arbitrary decision that the aff has not met these burdens. The responsibility is still on the negative team to present an argument for their interpretation of the resolution and how the affirmative has not sufficiently addressed the resolution (CEDA) or fallen within it (ADA).

To be very clear, you can and should have a debate about what these rules mean and what their proper interpretation is. But for the purposes of the ballot I won’t evaluate arguments that the rules should not be applied.

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

Addition for Decrim and Subsequent Topics:

I do not wish to see or hear any sexually explicit speech acts or performances, nor do I wish to see debaters in any state of undress. To clarify, speech acts that discuss sex, sexuality, and corresponding topics are fine in front of me. Speech acts or performances that simulate or vividly describe sex acts are not fine in front of me. If that statement isn't clear, either ask, or, when in doubt, presume in favor of caution. If you choose to speak or perform in such a way in front of me, I will ask you to stop and adopt a differnet strategy. If you refuse to honor that request, I will excuse myself from the debate for at least the duration of that portion of your speech but possibly the debate as a whole. If I have to leave the debate, I will attempt to get the tabroom to replace me. If this is impossible and I am required to sign the ballot, then the situation will likely result in a ballot for the opposition. This is a personal conviction about the types of acts I want to be exposed to as a judge and as a member of this community, and I ask that you respect it. This is not intended as a statement about how debate should look in general.

As a judge, I will try to balance the importance of allowing debates that might make persons intellectually uncomfortable with also allowing debaters to protect themselves from emotionally damaging situations. I believe that in some circumstances the competitors have the right to let everyone know if they are uncomfortable and they may take appropriate action to avoid witnessing/hearing things they find to be emotionally damaging.

Risha Bhattacharjee Minnesota 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 14, 2016 at 10:34 AM EDT

Yes put me on the email chain: Risha[dot]X[dot]Bhattacharjee[at]gmail[dot]com and I prefer this to pocketbox although you do you. I'd appreciate it if after the last corresponding rebuttal each side puts together a doc of all relevant cards and sends it to me even before I ask but no worries if you forget.

Philosophy last updated December 2016 (goal is to include trends I've noticed in my judging and also new opinions I've noticed myself start developing as I judge a lot, although some of these opinions haven't necessarily played out in my judging yet).

General Things

TLDR: I don't really care what you do. I am most familiar with "policy" arguments and do research in high school and college more on the "policy"-side of things, but I judge a lot of different types of arguments, so my familiarity with those is growing quickly.

My own background: I debated at Coppell High School in Dallas for 4 years and then the University of Texas for 5 years, and am now coaching at Georgia State University and Wayzata High School. This will be my third year of judging college debate and eighth year judging high school debate. I typically judge a LOT of debate rounds every year. I was a 1A/2N for most of college, and most of my 2NRs were counterplan/politics or framework. I did debate for UT/in D3, so I had my fair share of “K-debates". I found myself personally going a bit more “left” (with a particular interest in arguments about gender) in my last year of debate, but that was more in terms of opinion and not actually argumentative choices, and I still ended my career going for mostly "policy" arguments. I have generally viewed debate as a game, but can understand why others do not see it that way, and am open to alternate views of the activity.

Top-level: You should do what you do best, and I'll reciprocate by trying my best to approach the debate with an open mind. I really don't care what kind/type of arguments you choose to make. I find that teams have much more success when their judge adaptation involves accounting for specific things a judge might think about a certain argument, instead of just choosing to make a different argument altogether. Do what you do best. The only caveat is you should not say things like "racism/sexism good".

I think that racism and sexism (and other forms of exclusion) are problems in the debate community, but am uncertain as to what I think is the best way to combat forms of exclusion. I do think that debaters are required by the nature of the activity to contest arguments that their opponents make, and that there is value in that contestation. That being said, I think certain things are uncontestable - like I said above, impact turning a form of exclusion is not going to fly. I also dislike it when people try to dispute claims about debate as an activity being racist, sexist, ableist, etc. At this point, I honestly think it's violent to say a certain form of exclusion does not exist in debate, esp to people whose identity forces them to face that exclusion on a daily basis. That is different than, for example, contesting the claim that requiring a topical plan furthers those forms of exclusion.

I’ll ask to be included in any email chains, but I will not open the speech docs in most situations until the debate is over, because imo reading along lessens the impact that good communication would otherwise have on my decision.

I generally don’t think it counts as prep when someone is saving a speech doc to a jump drive, etc.

Pet peeves: “Always already” and “debate space” - i.e. redundancy.

Card Clipping: Like I said above, I won’t open speech docs before/during a speech. So it’s impossible for me to follow along as a debater is reading. That’s just something to keep in mind if you want to call out another team for clipping cards. So, make sure there’s video if you want to make an accusation. I do think that card-clipping is absolutely unacceptable, and if an accusation is made, I will immediately stop the debate to resolve the dispute. If an individual is determined to have clipped cards, they will receive zero speaker points and the team will get an automatic loss. If it is determined that card-clipping did not occur, then I will assign speaker points based on what has happened in the debate so far, and assign the loss to the team who made the accusation. Purposefully being unclear just to get through a card faster is not much different from clipping cards. Since I obviously cannot decide intent, if you are unclear/it is hard to tell if you read a certain part of a card, I will err on the side of you did not.

I appreciate it when people tell me at the top of their last rebuttals what an RFD for them would look like.

I will not yell clear if I cannot understand you (I think that's just as interventionist as a judge yelling "smarter" and I do not share the same views as Dallas Perkins on that subject). So don't assume I'll let you know if I can't understand you....although the lack of typing should probably tip you off.

On a somewhat similar note, if I look confused, it is probably tech related or possibly just how my face usually looks. I rarely (knowingly) react physically when unconvinced by an argument.

Asking a team what cards were or were not read in a speech doc is either cross-x time or prep time, unless their speech doc is egregiously terribad (a standard to be somewhat arbitrarily determined by me).

(Please note that this next thing is really not a big deal, I'm just letting you know in case it helps, but I don't expect any one to adapt in any way to this). -I don't really try to line things up from speech-to-speech while flowing. This is really just how things play out because of the kinds of debate I tend to judge. On that note, in almost any possible situation, no matter what you say, I will almost certainly just flow a speech on a specific argument straight down. Just to be clear, I will obviously still separate off case positions and 1ac pages onto separate pages. But if you're like "I'm going to start with the perm and then this thing and then blah" or whatever else, I'll probably ignore you. You can still say it for the purpose of the other team or your partner or out of spite etc., but just know that I will keep flowing straight down because roadmaps seem to be more like New Year's resolutions than actual truth.

Links are not case arguments. Neither are random framework args. In a K or framework debate, please please please save us all the trouble and just read the links on the same page as the actual arg. I like case arguments but I like being honest about not having specific case args even more. I recognize that there are ways to interact with the aff that do not involve a case debate in the traditional sense. That's fine. What's less fine and substantially more annoying is arbitrarily splitting the K debate (or FW debate) onto two different flows which inevitably become combined in the last rebuttals and create more work for all us.

It is rarely successful in front of me for your only answer to a fully-developed arg by the other team to be that they don't have a card to back it up. By all means point this out if true, but also please substantively answer what is now a fully developed analytic (i.e. still an argument).

Lastly, please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. I don’t like excessively rude people and my speaker points will reflect that. I do enjoy snark if it's intelligent and furthers an argument and isn't just aimed solely at making fun of your opponent. It annoys me when people speak during their opponents' speeches in a way that is loud and/or makes it difficult to hear the speaker (or seems like it would bother the speaker), and is perhaps the only time I audibly intervene during a round (to shush the offender(s)).

"Policy" vs "Policy"

General:

-High school: I do a TON of high school topic research (along with already having done a ton because of last year's college topic) so generally speaking I know what's up. In the past I've judged a lot of clash and left-left debates in high school, but this year I've found myself judging quite a bit more of policy debates as well.

-College: I don't judge many policy debates in college, although this year I've judged a few relatively speaking. I've done a fair bit of research on the topic and almost all of it is more "policy" oriented research. I would like to judge some more "policy" debates but whatevs not my job (or desire) to dictate what people say in front of me, and I certainly do not have anything against debate arguments that do not involve both teams agreeing from the get-go that the discussion should be oriented around the results of USFG-enacted restrictions on ghg emissions.

Topicality: I love a good T debate. Don’t really care what the topicality argument is. If the interpretation is something "silly," then the aff should be able to beat it without help via me giving the interp less weight. That being said, I often think that good explanations of reasonability are often persuasive. The aff will probably lose if they don’t read a counter-interpretation. I also am generally not convinced by most precedence arguments, or arguments about an aff being read all year means that it’s topical. Frankly, I couldn’t care less what the rest of the community thinks about whether or not an aff is topical. Obviously if a precedence arg is conceded I'll evaluate it, but just know that the aff won't have to do much to beat it.
(High school specific: this topic is obviously terribly huge and also lacking good definitions for neg interps - perhaps a useful thing to note about me is that I think of T "definitions" as another standard for a T interp, albeit a rather important one, but I don't think having a definition exactly backing up your interpretation is as absolutely necessary as many seem to think. Sometimes I think the bigger problem with the more obvious or better (in some ways) interps for 'engagement' is their tendency to run into brightline problems).

Theory: I generally default to reject the argument not the team for most theory arguments other than conditionality bad, and have noticed in my judging that it is difficult to convince me otherwise.

Gut-check, I probably think that conditionality is good, 50-state fiat is bad, and international fiat is bad. But I also almost exclusively went for the states counterplan on the energy topic and the Turkey CP on the democracy assistance topic, so I can definitely be convinced by the other side. Trump probably also makes the states counterplan a more important/necessary discussion on the college topic now. Conditionality bad is probably harder to win in front of me, but I'm sure it's doable. Something that is important for me in counterplan competition debates is the question of literature/solvency advocates. The more evidence the neg has about their counterplan in comparison to the aff, the better off they are for the theory debate. That being said, counterplans that result in the aff are probably not competitive.

Disads: I went for them a lot (especially politics) and enjoy these debates (topic disads>politics obviously). Comparative impact calculus and turns case arguments are always ideal.

The risk of a disad can sometimes be so low that it should effectively be rendered zero for the purpose of making decisions. The existence of a counterplan in the debate obviously affects this calculus.

Counterplans: I like them. I like counterplans that are cut from aff articles. I like smart, specific PICs, depending on competition issues and how much evidence there is in context of the aff. See theory blurb above for more details, but would like to reiterate as said above that counterplans that result in the aff are probably not competitive.

If the 2NR doesn’t say anything, I will not revert to the status quo.

Case debates: Obviously always appreciated. I think that zero risk of an aff can very much be a thing, and something that neg teams are often too hesistant to go for. Sometimes affs just doesn't make sense and/or are lying about what their evidence says. Don't be afraid to call them out. I'm not a huge fan of giving affs leeway just because certain things irl (like Trump's win) make it harder to solve while being topical. A good example for college folks is I also disliked judges giving affs an extra benefit of the doubt on the democracy assistance topic because the affs were all terribad and clearly didn't do anything (as may be fairly obvious, I was a 2N on this topic lol).

Criticisms versus Any Kinds of Args:

Criticisms: I explained my general proclivities above, but, things that are important for winning kritiks in front of me include: reducing the risk of the aff (how you go about doing this is up to you), having a clear explanation of what the alt is, and contextualizing link arguments in terms of the aff. Against race args especially, people seem to love going for some version of "only a risk we're better than the squo" and so it is useful for me as a judge if the contextualized link arguments include either an opportunity cost argument or a reason why that's a bad burden to have to meet (i.e. maybe presumption should stop flipping aff in these instances for whatever reason).

I think that role of the ballot claims are almost always not a real argument. They’re self-serving, arbitrary, and just a fancy way of saying that a certain impact should come first. The only role of the ballot imo is just to vote for the better debating.

Performance: Most of my general stuff above also address my thoughts on this. Like I said, you do you. I did go for framework a lot in college, and at the beginning, it was because I really "believed" it. At the end of my career, and now, I see a lot of benefits in having a topic, but I also see a lot of reasons for why the way the topic is constructed and the way that debates occur, can be problematic. But just to be clear – when I debated, I viewed debate as a game. But I respect the fact that this isn’t how everyone approaches debate, and can be convinced that as a judge, I should also not view debate as a game.

"Policy" Affs vs K's

As much as it saddens me to admit, I think (slash hope) we are all aware that I unfortunately do not have the power to actually enact federal government policy if I sign the ballot aff (as cool as that would be). So generally speaking, in front of me, neg teams should stop pointing this out like it's a big deal and if they do, affs should stop being jetti-mind tricked by it.

I have never found an argument more silly (this is slight hyperbole but it makes me cranky) than the blanket statement that "discourse (or reps or whatever) doesn't shape reality", both because that just seems patently untrue (at least as a blanket claim) and also incredibly ironic to say in a communication activity of all things. There are much more nuanced ways of making a similar argument, i.e. perhaps keep in mind that on the aff you don't have to win that discourse/reps/whatever NEVER affect policymaking.

On a similar note to the above, I find almost all framework debates useless. Aff framework arguments on a theoretical level (we get to weigh our aff bc fairness or education etc) are meh to me - even if you win these arguments, that doesn't resolve the substantive arguments the neg will (hopefully) be making about why their links shape the way the aff's policy happens, which in turn affects the aff's ability to get to the impact they so dearly want to weigh, etc. Also everytime I hear "moots 8/9 minutes of the 1AC" I think "so what?". Seems like if the neg wins a link and an impact and those things moot your 1AC, then you should have picked a better 8/9 minutes of things to say. Much more useful than a theoretical fw debate is answering those link arguments on a substantive level and explaining why your offense still applies even if you don't get to weigh your impacts. Also I will probably never decide the neg doesn't "get" their K unless its a warranted argument made and somehow fully conceded by the other team in all the speeches or something. Tbh I appreciate it when affs don't ever try to forward the argument that the neg shouldn't get their k.
On a similar note, I think aff's often should get access to more of their offense than they realize even if the neg wins their "framework", and are often tricked into thinking otherwise.

Judge choice is not an argument. Even when technically conceded by the neg team, there are usually 82930281390 other things said by them in the debate that implicitly answer it, and it's a safe bet that I'll do the "work" (is it even work?) for them.

K's vs K Affs

Dear gawd "method debates" are not a thing. Neg teams say "no perms because it's a method debate!" and all I hear is "maybe if we just arbitrarily call what is clearly still a K alt something different, we can jetti-mind trick Risha into thinking we no longer have to actually answer arguments and can, without any real justification, win that affs don't get perms anymore." This doesn't mean I am just unconvinced by the arg that certain affs should not get permutations - I certainly think there are persuasive, debateable reasons for why affs that choose not to fall under the bounds of the resolution should not - so it just means that "it's a method debate" is not something I consider to be a justification for the claim that affs don't get perms.

Framework Debates vs K Affs

I judge a lot of these, so this is the longest section of my philosophy.

Imo non-fairness impacts are better than fairness impacts against affs that talk about various types of oppression in relation to the debaters' own identities - I think it usually hurts to allow these affs to read their impact turns to fairness and thus focus the debate on what was basically the core aff arg to begin with (and thus also likely their best offense). I do find fairness a much better impact against more high theory-ish affs (or ones that talk about oppression but less in relation to debate/personal identity) than the more social justice-y ones but I don't really have many thoughts on fairness as compared to other impacts against the more high theory-ish affs.

Sort of related to my last point - I don't get this whole procedural vs structural fairness distinction people keep trying to make. Or rather, I get it, but imo it seems like a distinction without a difference, at least how I've heard it explained. Like sure there are different types of fairness and one maybe slightly more controllable than the other but the terminal impact to both (people quit, fun, other args for why ruining the activity matters) seems to be the same so esp when debating an aff talking about a type of oppression esp in relation to debate, the attempt to make a distinction seems not useful and also kind of the point of the impact turns/inevitability arguments the aff usually makes.

2ARs for K affs against framework rarely have success in front of me if a counter-interp is not extended. I find that solely going for impact turns often devolves into having to defend basically that all clash is bad, and in an activity that (presumably, until proven otherwise really) seems to depend on clash in some form, that usually ends up a difficult position to defend. (This applies less to affs that are an impact turn to debate good from the get go, by which I mean the more high theory-ish affs that say the whole thing is bad, and not other affs that usually critique specific parts of it.)

I've found that people are often bad at explaining why debate is good and useful against high theory affs, esp the ones that explicitly say debate (the whole thing and not just like certain specific aspects) is bad/useless. I spend a great deal of my time doing things related to this activity, and I'd like to think it's not completely a waste, so it shouldn't be hard to convince me that debate has some value, yet I have found myself voting for the argument that it does not in the past. Negs need to make sure they tell me what that value(s) of debate is/could be, etc. when pushed by the aff. Or even just pointing out that while isolating certain values of debate is difficult, the fact that we all clearly spend some time doing the activity means something, etc.

Truth testing has not been an argument with much success in front of me. By truth testing, I mean what people generally seem to say in front of me, which is some version of: if the aff is unpredictable and the neg wins they could not (or should not) have prepared for it, then since it could not be tested I should assume everything the aff says about the aff is false. Generally speaking when a team spends minutes of each speech explaining an aff and the explanation makes sense to me, I'm not just going to decide that the neg perhaps not having answers means all the plausible/convincing things the aff said are wholesale not true. To me this argument is really no different than saying new affs should also be presumed untrue if the neg isn't ready for one and thus the aff couldn't be tested, and that I think is generally considered to be a not-great arg by most people. I find truth-testing more persuasive when the impact is some version of the argument that it's key to searching for the best method to resist things, like the aff's impact(s).

In a similar vein to my last point, a counter-interp for affs in these debates should be clearly explained - this means telling me what it is supposed to solve vs not, so this includes making sure it's clear why it doesn't link to your own offense. On a basic level, counter-interp explanations should include a description of the role of the neg in debates and (in most situations) also how you still allow for clash. Neg teams should point out when affs fail to do so, or do so unconvincingly (i.e. explain why the counter-interp doesn't actually solve any of your impacts and/or why it links to their offense).

It makes zero sense to me when neg teams try to have squirrely interps to try and get out of aff offense when those interps involve basically saying the aff is beholden to meeting certain parts of the resolution but not others (seems to be kind of arbitrary and unpredictable and a great justification for the aff choosing to pick a different part of the resolution to not meet).

Affs should clearly explain the internal link between the neg's intepretation and their impact turns. Notice I said interpretation, and not just explain why *framework* causes the impact turns, i.e. be specific to the neg's interpretation instead of making generalizing claims about framework debates.

There have been many times the aff almost completely concedes the neg's topical version of the aff and it doesn't help the neg in any way. This is not to say that I hate topical versions of the aff lol, and PLEASE affs do not take this to mean you can just not answer them bc I'm sure that now that this is my philosophy, I will vote on a conceded tva the very next time I judge framework, but negs should try to understand the point of the aff a little more. Basically, if your tva and explanation of it against all affs that discuss race issues is the exact same, then it's probably not a great tva, at least for me.

I rarely find it convincing when neg teams try to go for the Lundberg card as a reason for why the aff's interp causes extinction or why the neg's interp solves it, due to having never heard a plausible causal internal link chain between a framework interp and extinction. I'm honestly pretty convinced that I will never hear one. This is like my version of all the philosophies that say something along the lines of "stop saying framework is genocide". Which btw is true but not something I've found necessary to include in my philosophy although I guess I kind of have now.

Oliver Brass Wake Forest 8 rounds

Brett Bricker Kansas 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:22 PM CDT

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning

Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

Adrienne Brovero Mary Washington 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 27, 2024 at 4:53 PM EDT

Adrienne F. Brovero, University of Kentucky

Closing in on 30 years coaching
adri.debate@gmail.com

Please label your email chain subject line with Team names, tourney, round.

Your prep time does not end until you have hit send on the email.

❗Updated 3-27-24 - I am REAL serious about the highlighting thing below - many cards are literally unreadable as highlighted and if I find myself struggling to read your evidence, I will cease to do so.

❗This is a communication activity.❗

Clarity - Cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is, whether online or in-person.

Highlighting - Highlighting has become a disgrace. Highlighting should not result in anti-grammatical shards of arguments. Highlighting should not result in misrepresentation of the author's intent/ideas. Quite frankly, some highlighting is so bad, you would have been better served not reading the evidence. When highlighting, please put yourself in the judge's shoes for a moment and ask yourself if you would feel comfortable deciding a debate based on how you've highlighted that card. If the answer is no, reconsider your highlighting.

SERIOUSLY - LINE-BY-LINE. NUMBER.

If you like to say "I will do the link debate here" - I am probably not the best judge for you. I would prefer you clash with link arguments in each instance they happen, as opposed to all in one place. Same is true for every other component of an argument.

Qualifications - read them. Debate them.
Line-by-line involves directly referencing the other team's argument ("Off 2AC #3 - Winners Win, group"), then answering it. "Embedded" clash fails if you bury the clash part so deep I can't find the arg you are answering.
Overviews - overrated. Kinda hate them. Think they are a poor substitute for debating the arguments where they belong on the line-by-line.

Things that are prep time:

Any time after the official start time that is not a constructive (9 mins), CX (3 mins), rebuttal (6 mins), or a brief roadmap. Everything else is prep time.
Putting your speech doc together - including saving doc, setting up email chain, attaching it to the email, etc.
Asking for cards outside of CX time. ("Oh can you send the card before CX?" - that is either CX or prep time - there is not un-clocked time).
Setting up your podium/stand.
Putting your flows in order.
Finding pens, flows, timers.

Debate like this: http://vimeo.com/5464508

MACRO-ISSUES
Communication: I like it. I appreciate teams that recognize communication failures and try to correct them. If I am not flowing, it usually means communication is breaking down. If I am confused or have missed an argument, I will frequently look up and give you a confused look – you should read this as an indication that the argument, at minimum, needs to be repeated, and may need to be re-explained. I am more than willing to discount a team’s arguments if I didn’t understand or get their arguments on my flow.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I have grown uncomfortable with the amount of profanity used during debates – do not expect high points if you use profanity.

Paperless/Prep Time: Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your un-clocked time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• Unless both teams instruct me otherwise, I will flow both teams.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX. I carefully check the 2AR for new arguments, and will not hold the 2NR accountable for unpredictable explanations or cross applications.
• I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. This doesn’t mean I always do. I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date, so do not expect me to always know what you’re talking about when you solely refer to your “Henry 19” evidence.
• I reward those who make flowing easier by reading in a flowable fashion (road-mapping & signposting, direct refutation/clash, clarity, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.). If you are fond of saying things like "Now the link debate" or "Group the perm debate" during the constructives, and you do not very transparently embed the clash that follows, do not expect me to follow your arguments or connect dots for you. Nor should you expect spectacular points.

Evidence:
• I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I pay attention to quals and prefer they are actually read in the debate. I am extremely dismayed by the decline in quality of evidence (thank you, Internets) and the lack of teams’ capitalization on questionable sources.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument it makes has been communicated to me (e.g. the card was mumbled in the 2AC, or only extended by cite, or accompanied by a warrantless explanation, etc.).
• I also don’t like reading the un-highlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team.
• I should not have to read the un-highlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument and a coherent thought. If you only read a claim, you only have a claim – you don’t get credit for portions of the evidence you don’t reference or read. If you only read a non-grammatical fragment, you are running the risk of me deciding I can’t coherently interpret that as an arg.
• I don’t like anonymous pronouns or referents in evidence like “she says” without an identification of who “she” is – identify “she” in your speech or “she” won’t get much weight in my decision.
• If you hand me evidence to read, please make clear which portions were actually read.

Decision calculus: Procedural determinations usually precede substantive determinations. First, I evaluate fairness questions to determine if actions by either team fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the aff or neg. Then, I evaluate substantive questions. Typically, the aff must prove their plan is net beneficial over the status quo and/or a counterplan in order to win.

MICRO-ISSUES
Topicality & plan-related issues:
• The aff needs to have a written plan text.
• It should be topical.
• T is a voter. Criticisms of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing.
• Anti-topical actions are neg ground.
• Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how nontraditional advocacies or demands are meaningfully different from plans, other than they are usually either vague and/or non-topical.
• On a related note, I don’t get why calling one’s advocacy a performance or demand renders a team immune from being held responsible for the consequences of their advocacy.
• In relation to plans and permutations, I value specificity over vagueness – specificity is necessary for meaningful debate about policies. However, please do not consider this an invitation to run dumb spec arguments as voting issues – absent a glaring evasiveness/lack of specificity, these are typically more strategic as solvency args.

Critiques/Performance:

Adjudicating critique or performance debates is not my strong suit. Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read very much in the advanced political philosophy or performance studies areas. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the critique turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff many years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the critique means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the critique to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the critique indict, with what impact on those harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the critique turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

I strongly urge you to re-read my thoughts above on “Communication” before debating these arguments in front of me.

Counterplans:

I generally lean negative on CP theory: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional, international fiat, agent, etc. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels – if the negative has to fend off multiple reasons the CP is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. “Do both” is typically meaningless to me – specify how. The status quo could remain a logical option, but growing convinced this should be debated. [NOTE THAT IS A FALL '18 CHANGE - DEBATE IT OUT] Additionally, another shout-out for communication - many theory debates are shallow and blippy - don't be that team. I like theory, but those type of debates give theory a bad name.

Other:

I like DAs. I’m willing to vote on stock issue arguments like inherency or “zero risk of solvency”.

Jon Bruschke Hire None

Jeff Buntin Northwestern 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 26, 2024 at 5:33 AM CDT

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

Policy---X------------------------------------------K

Tech-----------------------------X-----------------Truth

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

Conditionality good--X----------------------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Aniela Butler Michigan State 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 15, 2014 at 5:23 PM UTC

Michigan State University ‘15

butle121@msu.edu

-I really value working hard and high quality research. I think creativity and innovation are equally important

-I do politics work for MSU, I don’t know much else about the specifics of the topic

-Speaker points – If a tournament offers a scale that will be my default. Strategy and smart decisions will matter a lot more to me than the way you sound

-I can be persuaded on anything, this is a list of how I think I will judge a debate, not necessarily the rigid burdens for how I will do so

-Cheaters never win. (i.e. clipping cards)

-I think I value how true an argument is quite a bit

-There isn't always a risk of something

-Reasonability makes a lot more sense to me in most topicality debates

-Reject the argument not the team

-Conditionality is probably good, but three makes it a debate

-The AFF is pretty much always ahead on counterplan competition questions that relate to certainty

-My default is to kick the CP for you

-Another default is to let the AFF define what the words in the plan mean

-Bad arguments can probably be 100% dropped and it wouldn’t matter (the DA is not intrinsic comes to mind)

-On that note, the politics disad is good and has an internal link

-I really don’t think I would be as bad for K debates as some might think. That being said, I’m really not familiar with a lot of the k literature. I think specificity is obviously important, as are questions of what the alternative actually does.

-In terms of debates without plans, I find that both sides have persuasive arguments but generally believe that my default would err towards teams that argue that plans/stable advocacies facilitate the best discussions. This is an abstract preference - assuming both sides debate equally - not an ideological imposition. I am open to hearing debates about this and any issue and will attempt to decide debates based upon their merits without applying my preferences.

-I can’t imagine that I would procedurally never listen to any argument

-When I thought about the kind of debater I wanted to be it was always to be like Casey. Now that I think about the kind of judge I would like to be, I find that the answer is also like Casey. So, I’ll do my best to judge your debate like he would. https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_account_id=6397

Neil Butt Vanderbilt 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 1:15 AM CDT

Neil Butt -- Vanderbilt University

District: 6

CEDA Region: Southeast

I have judged ADA/CEDA/NDT since: 1992

I have judged policy debate since: 1988

Background:

I debated for George Mason University 1988-1992.

I coached for George Mason University 1992-2000.

I coached for John Carroll University 2000-2005.

I coached for Wayne State University 2005-2008.

I was Director of Debate for Vanderbilt University (2010-2019).

My email is: neilsbutt@gmail.com. I would like to be included on email chains.

***Updates for October 2018***

The recent ADA rule change to further limit decision time may be too much for me. There were good reasons to put caps on decision times (in fact I probably WAS one of those reasons), but this further cut leaves me concerned that I will not have enough time to make a thorough decision and generate useful feedback. I will probably be limiting my judging even further this year, and intend to limit myself to Novice and/or JV debate, to mitigate the impact of the lack of time.

Framework (Modified again)

The affirmative should advocate a topical course of action. How we determine what is topical is still up for debate.

This document has a concise list at the top for pre-round scans, and more detail below. Right before the round you probably just want to know what to avoid, and are probably not interested in my rationale for why you should avoid it. If you are figuring out long-term prefs, the nuances may be more relevant.

Short Version: Be Nice. Be Clear.

Basic Stuff

Judging time

In the past, I have tended to take a while. Recent community moves to reduce decision time have sometimes made me feel rushed. If this is a concern for you, read more on this below.

I am also likely to just call for speech documents, rather than individual cards, after the round. I am not going to read everything, reconstruct the round, or steal your cards (though I might get cites)—I just want to save some time by eliminating the need to find specific cards and create new documents.

Prep time

I run prep until the other team (not your partner) has the flash drive. For more specific prep scenarios, see below.

Arguments

1. If the negative counterplans, presumption shifts affirmative. The negative must win a clear net-benefit (more than a "direction arrow") to win the debate. This shouldn't really change how you debate, but it helps me resolve “ties.”

2. Absent specific arguments otherwise, if the 2NR extends a conditional CP, I will not consider the SQ as an option, i.e., I won’t make that decision for the negative. If the 2NR kicks the CP and goes for case, that’s fine.

3. I’m OK with most Kritiks, so don’t panic because you saw my position on Framework above. Most of the Kritiks I have judged recently haven’t relied on winning a framework debate anyway. If you are negative and running a Kritik with an alternative that operates outside of a policy framework: I would like to consider myself agnostic in Framework debates, but my voting record in close framework debates seems to favor “traditional” frameworks lately (more below). I am definitely happiest judging a case debate, maybe with an advantage counterplan and disadvantages, but I have voted for a lot of other stuff.

4. If you win “Fairness Bad,” you lose (for reasons that should be self-evident). You can obviously feel free to make arguments that contextualize fairness, as long as you aren’t making a totalizing claim.

5. Don’t ask me to assess individual debater emotions or sincerity. Do not make the claim that you are sincere and they are not. Everyone gets the benefit of the doubt unless there’s evidence to the contrary.

6. I probably have a lower threshold for voting on theory than most judges, but I do have a threshold, that threshold has actually gone up a little. I am not going to vote for something that I couldn’t initially flow. The key is starting clear. Most 2AC blocks I hear on theory are unflowable.

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

You should be clear and should not rely on me to intervene to make you clear.

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t get every cite initially when I flow, but I listen carefully for references to specific cites, especially in the rebuttals. That said, I don’t think “Jones ’98 answers this” is an argument. “Jones ’98 says fertility is high now so the turns aren’t unique” is much better.

Tags that are a paragraph long totally defeat my ability to flow them. It generally results in me writing down random words that are somewhere in the tag, which may or may not enable me to get references to them later in the debate.

You need to identify what you are answering—don’t assume I know.

If you think there is a new argument in the 1AR or 1NR, you need to point it out. If I hear them in the 2NR/2AR I will try to find and disallow them myself.

The Rest

I take ethical issues very seriously. If you argue your opponents are taking evidence out of context, then that will become the only issue in the round, and you better be able to prove it.

I pay attention to CX. I don’t flow it, per se, but if you say something in CX I will hold you to it unless there was an obvious misunderstanding or something. It’s OK if there are more than two participants in CX, but not at the same time, and please don’t marginalize your partner.

I like debates about evidence qualifications and bias, and don’t see enough of them.

I like clear debates (fast or slow)—though maybe you should slow down a little for analytical/theory/critical arguments as those can be harder to flow.

Be nice (to EVERYONE). That includes, and is especially true of, your partner. I don’t care if your partner IS a tool—they’re putting up with you too and you’d be nowhere without them.

ADA Rules

If (and only if) I am judging you at an ADA tournament: ADA Rules. I am a firm believer in the ADA. I don’t like all the rules, but I regard that as a reason to try to amend them, not to selectively enforce them. I will self-impose rules that apply to me, but I leave most infractions to the debaters to point out (e.g.: full cites, counterplan theory, etc.). Don’t bother arguing that I shouldn’t follow the rules. Feel free to debate about how the rules should be enforced, and whether certain “punishments” fit certain “crimes.” I will vote on these issues (I have done so in the past).

More Detail

Judging time

I’m a slow judge (deciding—not flowing). Left to my own devices, I take a while to decide. The recent community moves to reduce decision time have impacted my judging. While it has been great to finish before all the restaurants close and to get a little more sleep, it has definitely affected how I decide rounds. It is no longer “the best decision I can make,” it is “the best decision I can make in 40 minutes” (or 30 or whatever the specific tournament calls for). I have to take shortcuts and don’t get to double-check things. The most difficult part has been generating feedback. In novice and most JV rounds, I still have time to generate a lot of suggestions and talk to the debaters after the debate. In many varsity rounds, I generally have to focus exclusively on the decision, and find it is more difficult to answer questions like: “What should I have done differently in the 1AR?” (though I will, of course, still try).

Prep time

Given that I have less time to decide, and your stealing prep comes out of my decision time, I am getting more strict about prep time. Yelling “Stop prep!” annoys me. “I'm ready,” or something similar serves the same purpose without grating on me. Either way, if you are paperless, I am going to keep running prep until the other team gets the flash drive. If you give it to your partner first, I am still running prep time. If you didn’t already set up your collapsible lectern, that’s prep time. When your partner asks you a question about the 1NR after you have given the 2NC roadmap, that’s prep time. When you are out of prep time and aren’t moving fast enough to start the 2NR/2AR, I’m starting speech time. I hate to be a curmudgeon about such things, but fair is fair (and I want time for my decision—see above).

Frameworks, Projects, Performance, etc.

*My philosophy evolves when I grow uncomfortable with how my decisions work out. I have been increasingly uncomfortable with my decisions in Framework debates (and just judging them in general). I have had to explain to teams that they lost to an approach they could not have been reasonably expected to be prepared for, and I have had to vote against teams that, given their framing of the debate, saw my decision as a rejection of them as individuals (which is obviously not how I saw it, but I don’t get to decide how they see it). I have reluctantly decided that I need to narrow the focus of the rounds I judge. Please do NOT read my change in philosophy as an endorsement of one approach over another. I realize that it functionally plays out that way if I’m judging you, but that begs the question of whether I should be judging you. In a world of ubiquitous MPJ, I see it more like registering for one class instead of another, and/or like picking a section based on how well that instructor matches what you want to get out of the class. I realize I could resolve this in the other direction (e.g., I won’t accept any framework arguments, so anything goes), but I also have to be realistic about my preferences and expertise. Traditional and non-traditional approaches are both potentially educationally valuable, just like different classes are. “Women, Rhetoric, and Social Change” and “Argumentation and Debate” could both be good classes, but while I could teach the former, given that I’ve done graduate work in Feminist criticism, why would I when Bonnie Dow can do a much, much better job? [This section is really just a brief synopsis of my decision—there’s more I could say, and am happy to discuss it if you would like.]

Since I might be judging a negative team with a Kritik that assumes a non-policy framework, I’ll include elements from my previous philosophy: My recent record on framework debates has been about 50-50. As indicated above, I’d like to think I can be completely open on these issues, but I’m not sure I am, and my shift regarding Topical affirmatives certainly highlights this. My Dissertation was about how we teach argumentation and debate, so I like the issues involved in Framework debates (“traditional” and “non-traditional”), but don’t like how many of the framework debates I’ve judged play out. The arguments I’ve seen tend to mutually indict each other’s assumptions, making resolution very difficult, absent some work by the debaters to clear things up. I’m finding it increasingly difficult to reconcile my desire not to intervene with what I feel is my responsibility as an educator. At any rate, just make sure it’s clear. I won’t vote on anything I can’t understand, but if you can get me to understand, I will listen.

Theory

I think teams let their opponents get away with far too much. Some Affirmatives succeed with cases that there is no way a Negative could be prepared for. Some Negatives succeed with counterplans that don’t leave the Affirmative a shred of ground. I’ll buy that just about anything is legitimate, but I’ll also buy that just about anything is illegitimate (by the way, Affs DO NOT win 70% of the time). Absent the imposition of rules (like what the ADA used to do), the only way to check unfair or anti-educational practices is with theory debates.

I default to policymaking and/or stock issues if that seems to be the assumption the teams I’m watching are making (and I prefer to view the debate as a policymaker), but it is easy to change my default perspective by making some arguments that I should view the round a different way.

Other than ethical issues or fairness issues, I don’t like punishing people much. For example, I think it would be very difficult to persuade me to vote against someone because they used the wrong pronoun a couple of times during a speech (and yet, I have done just that in at least one round—so much for preferences and predispositions…).

It kind of blows my mind that current community norms seem to be that people have to “mark” cards during their speech, but that negative teams don’t have to identify the nature of the counterplan until CX…

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

Clarity is your responsibility. It used to throw me off when judges interrupted my speeches, so I’m reluctant to intervene in yours. I’m also not sure what the threshold for intervention should be. If I just missed a non-critical word or two, we are probably both better off if I don’t interrupt. If I can’t understand you for several seconds in a row, I’m likely to yell, “Clear!” I’ll do that a couple of times and then give up. If I can flow the words but don’t understand the argument, I’ll just hope it gets clarified in CX and ensuing speeches. I am even more reluctant to intervene when I am on a panel, because if the other judges are getting it, I don’t want to throw you off (of course they may be thinking the same thing, and you may be digging yourself a hole and not know it…).

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t like to make applications or cross-applications for debaters. It begs the question of whether they knew about the application in the first place. So if you assume something “obviously” answers something else, you might be disappointed.

Speech docs seem to be undermining some folks’ ability to flow and follow a flow. Since I rely on my flow, this can be a problem. You still have to answer analytical arguments that are not in the speech doc. You shouldn’t answer arguments they didn’t make. While teams should not be giving you a messed-up speech doc, you also should not be up in arms because the 1NR gave you some solvency cards they didn’t get to at the bottom of the document.

So…

My philosophy seems more grumpy than it used to. I think it is just a matter of having to spell things out that I didn’t have to before, given trends in what debaters do. I wouldn’t read too much into it. I’m not actually especially grumpy, and I’m happy to answer your questions.

I totally love debate. I wish I could still debate. Good Luck folks!

Melanie Campbell Georgetown 5 rounds

Last changed on Fri September 25, 2015 at 8:17 AM CDT

Melanie Campbell

Georgetown

University of Kansas

Updated Kentucky 2015

Big picture

“I do my best to judge rounds from the perspective presented by the debaters. I have voted for just about every kind of argument imaginable. […] I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate. […] The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue or to stimulate social transformation. That said I do have some preferences.” - Dr. Harris

I reward debaters who work hard, demonstrate robust knowledge of the topic, and come in with well-researched strategies.

Good debaters recognize that they are almost assuredly losing at least some arguments in the debate, and account for this in the rebuttals.

Post-GSU Military Presence Thoughts

After judging a few of these debates, I’ve become increasingly skeptical of vague aff answers to ‘what does significantly reduce military presence in X region/country mean.’ The vaguer the aff is, the more I find myself giving the neg leeway on link/CP competition questions. When you read an aff about Air-Sea Battle, and you won’t clarify whether your purposefully vague plan removes our carriers from the region, I feel like this: http://i.imgur.com/UVbALQs.gif. This topic is awesome and has real topic disads – let’s debate them.

I also tend to think the aff only gets to fiat a reduction of presence, and generally must defend decreased presence in the region is good. So relocating troops to mainland Japan or another base in Okinawa is probably competitive. I also find it hard to reconcile why CPs that increase military presence in the same region as the aff shouldn’t be competitive.

Arguments

Topicality - It’s a real thing. Reading an aff all year or nebulous 'it's the heart of the topic' claims do not make you topical. I default to competing interps and think that even questions of reasonability generally require the aff to extend a counterinterp that is reasonable.

Disads – There can be such a low risk that any rational person would consider the risk to be zero in their decision calculus. The idea that because 'you are controlling X issue means that their is only a risk of Y issue' is not incredibly persuasive - the fact that CIR is going to pass seems to have no impact on whether the plan is popular, nor does the (un)popularity of the plan dictate the status squo's chances of CIR passage.

Try or Die – Can be useful if a) there is a chance of 'trying' being successful b) the other team doesn't also 'try'

Counterplans - I tend to be neg leaning on cp theory questions, however, I’m increasingly convinced that there is a clear distinction between the mandates of the plan the effects of the plan – counterplans that compete off the first are fair game, counterplans that compete off of the second probably aren’t actually competitive. Caveats to this: a) counterplans that are clearly in the literature b) I think the neg should get CPs that compete off of positions the aff has explicitly taken in their speeches or CX. So if the aff reads an adv to federal action or cards that say only congressional action solves, the neg should get the states or court CP. (tl;dr – the cx answer of ‘we’ll defend X for DAs but not CPs’ makes me cringe).

Limited conditionality is good and I default to the 2NR’s world unless otherwise explicitly instructed that the squo is an option.

Kritiks – Are fine, especially if you fall under the ‘KQ/economics of speed’ category and not the ‘I love Baudrillard’ category. Ks of the affs mechanism/fundamental premise are more persuasive than random rep Ks of an aff impact or links to the state being evil.

Abraham Corrigan Wake Forest 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 23, 2024 at 9:28 AM CDT

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email(s) - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, acorrigan1@glenbrook225.org, catspathat@gmail.com

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs! Judging is one of my favorite things & I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all debate arguments and literature bases such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would say you should probably pref me.

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I just like debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then Mrs. Corrigan got the GBS job & the rest is history!

David Cram Helwich Minnesota 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 7:07 AM CDT

David Cram Helwich
University of Minnesota
28 years judging, 20-ish rounds each year

Quick version: Do what you do best and I will try to check my dispositions at the door.

Topic Thoughts: We picked the wrong one (too narrow, needed at least sole purpose). Aff innovation is going to require NFU-subsets affs, but I have yet to see a good argument for a reasonable limit to such an interpretation. "Disarming" creates an unanticipated loophole. Process counterplans that are not directly related to nuclear policymaking seem superfluous given the strength of the negative side of the topic literature.

Online Debate: It is "not great," better than I feared. I have judged quite a few online debates over the past 3 years. Debaters will benefit by slowing down a bit if that enhances their clarity, avoiding cross-talk, and actively embracing norms that minimize the amount of "null time" in debates--watch for speechdocs and download them right away, pay attention to the next speaker as they give the order, be efficient in getting your speechdoc attached and sent, etc.

Evidence: I believe that engaged research is one of the strongest benefits of policy debate, and that judging practices should incentivize such research. I am a bad judge for you if your evidence quality is marginal—sources, recency, and warrants/data offered. I reward teams who debate their opponent’s evidence, including source qualifications.

Delivery: I will provide prompts (if not on a panel) if I am having trouble flowing. I will not evaluate arguments that I could not originally flow.

Topicality: I vote on well-developed procedurals. I rarely vote on T cheap shots. T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. Debaters that focus interpretation debating on caselists (content and size), division of ground, and the types of literature we read, analyzed through fairness/education lenses, are more likely to get my ballot. I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as a “definition”—intent to define is important, whereas proximity-count “definitions” seem more valuable in setting the parameters of potential caselists than in grounding an interpretation of the topic.

Critical Arguments: I have read quite a bit of critical theory, and will not dismiss your argument just because it does not conform to ‘traditional’ notions of debate. However, you should not assume that I am necessarily familiar with your particular literature base. I value debating that applies theory to the ‘artifact’ of the 1AC (or 1NC, or topic, etc). The more specific and insightful the application of said theory, the more likely I am to vote for you. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is vitally important, for both “policy” and “K” teams. Absent contrary guidance, I view ‘framework’ debates in the same frame as T—caselist size/content, division of ground, research focus.

Disadvantages/Risk: I typically assess the ‘intrinsic probability’ of the plan triggering a particular DA (or advantage) before assessing uniqueness questions. This means that link work is very important—uniqueness obviously implicates probability, but “risk of uniqueness” generally means “we have no link.” Impact assessments beyond shallow assertions (“ours is faster because I just said so”) are an easy pathway to my ballot, especially if you have strong evidentiary support

Theory: I will not evaluate theoretical objections that do not rise to the level of an argument (claim, data, warrant). Good theory debating focuses on how the operationalization of competing interpretations impacts what we debate/research and side balance. Thought experiments (what would debate look like if the neg could read an unlimited number of contradictory, conditional counterplans?) are valuable in drawing such comparisons. I tend to find “arg not team” to be persuasive in most cases. This means you need a good reason why “loss” is an appropriate remedy for a theory violation—I am persuadable on this question, but it takes more than an assertion. If it is a close call in your mind about whether to go for “substance” or “theory,” you are probably better off going for “substance.”

Counterplans: The gold standard for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I am more suspicious of multi-conditionality, and international fiat than most judges. I am probably more open to condition counterplans than many critics. PICs/PECs that focus debate on substantive parts of the aff seem important to me. Functional competition seems to make more sense than does textual competition. That being said, I coach my teams to run many counterplans that I do not think are legitimate, and vote for such arguments all the time. The status quo seems to be a legitimate voting option unless I am instructed otherwise. My assumption is that I am trying to determine the "best policy option," which can include the status quo unless directed otherwise.

Argument Resolution: Rebuttalists that simply extend a bunch of cards/claims and hope that I decide things in their favor do poorly in front of me. I reward debaters that resolve arguments, meaning they provide reasons why their warrants, data, analysis, sources etc. are stronger (more persuasive) than those of their opponents on critical pressure points. I defer to uncontested argument and impact comparisons. I read evidence on questions that are contested, if I want the cite, or if I think your argument is interesting.

Decorum: I believe that exclusionary practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner (intentionally engaging in hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist etc. acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.”

Use an email chain--establish one before the round, and please include me on it (cramhelwich@gmail.com) . Prep time ends once the speechdoc is saved and sent. Most tournaments have policies on how to deal with "tech time"--please know what those policies are. I do not have a strong opinion on the acceptability of mid-speech prep for other purposes.

If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.

Garrett Crane Capital 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 21, 2020 at 11:56 AM EDT

I believe it is best to disclose the bad news first. I work for a government agency. As such, I cannot engage in behaviors that could call into question my non-partisan affiliation. What this means for debate is that if your argument would likely ruffle the feathers of a politician who has no understanding of thought experiments, then I cannot endorse it. Specifically, proposals that reject the state, reject capitalism, etc. There is no specific topic area this excludes, rather it excludes some arguments used to justify topical cases. Use your judgment, and if you have to think more than five seconds about it, either go with a different argument or strike me.

If you've made it this far, I have good news: you get to argue in front of a real-life government official who knows how things work in the real world and would be on the frontline(s) of your case impacts Congratulations?

In terms of specific debate mechanics, I have certain preferences. Conditionality itself doesn't bother me. Performative contradictions do. There is no reason one cannot assemble arguments that do not contradict across multiple worlds on a topic with this much literature. Also, if the affirmative makes a ‘conditionality bad’ argument, I interpret each conditional argument as a violation until I’m told to think otherwise. Another thing that rustles my jimmies is when people read into their laptop rather than into the room. I will say clear once, then the second time I will lay down my pen until you start making sense. This does mean I flow on paper, so rest assured that I am listening to your argument and not goofing around on my laptop.

Lastly, I'm not well-versed in much of the critical literature, so if you are going to run a philosophically-oriented argument above a 7th grade reading level it would be best to assume I have no idea what you are talking about because I probably don't. I'm not going to pretend I understand your argument for the sake of making myself look smart. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask before the round.

Michael Davis James Madison 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 26, 2015 at 1:57 PM EDT

I have been judging debates for a long time now (21 years) and I think for the most part I am a significantly better judge now than I was 10 years ago. I’m probably not a better flow, but I certainly understand arguments a lot better and over the past few years I have worked hard to think about how I judge and what that means for you as a debater. Here is what I have:

I think that my role as a judge is twofold. First and foremost it is to decide who wins the debate. Debate is a competitive activity and that competition has the potential to bring out the best in all of us. When we work hard and engage the other team (in whatever way makes the most sense for you) then that makes our activity better, stronger and more inclusive. Second, I believe that I am an educator. Not in the way that come judges claim that they are the ones who possess some idea of the way debate should look. Instead I view it the same way I evaluate the work of the students in my classes. I want to know that the student worked hard on their assignment (hard work includes cutting cards, but it is certainly not limited to that) and that they have thought of the ways that the assignment interacts with the world around them. These two roles both compliment and contradict each other and I work hard to balance them as I adjudicate a debate.

Framing all of this (and everything that is contained below) is one overriding tenet. DEBATE IS FOR THE DEBATERS. If you are a director, coach or judge who thinks this is about you then you are in the wrong activity. This informs my judging in a couple of ways. First, I am looking for ways that each debater gets to debate in a manner that allows them to engage materials in the ways that they feel best fits their educational and competitive goals. That means that debaters who want to debate politics should have at least some debates that focus on those issues and debaters who want to focus on issues of debate pedagogy should have debates that focus on those issues should have at least some of those debates. I am not sure what the ideal debate world will look like, but as I try to answer the question of “What do you want debate to look like if your daughter decides to the debate?” I am sure that I am not smart enough to answer that question. However, I do know that I want students to feel as if they are empowered to make arguments that they are excited by and moved by and are not dictated by some myopic closed minded judge in the back of the room. I will do my best (although at times I am sure I will fail) to be open-minded and evaluate the debate in front of me.

So, as you are doing you judge preferences (or reading this for the first time five minutes before the debate starts) what does this mean you should do in the debate. Here are some guidelines:

1. You should be able to explain why your framework meets two criteria. First, how is your framework related to the topic. I certainly don’t think that you have to read a plan or rely on traditional debate evidence or defend fiat, but I think you should be able to explain how you are related to the topic. Second, and probably more importantly, how is that relationship fair for both sides. Do both sides have the ability to engage meaningful issues under your framework? What does debate look like if your view of debate wins out?
2. I tend to be more flexible when it comes to the negative. I think that a negative framework that is not closely related to the resolution is probably more acceptable than a similar framework on the affirmative. Obviously clashing with the affirmative is more fun debate for me to judge, but not a necessary requirement for the negative.
3. If you say “We can fit our arguments into this paradigm” then please pref me. I try to be as fair as possible in debates and I work hard to meet you on your terms.

Argumentative Preferences:

Negative Kritiks – I like Ks. The best Ks are ones that directly engage the affirmative. I am probably more liberal than most when it comes to what it means to “engage the affirmative”. I think that state bad Ks, language Ks and kritiks of the system can be argued to engage the affirmative (I could also probably be persuaded that they do not).

Affirmative Kritiks – Similarly to my stance on negative Ks I think the affirmative Ks should have some relation to the what the negative says or to the resolution. I have voted on kritiks of the debate community, but these debates are much more persuasive to me when combined with some explanation about how the negative helps support or reify those norms.

Topicality/Procedurals – I like T debates and other procedural arguments a lot. I think I am kind of a geek about the way the political process works so I tend to enjoy debates that ask questions about the way the system normally works. That being said these arguments are significantly better when accompanied by evidence to prove your interpretation. Additionally, I think the negative normally needs to commit significant time to these arguments if they want to win them. A 20 second T argument in the 2NR is unlikely to get my ballot.

Theory – I am a hard judge to get to vote on theory. I tend to judge theory debates the same way I judge policy debates. You should win a link (they are a pic), an impact (pics are bad) and implications (why voting against them matters). When multiple theory arguments exist in the debate I often weigh the impact of each theory argument.

Disads – Most DAs are pretty bad. Of course, so are most of your affirmative advantages. Debaters rely too much on evidence and do not spend enough time exploiting holes in the evidence. Try combining evidence with some smart analytics and your speaker points will be rewarded accordingly.

Cplans – This is probably where I have the fewest dispositions. I don’t really have a stance about pics, agent cplans or the like. Cplans supported by specific evidence make me much happier than your super generic cplan strategy. However, I am equally likely to vote for either.

Performance debates – See above. I tend to find performance debates interesting. If you are affirmative relate what you do to the topic. When you are negative contrast what you with what the affirmatives does. Warning: Explain the implications of your performance to me. What happens if you win the argument that traditional debate evidence is bad? Do they lose the debate for reading the evidence in the first place or do I just not consider that type of evidence?

Speaker Points

I was rewriting my judge philosophy anyway before so this is really the only section that is a reaction to recent events. I had already adjusted my speaker points up this year as I tended to be below the average for teams on the bubble of clearing although I was above for many teams that were regularly clearing.

I’ll be honest. I am still not sure what I will do about speaker points. I am likely to have a lower floor than most (meaning I am more likely to venture into the 27s on a more regular basis). However, I believe that speaker points are a community norm and that I cannot pretend that my point exist in a vacuum. So I will do my best to figure out what the community average at a given tournament might be and adjust my points accordingly. I am still likely to deviate further from the average both in terms of lower and higher range points. Which means if the community average is a 29 you are still likely to see a few people in the 27s (teams that are going to be in the bottom quarter of the tournament) and probably quite a few points near 30.

This is the portion of my judge philosophy that I am least sure about is most apt to fluctuate. I will make sure I update often as things change.

Some other things:

1. Evidence matters. Evidence matters a lot less than arguments. Slow down and think about how arguments interact. Using your evidence (or your opponents evidence) is likely to get you much higher points that reading more evidence.

2. I ask for all speech documents during the debate. I very rarely look at them during the speech (I normally only look at the plan or counterplan text). I do spend a considerable amount of time reading them during prep time and I make sure that when you are discussing a piece of evidence in cross examination (be clear about which card you are asking about). I find that asking for speech docs is a great way for me stay engaged during prep time and I feel it makes me a better judge.

3. It is your job to be clear. I will say clearer once. After that if you are still unclear and I miss arguments it’s your bad.

4. Be nice – I hate people who are jerks in debates. I have been known to destroy your speaker points if you are rude to your opponents or partner. Debates are best when they are competitive without people being jerks.

5. Every argument requires a claim, warrant and data. Which means arguments like “Perm: Do Both” mean little to me until they have some explanation attached to them.

6. Author names are not arguments – They are helpful in that I know what cards you think I should as for after the debate, but when they are not coupled with warrants from the evidence they are not very useful. “Davis 05” is not argument by itself.

7. I work extremely hard in making my decisions because I know that as a debaters you work extremely hard as well. You can do lots of things to make my life easier so I do not have to do as much work. Things like if then statements and explaining the warrants behind your arguments will get you pretty far in my book.

8. Don’t steal prep – Every second of prep you steal is a moment of my life I can never have back. And it’s cheating. I am fairly lenient about paperless debate, but just be cognizant of the fact that when you say you are done prepping or when you run out of time you should stop prepping.

9. Debate should be fun. If you are not enjoying yourself (and making the experience enjoyable for others) then you should spend your time doing something else.

Thanks for listening let me know if you have any questions.

Brian DeLong Indiana 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:55 AM EDT

Update 4/1/2023

*If you are scanning this philosophy as a nonmember of the community, seeking out quotes to help your political "culture war" cause you are not an honest broker here and largely looking for clickbait. I find your endeavors an unfortunate result of a rage machine that consumes a great deal of quality programs without ever helping them thrive or grow. Re-evaluate your life and think about how you can help high schools and middle schools around this country develop speech and debate programs, core liberal art educational, to improve the quality of argumentation, that otherwise is lacking. In the end, as an outsider looking in, you are missing a great deal of nuance in these philosophies and how they operate in the communities (multiple not just one) around the US and the world.

If you have landed here as a representative of Fox News or an ally or affiliate, I would like to see the receipts of the bias that has and continues to perforate your organization from Roger Ailes to Tucker Carlson and more. Here is my question, when you learned about the Joe McCarthy era of conspiracy theory, along with the hysteria and demonization of potential Americans who are communist (or sympathizers) and "pinko" (gay or sexual "deviants"), is your gripe with McCarthy that he had a secret list without evidence, or do you recognize that a core problem with McCarthy is his anti-democratic fear that there actually ARE communists, gay, trans, bisexual, Americans?

My next question is when and where you think it is acceptable for a person with strong beliefs to exist in democratic spaces. Bias is inevitable and part of this debate game. Organizations attempt to manage types of bias and coaches and debaters learn how to adapt to certain bias while attempting to avoid problematic bias. What do you think? Would right leaning presidential candidates vote for an argument that affirms trans athletes in sports? Should a trans judge leave their identity entirely at the door and embody a leading republican presidential candidate who is against medical care for trans persons? Both answers are no. The issue you seek to lambast for viewership clickbate is much deeper and more complicated than a 3 minute video clip can cover. Thank for reading.

REAL PHILOSOPHY
Background: Indiana University Director of Debate as of 2010. Background is primarily as a policy debater and policy debate coach.

Email Chain: Bdelo77@gmail.com

The road to high speaker points and the ballot

I reward debaters who have a strong knowledge of the topic. Those debaters who can articulate intricacies and relationships amongst topic specific literature will meet what I believe are the educational benefits of having a topic in the first place.

Using evidence to assist you with the argument you are trying to make is more important than stringing evidence together in hopes that they accumulate into an argument. “I have a card judge, it is real good” “pull my 15 uniqueness cards judge” are not arguments. Ex: Obama will win the election – a) swing voters, Rasmussen poll indicates momentum after the DNC b) Washington post “Romney has lost the election” the base is gone… etc. are good extensions of evidence.

Less jargon more eloquence. I get bored with repeated catch phrases. I understand the need for efficiency, but debaters who recognize the need for innovation by individuals in the activity will receive more points.

Speed: I expect I can digest at least 70% of your speech. The other 30% should be general human attention span issues on my part. I firmly believe debate is a communication event, I am saddened that this has been undervalued as debaters prepare for tournaments. If I agree with X debater that Y debater’s speech on an argument was incoherent, I am more and more willing to just ignore the argument. Computer screens and Bayesian calculus aside, there is a human in this body that makes human decisions.

Should affs be topical?

Affs should have a relationship to the topic that is cogent. If there is no relationship to the topic, I have a high standard for affirmatives to prove that the topic provides no “ground” for a debater to adapt and exist under its umbrella. Negatives, this does not mean you don’t have a similar burden to prove that the topic is worth debating. However personally I think you will have a much smaller hill to climb… I find it disturbing that debaters do not go further than a quick “topical version of your aff solves” then insert X switch side good card… Explain why the topical version is good for debate and provides argument diversity and flexibility.

Policy debate is good: When I prep our files for tournaments I tend to stay in the policy-oriented literature. This does not mean that I am unwilling to cut our K file or K answers, I just have limited time and job related motivation to dive into this literature.

K Debate: Can be done well, can be done poorly. I do not exclude the arguments from the round but nebulous arguments can be overplayed and abused.

(Updated 3-2-2022) Conditionality:

1) Judge Kick? No. You made your choice on what to go for now stick with it. 2NRs RARELY have the time to complete one avenue for the ballot let alone two conditional worlds...

I tend to believe that one conditional substantive test of the plan advocacy is good (agent CP, process CP, or ?) and I am open to the idea of the need for a second advantage CP (need to deal with add-ons and bad advantages) or K within limits. I'm not a fan of contradicting conditional advocacies in how they implicate 2AC offense and potential.

Beyond 1-2 conditional arguments, I am torn by the examples of proliferating counterplans and critiques that show up in the 1NC and then disappear in the negative block. There is a substantive tradeoff in the depth and quality of arguments and thus a demotivation incentive for the iterative testing and research in the status quo world of 3+ conditional advocacies. The neg's, "write better advantages" argument has value, however with 2AC time pressure it means that 1ACs are becoming Frankenstein's monster to deal with the time tradeoff.

Plans: I think the community should toy with the idea of a grand bargain where affirmatives will specify more in their plan text and negs give up some of their PIC ground. The aff interp of "we only have to specify the resolution" has pushed us in the direction where plans are largely meaningless and aff conditionality is built into core 2AC frontlines. The thing is, our community has lost many of its fora for discussing theory and establishing new norms around issues like this. Debaters need to help be the change we need and we need more in-depth theory discussions outside of the rounds. Who is the Rorger Solt going to be of the 2020's?

Reading evidence:
I find myself more willing to judge the evidence as it was debated in the round (speeches and cx), and less willing to scan through piles of cards to create a coherent understanding of the round. If a debate is being had about the quality of X card, how I SHOULD read the evidence, etc. I will read it.

Sometimes I just have an interest in the evidence and I read it for self-educational and post-round discussion reasons.

Judging:

I will work extremely hard to evaluate the debate as the debaters have asked me to judge it.

Kyle Deming Michigan 6 rounds

Updated: GSU 2018. Some parts are taken from my old philosophy, and some are new.

Put me on your email chains - kyle.deming7@gmail.com.

In descending order of importance, some notes about my judging:

1 - I do my best to evaluate arguments as they are debated rather than how I feel about them. All told, you are probably better off doing what you do well than radically adjusting your style to fit my judging. I have voted for many positions I find typically unpersuasive, either because they were not answered or they were answered poorly. I will likely continue this practice.

2 - Remember: I need to hear, understand, and flow your arguments. Most debaters would benefit from being slightly slower and clearer. (GSU 2018 note: I have not judged a debate since March 2017, so as a bonus, my flowing will also be rusty.) On a similar note, rebuttals should frame the decision: tell me the preferred metric for evaluating the debate, and tell me why you win. Teams that fail to communicate their position - either stylistically or substantively - will struggle to get my ballot.

3 - Evidence quality matters. Qualifications, recency, and other attributes of evidence can and do make a difference, and teams that highlight their relevance and relative value in particular situations tend to come out ahead.

4 - Severely under-developed arguments are frequently incomplete even when dropped and may merit new responses after being actually explained.

5 - Affs without "plans" have sometimes won my ballot, but all other things being equal, I tend to find topicality-style negative arguments persuasive, particularly when they emphasize the benefits of switch-side debate and research on a stable resolution. I am still susceptible to voting on dropped or mishandled arguments: when I have voted for deliberately nontopical affs, it is usually because the neg inadequately debated an impact turn or did not articulate an impact of their own.

6 - Negative teams going for K-type arguments against policy affs should explain their vision of the debate; if I am not deciding the round on the basis of whether the plan averts more harm than it causes, negative teams should tell me what to do instead. If it is not obvious, affirmative teams are in a good position to make straightforward framing/case-outweighs arguments.

7 - Speaker points mostly reflect the degree to which you contributed to your team’s chances of victory. Other ways to get good speaker points include reading coherent and well-researched strategies, calling on historical examples, making CX matter later in the debate. Some ways to hurt your speaker points include being unclear despite prompting, wasting dead time, stealing egregious amounts of prep, and being unpleasant in CX (rude, mean, or extraordinarily unhelpful). Debate should be competitive, but it should also be fun.

Jay Derby Emory 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 18, 2014 at 7:32 AM EDT

I think debate is at its best when the debaters are making arguments they like to make. In that vein I try to be pretty open to whatever arguments you want to make. However, there are of course some things that are easier for me to check in for. Ill give some of the things that first come to mind. If there is a specific issue you feel like you want to know more about please feel free to ask.

First, I tend to have a fairly high threshold for topicality, and other theory arguments that require me to punish the other team for being abusive. This is not say that I wont vote on those arguments but you will have to do some heavy lifting to get me to believe that the opposition was so dastardly that there was nothing you could have done to win the debate. This does not mean that if the neg runs multiple conditional/dispositinal counterpalns that the aff should just take that with out objection. Nor does it mean that the neg should let the aff sever out of their plan in the 2ac. Having debated as the 2N I tend to be rather protective of the 2Nr, just a heads up.

Second: some words about plans. Plans are cool but by no means necessary. If you are not into reading a plan dont but just remember you will have to spend a few seconds telling me how I should approach the ballot. In that vein, I use to be a predominatly K debater so feel free to deploy this positions. While I am familar with some of the arguments it will behoove you to explain the more complex arguments.

Third: Overviews. You should give them. Overviews are a great way to crystalize the big picture for me. 30-45 seconds at the top of the 2NR/AR will be very useful when you are trying to do in depth impact calculus. This is especially true since I have been out of debate for a few years and I am not familar with the intimate details of your favorite set of arguments.

Fourth: Some notes on evidence. I will not spend much time reconstructing the debate and the only time I will call for evidence is if the contents of a card are
seriously disputed. Statments like "this card is great you should read it after the round" will not get you far. I want to hear you tell me what the warrants from the card are

Finally, As I noted above, I have been out for a while so I am not as familar with the intracies of alot of the positions that are being deployed these days. If you want my ballot slow down a little and spend time explaining to me link story. Becuase I have not been in debate for some time speakers who read at 400+wpm will find that I get only about half of what they say. While I appreciate the techne of speaking fast I think there can be serious strategic advanteges to slowing down just a little. This is especially true in theory debates where debaters are prone to rapid fire through their blocks. Just spit firing all of your arguments out will result in me getting about half of your arguments on the flow.

I want y'all to do with the debate what you want, have fun. Debaters who make the environment more lively will be rewarded in their speaker points. Again if you have specific questions I am happy to answer them.

Lauren Donnenfeld Vanderbilt 4 rounds

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

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

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

James Durkee Georgia 8 rounds

Rob Eback Georgia State 8 rounds

Andy Ellis Hire 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 22, 2015 at 3:20 PM EDT

2015 Judging Statement

From 1999-2008 I judged debates regularly; since then I have judged sporadically at best. Last year I judged a good number of debates, mostly in novice and JV at D7/D8 touraments.

So here are a few things I want to outline:

1)My goal again this year is to learn to be the best judge I have ever been. In the past i have been a good judge for certain teams and a bad judge for others. Some of this is because of capability, some of this is because of preference. This year my hope is to push myself to be better.

2)I was never great at keeping up with the very high speed and precise line by line, but I have likely unlearned much of even what i could hear before. I believe it will come back in less time than it took for it to go away, but fair warning, I may miss stuff. I won't try to make it up or pretend i heard it, and I am not comfortable yelling clear. Let's discuss before the round and work something out.

3)I have not really judged in a world of speech docs and jump drives. I am totally open to learning how this works, but I would like to discuss it at least briefly before the round begins. If everybody agrees just tell me how it needs to work. I may be over emphasizing #paperlessproblems, but I don't want my lack of experience with this to affect the outcome of the round.

4)Content- Do your thing, convince me why i should vote for it in this round. A few more details:
a)The resolution and the topic certainly exist. If you think they are a good place to center the debate, go for it. If that is contested make an argument about why you think your approach is good.
b) policy analysis using plan centered debate is a valuable performance and practice. If this is your practice of debate, go for it. If contested, explain why your practice is good.

c)Debate is largely a solvency question. In any kind of debate I want to know what your argument claims to solve, and how. Solvency matters in a word of fiat, and it matters in a performance. Again focus on why your argument is good.

5)I don't know what I don't know and I am very open to learning. You know your argument and you practice and mostly you should tell me about it, whatever it is. I am open to talk with anybody who has questions, before during or after. I will try to update my judging philosophy throughout the season as I learn more things i think I need to declare in order to present a fair philosophy to debaters and coaches.

Brandon Evans Vanderbilt 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 11, 2014 at 10:02 PM EDT

Brandon Evans

Assistant Coach at Vanderbilt University 2014-present

Debated at Binghamton University 2011-2014

Throughout my career, I have had experience debating "traditionally" (topical policy affirmatives, multiple off) and not (kritikal affirmatives, 1-off kritik in every round, occasionally performance). I love this community and everyone in it so long as you do not preach hate and intolerance. I will try my best to judge whatever arguments you choose to run in front of me with an open mind.

Flashing Evidence: Please be competent at paperless debate if you are paperless. Prep ends when you say so before flashing, but do not take advantage of this and do not give me any reason to believe you are stealing prep.

Speaking: If I cannot understand you, I might say "Clear" or "Louder" once or move my seat. Speed is fine. Good debaters are fast and clear; great debaters know when to slow down and use emphasis for rhetorical flourishes.

Flowing: Be clear as to how you want me to flow your arguments. The form of your arguments can affect the way I evaluate their content. This does not mean you have to abide by the traditional line-by-line. If you ask me to evaluate the round holistically and invoke performative elements, I will take this into account while avoiding judge intervention.

Calling for Evidence: I will do it if I have to. You should be able to utilize your evidence such that this is unnecessary unless the opponent contests your reading of it.

Kritiks: My favorite. I was not a philosophy major, so you will need to synthesize your high theory into something that is understandable to someone who does not necessarily have your background knowledge (what you should be doing anyway). I should have at least a shallow understanding of any major critical author you cite, but I should not have to utilize this understanding at all vote for you. You should care about the issues you are talking about, even if you would like to experiment and advocate for a solution you do not necessarily agree with. All links should have an implication. Unless you intend to prove that the plan is bad, you should present an alternative Role of the Ballot; if you do so effectively, I view your links as procedural violations. I would prefer you to phrase kritiks this way instead of running plan-inclusive kritiks because you should win that the stasis of the debate is not the plan.

Theory (General): Proving in-round abuse is helpful, but potential abuse can be a voter. I think fairness is an internal-link to education and not a voter. I prefer substantative standards (Ex. Condo is bad for activism over strategy skew). I am open to reasonability as an argument; I am not sure why competing interpretations necessitates judge intervention any more than reasonability as there is no absolute definition to anything.

Framework: I will vote for it if you win it, though I would encourage at least some substantive engagement as well. If the team running a K aff does its job and explains why what it is doing in this space matters, it should not be hard to find other points of clash. If they do not do this and defend nothing other than some oppressive system being bad, then framework might be a more viable option for me. Remember, if you win an alternative Role of the Ballot, you do not need to disagree with the entirety of their project to highlight a significant flaw with it and win for it; the aff is in serious trouble if it tries to use theory to avoid substantial criticism. Read my section on topicality for other details. Aside from that, I would like to see K affs make connections to the topic and not just allude to it briefly as a prerequisite to talk about other things.

Topicality: If both sides agree that the debate should be about the theoretical enactment of a policy option, topicality becomes a much easier sell for me. Spend the necessary time on T in the 2NR or it will be hard for me to vote on it. Field-contextual interpretations are best, as otherwise, the interpretation can be construed as a self-serving. It always helps to provide a topical version of the aff.

Disads: Turning the case makes it easier for me to vote on the D/A alone than just outweighing it. That being said, merely saying "the D/A turns the case" is not an argument because that statement can mean any number of things. Impact calculus is absolutely essential. I disagree that the importance of an impact is equal to the probability of it times its magnitude. I would advise you to argue that probability is a more important factor than magnitude or the other way around. I am more prone by default to weigh high-probability, lesser magnitude impacts over high-magnitude, microscopic probability impacts. Packaging your impacts as at least relatively realistic helps. A clear "no link" might make me vote on zero-risk, but understand that offense / defense makes this a rough place for a judge to be in.

Counter-plans: The block should give in-depth comparisons between the plan and the counter-plan instead of keeping it as generic as it was in the 1NC. Without this, small PiCs often become hard to adjudicate. Advantage counter-plans are highly underrated. Clearly explain the competition between the two policy options. Permutations need net-benefits in order to win.

Recording: I will be continuing to record rounds with Vanderbilt, and I plan to continue featuring them on Binghamton Speech & Debate's Live Policy Debate Collection. I am also in the process of learning how to effectively stream rounds. If you would like to have your round recorded, talk to me about it. I will not publish anything without the permission of all parties involved.

Jack Ewing Harvard 3 rounds

Do whatever you do best.

I hate paperless. Do not waste time playing with each other’s flash drives, I will not be happy. Try to look up every once and while. It will help your speaker points. Prep stops when the other team has the jump drive.

I do think rules exist in debate: speech times etc. These rules do not set restrictions on content or curriculum. All of these things are up to the debaters.

Framework: If circular claims about predictability and fairness are how you roll, I am probably not the judge for you. If framework is based on comparative claims which construct the importance of differing roles for the judge/debate/space, I am fine for you. One caveat, I generally think the negative, when going for framework, is responsable for responding the content of the 1AC. That is to say, you should probably have some answers to the affirmative jive from the case which will be used to respond to your framework argument.

Disads: They are good; even better if they are intrinsic.

Critiques: These are the arguments I know the most about. I am familiar with most critical literature. I will do my best to exclude my background knowledge from affecting my decision. Just because I know a lot about criticisms does not mean you should go for the argument. DO NOT ADAPT TO ME. In many cases, your inability to properly articulate X author will only frustrate me. The more specific the link to the affirmative the better your argument will be. This also applies to affirmative answers to the author the negative is using. I do not think the aff has a right to a permutation on a criticism. This does not mean the aff cannot justify one, but that is where I start.

Counterplans: I really like case specific PIC’s. If the counterplan results in the entire plan it is probably unfair.

Please be comprehensible. I will not tell you to be clear, but I will be staring at you with a puzzled look.

I honestly do not know how much I give off in body language while you are speaking. As a general rule, you should pay attention to what your judge is doing.

I am not the best flow. I have a very good verbal memory. If I am not constantly writing things down this does not (necessarily) mean I don’t dig what you are saying. It may also mean I am thinking about what you are saying.

Please try to be interesting and funny. This will greatly enhance your speaker points and chances of winning.

Argument: claim (17) + warrant (50) + impact (2)

There is such a thing as zero risk of a link.

Debaters argue. Evidence does not. If you just list 25 authors, I will not read your cards. I do not want to read your cards. Persuade me.

I will probably not take too long to decide the debate; it’s not you, it’s me.

People I would like to emulate while judging: Dallas Perkins, Steve Pointer, Dan Fitzmier, Calum Matheson, Izak, McBride, Odekirk, Hester, Repko and your father.

Email me with questions: jewing4@lion.lmu.edu

Kurt Fifelski Michigan 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 24, 2024 at 2:08 PM EDT

He/him

These are most of the predispositions I have about arguments that I can think of, these are not ironclad as my views on debate are constantly in flux. However, without being instructed otherwise, the below points will likely influence how I evaluate the debate.

Top Level:

-Please add me to the email chain, fifelski@umich.edu and please make the subject something that is easy to search like "NDT 4 - Michigan DM v UCO HS."

-I prefer to flow on paper, but if you would like me to flow on my computer so I can share the flow after the debate, just ask.

-I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates. I am still trying to hone flowing in online debate.

-I cannot emphasize enough how important card quality and recency should be in debates, but it requires debaters to frame arguments about that importance.

-If you break a new aff and you don't want to share the docs, I will chalk it up to academic cowardice and presume that the aff is largely a pile of crap.

-Evidence can be inserted if the lines were read in CX, but otherwise this act is insufficient. I will only look at graphs and charts if they are analyzed in the debate.

-I generally think war good arguments are akin to genocide good. I also think dedev is absolute nonsense.

-The past year of my life has been filled with the death of loved ones, please don't remind me of it while I'm judging a debate. I categorically refuse to evaluate any argument that could have the thesis statement of death good or that life is not worth living.

-Affs should be willing to answer cross-x questions about what they'll defend.

Topic thoughts:

-I'm not a fan of this topic, but I don't think "aff ground" arguments make much sense in terms of the topicality debates from fringe affs. The topic is not "adjust nuke policy" so even if "disarming" was a poorly choice word, it doesn't mean you can just get rid of a handful of bombs. Anything else makes the triad portion of the topic irrelevant. It sucks, but the negative should not be punished because the community came to consensus on a topic. Want to fix it? Engage in the thankless work that is crafting the topic.

-Russia is 100% a revisionist power, at war in Europe, and is evil. My thoughts on China are more complex, but I do believe they would take Taiwan if given the chance.

How to sway me:

-More narrativization is better than less

-Ev quality - I think higher quality and recent ev is a necessity. Make arguments about the qualifications of authors, how to evaluate evidence, and describe what events have happened to complicate the reading of their evidence from 2012.

-The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction. If you laid a trap, now is the time to tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.

-I can flow with the best of them, but I enjoy slower debates so much more.

-More case debate. The 2ac is often too dismissive of case args and the neg often under-utilizes them.

-If reading cards after the debate is required for me to have comprehension of your argument, I’m probably not your judge. I tend to vote on warranted arguments that I have flowed and read cards to evaluate particular warrants that have been called into question. That said, I intend on reading along with speech docs this year.

-I think internal links are the most important parts of an argument; I am more likely to vote for “Asian instability means international coop on warming is impossible” than “nuclear war kills billions” OR “our patriarchy better explains x,y,z” instead of “capitalism causes war.”

-I like when particular arguments are labeled eg) “the youth-voter link” or “the epistemology DA.”

-If you're breaking a new aff/cp, it's probably in your best interest to slow down when making highly nuanced args.

Things I don’t like:

-Generally I think word PICs are bad. Some language obviously needs to be challenged, but if your 1nc strategy involves cntl-f [insert ableist term], I am not the judge for you.

-Overusing offensive language, yelling, being loud during the other team’s speech/prep, and getting into my personal space or the personal space of others will result in fewer speaker points.

-If you think a permutation requires the affirmative to do something they haven’t, you and I have different interpretations of competition theory.

-Old evidence/ blocks that have been circulating in camp files for a decade.

Critical Affs:

-I am probably a better judge for the K than most would suspect. While the sample size is small, I think I vote for critical args around 50% of the time they're the center of the debate.

-A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments, particularly on a topic as dull as this one.

-Too often I think critical affs describe a problem, but don’t explain what voting aff means in the context of that impact.

-Is there a role of the ballot?

-Often I find the “topical version” of the aff argument to be semi-persuasive by the negative, so explain to me the unique benefit of your aff in the form that it is and why switching-sides does not solve that.

-Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…

Kritiks:

-Links should be contextualized to the aff; saying the aff is capitalist because they use the state is not enough. I'm beginning to think that K's, when read against policy affs, should link to the plan and not just the advantages, I'm not as sold on this as I am my belief on floating pic/ks (95 percent of the time I think floating PIC/Ks aren't arguments worthy of being made, let alone voted on)

-Alternative- what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?

-I’m not a fan of high theory Ks, but statistically vote for them a decent percentage of the time.

-When reading the K against K affs, the link should problematize the aff's methodology.

Answering the K:

-Make smart permutation arguments that have explained the net benefits and deal with the negatives disads to the perm.

-You should have a framework for the debate and find ways to dismiss the negative’s alternative.

Disads:

-Overviews that explain the story of the disad are helpful.

-Focus on internal links.

Counterplans:

-I am not a member of the cult of process. Just because you have a random definition of a word from a court in Iowa doesn't mean I think that the counterplan has value. I can be swayed if there are actual cards about the topic and the aff, but otherwise these cps are, as the kids say, mid.

-Your CP should have a solvency advocate that is as descriptive of your mechanism as the affirmative’s solvency advocate is.

Theory/Rules:

-Conditionality is cheating a lot like the Roth test: at some point it’s cheating, otherwise neg flex is good.

-Affs should explain why the negative should lose because of theory, otherwise I’ll just reject the arg.

-I'll likely be unsympathetic to args related to ADA rules, sans things that should actually be rules like clipping.

-I’m generally okay with kicking the CP/Alt for the neg if I’m told to.

Daniel Fitzmier Northwestern 1 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 1:27 AM CDT

Hello -

I haven't updated my judging philosophy in a while and thought this was a good time to do so.

I'll try to be fair; I think I am a good listener; I have a good attention span, but a prosaic memory. My flow looks good from far away. Up close it is another thing altogether. It really depends on how unclear the speaker is. I feel like I can't hear as well as I used to and have asked people to repeat themselves more than I did ten years ago.

If you asked me to be candid, I'd say I think the Aff should present a topical plan. For both strategic and doctrinal reasons.

I find that in a close debate I often spend most of my decision time assessing evidence quality on the most important issues. My favorite debaters over the years have tended to be excellent when it comes to introducing arguments about how one ought to interpret the key evidence in the debate. That said, I tend to come to my own conclusions about evidence quality when left to my own devices. I'm happy to do so because I value research & information competency.

I don't disagree with any of the things I've said in previous judge philosophies, except perhaps that I find it easier to vote Aff on conditionality than I used to. I don't think I've ever said this in a judge philosophy, so I might as well now - I strongly think resolutional meaning should precede, but not occlude, limits - insofar as it is a criterion for thinking about topicality. Last couple of points, I can be stingy about what I consider to be a complete argument. I don't like to vote for things that I don't understand, and I am probably a better judge for debaters that have studied and worked on arguments that I have a deep working knowledge of.

I have not judged any debates on the 2015-16 topic.

All things considered, assuming any of the above sounds objectionable, I'd prefer the dignified anonymity of your strike to the alternative.

Best of luck at the 2016 NDT!

Jordan Foley Wake Forest 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 16, 2014 at 3:40 PM EDT

Background

4 years of policy debate in high school at Little Rock Central

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

Currently, I am a first-year graduate teaching assistant in Wake Forest's communication department.

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

I have very few preferences for how you go about making the argument that you would like to make in the debate. I truly do love the process of argumentation itself more than the ins and outs of any particular argument. Although there are some obvious ones I may be more familiar with I think the general principle that Link + Impact = Argument is true and that your argument will work better if it is tied to a broader strategy you plan to deploy against the argument you are facing. That being said, there can be a level

In my time as a debater, I could pretty squarely be considered in the ‘traditional policy’ camp. I read (and often went for) topicality and framework arguments against teams that did not defend governmental action on the aff. I still find many of the arguments surrounding these positions to be very persuasive, but my voting record does illustrate my openness to alternative styles of argumentation as well.

In my short time as a judge in college policy debate, I have continued to find myself in new ‘judging dilemmas’ that I had never previously considered. A lot of the fault lines that come up in rfds have rested on a few issues that I will mention before getting into some of the other aspects of my judging philosophy

Basically, I have a small set of data to work with but I do think that there are two notable patterns in many of the decisions I have given so far. These areas of argument encompass a lot of the difficulty I have when resolving debates during rfd time and will help you understand where I am coming from when evaluating some arguments. Not all encompassing, for sure, but absolutely things to keep in mind.

1. 1. Clarity of interpretation

This is a pretty blanket category, but I think it helps articulate a major frustration I have when. Whether it is a topicality/framework interpretation or an analytical argument about how a judge should evaluate or weigh certain impact claims, I often find myself wishing one team would provide a more vivid description their interpretations of how certain arguments should function within debate rounds.

In framework debates, the clarity of your ‘interpretation’ of what debate and/or the ballot is/does is just as important as making sure I understand your counterplan text. If the other team controls this interpretation via a lack of clarification of adequate elaboration then the other team essentially controls what your counterplan does. If they control my understanding of what your counterplan does, they will make it link to their DAs and win. Control what your evidence means to me and how I should read it in light of broader link/impact claims.

This is as true for topicality as it is for any attempt at a theoretical discussion of a how people/groups/nations/states act in a particular context in relation to a topic disad or sociological criticism. Debates often hinge on these questions and when they are poorly fleshed out, many other issues that have time invested in them become far less relevant and much more of the debate’s deciding factors will be up to my interpretation of the interaction of arguments and not yours which is a dangerous place to be in a verbal argument about very complex complex and interwoven concepts

2. 2. Articulation of comparative significance –

This is related to the first, but I find myself in a lot of debates where I give the following rfd: “ultimately, I had a lot of reasons to vote against the other team, but not a lot of reasons I should be voting for you”

Whether it’s a 2ar without enough impact calculus or a 2nr who doesn’t do justice to the alternative/cp solvency evidence they are extending, many of my decisions seem like they fall in this category. Debaters from both teams do a moderate to excellent job of executing their core argument but fail to rhetorically distinguish and compare their core arguments from the other team’s position.

I try reward debaters not only engaging with the argument they are debating on their own terms (our ‘x’ evidence answers this by saying ‘y’) but also engaging with the language used by their opponents and the evidence they read to make comparative claims. Controlling my interpretation of a piece of evidence from the other team will usually get you further than perfectly explaining your own.

As a judge, I view my role to be an educator, not a competitor. I have argument preferences and professional academic interests that certainly expose me to different literature bases in both debate and non-debate research, but I try to maintain as open of a mind as possible to arguments outside my comfort zone. It is unavoidable that certain vernaculars (critical and policy alike) that I am too unfamiliar with to make the judgment calls that are required when one of the above two things are done poorly.

Odds and Ends

I will likely be flowing on my laptop – I do this for a few reasons. First, I type faster than I write so I genuinely believe that my flow is more accurate and more importantly, readable. Secondly, I do it because I do not like to have my head down looking at my flow during your speech for extended period of times. I like to watch speeches because I think that aesthetics of giving a speech are important. Timely gestures to emphasize main points are just as relevant as the white foam you've developed on your mouth 4 minutes into your speech and I like to be able to get a more full picture of your speaking style. At times, this tendency can cause you to think I am awkardly staring at you too much - please do not read too much into this because I am honestly trying to soak up the full force of the way you make your argument in additions to technical, content related questions.

There is a decent chance that I request speech documents prior to speeches using electronic evidence. I am still experimenting a bit with this, so its application will not be entirely consistent but I think it is useful for two main reasons. First, it helps deter and catch card clipping – which I will discuss in more detail below. Secondly, it drastically reduces the amount of decision time dedicated to transferring evidence at the end of a debate. I do not ever intend, however, to have a debater feel like the choice to call for speech docs was in any way motivated by the debaters as individuals or the perceived reputation of a squad in general. I am honestly a young judge trying to find my norm, so please bear with me on this issue.

I very much value my decision time after debates are over. If there are flashing issues between teams or extended bathroom breaks before speeches, I will become frustrated if the time delay starts approaching the 10-15 minute range. More judging time = better decisions = better debaters.

Conditionality – fwiw, I have not had many decisions that come down to this argument but I will say that the gulf between the 1ar and the 2ar explanation of their position is usually the pivot point in the debates I have had come down to this issue.

Card clipping – I take this matter pretty seriously and will not hesitate to assign a loss and zero speaker points for verified violations. I am very hesitant about unilaterally halting a debate where neither team has brought the issue up, although I have never faced an egregious case that I have had such a visceral reaction (or any reaction so far, really) that would make me do that. But, if someone does make a challenge, an audio/video recording is essential.

Do not speak into your laptop – lower whatever you are speaking from in order to make eye contact and let me see your mouth move. For some reason, this has become a massive pet peeve of mine. In the past, I have prompted speakers to change where their podiums are situated, but I don’t think that should be my prerogative during a debate so please be mindful of what you look like to me when you are speaking.

Speaker Points – I have consistently given between a range of 27.5 and 29. I have given very few 29+ but quite a lot of 28.2-28.6’s. Here is a rough rubric based on my perception of what I have given out so far.

Below 27.5 – major mishaps likely occurred, these can be things like offensive language or disrespectful behavior but certainly glaring strategic miscues and/or speech delivery issues that substantially affected the content of my decision will put you in this camp as well.

27.5-27.9 – Excessively mediocre. Speech delivery issues were likely a component, but these scores I find myself giving more to people that seem are far too underprepared with the evidence and arguments they are deploying. Debaters who normally receive these speaks from me have received a lot of advice about reaching beyond buzzwords and taglines as well as evolving their arguments more generally as the debate progresses.

28-28.4 – This category, for me, has encompassed many of the teams that are on the ‘bubble’ and some of the lower-middle teams that exhibit a fairly coherent grasp of their argument strategically, there is normally some delivery issue associated with the lower end of this spectrum.

28.5-28.7 – This is about what you should expect if I find you to have a solid speaking style and a strong grasp of the arguments you are forwarding. There is usually a point in these debates where this debater does something notably awesome rhetorically or strategically but that lacks a sustained follow-through the rest of the debate. There are flashes of brilliance, but consistency is a key distinction between this category and the next one.

28.8-29.2 – If you get these speaks, you are likely a debater who excelled in not only their grasp of their own arguments but demonstrated a consistent ability throughout the debate of making smart strategic and rhetorical decisions. You were likely incredibly clear as a speaker and are debating at a very high level in terms of balancing word choice, time management, and quality evidence choice in addition to sustained comparative evaluation of key arguments in the debate.

29.3+ - Not going to lie, the likelihood you receive this or higher is exceedingly low. It takes not only what was mentioned in the above category but also requires a level of sophisticated argumentation that makes me feel like you were a top 5 speaker in that debate and/or that I could reasonably see you in quarters or better based on that performance.

For all of these categories of speaker points: landing solid jokes, being colloquial and respectful of your opponents, and the perception that you are truly enjoying yourself all have the potential to place a light, but impactful finger on the scale when I am assigning these points along this rubric.

If you every have any questions about any of this philosophy or a specific question about a debate I judged/watched (even if you did not participate), feel free to shoot me an email: folejm13 AT wfu DOT edu

Glen Frappier Gonzaga 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 2:02 PM EDT

Glen Frappier

Gonzaga University

Years Judging College: 24

Updated for 23-24

Rounds Judged on Nukes Topic: ZERO. FREE STRIKE!

If there is an email chain going around with the speech docs please include me. gfrappier@gmail.com.

I appreciate smart, quick and clear debate. If you’re unclear I will let you know once or twice but after that it’s on you.

I prefer argument characterized by depth and substance and generally despise when a laundry list of unwarranted claims is passed off as good argument. The best debates seem to be those where the debaters are doing a lot of comparison of the arguments and evidence. I always thought Ross Smith's lecture on "Extending An Argument" did an excellent job of capturing the essence of the depth I appreciate. If you haven't seen it, you really should google it.

Speaker Points. I find I award speaker points based on the 3 broad categories or content, organization, and delivery. A smart, quick, articulate debater who reads good evidence, makes well reasoned arguments, and effectively manages the flow can expect good points. Flashes of brilliance and displays of exceptional debating are always rewarded. Poor debating, bad evidence, being mean, poor decision-making will all hurt your points. The scale has clear trended up over the last few years and I intend to adapt to those broader trends.

Evidence. This is the lifeblood of a persuasive argument. We all interpret evidence differently so if yours is open to multiple interpretation tell me what your reading of it is and why thats the preferable interpretation. It should be qualified. Evidence from experts in a field with a lifetime of experience thinking, researching, writing and publishing on topic is more persuasive than a blogger with no credentials, or an undergrad working on their degree.

The affirmative should advocate for a topical example of the resolution. I’m open to different interpretations of how plans/advocacy should function, but I tend to believe that a community agreed upon controversy/topic serves as a valuable point of stasis.

Cross Examination is binding. I do my best to pay attention and flow CX. Great CXs payoff in points (and sometimes wins).

Counterplans. There are those I find more of a stretch than others theoretically, but generally tend to err neg on most theory questions.

Critiques. Sure, why not. If you have a link to the aff and an impact then it sounds like you have an argument and i'll listen to it. Still, i don't read much K lit these days and probably will not be familiar with the literature you're relying on for your argument. In those cases its in your interest to slow down and explain.

Ryan Galloway Samford 1 rounds

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

Ryan Galloway

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances.”I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

I prefer if you number your arguments.
Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leaving me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
I still believe in a place called Hope.

Seth Gannon Georgetown 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue October 13, 2015 at 4:30 AM PDT

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 â€‹canceled this opportunity for an interesting substantive debateâ€‹ 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 â€‹link and â€‹competitionâ€‹ 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.

Lincoln Garrett Kentucky 4 rounds

Joe Getto Hire 8 rounds

Tom Gliniecki Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed December 8, 2021 at 11:06 AM EDT

Yes, I'd like to be on the email chain: thomas.gliniecki at gmail.com . Yes, I'll still make you compile a doc at the end of the round anyway.

Update: December 2021

I admire everyone's tenacity in sticking around through online debate.

I currently coach at Glenbrook South. Getting back into high school debate after years in college has been quite an experience. Here are some reflections based on this topic and things I've noticed through the first semester:

1. When my camera is off, you should assume that I am not there or am having technical difficulties. If I need to turn it off while I am still there, I will make a note of it verbally or in the chat.
2. More teams seem to be reading and going for Ks in front of me. I've noticed a trend that some of these teams "fiat" their alts, e.g. they say their alt is to have a communist revolution overthrowing the US government, and somehow that's strategically equivalent to imagining a policy passing through the USFG. I don't think it is- so "utopian fiat" concerns apply- but I also think that this makes you lose to just perm: do both 99.9% of the time since your links would have to somehow demonstrate that the plan/aff subverted a theoretical revolutionary vanguard powerful enough to off the entire US governing structure.
3. A lot of teams refer to T arguments by the author name on the definition. Maybe this is a function of having not worked at a camp this summer, but this convention never made sense to me and was at odds with how I was taught, which is to label each T argument by the word/phrase being defined (e.g. "T- protection" or "T- water resources"). I don't instinctively remember what author makes what T argument, so using the author name convention is more likely to confuse me than help me conceptualize what your thing is.
4. This topic is very broad, and there don't seem to be cards that meet what I consider to be the "gold standard" of T definitions for operative phrases (such as "protection of water resources"). In the best T debates, both teams would have definitions that are close to such a precise standard, but are vulnerable to criticism to some degree. I anticipate in close T debates, I would lean neg more than a lot of other judges since my response to such situations would be to break ties through an assessment of the quality of each definition for debate, rather than just assuming "if all definitions are on the same plane, I can never exclude the aff."

Update: NDT 2021

I hate arguments that are entirely reliant on some combination of a vocabulary barrier and/or exploiting judge non-interventionism. There are some things that are so ridiculously obvious your opponents shouldn't have to waste their time saying them. If your strategy is premised on your opponents either not knowing at all what you even said or not having the time to make a simple factual observation, I think you will discover that non-interventionism has assumptions that underlie its value as a judging practice, and that working against those assumptions is not a good idea for you strategically.
If you're here to say weird troll-y stuff, cool. I'm glad you found an activity you enjoy. I will ask two things: 1. Ask yourself whether subjecting your competitors to that is ethical, 2. please don't involve me in it. Either change around what you do just this once or strike me before the tournament begins.

Older, "core" philosophy

I'm still not voting on "politics isn't intrinsic." I get it if you throw it out there out of force of habit, especially if I'm on a panel- but I will be happier if you don't. Negs, remember you don't need to waste your time answering it, though again, I'll get it if you do.

Specifics-

K/T in "non-traditional" debates- I think debate is at its best when there is a negotiated point of stasis that each side could predict, and when there is a legitimate opportunity for the negative to have a meaningful role in a contested debate. I generally think that if the aff did not defend a topical plan, that they've denied the negative a meaningful role, and have denied the necessary precondition for in-depth engagement.
Neg Ks against "policy" affs tend to propose that I consider one idea external to or somewhere within the 1AC to the exclusion of all else; I tend to think I shouldn't do that. A "K" with very well-articulated ties to the topic, the plan action, and the advantages might be persuasive to me, however, you will need to identify how your alt competes with the _plan_, how your links apply to the _plan_, and consider tying your alt to an alternative policy option. If that sounds too much like a “counterplan” and thus offends your sensibilities, we’re probably not on the same page.
The K has a very bad record in front of me, despite some valiant efforts. If you must do this, try to couch your argument as "mutually exclusive counterplan that solves inevitable extinction- try or die." The more it seems like a disad-counterplan strategy, the more likely I am to be receptive to your argument.

T in "policy" debates- While it's somewhat hard to forecast at the very beginning of a topic, I have historically been very good for the neg when they have high-quality evidence in support of a more restrictive interpretation of the topic. In these debates, I tend to have a lot of skepticism toward aff defense against limits explosion- for example, "functional limits" just seem like an invitation to a deluge of one-and-done affs with bad (but unpredictable and thus "good" for two hours) tricks vs. whatever generic is supposed to stop the aff from existing, and the lack of solvency advocate has never stopped anyone. This topic in particular strikes me as quite tough for the neg, so I may lack sympathy for some aff offensive args as well (e.g. overlimiting).

CP competition- CPs that are just rewritings of the plan or compete on something that doesn't appear in the plan will have problems. This also applies if your CP competes on a word that could be interpreted multiple ways; you will need to decisively win that it should be interpreted a certain way to win a competition arg.

Josh Grace Hire 8 rounds

Background – I debated at Chattahoochee high school for four years, where I qualified for the TOC, and at Georgia State for four years, where I qualified twice for, and cleared at, the NDT. I was primarily a policy debater in both high school and college, although I have been known to read and go for no-plan affs, nonsense K’s, etc. Just because I debated a certain way doesn’t mean I judge a certain way. If an argument is properly explained and well warranted, I will likely vote for it.

Forewarning – I am in law school. I don’t do research on the topic. Don’t assume I know anything about the topic. If you plan on using acronyms, please tell me what those mean.

Specific stuff:

Topicality

· I defer to reasonability, although the presumption can be rebutted

· I’d prefer if T debates were debated slow. Please don’t read T arguments fast. They are hard to flow as it is.

· Pet peaves

o Lack of a case list both ways – our interp allows the following cases, their interp allows the following cases

o Lack of specific ground loss – If I don’t know what specific ground you loss (and why that ground is good for the neg), then it’s hard to win your ground arguments in front of me.

· Spec arguments – read them if you want. I’ll listen to them.

Theory

· Slower debates better than fast debaters

· Conceded theory arguments may be a reason to reject the team, if extended properly

· Conditionality is probably good, to an extent. More than three worlds, plus the status quo, is pushing it and makes it more likely to vote on conditionality bad.

· Consult / Condition / Delay are probably reasons to reject the argument, unless otherwise specified.

· Teams going for theory need a specific story of abuse (what exactly did they do that screwed you over?) and specific arguments about limits, ground, etc. Generic stories are probably a reason to reject the argument.

Disadvantages

· Yes, please.

· Specific links are good. Generic DA’s are not.

· Links and internal links are, for me, the most important part of the disadvantage.

· Politics

o Your links need to be super specific.

o Clearly impacted internal link story about how the plan pushes X off the docket, etc.

o Intrinsicness is stupid, but I’ll vote for it if conceded.

o Don't say thumper. I will dock .1 speaker point for every instance said.

Counterplans

· More specific the better

· Probably should have evidence specific to aff, not just generic evidence about the topic.

· I’ll assume permutations are just a test of competition unless I am told otherwise.

· Consult CP’s are stupid. I won’t ignore the CP like some judges, but your speaker points won’t likely be high.

· Severence, intrinsic arguments are probably just a reason to reject the argument, unless a specific story of abuse is generated.

· Multiple perms bad is probably just a reason to reject the argument. Like conditionality, the more you have, the more effective multiple perms bad becomes.

The K and K affs

· Don’t assume I know your K. Your job is to explain to me what your K means. If you do a bad job at explanation, I reserve the right to vote against the K for lack of understanding.

· Most of my K knowledge comes from various Zak Schaller rantings and through debate.

· Specific link analysis good. Do not read generic links to the topic. I would prefer if you have links about the advantages and the plan.

· Use historical examples to demonstrate link and impact claims.

· Explain your alternative and what a world of the alternative looks like. The alternative should “propose a method that could attain something worth voting for.” You should also provide me reasons to reject / disprove the necessity for the PLAN

· For the aff, plan texts aren’t necessary. If you don’t read a plan, you must clearly explain your advocacy statement and what it means to vote aff.

Framework

· Presumption that the aff gets to weigh their impacts, can be rebutted.

· These debates are boring. I would prefer if you engage the other team’s arguments.

· Just because I think they are boring doesn’t mean I won’t vote for it. Like Consult CP’s, your points won’t be extremely high if you go for framework.

Performance / Project / Whatever term you identify with

· I have little experience judging these debates.

· Explain your position and why I should vote for it.

· Explain why the topic is not necessary (if that is your argument) and, if necessary, the importance of your argument in lieu of the resolution.

· I’d prefer if you engage the topic in some way, whether it be having a plan of some sort or using narratives from, for example, drone victims or just a discussion of the topic in relation to your argument / the debate community.

· As above, framework debates are boring and I would prefer if you engaged the other team’s arguments. You can go for framework if you want, but your points won’t be ery good.

· Please prove why it is necessary to engage in this discussion. It’s not enough to say the debate community is messed up. How does your aff/neg argument change debate? What’s the terminal impact?

Other things

· Good evidence outweighs analytic arguments. Analytic arguments outweigh bad evidence

· **PLEASE** make jokes. No one makes jokes anymore. Good jokes increase your speaker points, especially in boring debates. If you choose to make jokes, stay away from the overused ones.

· Clipping cards is bad. If an ethics challenge is posed, the debate will stop and I will review the issue. If a team is caught clipping cards, the clipper will receive zero speaker points and the clipping team will receive a loss. I will also talk to the clipping team’s coach about the incident. If no clipping occurs, the debate will resume.

· Be nice to your partner. Be nice to me. Be nice to the other team.

· Cross-ex is good. Good cross-ex leads to higher speaker points.

· Extinction is bad.

· Read my expressions – I tend to show signs of agreement or disagreement during the debate.

· Paperless debate – I hate it, teams are not effective at jumping and it wastes ton of time.

o BE EFFICIENT.

o Email chain > Jumping. I understand that some can’t access the internet at tournaments, which is fine.

o Prep finishes when the jump drive is out of the computer or the email has been sent. If a team makes a mistake and jumps the wrong file or the other team doesn’t get the email, then prep starts until the problem is resolved

o Bad paperless results in lower speaker points.

Speaker point scale

· 30: You are the best speaker I have ever heard. You deserve all the awards.

· 29.5-29.9: You are a fantastic speaker and deserve a top five speaker award

· 29-29.4: You are a really great speaker, made lots of smart arguments, didn’t make any blunders, and deserve a speaker award

· 28.5-28.9: You are a good speaker. You made smart arguments and made only small errors, whether technical or argumentative.

· 28-28.4: You made good arguments, but also made technical/argumentative errors

· 27.5-27.9: You made errors in the debate. Your arguments were not explained as well as they could have been.

· 27-27.4: You made lots of errors and resulted in a weakening of your argument. Your arguments were not well explained or impacted.

· 26-26.9: You made lots of big errors. You conceded arguments that lost you the round. You probably conceded at least one off case argument.

· Lower than a 26: You were rude to me, the other team, or your partner. Reserved for egregious errors.

Logan Gramzinski Georgia 4 rounds

I debated for Samford University and am currently a graduate assistant coach at the University of Georgia.

Be clear.

The quick checklist:

1) I consider myself a “policy judge” who privileges the importance of the link over the impact

2) I love good theory debates and am willing and ready to vote against what most call “negative flexibility”

3) Debate is a game (truth is important, but tech first) and my ballot will only determine who wins the debate, not which political stance or movement I am aligned with.

My “biases” are not harsh rules for debate. You are certainly best off doing what you usually do in front of me – I will work hard to understand your arguments, flow, and evaluate the round with as little intervention as possible.

T: Reasonability. In order to prove the aff/neg is being unreasonable – talk about what the world of debate would look like if I endorse their interpretation. Caselists and in depth impact calculus will go a long way here.

Theory: I am more than ready to curtail the community norm of unlimited negative flexibility. I do not think a team has to win the debate has become “impossible” in order to win an abuse claim. Topic education is paramount.

CPs: I love counterplans that test the intrinsicness of the plan to the advantages of the aff. PICs are great. Word PICs are not. I am more than ready to reject the following CPs : consult, agent Cps, international fiat, process CPs, CPs that compete off the certainty or immediacy of the plan.

Ks: What can I say? Grad school changes a person. After years of judging, coaching, and familiarizing myself with critical arguments, I feel like I am in place to better adjudicate these debates. Still, specific links to the aff are crucial. Generic criticisms, like generic policy strategies, are boring to watch and will get you bad speaker points (and a loss).

Performance: While my experience is in policy debates, I am more than willing to listen and evaluate arguments here just as I do in those policy debates. I generally think the role of the ballot is decide who won or lost a debate (did the best debating, made the best arguments), so asking me to use my ballot to send a signal or align with a particular movement will need a strong defense.

DAs: I will vote on zero risk of the link – you don’t need offense to beat the DA to zero. Talk about how your impact interacts with the opponent’s.

Speaker Points: I will reward debaters for specific strategies, (good) jokes, and not stealing prep.

Speaker point scale:

27-27.5: Did some good things, but needs a lot of improvement. Typically includes a lot of technical drops. Will not clear at a national tournament, will probably go 2-6 or worse if you debate like this every round.

27:5-28: Answered all the important arguments, but didn't do evidence comparison, sufficient impact calculus, or give me a clear way to vote for you. Will likely go 3-5.

28-28.5: Did a lot of things right, but didn't wow me. 4-4 debating.

28.5-29:Excelled in the cross-ex, has a positive ethos throughout the round, did evidence comparison, impact calculus, and made smart arguments and connections. You should be 5-3 or better.

29-29.5: Outstanding debating all around. You belong in the elims. No missing on points for you!

29.5-30: Rare. Reserved for the best speeches i've seen all year.

Misc: Be aggressive. Have fun. Learn something.

Paperless: I’m lenient. Don’t take advantage of it.

Justin Green Wake Forest 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 29, 2024 at 9:07 AM EDT

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

I plan to clap when the round is done; your effort is appreciated!

Argument Defaults

Preference - The good ones about the topic. Most of my research is on the policy side, but lucky to interact with great debaters and coaches across a wide spectrum of approaches for many years.

Topicality - Yes offense first; defense is essential. Impact turning or going just with reasonability without a quality counter-interp rarely wins.

Policy Aff v the K - Specificity is crucial for both sides. It's rare that I don't consider both the effects of the plan and the scholastic/rhetorical choices including the interactions between the two. Aff's should be prepared to defend the claims made in the 1ac. Winning the world is ordered by an oppressive structure is not enough.

CP Theory - Legitimacy of process CP's increases with more specific advocates. Some conditionality most likely OK - go beyond 2 or 3 or 2nc CP out of impact turns to do the opposite of the 1nc impact; less likely to be ok.

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

- Articulate when reading! There has been an increasing trend in debates I watch where syllables are consistently muddled or skipped. I'll yell clearer. If I yell it twice know that you are in the danger zone.

- Cross Ex Matters! and it has a time limit – I listen, flow, and those who reference answers from the CX are likely to get higher points. When the timer goes off, it's judge prep even if the two teams decide to continue the CX during prep time. If the two side agree on something when a judge is not there "ex. neg agreed they could kick planks or part of the alt"...please fill me in.

- Smart Analytics exposing flaws can go a long way. Internal link chains and neg K alt solvency are two of many places where this can potentially be effective.

- Quality of Evidence+Quality of Explanation+Quality of comparison=weight of argument

- 2 Tips for last rebuttals beyond impact calculation - Give your partners credit explicitly. Acknowledge where the other side might be correct, but why that is not enough.

Just in case it happens, some strong defaults....

- No shenanigans policy - I expect a 2v2 debate. No three person teams, no one person taking all the speech time, please don't ask for something besides a debate to determine a winner, etc. Two people speaking in the same speech, ok if part of a pre-scripted performance early in the debate. In subsequent speeches, only one person's words count.

- If you ask for a 30. Your speaker points will likely have a 3 in it; 3 will most likely not be the first number. If both you and your partner are asking for a 30, you are playing a dangerous game given the previous sentence.

- Hard to imagine myself voting on elements not related directly to an argument made in the debate (coin flips, previous debates, what their coach did, how someone interacted outside the debate, initials at the end of the card, month of the year). Verified blatant false disclosure of more than a card or two and could be a voting issue.

- Evidence ethics. Yes, follow AFA, ADA and CEDA guidelines. And also, not really trying to vote on: whether the citation includes date accessed, initials of the card cutter (or who cut the card), if there were accidental exclusions of the text that had no material effect.

ENJOY!

Christopher Hachet Capital 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 10, 2024 at 3:23 AM EDT

My name is Christopher Hachet, and I am an assistant debate coach and judge from Capital University in Columbus Ohio. I competed in debate during high school and was the novice state champion for Indiana in 1982. Then I judged high school debate when I was in college. Working part time with collegiate debate for about five years now and a bit of back story is in order.

I graduated from Taylor University with a bachelors degree in education in 1989 and decided that I did not want to teach. After a short career in commercial sales, I decided that my real passion was working with my hands and building things. Thus I became a master licensed journeyman electrician and refrigeration mechanic. This proved to be a fabulous career choice for me , and I moved up to become a foreman running all sorts of interesting projects from a neurosurgery clinic to a large middle school.

As the economy slowed and my later forties loomed large, I decided that I wanted a change of pace and took a job at Capital in the Facilities department. My father had worked in higher education for most of his adult life, and I felt a strong desire to give back to the field of higher education. Dr Koch was kind enough to also let me assist with the debate team, and I have had a blast driving all over the country with CEDA, IFA LD and NEDA debate as well as various speech events. Your fifties can really be the best decade of your life, and I still love debate 35 years after my last round of actual competition.

My judging philosophy can perhaps be best summed up by a very short analogy. Were you to be at my work bench struggling to make a strait cut in a piece of wood with a hand saw, I would look at the most simple and immediate items to help you be a better sawyer. Your posture, how you clamped the work piece to the bench, and how you held the saw would be much more important than an esoteric discussion about how to set rake and fleem while sharpening a hand saw. In a like manor, I look for debaters to focus on a strong basic ontological understanding of the concepts they are working with, careful argumentation and analysis, and keen cross examination skills.

Follow Ockham's Razor with Ockham's aftershave and we are all set!

In terms of what my actual voting criteria are, there are perhaps 5 different models of looking at a debate and I borrow from all five. They are;

The Stock issues Paradigm;

Topicality seems to be the defacto concern regarding stock issues. Will vote on topicality with a fairly high threshold because I believe in Affirmative presumption and the right of the aff to approach the topic in whichever route they find pertinent. If you are claiming abuse on the Neg side I will be much more sympathetic to your topicality claims if you attempt to clash with the Aff in good faith. Most topicality debates fall down on the neg side in my experience because of inadequate in round work on why I actually should prefer the neg interpretation. Multiple forms of T arguments in the same round are not abusive IMHO but I often find them counter productive.

The Policy making Paradigm;

This most closely resembles how the older hairy guy sitting in front of you as your judge is going to view the next rather intense hour or so of your life. My personal philosophical world view is based in existentialism and realism, and I tend to view the world and judge policy through that lens. Student analysis and reasoning is much more important to me than evidence. Convince me that you understand the policy issues at hand and have done some original critical thinking on the debate resolution. Debate is not a clash of evidence cards, it is a clash of ideas. Bring me yours. I just drove a few hundred miles to hear them.

The Hypothesis testing/Social science paradigm;

I do allow multiple negative positions to be run even if they are contradictory in order to test the resolution and the Aff's interpretation of the resolution. If I grant the Aff presumption in terms of interpretation I also have to grant the neg presumption on how they will answer the Aff. If you disagree with this, please see Tabla Rasa and Game Theory below.

Tabla Rasa;

The driven sands of the Sahara and the emptiness of a blizzard are my models of thought in terms of both link story for things like negative disadvantage claims and aff solvency claims. I am neither Greek nor Tabla Rasa but I think there is much to learn from both schools of thought. If in doubt, spell it out. It would be unethical for me as a judge to to sit in the back of the room and make assumptions about the actual impacts of implantation of Affirmative's policy proposal. Also unwilling to concede anything along the lines of giving agricultural subsides to Bolivian beet farmers causing nuclear winter and extinction without some sort of plausible explanation.

Your approach to how you wish to approach the round is completely up to you. I have no preferred style of presentation.

Game player theory of debate;

Keeping it fair regardless of school being represented or reputation of debater is a top priority for me as a judge. I have a bad habit of voting down good debaters when they get sloppy.

I expect you to be highly focused on the flow of the debate and make arguments that lead to a proper clash of ideas. Several previous debaters would describe me as shameless at dropping a team on a ballot if a key argument is dropped and the other side catches it. You probably don't want to be that person.

Final notes;

Speed is fine...I have only ever had to ask a debater once to slow down. If you are in round and your opponent is speaking too quickly please get my attention by saying "clear" loudly enough for me to hear. I will acknowledge your request and signal the other debater to slow down a bit. If it is obvious a debater is using speed in an abuse way I reserve the right to down vote this as a form of abuse.

I am open to different philosophical approaches in debate. Upvoting or down voting things like Kritiques based upon actual in round work and explanatory power of ideas presented keeps debaters working hard and tournaments interesting. Most of all I enjoy it when people think hard and challenge my own thinking. By no means am I Elijah sent from on high to be the prophet of debate.

"The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas." - Linus Pauling-I prefer that you pull as much forward into the final rebuttal as reasonably possible. If you are winning an argument and do not bring it forward as a voter clearly I will not upvote you on that idea.

Do not be afraid to disagree with me, and I also am open to any questions before or after the round.

Ben Hagwood Liberty 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 4:12 AM PDT

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

About me - former college policy debater, flow-centric, like all arguments but the politics DA (Elections gets a pass)

Debate is a game that can be played in a multitude of ways. It is the responsibility of the students to determine the parameters of the games and to call "foul" if they think someone has done something abusive. I will judge the round as it happens. Here are a few things about me that you might find useful when preparing for a round:

Flowing - I do my best to have as accurate a flow as possible while trying to capture but the context and citation of your arguments. Dropping arguments could be detrimental if your opponents extend and weight those arguments properly.
Observer not a Participant - I won't do work for you or insert myself into your debate. You will win OR lose based on the arguments in the round not my person opinion.
Style over Speed - swag is subjective - bring yours.
Petty but not Disrespectful - don't be unnecessarily rude to your opponent - but I must admit being petty is strategic.
Challenges - if you challenge someone and lose the challenge you lose the debate (this could also apply on theory debates depending on the debate - but not RVI's)

Universal Speaker Point Adjustments: all students are evaluated on their level. A 29 in novice is not the same as a 29 in open. 28 is my base for completing all your speeches and using all your speech time.

Wear a bowtie (+.5 point)
Be entertaining (tell jokes...if I laugh...you get points...if I don't you won't be punished) (+.5 point)
Be rude (-.5 point)
Don't use all your time (-.5 point)
Steal prep (-.5 point)

If you have any questions feel free to reach out to me and ask. Students may request my flow and written feedback at the end of the debate if they want. I will only share it with the students in the round unless they consent to the flow being shared with other opponents.

Heather Hall Liberty 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:19 AM EDT

Heather Holter Hall

Hallheather8@gmail.com

Salem and Tallwood High School Debater 1990-93

Liberty University Debater 1993-96

Liberty University Assistant Debate Coach 20+ years

I love this activity and I look forward to meeting you.

For novices:

Congratulations on being at a debate tournament! I like debates with a few pieces of quality research that you can explain well plus some smart logical arguments. You should focus on good explanation of arguments and on getting better at flowing. Putting lots of extra pieces of research that you have never read before into your speech is a waste of your time. I would much rather hear you explain research that you understand, compare that research to your opponent’s research and arguments, and tell me why the plan is either a good or bad idea. The most important comparison in the debate you can make is to tell me whose impacts are bigger, come first, or are more likely.

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, not the speech document. You should highlight and read complete sentences. I do not count sentence fragments as arguments.

If it is an online debate, please make sure you SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech. Please say out loud when you are done with prep time and post how much you have left in the chat. When you say prep time is done, you should be ready to email the speech document immediately.

For everyone else:

I have spent the majority of the last 20 years coaching novice debate. I also judge a lot of novice and jv debates. This means that I am not deep into the lit base for most arguments. My days are full of explaining and re-explaining basic debate theory. You should view me as someone who loves learning something new and the debate as your opportunity to teach me. If you want me to assess arguments based upon previous in-depth knowledge of a particular lit base, you will probably be very disappointed. I love the strategic use of each student’s scholarship but get me on the same page first.

Likewise, the theory debates I am used to judging are pretty basic. I would love to hear a well-developed theory debate at a high level, but you will need to slow down, give full warrants, and not assume that “lit checks” means the same to me as it does to you.

About preferred types of arguments—smart strategy with good support that is clearly communicated usually wins. I prefer consistent, thoughtful strategies with a few well developed arguments, but, sadly, I have voted for negatives who won simply by overwhelming the 2AC with skimpy highlighting of 7 off case positions.

I have voted for everything, but I do not judge alternate formats of debates often so you will probably want to slow down, make well developed arguments, and assume I do not know. As long as I am judging and there is a win to assign, my main assumption is that every team is playing the game, maybe in different ways, but still just playing the game. I can only make decisions based on words or actions in a particular debate. I will not begin to speculate about another person’s motive or intentions--that is a job for someone else.

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, including cx. I will reference the speech doc, BUT if I can’t understand your words or if the words you say do not make grammatically complete sentences, they won’t make it on my flow and only my flow counts. Likewise, if you are hedging the debate on a warrant buried three sentences deep in the fourth card by Smith, you will need to say more than “extend Smith here.” The more concrete and specific your warrants are, the more likely you are to persuade me.

If it is an online debate, you need to SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech. Yes, this has happened more than once lol. Don’t steal prep—it is obvious and annoying.

Feel free to strike me. I am not offended at all if you think I am not a good judge for you. Hopefully, I still get a chance to meet you at a tournament and chat.

Finally, I hope you all have a great tournament, learn new things, think deeply, speak well, meet fascinating people, and win lots of debates (unless you are debating my teams)! Have fun and please say hi in between debates!

Michael Hall Liberty 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:35 AM EDT

Michael Hall - Updated 9/15/22

Liberty University

28 Years coaching

Upfront, you should know that I've only judged a handful of debates over the last two years and those were intrasquad practice debates Second, I've developed slight hearing loss that makes it harder for me to pick out voices when there's background noise.

For the email chain: mprestonhall@gmail.com

The comments below reflect how I'm likely to things left to my own devices, but I do my best to evaluate the debate on the arguments made in the round.

Theory: I am not tabula-rosa. Minimally, each argument should contain a claim, some support (evidentiary or otherwise), and an impact. That said, I do my best to minimize my substantive preferences and therefore find myself voting for positions I don’t particularly like. I attempt to use the decision calculus most persuasively advocated by the debaters.

Topicality: I tend to see topicality as a contest of competing interpretations. I probably vote on T more often than most judges and have no problem voting against "core affirmatives" when the negative has a superior interpretation of the topic. I'm most easily persuaded to vote on T when the negative team develop arguments based on a comparison of ground offered under each interpretation of the resolution. I tend to find in-round abuse arguments less persuasive as its hard to determine whether the negative should have a right to those arguments without first establishing a coherent division of aff/neg ground. I am usually more persuaded by arguments about the quantity and quality of affs allowed by each interpretation and the negative's ability to access a core set of negative arguments. Topicality is by nature exclusionary.

Counterplans: I enjoy debates with creative counterplans tailored to specific affirmatives. The affirmative should be prepared to defend the entirety of the plan, and plan inclusive counterplans are one way of making them do so.

I’ve found myself voting against conditional counterplans a little more often in recent years, which I attribute to the quality of the negative’s defense of conditionality rather than a change in my CP leanings. If the negative justifies the conditional nature of the counterplan, other theory arguments are reasons to reject the counterplan not the team.

The text of the counterplan and all permutations should be written out. Trying to win a perm that doesn’t include all of the plan or that contains action not contained in the plan or counterplan is nearly impossible.

Kritikal Debate: I've found myself becoming much less dogmatic about the need for affirmatives to have topical plan texts. I don't know if I can pinpoint why, but I think it's partially due to conversations with various Liberty coaches and debaters and partially due to my own reading interests gravitating more toward critiques of the enlightenment and religious critiques of capitalism. I can certainly be persuaded to vote negative on framework but debaters should no longer assume it’s a hard default.

I don't think much has changed about the way I evaluate negative K strategies. Like any other part of the negative strategy, the more you tailor your link arguments to the affirmative in question, the more likely I am to find your arguments persuasive. Likewise, an overview that details how the kritik turns the affirmative’s solvency, outweighs the case, etc. would be more helpful than several more impact cards.

Style: Given what I wrote in the first two sentences, this is section of my philosophy almost certainly the most important for you remember during the debate. Things you should know in descending order of importance: (1) I am a better critic for those who collapse the debate in the block and 2NR than for those who go for most of their 1NC arguments into the 2NR. (2) I am a better critic for debaters who emphasize clarity over speed. I’ve found this to be especially true in paperless rounds where everyone in the debate except for the judge is reading along with the speech doc. Again, my hearing isn't what it used to be making the need for clarity even more important. I’ll give you verbal and nonverbal signals if I can’t understand you. (3) I have come to the conclusion that the more evidence I read, the less my decisions have reflected the arguments made by the debaters. As a result, I try to read fewer cards after a debate and am more easily persuaded to see a debate through the lens that allows me to do so. (4) If you think an argument is important, find a way to set it apart from the rest of the debate.

Prep time: Prep time stops when the speech doc is emailed.

Sherry Hall Harvard 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 29, 2024 at 4:15 PM UTC

Sherry Hall, Harvard, Judging Philosophy, East Region
Judged multiple College rounds this year.

Please add me to the doc chain: hallsherry2@gmail.com

I view my role as a debate judge as a "critic of argument." This means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is to act as an educator grading a class presentation. But Collegiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting as a "referee" or official who keeps time, and resolves disputes over the "rules". In resolving debates that focus on the "rules" - is topicality a voting issue, are PICs legitimate, must the negative provide an alternative - I tend to evaluate those questions based on the impact that they have on education and competitive equity.

I consider clash against the opponent’s ideas as one of the most important standards by which to evaluate whether or not a particular argument or practice is “good” or “bad” for debate. I do think that for the activity to continue to progress, creativity in arguments and debating styles is a good thing that should be encouraged. I also think that teams which are employing innovations, such as a “performance is all that matters” strategy, will do better with me if the debaters can isolate what standards I should use to evaluate rounds in this new way, and/or what ground is left to the other team. A strategy or performance that leaves nothing for the other team to respond to undermines the goal of competitive equity.

I have a few theoretical preferences, though none is so strong that I cannot be convinced to set it aside despite the arguments in the round. I will list some of these preferences, but the debaters should keep in mind, that these issues still need to be argued, and the side that plays into my preferences, still needs to articulate the reasons why a particular argument should be accepted or rejected.
1. I strongly believe that if asked, the affirmative must specify who does the plan. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor, means that the affirmative gets to choose. The whole purpose of having a debate where the negative can clash meaningfully with the affirmative case is lost, if the affirmative can say what their plan does after they have heard the negative strategy.
2. Almost all negative teams these days reflexively declare that the counterplan is conditional. I have seen many rounds this year where that unthinking choice has cost the neg the round. If you have a legitimate reason for your arguments to be conditional and you are prepared to defend it, go for it, but I think it is a bad idea to say that your arguments are conditional when they don’t need to be – you just open yourself up to more ways to lose. My preference is against conditionality. For the same reason that I think the affirmative has to say what their plan does for the negative to meaningfully clash with that plan, the affirmative needs to know what their plan and case is being compared to, in order to effectively clash with the negative’s arguments. It is not enough that the negative will pick one strategy by the end of the round, because too much time has been wasted on arguments that are irrelevant. More importantly, the presence of a counterplan in the round changes how the affirmative answers disadvantages and case arguments. If the negative can drop the counterplan later in the round, the affirmative cannot go back and re-give the 2AC. I think that the debate is better if both sides clearly stake out their ground and their positions from the beginning and the rest of the debate focuses on which is better.

3. I have a mixed voting record in "race" and "identity" debates. I am open to the arguments that they deserve a place in debate. However, I am not familiar with a lot of the literature, and I can therefore feel a little lost understanding some of the vernacular. It is better to explain arguments rather than to rely on terms that I am unfamiliar with. I prefer arguments that have some nexus to the topic or the other team's arguments for the reasons I outlined above when discussing my feelings on clash.

In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round.
1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a “learning environment”. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence – loss and zero speaker points.
2. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents.

Allison Harper George Mason 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 31, 2024 at 3:38 PM EDT

2022 Update- I am not longer actively coaching debate. Please do not assume that I know a lot about the topic, have any idea what some other school's aff is, or have strong feelings about what obscure topic wordings mean.

Allison.c.harper@gmail.com. - Put me on the chain please. I will not follow along with the doc or read cards I don't think are necessary to make a decision but spelling my first name is annoying and this was buried near the bottom of my philosophy.

Here are a few ways that I think my judging either differs from others or has changed with online debate:

1) I flow and do not open your speech documents during your speeches. That means you need to try to present arguments in a way that is flowable. Make sure tags are clear. Answer arguments in an order I can follow (such as the order in which they are presented). Add structure and signpost. Avoid reading giant analytical paragraphs without breaking things up. Avoid jumping around the flow arbitrarily or reading blocks in places where they dont belong. Doing these things make sure that I not only have a record of what you said, but helps me understand how you think what you are saying applies/responds to your opponents arguments. When you don't do these things, you increase the odds that I misunderstand what you think you have answered.

2) Make comparisons. I read less evidence during and after debates than other judges. I start my decisions by looking at my flows, deciding what the key questions are, resolving things that I can, and only then look at evidence. Make comparisons between your warrants, quality of evidence. Draw out the interactions for me rather than forcing me to do these things for you. I see that as intervention, but the way that many debaters give rebuttals these days sometimes makes it impossible to decide without that intervention. I would much rather let you do the comparing.

3) I am not in the cult of big impacts/try or die. You need to solve for something. Your counterplan needs a net benefit. I can be convinced to vote for low risk, but presumption and zero risk exist. Not everything needs a card. Smart analytics can knock down the risk of some pretty silly arguments. If the other team does have evidence of sufficient quality, however, a card to the contrary would go a long way.

4) I don’t think I am a bad judge for the k if you debate the k technically, especially on the neg. I am not great for any argument if you are overly relying on an overview to get things done, are speaking in paragraphs without considering flowability, or are addressing components of the debate in ways that ignore the line by line. I am better for specific links and alts that I would be able to explain back to the other team what they do based on the explanation you offered in the round. I think 90% of the time spent on “framework” when the neg reads a k is a waste of time by both sides. The neg gets links to what the aff said and did. The aff gets to weigh the implementation of the plan. Unless another way of thinking about this is presented and dropped, this is how I end up evaluating the debate anyway. I am less of a fan of critical affirmatives that are not topical, do not relate to the topic in a significant way, etc. In K aff vs framework debates, the aff is helped if I can understand what reasonable ways the negative could anticipate an aff like yours and reasonably respond to it.

5) I would rather you make link arguments to kritiks about assumptions that the other team has made during this debate rather than ask me to evaluate something that happened other debates or outside of debates. Other debates had judges who rendered their own decisions. If there are serious concerns about a debater's out of round behavior, please take that to their coaches or tournament administrators.

6) Process debates are boring. They might be necessary on some recent topics, but they are so boring on topics where there are great disads. They would be better with some evidence that suggest this process ought to exist/be used, even better if there are cards about the topic or aff. For example, I am far more into con-con about a constitutional/legal question than con-con to withdraw from NATO. But really, wouldn’t it be cool if we picked debate topics that were actual controversies? Wouldn’t it be cool if topics that had some controversy were limited in a way that makes some sense?

7) When you steal prep time, you are stealing my decision time. Please don’t. If you are making changes to your speech doc (deleting analytics, rearranging blocks, combining multiple docs into one, etc) you should have a prep timer running. Sending a doc is fine outside of prep but should be done efficiently, especially if you are debating at the varsity/open level. Refusing to start CX until you have a marked copy is also a big waste of my time unless you are planning to ask questions that are affected by these markings. I have yet to see that happen, so let's get on with it.

8) In online debate, you MUST make an effort to be clearer. NSDA campus makes you sound like a robot eating rocks. What was passable on classrooms.cloud doesn’t cut it on campus. I should be able to understand the body of your evidence, distinguish tags from cards, etc. I do not open speech documents when you are speaking. I need to be able to hear and understand you.

9) It is much harder to pay attention to online debates. This isn’t your fault. It is a feature of the format. I have found cross-ex in particular difficult to follow and keep in focus. People talking at once is really rough online, and I appreciate attempts to limit this by keeping answers reasonable in length and not cutting off reasonable answers. I will do my best in every debate to give you every bit of attention I have, but it would help me if you would forefront cross-ex questions that might matter to your strategy. Asking the other team what they read is cross-ex time.

Old Philosophy- I don't disagree with this:

I think I am a relatively middle of the road judge on most issues. I would rather hear you debate whatever sort of strategy you do well than have you conform to my argumentative preferences. I might have more fun listening to a case/da debate, but if you best strat or skillset is something else, go for it. I might not like an argument, but I will and have voted for arguments I hate if it wins the debate. I do have a pretty strong preference for technical, line by line style debate.

I am open to listening to kritiks by either side, but I am more familiar with policy arguments, so some additional explanation would be helpful, especially on the impact and alternative level. High theory K stuff is the area where I am least well read. I generally think it is better for debate if the aff has a topical plan that is implemented, but I am open to hearing both sides. To be successful at framework debates in front of me, it is helpful to do more than articulate that your movement/project/affirmation is good, but also provide reasons why it is good to be included in debate in the format you choose. I tend to find T version of the aff a pretty persuasive argument when it is able to solve a significant portion of aff offense.

I don’t have solid preferences on most counterplan theory issues, other than that I am not crazy about consultation or conditions cps generally. Most other cp issues are questions of degree not kind (1 conditional cp and a k doesn’t seem so bad, more than that is questionable, 42 is too many, etc) and all up for debate. The above comment about doing what you do well applies here. If theory is your thing and you do it well, ok. If cp cheating with both hands is your style and you can get away with it, swell.

I have no objection to voting on “untrue” arguments, like some of the more out there impact turns. To win on dropped arguments, you still need to do enough work that I could make a coherent decision based on your explanation of the argument. Dropped = true, but you need a claim, warrant, and impact. Such arguments also need to be identifiable in order for dropped = true to apply.

It’s rarely the case that a team wins every argument in the debate, so including relevant and responsive impact assessment is super important. I’d much rather debaters resolve questions like who has presumption in the case of counterplans or what happens to counterplans that might be rendered irrelevant by 2ar choices than leaving those questions to me.

I try my best to avoid reading evidence after a debate and think debaters should take this into account. I tend to only call for evidence if a) there is a debate about what a card says and/or b) it is impossible to resolve an issue without reading the evidence myself. I prefer to let the debaters debate the quality of evidence rather than calling for a bunch of evidence and applying my own interpretations after the fact. I think that is a form of intervening. I also think it is important that you draw out the warrants in your evidence rather than relying on me to piece things together at the end of the debate. As a result, you would be better served explaining, applying, and comparing fewer really important arguments than blipping through a bunch of tag line/author name extensions. I can certainly flow you and I will be paying attention to your speeches, but if the debate comes down to a comparison between arguments articulated in these manners, I tend to reward explanation and analysis. Also, the phrase "insert re-highlighting" is meaningless to someone who isn't reading the docs in real time. Telling me what you think the evidence says is a better use of your time

I like smart, organized debates. I pay a ton of attention and think I flow very well. I tend to be frustrated by debaters who jump around or lack structure. If your debate is headed this direction (through your own doing or that of the other team), often the team that cleans things up usually benefits. This also applies to non-traditional debating styles. If you don’t want to flow, that’s ok, but it is not an excuse to lack any discernible organization. Even if you are doing the embedded clash thing, your arguments shouldn't seem like a pre-scripted set of responses with little to no attempt to engage the specific arguments made by the other team or put them in some sort of order that makes it easier for me to flow and determine if indeed arguments were made, extended dropped, etc.

Please be nice to each other. While debate is a competitive activity, it is not an excuse to be a jerkface. If you are "stealing prep" I am likely to be very cross with you and dock your speaker points. If you are taking unreasonably long amounts of time to jump/email your docs or acquire someone else's docs, I am also not going to be super happy with you. I realize this can sound cranky, but I have been subjected to too many rounds where this has been happening recently.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

Thoughts on Pf and LD:

Since I occasionally judge these, I thought I should add a section. I have either coached or competed in both events. I still have a strong preference for flow-centric debate in both activities.

-You may speak as quickly or slowly as you would like. Don't make yourself debate faster than you are able to do well just because I can keep up

-You can run whatever arguments you are able to justify (see policy debate section if you have more specific questions)

-Too many debates in these events spend far too much time debating framing questions that are essentially irrelevant to judge decisions. Those frames mean little if you cant win a link. If you and your opponent are trying to access the same impact, this is a sign that you should be debating link strength not impact strength. Your speech time is short. Don't waste it.

-Make useful argument comparisons. It is not helpful if you have a study and your opponent has a study that says the opposite and that is the end of the argument. It is not helpful if everyone's authors are "hacks." With complicated topics, try to understand how your authors arrived at their conclusions and use that to your advantage.

-Stop stealing prep. Seriously. Stop. It is not cute. Asking to see a source is not an opportunity for your partners to keep prepping. If a speech timer or a prep timer isn't going, you should not be writing on your flows or doing anything else that looks like prepping. I see this in a disturbing number of PF rounds. Stop

-Give a useful road map or none at all. Do not add a bunch of commentary. A road map should tell a judge what order to put pieces of flow paper into and nothing more. Save your arguments for your speech time.

-Paraphrasing is bad. Read quotations. Send out ev in carded form ahead of time. If you are a varsity, national circuit level competitor, you should have figure out efficient ways to manage allowing the other team to review your evidence.

Casey Harrigan Michigan State 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed March 3, 2021 at 3:54 PM EDT

Casey Harrigan

University of Kentucky; 14th year judging; Updated March 2021

Please add me to the doc chain: charrigan@gmail.com

2021 Alliance Topic Updates

1. Assurance is singular, not plural. Like Deterrence.

2. ‘Can I get a copy of the doc [with cards marked / with only the cards you read]?’ – Sure, if you use your prep time for it.

3. ‘Did you read X card?’ – this is CX, not untimed twilight zone

4. I am very lenient when it comes to making adjustments to accommodate online debating. If you need to stop your speech, pause your prep, stop your opponent’s speech because you can’t hear, etc., that is fine. We’re all just out here doing our best.

5. Solvency ‘advocates’ – it is not enough to have a harm and say that is existence implies the opposite, thus solvency. It is also not enough to have a card that says the MDT as currently designed is bad. You need a card that says the United States should do something different toward the alliance. Affs that don't have this have a hard time beating CPs….and solving.

6. My typical decision process:

a) If there are any theory / procedural / T arguments, resolve this first. That seems logical, and if I am voting on them, it saves a lot of decision time.

b) Move to whatever issue appears to be most decisive. Usually something like an advantage that one team appears to be far ahead on, a DA the neg seems to be winning, a CP that looks to solve a lot of the case, etc. This is also for decision efficiency – deciding one issue can clarify the overall debate.

c) Move page-by-page, deciding each. I actively try to check for and counteract confirmation bias – as humans, we want to find ways to resolve conflict and want to generate ‘easy’ decisions. It is natural to want to decide that the DA is small if the case is large or vice versa. I actively try to set aside arguments that I have previously decided when moving to the next.

d) Argument weighting is something like 50% debating, 50% evidence quality. I have spent a lot of time researching the alliances topic and sometimes find it hard to give much credence to arguments that appear to me to be factual incorrect or egregiously false. I do admit to being ‘truthier’ at times that I would like to ideally be; it’s a work in progress. 50/50 is the goal.

e) In very close debates, I do think it is helpful to ‘write a ballot for each team’. Not literally, of course. No one has time for that. But, instead, thinking through the series of decisions that are required to vote for each time and considering which has stronger justifications. The act of considering how an alternative ballot could be cast, why, and then for what reasons should that ballot not be chosen is helpful. For me, at least.

7. K vs Policy? I do not believe there is a difference between these, nor do I have any preference.

Older

-- I enjoy all types of debate and have spent a significant amount of time recently working on K stuff on both sides. I also have been deep in the space topic lit and feel ready to judge a technical debate on most of the core mechanics of the topic. It is said often by many, but I really think it is true for me: do your thing, don’t over adapt to me, don’t think that I have strong immutable beliefs about debate/argument based on what you know about me. I, like everyone, do have preferences and prior assumptions about lots of things. They are easily overridden by good debating. I have often voted for arguments that I personally believe are terrible because one team debated better than the other. If you lose to a bad argument, that means you should debate better, not that I should correct for you by suggesting to the other team that their argument is actually bad.

-- I like my paragraphs breaks uncondensed, font to be Times New Roman, highlighting to be blue, and dashes to be tripled. I prefer A2: over AT: out of habit, though it is probably a little too cool-kid-Y2K to be actually correct.

-- I am probably not who you think I am. I was the only person at MSU who enjoyed reading the T.A. McKinney DRG article on Intrinsicness, the only person who wanted to write 2NR blocks on the Fromm 64 Death K, and the only person who wrote ‘growth is bad because diversionary war against North Korea is good’. I am sure that I have opinions about debate that no one else at UK shares. People are more than the name of the school that follows their name and more than what debate’s 4-year-long institutional memories pigeonhole them to be.

-- I prefer to be on the doc chain during the debate and do read docs occasionally during speeches and especially during CX. Yes, I still flow (and I think I flow pretty well since transitioning to using a laptop – would be willing to have a flow-off with anyone. Flowing gauntlet thrown down). No, I don’t let the cards do debating for you even though I have read them. I can both know things are facts and simultaneously know what arguments were and were not made well in debate. I read all the cards in the debate because I want to provide feedback that is as helpful as possible and I want to see if you have good cards that I should go cut later, not because I need to see all the cards to decide who won or lost.

-- I prefer that plans contain a degree of specificity. To me, a plan that simply says ‘the USFG should cooperate with China on X’ does not convey enough information about the mechanism of action to produce a debate of the highest quality on this topic and I would prefer that the plan state how that cooperation should occur or by what means it would be induced. If teams do not choose to specify in the plan or CX, it seems reasonable to allow that matter to be determined by evidence that describes normal means, which either team can introduce. I believe this introduces a strategic cost that is real and should be exploited by more negative teams and could counteract trends toward non-specificity better than relying on Vagueness as a theory argument.

Scott Harris Kansas 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:05 AM CDT

Harris, Scott (University of Kansas)

judgeharris59@gmail.com

Please add me to the email chain.

I am a critic of arguments and an educator not a policy maker. I view my role as deciding who did the better job of debating and won the arguments based on what was said in the debate. I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument imaginable. I will read evidence (including non highlighted portions).

I expect debaters to be comprehensible and I have no qualms about telling you if I can’t
understand you. I try my best to resolve a debate based on what the debaters have said in
their speeches. I try not to impose my own perspective on a debate although there is no such thing as a tabula rosa judge and some level of judge intervention is often inevitable to resolve arguments in a debate. Any argument, assumption, or theory is potentially in play. The purpose of my ballot is to say who I think won the debate not to express my personal opinion on an issue. You make arguments and I decide to the best of my ability who won the arguments based on what you said in the debate. I prefer to follow along with your speech docs to double check clarity, to make sure you are reading all of your ev, and to enhance my ability to understand your arguments.

My speaker points tend to reward smart creative arguments and strategies, smart choices in the debate, high quality evidence, the use of humor, the use of pathos, and making the debate an enjoyable experience. My points rarely go below 28 but you need to really impress me to get me into the 29-30 range. I am rarely impressed.

Absent arguments in the debate that convince me otherwise I have some default assumptions you should be aware of:

The aff should be topical and topicality is a voting issue. What it means to be topical is open for debate and for anyone who wants to build their strategy on framework you should know that I often vote aff in framework debates.

The affirmative must win a comparative advantage or an offensive reason to vote affirmative.

Presumption is negative absent a warranted reason for it to shift.

The affirmative does not need a net benefit to a permutation. The negative must win that a counterplan or critique alternative alone is better than the plan or a combination of the plan and counterplan/alternative.

Permutations are a test of competition and not an advocacy.

Teams are culpable for the ethical implications of their advocacy. This means that framework arguments on K's that say "only consequences matter" have an uphill climb with me. Means and ends are both relevant in my default assessment on critical arguments.

Andrew Hart Georgia 5 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 16, 2018 at 4:00 AM EDT

Andrew.j.hart@gmail.com

I have debated or coached for UGA since 2004 and debated for Stratford for 5 years before that. My knowledge and literature base exists largely on the policy side, but I am fairly ideologically neutral and well acquainted with K and K-ish args as well. After all, I have been in debate for nearly as long as many of the current high school debaters have been alive. That last sentence just hurt my soul, but it is true. My basic belief when judging is that as long as you clearly explain the argument and why it is more important than whatever the other side says, you will probably win the debate. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments fairly and without bias.

When it comes to assigning risk to an argument, I do not ascribe to an offense-defense paradigm. I can and will assign zero risk to an argument if defensive arguments are clearly won. If there is no link, there is no link. And no uniqueness if there is no uniqueness. For example, if your uniqueness evidence on a politics DA is 3-4 weeks old and the Aff has definitive evidence from a few days ago saying the opposite and cites a specific change, then there is zero risk to me. This also equally applies to advantages and solvency and pretty much all arguments. I’m perfectly willing to vote on only defensive arguments such as a perm, no link, and impact/uniqueness D, but it is still much easier to get my ballot by reading and going for offense.

I believe that debate is a communicative activity and not a judge reading comprehension test, which means I will not just call for all of the evidence at the end of the debate because it was read. I will pay attention to and flow the warrants of the evidence read if possible, so you should be clear when reading the text of the evidence if you want me to know what it says. I find that judges that just call for all of the evidence tend to reconstruct the debate in terms of evidence read instead of the arguments made. I will certainly call for evidence if necessary, typically if I did not get the substance of the evidence or if there is a debate over what the evidence actually says. Also, extend the warrants of the evidence in addition to extending the piece of evidence.

I keep a pretty decent record of the debate, but my pen does not move as fast as you speak. This means that you need to slow down when reading theory or other multiple analytical arguments in a row etc. If I do not have an argument on my flow, I cannot and will not vote for it. This also means that jumping around the flow can very quickly lead to flow chaos and potential missed arguments because I cannot just add in new cells or flow straight down and rearrange the flow during prep like on the computer.

As far as prep time goes for flashing speeches, I am reasonable if you are. You should be saving the speech when you say end prep and not continuing to copy and paste or compile the speech.

If you are caught clipping cards or cross reading or any other major ethics violations/cheating in a debate in front of me, you will immediately lose the debate. This is a very serious accusation with serious consequences, so there must be rather substantial/conclusive evidence of this occurring for me to be willing to end the debate. I have no qualms whatsoever dropping the hammer if it’s proven. If you believe that the other team has done this, speak up during C-X/prep, and we will resolve the issue before continuing the debate.

*Treat everyone in the round (and also outside the round) with respect and dignity. I understand that debate is a competitive activity that can lead to some heated arguments, but that is no excuse for being a complete jackass and a terrible human being.*

A couple of minor argument disclaimers/leanings/answer to pre round questions to note. These are clearly not strict rules and should not deter you from doing what you do best. I have voted for Condition/Consult CPs, ASPEC, non-topical Affs, and Affs that refuse to even engage the topic, and I believe that almost anything in the round is debatable with the exception of speech order and time.
1. The aff should at the very least discuss and be in the direction of the topic, so the neg at least has some reasonably predictable ground and the ability to have clash. Plans are often the best/easiest way to establish this, but they are not required – just preferred. I can and have voted for Affs that are neither in the direction of nor talk about the topic.

2. I, like most judges, do not want to have to wade through a big theory debate to decide a round. I much prefer the substance, but I will do it if needed. If you think it is your only option or that you are winning the argument and want to go for it, by all means go for it. I tend to default to reject the arg and not the team (except for condo/status) unless you can explain why the violation warrants that level of punishment. Even dropped theory arguments must be developed and explained as to why I should reject the team.

3. I tend to find the argument that counter-plans that result in the entirety of the plan, especially those with competition based off of certainty (condition, consult) are unfair/not competitive persuasive. You can certainly win the debate with these counterplans because they are strategic, and I do vote for them regularly. However the difference between strategic and unfair is a rather thin line in this area and that argument that can be won in front of me. As I said, I will evaluate the arguments based upon what happens in the debate and not my beliefs. Pointing out that this or other specific notes on arguments are in my philosophy as a justification for your argument is not an argument or reason for you to win. I wrote it. I do know what is in my philosophy. You must still effectively explain why these arguments are unfair and answer the neg arguments. There are still good reasons why these CPs should be allowed and good answers to the perm.

4. I’m not a big fan of most any spec argument. If you need to read A-SPEC to force/generate competition for an Agent CP, then by all means do it. At that point, there is a strategic value to this move. However, A-SPEC should probably not be the A-strat going into the round since it is difficult for me to envision a world in which the Aff must specify more than what the resolution demands. Occasionally, there is a good reason for a spec argument, but that is rather rare.

5. Topicality – I will vote on it if you win it and is well developed. Voting on T becomes easier if the argument is well developed beginning in the 1NC and extended with example case lists that each interp allows.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

David Heidt Michigan 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:10 PM EDT

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

Craig Hennigan Wayne State 4 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:57 AM UTC

Updated for IPDA and Policy judging

Craig Hennigan
University of Nevada Las Vegas

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. I was the Director of Forensics at Truman State University for 7 years and now am the Director of Debate at UNLV and started in 2022.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I don't judge kick. If the CP is in the NR, the SQ isn't an option anymore.

I don’t like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote against the K.

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Darn right, what are you gonna do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, it is a high bar and you probably shouldn't do it.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. Make an argument still with the performance. I don't typically want to do extra work for a debater so you need to apply your performance to arguments your opponent makes. I don't place arguments on the flow for you through embedded clash.

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Policy:Most of this is the same. Know that I'm getting older. I used to be around an 8 on the scale of speed and its probably dropped down to a 7. This means don't spread analyticals if you want me to vote on them. If you group 4-5 perms at once very quickly I may not get them all. I'm only in the game 2-3 times a year so some of the newer terminology or tricks I may not be as up to speed on. I won't vote on short blip arguments. Not the biggest fan of too many conditional worlds, 1 K and 1 CP is my default. I don't do judge kick either. I'm probably a bit of a dinosaur in this area now.

IPDA: IPDA is not policy nor should it resemble policy. I'm much less flow oriented. I'm of the belief that IPDA is far more of a speech activity and judge it accordingly. Dropped arguments carry weight, but less weight for me if they aren't really quality arguments. I'm of the opinion that a debater can win even if they aren't winning "on the flow" by being persuasive and speaking well. This is a publicly oriented event, so being cordial and good natured is important. This is a showcase to what debate ought to look like for the public, so treat it that way. I aim to be a judge that tries to leave behind my Policy/LD experience to substitute my speech experience and quality argumentation knowledge.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains or ideally a speechdrop so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it. If its obviously unintentional then I'll warn you about it. (like you're a novice or you skipped a non-strategic line by mistake).

James Herndon Emory 4 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 2:01 PM EDT

James H. Herndon - FORMER Director of Debate - Barkley Forum @ Emory University

[prefer to be called Herndon - pronouns are he/him/his. Email is jamesherndon3]

2020 update:

I left the game because I wanted to spend more time with my family. Wow, did I get that #ThanksCovid My relationship with debate was not conducive to being the father, husband, and member of my community I wanted to be. But, virtual judging is easy enough. So, why not.

What else is different - I don’t do debate research anymore, I do a lot of economic/financial research now, I do a lot of tech/zoom/Webex presentations.

In my experience I find it easier to listen/follow along when I can see people’s faces (that’s not possible for everyone, so it’s not a judgement thing) but if it can be when speaking it may aid my comprehension.

————————

everything from Jan 2019
If I am judging you and you are freaking out about it, believe there is no way I would ever vote for you, or are just generally making assumptions about my world view, then I ask you to keep in mind that the following list are things I think I think. I have been wrong more often than I have been right. I will do my best to evaluate the debate neutrally. I view myself as an adjudicator first, and do my best to neutrally evaluate the arguments as defended in front of me. I will vote for anything

Though, like all educators I have biases, those follow.

These statements are things I believe to be true about my judging. They aren't rules. But, it is better to disclose:

1. Debate is a game. I view all theory arguments through this lens.
2. If I don’t understand it at the end of the round then I am not going to vote on it.
3. The Aff should have to defend a plan or advocacy statement that they can defend is topical.
4. Topic related critical literature should be debated.
5. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
6. I will reward good cross-x with speaker points.
7.. I tend to evaluate the strength of the link in tandem with uniqueness – neither exists in a vacuum.
8. Counterplans always switch presumption to the aff.
9. I will NOT kick counterplans for the negative. The 2nr is allowed to present me with a reason to vote for them, that is where the debating ended. If the neg says to kick the cp and the aff doesn’t answer it I will kick it. Absent that, I am not kicking arguments for one team. This applies to all speeches.
10. Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applys to everything.
11. literature shapes the topic. and what you get to do with it.
14. Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of.
15. There is value to life.

16. I am not qualified to evaluate people in the round for or about things that happen outside of the round. Intentions are important & I give people the benefit of the doubt too often for my own good.

17. I feel like fiating the states + federal government might be a step too far. I haven't heard a great debate on this, but since this is for my biases, thought I'd include it. That being said, state fiat is probably okay if there are solvency cards for what you are doing.

18. limited condo is good. the neg's job is to disprove the aff or win a competitive policy option. That being said, if the aff can prove that conditionality was used in a way that undermined the value or competitive fairness of the debate, it is a voting issue.

19. topicality is under-utilized against policy teams and over-utilized vs K teams.

20. future fiat illegit.

Good luck.

Michael Hester West Georgia 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 15, 2024 at 2:36 PM EDT

2023-24 will constitute my 31st year judging intercollegiate debate.

General comments about my judging:

1) When forced to choose, evidence-based argumentation informed by an understanding of current events is preferred to eloquent prose devoid of substance.

2) Argumentation that directly engages opponents' positions, especially strategic choices that clearly acknowledge and account for the strengths of an opponents' claims while exploiting their weaknesses is considered the highest form of debate.

3) In terms of delivery style, confidence is not measured by volume, aptitude is not proven by aggressiveness, and eye contact is always appreciated.

4) Competitors who know how to employ "Even If" statements ("Even if my opponent is correct about ______, they still lose the debate because ________") are more successful than those who assume, and speak as if, they have won all the arguments.

5) I flow, or at least try to. I don't give up on that exercise because debaters share a speech document.

Specific thoughts about judging the 2023-24 CEDA-NDT resolution:

Debating nuclear weapons is a relative waste of our collective intellect, and an unfortunate reminder at the shallow and superficial manner by which our community chooses what topic we will spend an entire year researching, learning about, and engaging in a contestation of contrasting perspectives. US nuclear weapons policy is neither the most salient policy issue, nor even the most pressing foreign policy issue. Sadly, our community is too narrow-minded and scared to use our powers of debate to focus our energy on other areas of public policy that would be much better for college-aged scholars to delve into.
My thoughts expressed above do not mean I automatically support Affirmative teams who strategically choose to talk about some other topic, regardless of how passionately they feel about it. Debate is still debate, and if you can't explain how your decision to affirm something beyond the reasonably-expected "topical ground" is both educational AND fairly debatable, then in my opinion you're not any better than the folks who are stuck in the time loop of debating NFU.
Especially at the start of the year, don't assume we know the acronyms and specialized vocabulary you're using. My responsibility as a judge is to give the teams my full attention and effort as an adjudicator during the round - I am not required to show up to the debate already having expert-level familiarity with whatever literature base the debaters have been immersed for the last few months - whether that be nuclear weapons policy or any other body of literature.

Final Comment:

Over the last six years, I have become heavily involved in debate outside of the US, having taught both teachers and students, high school and university level, in Africa, east Asia, and the Caribbean. One consequence of my international experience is that a lot of the ontological claims debaters in the US make about the activity (e.g., "Debate is ______" or "Debate must ________" or "________ (people) can only debate like _________" ) ring very hollow to me and reflect a naive ethnocentrism about which too many folks in the US are oblivious.

Kevin Hirn Michigan 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 5:09 AM EDT

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

Alex Holguin Liberty 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 2, 2024 at 1:00 PM PDT

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

Brian Huot Louisville 8 rounds

Kathryn Jordan Liberty 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 30, 2019 at 8:54 AM EDT

Affiliation: Liberty University

Email: KTJordan07@gmail.com

I began debate as a novice at Liberty University in the fall of 2007 and continued to debate on both the JV and Varsity levels until I graduated in the spring of 2011. I graduated from Liberty University School of Law in May 2014. In my day job I work full time as an Assistant City Attorney for the city of Lynchburg, VA practicing local government law with a focus on social services/child dependency matters. I am currently judging for Liberty University.

While I have been judging debates for nine years, I have not judged many debates on this topic so please be clear with topic specific information/acronyms.

My first two years of debate I ran strictly policy arguments with only an occasional kritik. My third and fourth years I ran a mix of arguments on both the aff and neg, primarily reading critical affirmatives. I have been both the 2A and the 2N so I know the challenges of each.

In general debate well and you will be fine. You would be better to debate what you know well, than trying to change what you do to adapt to any presuppositions you may think I may have. I am open to most arguments. I say most because if you are arguing racism good or gravity doesn’t exist, then you will be fighting an uphill battle that is impossible to win absent an equally absurd argument from the other team. If you are clear and thoroughly explained, then the debate will be better for everyone. Make sure to tell me what it is I am voting for at the end of the round, otherwise I revert to a logical policymaker.

Specifics:

Stylistically:

Clarity over speed. If you are clear then there is no problem with speed.

I will generally flow line by line unless I am asked to do otherwise. Dropped arguments are important unless you tell me why they aren't.

Don't "cut the card" at the end of a significant number of cards. It makes it look like you don't know how to highlight the key parts of evidence.

T/Framework:
Can be good for both strategy and clarity. I do not mind teams that chose to approach T in a creative manner, just have an explanation of why you do what you do. Limits can be good, but make sure to tell me why YOUR limits are good. Debate should be both fun and educational, show me why your way is best! Framework against non-traditional affirmatives may be a strategic option but is not always the best strategy as these teams often garner offense against you reading a traditional framework. Think strategically, and don't just whine to me that what the other team is doing is unfair. You must show me how it is so unfair/anti-educational that they need to lose the debate round if you want to get my ballot on this argument.

Theory:
Conditionality is not always bad, but have a reason to why you need to be conditional. Conditionality can easily become abusive, especially when it is in the form of Multiple Contradictory Conditional Advocacies. If you object manner in which a team is running an argument (Condo, Dispo, Contradictory, Agent, Pics, etc.) then tell me. I will not reject a team if you do not tell me why to reject them. For theory it is most often reject the argument not the team, but if that argument is all you have winning you the debate you may lose anyways.

DA:
Can be the best part of debate if they have a good internal link story but often they do not get the explanation they deserve. My novice year, my partner and I did not read a single CP but always ran DA’s that solved case. This strategy is often under utilized for its strategic advantages. Most often the DA’s don’t even have coherent link stories. If it is a stretch, then it is most likely not going to be your winning argument. I see this most often with politics DA’s. I often say the more internal links that you need to get to your impact, the less likely the impact will happen.
Impact = Time-frame X Probability X Magnitude.

CP:
See my note on theory above. A good CP can be devastating to teams that aren't ready for the specificity that might exist within that strategy. As well mastering a general CP can be good as long as you can apply it to the specific Aff.

Non-traditional Affirmatives:
Be prepared to tell me why you do what you do. You need more than just a defense of your position but also an offense. You should also read what I have written to the policy teams because it also applies to you. Just because you don’t label an argument as a DA or CP doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to have an internal link or a clear picture of the impact and why it matters.

The "K":
Some of the literature is a bit out there but if you can explain it I will follow. Make sure to explain why I should vote for you and why the other team should lose.

Overall:
If you feel like you have extra time… then explain more. You can always answer the question “WHY”? You say you should win, why? Condo Good, Why? Utopian Alt bad, why? Your impact it is the biggest, why? The more “whys” you answer, the less that are left in my head, and the more likely I will buy your argument.

Have fun!!

Aaron Kall Michigan 2 rounds

Director of Debate at The University of Michigan

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.

Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.

Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.

Seasonal voting record:

Kevin Kallmyer Georgetown 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 23, 2016 at 8:41 PM UTC

2016 NDT Update:

The NDT will be my first tournament of the season. Two points you might be wondering: 1) topic familiarty, 2) current thoughts on judging:

--Very familiar with the literature, and pretty familiar with the arguments teams have been making and the core strategies. I'm not familiar with any argument norms that have developed. Takeaway: You don't need to teach me about the topic, but might have to teach me about your T or CP competition argument, and the year's arg trends that make an argument seem logical or terrible to you. Please use c-x and frame your arguments appropriately.

--As I reflect on judging debate, I think the single most important factor to me is the credibility of the debater. It's why I find well-researched, technical arguments so persuasive, but why I'll also vote on a counter-intuitive argument if the debater has complete ownership over it -- both of those signal the debater's credibility. Likewise, if I watch an unprepared debater extend the perfect strategy without any in-depth knowledge of why the strategy works, I won't find that strategy very credible -- your argument is great, but you as a debater are a joke...The point is: whatever your strategy is, you'll be more likely to win if you demonstrate you own that argument and your opponents are out of their depth. Evidence comparison, focused, in depth and technical cross-exs, having evidence supremacy and specificity, clarity in both your speed and in your description of args, etc. are all factors here -- but they matter in relation to that overarching goal. Whatever your path to victory is, own it and who cares about the rest. Now, this big picture issue in no way substitutes for winning that technical debate and the line by line, but it sure will influence how I resolve those more granular issues.

---Philosophy (2010)

General Thoughts

-Debate should be characterized by hard work, well-researched strategies and clash.

-Debate is a communication activity. Both speaker points and the weight arguments have in my decision may be affected by how those arguments were communicated. Incoherent introduction of arguments undermines those arguments persuasiveness.

-Evidence: Smart arguments win. The minimum standard for a relevant argument is a claim, warrant and impact. Smart and intuitive analytic arguments can easily meet this threshold and evidence often doesn't meet this threshold. Evidence that is over-highlighted may not constitute “evidence” in any meaningful definition of the term.

-Execution: High quality evidence can significantly impact my decision, but cannot substitute for poor debating. I keep returning to my flow throughout making a decision and am very paranoid about making a decision that does not reflect the debating in the final rebuttals. As a result, there are very few rounds where I made a decision that one team’s evidence quality overwhelmed another team’s argumentation in the final rebuttal. However, a reason for this trend is that debaters have, to their detriment, rarely made appeals to evidence quality. When debating on a particular issue is very close (generally because arguments are contested in a good debate, or because debaters are just making contrary assertions in a bad debate) I often resolve that debate through evidence quality.

-Offense/Defense: Its a useful way to conceptualize arguments and strategy, but sometimes over-emphasized. Every team needs offense to win a debate, but teams don’t necessarily need offense on every flow to win a debate. I’ve always been confused by the negative argument that the aff cannot win because they don’t have offense on a disad—their offense is the case. Win your stuff beats their stuff and I’ll vote for you.

-Risk: It is very unlikely that there is literally “no risk” of an argument, but I can persuaded that the risk is so low that a rational policymaker should consider the risk negligible. Often, the phrase “only a risk” is code for “we don't have a real answer to their arguments,” the phrase simply begs the question what degree of risk.

-Default: Is the topical plan preferable to the status quo or a competitive policy option. This default could be changed, but that is likely an uphill battle.

-Mishandled Arguments: As a judge, I vote for a team. I vote for an argument. For example, if the affirmative drops a disad, I don't vote on "the aff dropped the disad;" I vote for the disad, which was not answered by the aff. I think this is more than a semantic distinction. If a team drops an argument you should not just say, "they dropped X" and move on. You should couple that with some minimal extension of the argument and its impact for how the arg should influence my decision.

Argument-Specific Thoughts

-Topicality—I enjoy smart, well-researched topicality arguments and dislike topicality arguments disconnected from topic research. Negatives will be best served by winning the affirmative interpretation is unreasonable. Reasonability is not “T is not a voter”—the aff needs to prove that their interpretation solves most of the neg’s offense and explain a disad to voting for only a slightly better interpretation. A case does not become topical by being run throughout the year. In round abuse is a stupid standard.

-Counterplans—Net-benefits should be net-benefits—the fact that a plan links more to a net-benefit is not enough if the CP is sufficient to trigger the link, unless the negative made arguments on how to evaluate link thresholds. Affirmatives should impact their permutations in the 2AC to explain why it makes the CP not competitive or they have not yet made a complete argument (“perm do the CP” isn’t a complete argument, “perm do the CP-it’s a way the plan could be implemented” is). If the 2NR goes for a counterplan I will only evaluate the plan vs. the counterplan unless the 2NR explicitly makes an argument that I can and should evaluate the status quo if the CP is not competitive or the best policy option.
-Theory—
---I increasingly think that affirmatives would be well-served attacking the competitiveness of counterplan's that change a non-mandated process of the plan's implementation. For agent/international counterplans, I'm often unsure why these are relevant to my decision-making.
---Interpretations on theory debates are generally arbitrary and unhelpful unless they provide a coherent view for debate practices.
---Conditionality is likely good, but unconstrained conditionality might be excessive.

-Disadvantages—Explain what your turns the case arguments are--do they solve the case or take out case solvency (this is relevant to how I view "try or die" arguments). I don’t think that "controlling" the link creates a risk of uniqueness and vice versa, but do think that the link is more relevant to the overall risk of the disad. A politics disad presents an opportunity cost to the plan if there is a coherent link and internal link story.

-Critique Stuff
---Plan-less affirmatives—I am *very*unlikely to be persuaded that these are fair. I also think it’s worthwhile to learn how to improve government policymaking. Even if a team doesn’t read a plan, it makes sense to me that you can debate the merits of their advocacy and its affects, and that those consequences shape whether I should or should not endorse that advocacy.
---Critical affirmatives—I don’t see much of a distinction between policy and critical impacts. If you say your plan is good for x, y and z reason, then you should be able to win in front of me. I don’t have much of a disposition on the substance of these affs.
---Critiques—Critiques that seek to disprove the plan and apply their general theory to the specific causal claims made by the 1AC are great arguments, and shockingly rare.

-Things to be aware of
---Specification arguments need to demonstrate that the topic necessitates debate of specific implementation questions to have a complete and educational discussion of the plan for me to vote on them.
---Stock issues. They still exist. I will vote on presumption if there is a negligible risk of the case, or if the case is not inherent. Presumption goes to less change. Burden of proof is on the team introducing the argument.

Paul Kanellopoulos Harvard 4 rounds

I used to have a really long philosophy that listed most of my feelings towards certain arguments. After a year, I’ve found that what I believe has become increasingly irrelevant when I evaluate debates. I’ve decided instead to list a couple of general principles that are important to me and that I like to see in debates.

(1) The debate is for the debaters – My overall philosophy is pretty simple: You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. I really don’t care what arguments you make as long as they are good. I would much rather see you debate your best going for an argument you like and feel comfortable with than try to adapt to my argumentative proclivities.

(2) Framing is important – Tell me how you would like me to evaluate arguments. Make comparisons and distinctions. Framing the debate controls how I go about making my decision. The more you do it and the better you are at it, the better place you will be in. Engaging the other team’s arguments and guiding how I should evaluate them in comparison to yours makes my decision really easy. Making a debate messy, on the other hand, makes it less likely my decision will make any sense.

(3) Debate is a speaking activity

(a) Speed and clarity – Speed is fine, blippiness is not. Clarity is your friend. I like to think that I am able to keep up with even the fastest debaters. But distinguishing between arguments and fully explaining them is a must if you expect me to keep a fair record of what happened in the debate.

(b) Evidence – I will read your evidence, but you need to do more than simply reference that you HAVE evidence in the rebuttals. Don’t expect me to extract warrants from your cards that are not highlighted in rebuttals. If you think it’s important enough for me to base my decision off of it, then it should probably be in the speech.

(4) Kritiks/arguments that don’t involve plans – most relevant things I have to say are covered in sections (1) and (2). However, I will say that if you are making an argument that doesn’t involve or rely on a pure, reductive USFG-centric approach to fiat then it would be in your best interest to very clearly articulate what the role of the ballot is and why that should be the role of the ballot. What is my decision supposed to accomplish and what should I evaluate in making that decision.

(5) Speaker points – I will follow any guidelines that tournaments provide me. Beyond that, I will assign speaker points based on a holistic evaluation on how I think the debaters in the debate did. I don’t think that I can really mechanistically list all of the factors that I will use beyond this: if you sound good and do smart things in debates you will be rewarded.

Sharon Kann Wake Forest 8 rounds

Last changed on Fri November 10, 2017 at 6:12 PM UTC

**FUN SPIRIT OF THE SHIRLEY UPDATE 2017 **

Hi friends, a few top-level notes to keep in mind if I'm your judge this weekend:

General:

- I haven't seen a debate at all this year, or in fact, since 2015. Seriously, the last time I watched a debate Obama was president -- which makes it feel like several lifetimes ago.

- I currently work as the director of reproductive rights research at a progressive media watchdog organization, so I'm generally up to speed on current events, as well as general health care politics/policy. That said, I haven't seen a debate on the topic so I'm not as familiar with a lot of the minutia of alternative/academic proposals for health care reform or hyper-technical policy details. Most importantly: I'm not familiar with your deployment of topic literature to support different proposals, or the norms/expectations for the topic.

What that means:

- Explain your arguments/shorthand, make clear the impact, and don't assume I'll be able to fill in the blanks for you based on how the topic has functioned thus far this year. Examples are good -- use them!

- Please be clear, and slow down on shorter analytics or technical arguments.

- Please be nice.

- I think a lot of my beliefs from before still ring pretty true. I still think that debate should be about the debaters, the preparation they've done, and the arguments they make in the round. I'll do my best to respect the form and function of arguments, but I acknowledge that my areas of familiarity have narrowed.

Bottom line: do your thing, do your best, be good to each other, and I'll do the same.

**EVERYTHING FROM 2015 **

Background—

Wake Forest (2015), University of Iowa (2014)

General—

I believe debate is for the debaters. I will do everything in my power to respect and fairly evaluate anything. I’d be lying to say I don’t have areas of greater familiarity, but I believe my role as a judge isn’t to impose my viewpoint so much as be open to whatever the debaters in the room have worked to produced.

That said, I’ve debated far more than I’ve been a judge and as result I’m sure my views and habits will evolve over the course of the year. At this point, the way I comprehend debates is largely in terms of the flow and the technical components of arguments. I’m not against adopting a different approach, I just don’t believe I have enough experience to confidently evaluate debate differently yet.

Big picture is important. Tech vs. truth is a continual struggle to resolve for me because depending on the quality of debating I can be persuaded to value either.

Specifics—

Case Debate: Such an undervalued part of negative strategy, but awesome when executed well. Any type of debate regardless of argument style can benefit from a strategy that includes strong and well-impacted case debating.

DAs: Absolutely. There probably is such a thing as zero risk and link/internal link uniqueness is often times just as important as the top level uniqueness of the DA.

CPs: I’m sympathetic to affirmative theoretical objections, but find myself negative leaning on most questions. Normal means, consult and other classic “cheating” strategies I’m not fond of, but must still be articulated as problematic by the affirmative.

T: Clear distinctions supported by evidence are more persuasive than generic limits claims. Good evidence can make a world of difference, but I tend to be aff leaning, and generally not great for tech over truth kinds of T debates.

K: Good critical debates should focus on specifics rather than generalities. Affirmatives should look out for the types of arguments that can be auto-ballots for the negative, and the Negative should articulate their links and alternative in terms of specific examples/analysis. I’m not as well read as some, but I’m not bereft of any exposure so keep that in mind if your thing is being deep in the lit on your argument of choice.

Framework/Performance/Other: I was on both sides of this debate throughout my career and can see the relative strengths and struggles of each. Context, examples, and impacts are necessary in these debates for me whether you’re reading framework, answering it or otherwise.

Vijay Kasschau Houston 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 18, 2014 at 5:10 AM UTC

Fall 2014 Update:

As I am entering my second year of law school and have joined a law journal that focuses on critical race theory, I have discovered a rich tradition of legal scholarship that focuses on utilizing critical race theory as a tool to evaluate U.S. policies. Translating this to debate, I think this means that "clash of civs" debates are actually very important and can be quite interesting if done well. I am willing to hear any type of argument, just win that your form of engagement is more productive (or explain to me why that doesn't matter).

A second result of law school has been my shift away from radical disengagement. I spend my time now (what little free time law school affords me) trying to create scholarship that can bring critical attitudes to the establishment and produce social change. Again, translating this to debate, I think this means I have a preference for criticisms that are paired with actions rather than total disengagement.

GENERAL THOUGHTS

Note: I think this section is actually the most important, so read this first before going on to read what I think about specific arguments. Thanks!

-In-round spin > “read this after the round”

-I’ll vote on terminal defense in some cases. I can be persuaded there’s such a thing as proving the aff has 0% chance of solvency or there’s a 0% risk of the disad.

-Write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR.

-Do what you’re best at! I think I’m in the room to adapt to you.

-No ink next to an argument doesn’t mean it’s “dropped” – if the other team conceptually answers an argument elsewhere in the debate, the argument was still answered.

-paperless and jumping times: I generally don't count jumping time as part of prep time, but everyone should try to be efficient with jumping. If you start taking too long to jump things, I'll only stop prep once the jump drive is in the other team's hands.

ARGUMENTS

Case: Mitigating the case’s impact can’t harm the negative, so why not do it?

Topicality: I used to default to competing interpretations absent any arguments to the contrary by either team but now that I'm in law school, I've found that reasonableness probably makes more sense, though I can be persuaded otherwise. I don't particularly enjoy these debates, but I'll certainly vote if you win it.

Theory: I’m probably fairly willing to pull the trigger on theory, assuming you have a clear interpretation, a clear violation of that interpretation by the other team, and reasons why you should win the debate because of that violation. Don’t let the explanations come from your blocks.

DA: I reward specificity in these debates. When I can repeat your link analysis after the round to tell the aff specifically why they lost, you’re doing a good job.

CP: On questions of competition, I find myself leaning aff in situations where the CP could result in the entirety of the aff being put into action. Consult counterplans are probably cheating.

K: I’ll do my best to follow your theory, but I’m not extremely well-read in every single branch of philosophy. The brief summary of my history with the K is as follows: Zizek, (mostly Lacanian) psychoanalysis, Taoism, Anthropocentrism, Buddhism, Nietzschean pessimism, Baudrillard, Agamben. Make of that what you will.

K affs: If you’re not going to defend implementation of the resolution, tell me why you're doing what you do and why that means you get the ballot.

Joe Keeton Vanderbilt 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 20, 2018 at 9:40 AM CDT

Put me on the email chain - lovemesomepolicydb8 [[gmail]]

My background

High School debate – None

College debate – University of Richmond

Coaching – Miami Beach High School

Bronx High School of Science

Columbia University

New York University/New York Coalition

West Georgia

University of Richmond

Vanderbilt University

Berkeley Prep

Overview points

The most important thing you should know about me is that when I finished my undergrad college degree I was done with school. Grad school/academia wasn’t for me. I took a jobs in sales (take note those few of you who still associate debate with persuasion), and spent years working for a Survey Research company before taking over the day to day operations of my own company (chemical manufacturing). This shapes my debate outlook.

1. I strive to be a judge that minimizes my beliefs to the greatest extent possible, and votes on the flow. I often vote on things I don’t believe are true but because they are dropped I’ll vote. I will do my best to flow everything and base my decision solely by what was said in the round. You want me to be a policymaker judging USFG action – cool, you want me to be an individual judging a performance – ok, I don’t care per se. I’ve voted for all styles of debate over the years, and I’ve also worked with teams that have run the spectrum of arguments. When I was a debater I didn’t like it when some judges refused to listen and vote on certain arguments (whether it be K or policy because both sides do it) and I don’t want to be grouped like that. End of the day whatever your argument is, I’m going to do my best to understand, treat you with respect, and we’ll see how it goes.

I prefer direct line by line debate above all else. By that I mean – they say/my response straight down the flow. If you are a debater who doesn’t flow to the point that you don’t respond to your opponent’s arguments because you didn’t record what they were then you may have problems winning my ballot consistently.

I view debate like a tennis match. The aff has to get the ball over the net by making an argument, then the neg has to return serve. They may return that ball at over 100mph (offensive strategies with turns and grand impacts of high magnitude) or they may go soft return (defensive arguments). Either/both could trip up the other team. You don’t need offense necessary to win my ballot (but it doesn’t hurt either).

I consider topic education my highest core value. The more topic specific cards (as opposed to backfiles) you read in a round the better all-round you’re going to be.

Providing details and drawing distinctions is always better than being vague and unclear about what you do. My threshold to vote on vagueness is way lower than my o-spec threshold.

Quality of evidence should guide your strategy. Quality always beats quantity. That said I think debaters self-censor in that if they don’t have a card they refuse to make the argument believing analytics to be of lower value then having a card. While that may be true, there are also rounds where the literature needed to properly rebut may not exist. In these cases direct analytics can often be better than generic cards that don’t apply.

If your only response to your opponent’s analytics is “you didn’t read a card”, you may be on weaker ground than you think.

The enthusiasm you display in selling your arguments can be important. A little pathos can yield positive returns.

I can vote against your opponent instead of for you. Sometimes attacking your opponent’s arguments instead of advancing your arguments can capture my ballot. Example, the neg may read a K that I don’t find very persuasive, but the aff ans turn out to be worse. Other times that strategy fails, and you need to advance a positive reason to vote for you.

I pay attention to CX and have seen teams that have won and lost rounds based on CX but that’s becoming much rarer. Any gains made in CX should be referenced in subsequent speeches.

You can try to speak as fast as you want. If you believe you are best served going as fast as you can, and not slowing down when it counts I can reflect that in your speaker points. If I don’t have an arg on my flow that’s probably not good for you. I don’t read the speech docs as you go, it’s still a communicative activity to me.

The specific arguments

If you are Aff: the only burden I will hold you to is that I will check every answer in the 2ar to make sure it has a 2ac/1ar basis. Arguments introduced in the 2ac, dropped in the 1ar, and revived in the 2ar will not count. Beyond that I’m pretty open. Do what you want on the aff. That said over the years I found myself drawn more toward the policy end of things. Affs that are willing to defend a plan or solution to the harms they identify are preferable to affs that are 9 minutes of harms only. I’m usually far more interested in the 3 aff speeches after the 1ac then the 1ac itself. Affs often lose my ballot because they concede too many negative arguments. If you don’t answer each part of an off case argument, you’re handing the ballot to the neg. Oftentimes 2ac extensions of case resolve solely around explaining your 1ac cards, the only thing I care about though is responding the 1nc cards.

If you are neg: anything goes, it’s up to the aff to stop your strategy. If you are looking for a strategy that gives you the best odds in front of me, it would be a plan inclusive CP with a topic specific net benefit. That said no one likes a nitpicker, whatever part of the aff you take objection to should have an impact.

Disads – I’d much prefer you read link/internal link/or even impact uniqueness instead of extra impact scenarios. Developing one or two impacts is preferable than 5-6, and to be honest you lose a little cred in my mind the more extinction scenarios you introduce.

CPs – I default to the lit to decide CP legitimacy. Generally speaking I can see why consult, condition, QPQ, states etc could be unsound, but the quality of the solvency ev can go a long way. Must confess the question of when the neg can kick the CP is not very interesting to me.

Case debate – I was brought up to believe if you don’t have 20+ cards on case you’re in a hole.

Topicality – votes on it. The more specific your violations the better.

Theory – I don’t believe there is a single theory argument, not even conditionality, that justifies rejecting the team over the argument. If you want to win the debate on theory, justifying why I should ignore everything else to vote here is a priori and that discussion should begin early in the debate. That said I would categorize going for theory in front of me as akin to a Hail Mary pass. I find theory debate to be a set of self-serving claims with no proof to support anything. I’m looking to vote on substantive things first and foremost.

Traditional Ks – philosophy plays a very minor role in my life. I likely haven’t read your lit directly, nor would I ever outside of debate support many of the alternatives I come across. Specific links are vital. My voting record on backfile Ks has become very low. I have no why K teams think they can read old evidence (sometimes 20-30 years old) and I’m supposed to think it’s still relevant.

New School debate/identity politics – my voting record for these types of arguments is much higher than when you are neg vs aff. If you are aff I’m often very unclear where the burden of proof line lies. Set up a threshold for pulling the trigger on an aff ballot because leaving me to my own devices may not work out in your favor. Also when I wrote above that sometimes I can vote against your opponent instead of for you, out debating your opponents on framework/I got a better root cause K than you can be a winning strat. All that said as someone who was around at the very beginning of this movement and knowing the justifications that started it, I’m a little disappointed New School debate has taken to speed reading a bunch of cards that don’t always apply.

Framework – I end here because it’s become such a large part of so many debates and I personally think it’s often a real dumb argument. Debate groupthink. If you think speed reading is the way to go in front of me you’re wrong. Depth beats breadth always. If you don’t do line by line on framework, I’ll vote for the aff that doesn’t defend the USFG. I would love for framework to evolve. IMO it’s the same arg now that it was 15 years ago and I find that very stale. You greatly underlimit yourself when your violation solely revolves around the USFG, there are plenty of other reasonable standards you could apply to teams that don’t defend the rez. Identify the voters early because I find many framework arguments to be nothing more than time kill.

Any other questions/clarifications please ask.

Patrick Kennedy Harvard 4 rounds

John Koch Wayne State 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 24, 2022 at 9:14 AM CDT

Name: John P. Koch

Institutional Affiliation: Vanderbilt University

Experience: 15 years (Currently, Director of Debate at Vanderbilt University. Formerly, 1 year as Interim Director of Forensics at the University of Puget Sound, 6 years as a Graduate Teaching Assistant at Wayne State University, and 1 year as Assistant Debate Coach at Capital University)

Please put me on e-mail chains: johnpkoch@gmail.com

Preface; or TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. If you want to know about me, I was a four-year CEDA/NDT debater for Capital University. I was primarily a policy debater. I read topical plans and went for politics. However, debate has changed since then, and I do my best to try to keep up with it, because the activity is now yours. I enjoy policy debates. I enjoy critical debates. I enjoy the testing and clashing of ideas. In general, my reading list runs the range from political science to critical theory. I cut politics cards and I cut critical arguments. This is not to say I will be familiar with your authors, but to say that if you have something to add to the discussion, an advocacy that will point us towards something better, whether it is a policy change or a wholesale change in civil society, then I look forward to sharing the debate space with you.

Debate Specifics:

1.) For the record, a good argument consists of a warrant, data, claim, and impact/implication. If an argument you go for at the end of the debate is missing one of those components, you are unlikely to win the round on said argument.

2.) I am by my nature a pragmatist. I say this in the philosophical sense (John Dewey, Richard Rorty, Cornel West), not in the every day political usage of the term. For debate, this means that I am open to and see positives in the productive tension created by different forms of advocacy. The point of debate is to contest policies, aims, methodologies, and practices, so as to point us towards new and better experiences. This is all a long-winded way of saying defend something. In short, I do not require that you have a traditional policy proposal, but I do require that you have an advocacy. However, while I do not require a policy plan, I will vote on framework if the argument is won, so be prepared to defend your choices.

3.) I often think of debates on the macro-level before I dig into the micro of the flow. This means that debaters who advance a coherent thesis throughout the debate and control the framing of the nexus question(s) are most likely to win my ballot. If you want to give yourself the best possibility of me evaluating an argument that you think is central to the debate in your favor, then you need to make it the focal point of the debate, connect it to your larger thesis, and impact how I should evaluate it in terms of resolving the nexus questions.

4.) I will work hard to put as much work into judging as you do preparing your arguments. However, the easier you make it for me to understand why you should win, the happier you will be with my decision. In other words, make the connections for me. Do not expect me to make the important connections for you.

5.) The arguments advanced in the debate are what establish “truth.” Each side having ground and creating clash are essential to test ideas and arrive at a decision about the best course of action. It is your job as a debater to advance a thesis and resolve the nexus questions of the debate in your favor. It is also your job to explain how I should evaluate the relative strength of evidence and arguments. Even/if statements are the hallmark of a successful debater. These are the essential tasks of rebuttal speeches and if you do this all correctly, then you will put yourself in the best position to win the debate.

6.) I am not the best flow when it comes to fast theory debates. In truth though, I think I am just more honest in admitting that contemporary theory debates happen at too fast of a pace for me to keep up. If there are judges who can really keep up with them, then my hat off to them. For me, you will need to slow down and make it clear what issues matter in order for me to resolve the theory violation. This is also true of framework debates.

7.) In relation to the above, I am not against speed. However, speed for the sake of speed is resulting in lack of clarity. You need to be narrowing your arguments, flagging the important ones, and explaining how they resolve the nexus questions of the debate. The earlier you start identifying the nexus questions and answering them in the debate, the better chance you have of persuading me. In short, your final speeches need to be writing the ballot for me. Otherwise, you leave it up to me to write the ballot. Trust me, you would rather write it.

8.) There are some rules of debate. I will enforce those relating to prep time, speech order, and speech time. Other rules, such as card clipping, are up to the debaters to point out and tell me how to enforce. You are all adults. I am not going to police civility, respectability, or cheating. If you think something that your opponents do in the debate space warrants them losing, then make an argument.

9.) I view framework debates as a question of whose method best allows us to access the educational benefits of debate. Whoever wins the better internal links into resolving this question (access, fairness, clash, testing, etc.) will win my ballot. If your strategy is to pretend that there are normative rules that I have to enforce, then you will most likely lose the round.

Postscript:

The rest is for you to write within the round. Questions, e-mail me at johnpkoch@gmail.com or ask at a tournament.

Eric Lanning Houston 6 rounds

Edward Lee Emory 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:53 AM EDT

Ed Lee

Judge Philosophy

Emory University

ewlee@emory.edu

Revised: November 2013(Remixed by KRS One)

My Philosophy

KRS-One (My Philosophy) Let's begin, what, where, why, or when / Will all be explained like instructions to a game / See I'm not insane, in fact, I'm kind of rational / When I be asking you, "Who is more dramatical?"

KRS-One (Stop The Violence) I want to be remembered as the ghetto kid to jump up for world peace, because the stereotype is that all ghetto kids want to do is sell drugs and rob each other, which isn’t fact. I came from the heart of the ghetto — there ain’t no suburbia in me.

1. We are playing a game and there is nothing wrong with that. I love games. I play a lot of board games with my partner. It is our primary form of entertainment. Collecting board games has actually become a little hobby of mine. Gaming teaches conflict negotiation, winning and losing with honor, and proper ways to respond to adversity. However, all of that is lost if we unfair, disrespect others at the table and turn the game into something it is not. Play hard. Play by the rules. Ignore the wins and losses. Do those three things and you got of a decent shot at your debate career and life turning out pretty well.

2. Competitive debate cannot be the cure all for everything that plagues us. It has a very limited range of things that it can do well and its incentive structures can actually be quite harmful to creating productive conversations over our most intransigent social ills.

I strongly believe that debate educators and students should use our skills to help move our communities to a place where we can engage difference without being divisive. A large part of my job has become the facilitation of conversations on Emory’s campus that encourage students to civilly and civically engage controversy. I wholeheartedly support the effort of the Barkley Forum to provide every student on Emory’s campus with the opportunity to meaningfully engage. Debate educators have the capacity to present an alternative mode of politics and deliberation that is not motivated crisis and inundated in vitriol. Unfortunately, I do not think competitive debate with its uncompromising zero-sum outcomes and time limits will serve us well in our attempt to negotiate interpersonal differences. I see the current crisis in intercollegiate debate as proof of that.

I would prefer that we allow competitive debate to do the few things it does well and utilize our collective expertise to develop other forms of deliberation to address these vastly more important issues. I look forward to talking to anyone who will listen about The Barkley Forums efforts to us debate in partnership with the content experts on our campus to address racism, sexual assault and religious intolerance and a myriad of other social ills. I am sure that the other Emory coaches and students will appreciate it if I had a larger audience for this conversation.

3. One of the unique values of competitive debate is its ability to train students to quickly assess and evaluate information from various sources. I do not think there is a better pedagogical tool for providing this much-needed skill. This has become critically important as the Internet has made information dissemination and access uncontrollable.

4. Competitive debate is a laboratory for experimenting with ideas and identities. It can only function as long as we are not beholden to or damned by every idea we put forward to test. I believe this type of space is essential for our personal and cultural development.

Judging

KRS-One (Know Thy Self) Sometimes you gotta go back to the beginning to learn.

KRS-One (My Philosophy) See I'm tellin', and teaching real facts / The way some act in rap is kind of wack / And it lacks creativity and intelligence / But they don't care 'cause the company is sellin' it

1. While I am a huge fan of quality evidence, my decisions will privilege a debater’s assessment of an argument over my reading of a piece of evidence. I do not believe that every argument needs to be evidenced. I routinely vote on un-evidenced arguments that are indictments of the opposition’s evidence or a defense of one’s claims based on historical analogies, counterinterpetations of political theories, and assessment of an author’s qualifications.

2. Topicality exists to protect the guiding principles articulated above. It will be very difficult to convince me that affirming the reading of 1acs that is outside the bounds of the resolution is more academically beneficial than topically affirming the resolution. While I am not certain, I sense that I am less hesitant to vote on topicality than many others in the judging pool.

I think that we should have topics where the Neg has the ability to and is incentivized to prepare a coherent set of argument strategies that are topic relevant. I don’t think that a model of debate that encourages the AFF to defend truisms is a productive way to utilize this intellectual space.

3. Topic rotation is good. We should encourage students to explore and unearth the unique set of arguments that are germane to each individual topic. I strongly discourage argument strategies that that create disincentives for topic explorations. Counterplans that compete based on immediacy and certainty and narrow interpretations of the topic that deny the Neg opportunities to generate offense are examples of the type of strategies that I find academically lacking.

4. 2As need to reign in the Neg’s counterplan power. They should be more aggressive about launching objections to certain types of counterplans. I am particularly concern with those distort the literature base to such a degree that an informed debate can’t happen because scholars have never entertained the possibility of the counterplan.

5. My weakness as a judge is my ability to flow very quick technical debates. This is particularly true for theory debates that occasionally evolve into a string of unsupported claims with very little engagement with the opposition’s args. Please keep in mind that cards provide enough pen time for judges to catch up even when they miss an arg. We do not have that luxury with theory debates. This also tends to happen in the 2ac on the case. I am a huge fan of efficiency. However, there are some forms of embedded clash that has has made it extremely difficult for judges (at least this one) to follow.

I tend to make up for this shortcoming by paying close attention to every aspect of every debate judge, staying on top of the evolution of a topic and having a pretty decent memory of things even when I fail to write to them. I will put in as much work listening and evaluating your arguments as you put in preparing and delivering them.

I will not vote on evidence/arguments I do not have explicitly extended through the block and contextualized in some way. This tends to hurt some hyper technical tag-liney debaters.

Specifics

KRS-One (South Bronx) “Many people tell me this style is terrific/It is kinda different, but let’s get specific.”

KRS-One (Step Into A World) I'm 'bout to hit you wit that traditional style of cold rockin' / Givin' options for head knockin' non stoppin' / Tip-toppin' lyrics we droppin' but styles can be forgotten

Topicality

1. Topic anarchy is unproductive. I truly believe we need some stasis in order to have a productive conversation. To be honest, I am not sure if that means you have to defend the state or you gotta have a plan. However, I do believe that it is much easier to encourage a clash of ideas when those things are present. Debates can’t happen unless the AFF is willing to defend something.

2. The most limiting interpretation is rarely the best. I can be easily persuaded that a larger topic is better because it incentivizes AFF creativity while preserving core Neg ground. Far to often the AFF fails to push back on the limits debate and allows topicality to be a referendum on which team has the most limiting interpretation.

3. Topicality is about guiding future research endeavors. That makes source qualification an important aspect of the discussion. Who is defining and for what purpose is worth evaluating.

4. I tend to lean towards “competitive interpretations” over “reasonability” because it feels less interventionists. However, I think there are ways to craft “reasonability” arguments to change the direction arrow on this.

Counterplans

1. I find some theory objections more persuasive than others. It is hard for me to get overly excited about counterplan status debates. While I have and will vote on conditionality, I just don’t consider it that great of an offense when there is only one counterplan. I have some concern about multiple conditional counterplans because of their ability to pervert 2ac strategic choices. It is such a rare occasion that a debate was improved with the addition of a 2^nd or 3^rd counterplan. I will go on record to say that I have never seen a debate with multiple CPs that would not have been improved by reducing the number of CPs to 1.

2. I think counterplans that compete by excluding a part of the plan text is good for debate. They encourage both the AFF and the NEG to research topic mechanism instead of focusing on impact debates that rarely change from one topic to the next. They also create opportunities for a more nuanced impact framing that is not oriented towards maximizing one’s magnitude.

3. I think Perm “Do the CP” is persuasive against counterplans that compete off of things that are not written in the plan. Neg research that supports the necessity of a particular action to do the plan will resolve this debate in their favor. However, the bar is one of necessity and not possibility.

4. I am not a big fan of States or International Actor CPs. They have each effectively narrowed the range of AFFs we can talk about to those that access US hegemony or a set of actions that can only be formed by the military. I am occasionally persuaded by the arg that they are necessary to functionally limit the size of the topic. Aff should keep in mind that topicality exist for that same reason.

5. We need to do a better job telling judges what to do with theory objections. The statement “vote against the arg – not the team” is not an argument. It is claim. Teams need to be more aggressive about telling me the impact of my decision in either direction.

6. My default is to stick the Neg with the CP if go for it in the 2nr. I do not think it is fair to force the 2ar to have to do impact assessment for a world that includes the counterplan and one that doesn’t. The “judge kick” model discourages the 2n from making choices, discourages the development of a coherent 2nr based on that choice and undermines the ability for the 2ar to properly compare relevant impacts.

7. I am starting to toy around with the notion that the AFF should be able to advocate permutations to compensate for the multitude of CP options we have created for the Neg. AFF needs to more creative. The vast majority of argument innovation since I have been around has occurred on the negative.

Critiques

1. The more germane you can make this set of arguments the better. The major problem is that I rarely find the grand sweeping totalizing claims of inevitability and the necessity of radical response to social problems persuasive. I am quite suspicious of claims that are grounded in an indictment of “all” or “every.” I tend to opt for permutations that prove that the AFFs reformist pursuits are in the same direction as the alternative.

2. 2. What is that alt again? I would be a much better judge for the neg if I understood what the alt was and its functionality. AFFs that exploit this weakness by carving out solvency deficits for the case impacts and the squo tend to win these debates. The best 2As highlight the internal links to the advantages and identify those as reasons the Alt can’t solve.

3. The Neg would get much more mileage with this category of arguments if they treated them like ethics/ontology/method DAs with an impact that was more important than the AFF utilitarian impacts. Many will think that is overly simplistic. Keep in mind that I spend most of my life thinking that I am a simple man living in an overly complicated world.

4. 4. The Aff is too dependent on framework args. The plea to weigh the 1ac is not a substitute for engaging the criticism. I kinda agree with the Neg that Aff framework args are arbitrary in their self-importance and exclusion of the Negs link args. A little research on the educational value of talking about your AFF gets you to the same place without appearing dogmatic.

5. The most persuasive critiques are those that challenge the way the 1ac encourages us to understand others and ourselves. They challenge the pedagogical force of the 1ac. These types of arguments are appealing to Ed Lee, the teacher.

Disadvantage

1. My general dispossession is that most impact claims are highly unlikely and the block gives the negative a structural advantage in the competition of lies. All other things being equal, I think a DA+Case strategy is the best path to victory. Keep in mind that the amount of DA you need to win is directly related to the amount of the case that the AFF is winning. You don’t have to win much of your DA if you are sufficiently beating up the case.

2. I believe uniqueness operates on a continuum where the terminal impact of the DA is more or less likely to occur in the squo. Both sides should be more sophisticated in assessing the probability of whether or not the impact will happen and why gradual shifts along the continuum are worthy of a judge’s evaluation.

3. “Turns the case” rarely means turns the case. Neg usually has uniqueness issues with winning this line of arument. A better direction to go in is to explain why the DA impact short-circuits the ability of the Aff to solve the advantage. It gets you to the same place and doesn’t have the uniqueness burden.

4. 2a should invest more time in reading the Negs DA ev. There are usually a goldmine of alt causalities, uniqueness args and impact takeouts. This is a place where you can get a lot of mileage out of witty analytics. I am wmore than willing to vote unevidenced assessment. Don’t just read. Debate.

5. Don’t ignore the internal link debate. Most debates seem to boil down to a limited number of impacts – Hegemony, Trade, Climate, Economy. The better teams will invest time winning that they have a stronger internal link to these impacts then their opposition.

6. 1nc should generate some offense on the case. Impact turns are useful because they force the 2a to read ev on the case and you usually have a counterplan (or 2) that makes this a risk free proposition for you.

Speaker Points

KRS-One (Tears) While you lay the flowers on the grave, let's talk about how you behave. Do you come out the neighborhood or out of the cave?

KRS-One (Health, Wealth, And Self) I'll give you the gift, but use the gift to uplift.

Criteria - Things I Like and will give the gift of points

I will start this discussion by identifying some of the styles/skills I like and tend to reward with high speaker points. It is easier for me to talk about specific people. Some of these folks are still in our community. Others you may find some videos of. All were exemplary in one form or another of what I think great debaters do and what I want to honor them with high speaker points.

Kacey Wolmers (Emory) – Fast, technical and clear. I actually find some beauty in this presentational style. Her 1ncs were artwork. I must emphasize the clarity component. She was one of the few extremely fast debaters that I had no problem following. That had a lot to do with her clarity. She also made arguments and not a random assertion of claims.

Martin Osborn (Missouri State) – Efficient and driven. Martin is a testament to fact that you don’t have to choose between being fast or being a "policy" debater. He was one of the most efficient debaters I ever judged with superb in-round argument selection skills. Words were never wasted and he rarely extended an argument in the final two rebuttals that were not necessary.

Julie Hoehn (Emory) – Dedication to preparation. I never judged Julie. I was her coach. However, I saw how her dedication to prepare won numerous debates. It created a situational awareness that was vast superior to most. Julie was rarely caught off guard and it never happen twice. She had the capacity to quickly diagnose and dismiss trivial and inconsequential arguments.

Gabe Murillo (Wayne State) – Argument Explanation. Some people ask me how they can get me to vote on critiques. I tell them to debate like Gabe. I know very little about most of his arguments. However, Gabe was fantastic at identifying my limitations and biases and developing argument strategies that resolve them. I distinctly remember the times that I voted against him and the post-round being a series of questions about repackaging the argument and ways to alter phrases. Gabe was constantly trying to figure out ways to connect with me as a judge. That was true even he disagreed with my decisions. Most people would be extremely shocked by how often I voted for him.

Naveen Ramachandrappa (UGA) – Research. The stories about his evidence production are absurd. Talk to Hays Watson about it. Much more impressive was that he demonstrated it debate. Naveen was a master at debating evidence and not just reading it. He understood not only the strength and weaknesses of his evidence but his opponents.

Seth Gannon (Wake) – Humor. Humor can stand in for any gift of persuasion you have. Be yourself. Have fun. I never judged Seth and didn’t look like he was having fun. Even during the stressful final round of the NDT, he looked like he enjoyed being there. That makes judging so much easier and pleasurable. The judge is your audience. Connect with them.

Debbie Lai & Varsha Ramakrishnan (Michigan State) - Hard workers. This is my favorite debate team of all time. They were two regional debaters who worked hard to become the best debaters they could be. It was and honor and pleasure to watch them growth and develop. I wanted to vote for them. They were not a first round team and didn’t clear at the NDT. However, they had a genuine love for the activity and were willing to invest a tremendous amount of time an energy to get better even though the odds were long and they started college debate at an experience deficit. I look forward to rewarding those who work hard and value the process.

Criteria - Things I don’t like and will reduce points

I implore you hold Emory’s debaters to the same standard. They should be expected to play fair, be clear and conduct themselves with respect and humility even if you don’t expect it from other debaters. Help me help them to be better people and debaters.

Cheating – Cross-reading, card-clipping, using disclosure/speech doc to gain an fair advantage. Your honor and integrity is far more valuable than winning the game. I don’t play games with cheaters and I will not reward them. I am a guardian of the integrity of this activity and will not wait for others to ask me to perform that role.

Lack of clarity – This is a communication activity. If I don’t understand it, I will not evaluate it. I don’t like the model of debate where students incomprehensibly read at me and then ask me to read a litany of cards after the round to determine who wins. Debate. Persuade. Analysze. Don’t just read.

Creating a hostile environment – Respect is a non-negotiable for me. It always has been. It is the primary reason I go out of my way to be civil and cordial to everyone I interact with. I know that there is no chance that we will have a productive conversation unless you are willing to speak to me in a way that acknowledges my humanity. I not only have that expectation for the way you communicate with me but the way you communicate with each other. It is not healthy for me or anyone else in the room to watch you verbally assaulting your opponent. If you are engaging your opponent in a way that you would not if you were in front of one of your professors or the president of your university then you should not do it in front of me. I am more than willing to have a conversation with anyone about where this line should be drawn. That conversation is long overdue.

My scale

I will the scale established by the tournament. Grandma taught me to never show up to someone's home and not eat the casserole. that's just rude.

29.6 -30: I think you are debating like a Top 10 debater at a national tournament.

29.3 – 29.5: I think you are debating like an Octos debater at a national tournament

28.8 – 29.2: I think you are debating like a 5-3 double octofinalist

28.5 – 28.7: Debating like you are 4-4 and on the verge of clearing at a national tournament

28 – 28.4: You are working to get better

Revised 2-16-94
NAME __Ed Lee_____________________ INSTITUTION __University of Alabama ___
POSITION _Director of Debate ___ YEARS OF COACHING ___5__________
NUMBER OF TOURNAMENTS THIS YEAR ___10____________________
I am a very flexible critic. Win a link and explain why the impact is more important than what the other team is winning. This holds true
regardless of what artificial box we decide to place the argument in - harms, critiques, disads, and theory.
Topicality
I consider topicality to be a discussion about the best way to interpret the resolution so that we create the fairest debates possible. I think about
topicality the same way I think about a plan vs. counterplan debate. Each side needs to explicitly discuss the benefits of their interpretation that
can not be co-opted by the counter interpretation.
Counterplans
Solve for the case harms and win a disad. It sounds like a decent strategy to me. Affirmative needs to offensive in this debate. It is more likely
that I will vote on a disad to the counterplan than theory. Don't take that to mean that you can't win the counterplan theory debate in front of me.
I think this statement stems from the difficulties I some times have flowing quick blippy theory arguments. (Bydaway: Tell me what you want
me to do if you when the theory debate and why. My default is that the line of argument should be evaluated. Winning theory is not an
automatic victory.) Not only are grounded claims easier to flow but they make better arguments. The best affirmative theory arguments use the
negative’s stance to justify a set of affirmative offensive arguments. I operate under the assumption that the negative must make a choice
between advocating the status quo and or the counterplan(s) in the 2NR. I think that it is your argumentative responsibility to stabilize your
position of inquiry.
Disadvantages
I do not believe in the risk of a link. One must first win a link and risk assessments are made when evaluating the probability of the impacts.
Critiques
What is the link and why is it more important than the affirmative? Why does it doom the entire affirmative's project (plan) just because one
piece of evidence uses “nuclear” “terrorism” etc? The affirmative should force the negative to articulate how the criticism interacts with the
1AC and why it is wholly cooptive. The negative needs to be explicit about the opportunity costs of not voting for the criticism. At times, I am
at a lost for what the impact is to the criticism even after the 2NR.
Affirmative needs to be more offensive at the impact level of these debates. Unlike disads, I think that the negative has an advantage at the link
level of this debate and the best Affirmative attacks come at the impact level. The most persuasive 2ACs have been those who turned the
alternative, counter-critiqued, and been generally offensive.
Speaker points
CX should be used for more than gathering cards and talking about tidbits of nothingness. CX is a powerful tool that can be used to setup future
arguments and provide the critic with a filter for evaluating the debate. I listen to CX.
My average speaker points are between 26-27. 28 is reserved for those performances that "wow" me. These debaters are usually able to make
my decision easy even when there are no conceded voting issues. Arguments no longer exist as disparate, isolated blocks on a sheet of paper
but live and interact. 28s are able to competently discuss argument relationships and consistently make link and impact comparisons. 29s are
performances of brilliance. It is a presentation that allows me to forget that I am judging a debate round. The presenter is on and everyone
knows it. I think that it is a measurement of near-perfection that I reserve for only the most amazing speeches. A 30 allows me to temporarily
forget that another speech in the round was worthy of a 28 or 29.
ed lee
Director of Debate
Alabama Forensics Council
University of Alabama
bamadebate@yahoo.com

Sean Lowry James Madison 8 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 27, 2016 at 4:38 AM EDT

Debated at James Madison University for 5 years
Currently- policy analyst on the Hill (DC), and assistant coach for JMU Debate fall 2010-spring 2015
Judging at the college level since: 2010-2011

Short Version:

As a debater, I ran a wide variety of args mostly based on their strategic value and, to a slightly lesser degree, based on my personal interests. Just remember that in front of me, you should try to a) win a link, b) win an impact to that link, and c) argue why that impact is important. If you don’t do that, then you will probably require me to do a lot of work to figure out how to evaluate the round. Also, claims need warrants- otherwise you're just wasting your breath (even if the other team drops this "arg").

I usually evaluate my decision based on the flow and typically do not to call for much ev for review purposes. Usually if I do it's because a) I'm personally interested in the arg/ev cited or b) scouting. If you are already doing a good job comparing the claims, warrants, assumptions, etc. of your ev versus the other team then that is likely to deter me from intervening with an ev review. It's largely up to YOU to tell me why your ev is good/better than your opponents'.

Longer Version:

Here are a few other biases and assumptions that I will bring to the debate, but these are obviously open to revision based on the arguments in the round and my ongoing experience as a judge.

Topicality/Procedurals- You need to flesh out why your interpretation is best for debate *and* prove why the abuse committed by the opposite team justifies a ballot in your favor (i.e., you need more than just a link). For T, I will try to evaluate based on competing interpretations. Affs can and should still make the actual reasonability argument (hint: this does NOT mean the blindly subjective, “heyyyy, come on judge…”) as an answer to an arbitrarily limiting neg interpretation. Theory args need a clear link, and should be impacted on why they have skewed the debate to the point that it has created an irreversible strategic disadvantage. Lastly, if you're one of those fast-talkers and you start off with T in the 1NC/2AC, please take the first 10-15 secs at about 75% speed so I can adjust and catch how the other team is cheating/how you aren't.

Framework- If you are setting up a non-traditional framework for the debate space and role of the ballot, then just make sure that it is explicit and consistently mentioned throughout the round. When it comes to clashes of framework style, I generally think that races to the middle are probably easier to defend, compared to absolute assertations such as "the state is always/never good" - particularly given the wording of this year's legalization topic. In any case, I'll hold FW to the same standards as T/Procedurals: if the other team is running an abusive arg/FW, then you need a clear link, a significant impact, and a explain why your impact matters more.

Performance- I am fine with these as they meet the impact burden I listed at the top. This does not mean you have to win an orthodox impact, per se, but I should know what I am voting for. If you have an unusual interpretation for the role of the ballot, you better drive that point in and why that’s important too. Performance affs should meet the framework note that I mentioned above (i.e. performance affs shouldn't just ignore the resolution).

Disads- I hope yours have internal links. If not, then they might fail to pass my main criteria for evaluation, above. The risk of a DA can be reduced to practically zero, such as, but not limited to, the case that the Neg drops a major argument (ex. a no link).

Kritiks- The more specific the links the better. A lack of a specific link could hurt your analysis later. Don’t forget about impact comparison. If it helps, I usually view most Ks like a CP and a DA debate. The alt is like a CP and the impact to the K is the DA that the alt claims as a net benefit. Alternative solvency should be highly interrogated by the affirmative (you wouldn’t allow a counterplan to solve the aff without a fight would you?).

Counterplans- Counterplans should compete, if not then they go away. If none of the neg counterplans compete, then the neg, as my default, reverts to defending the status quo. Conditionality is debatable, but probably okay in most situations.

Permutations- I generally defer to the belief that they are just tests of competition, absent any specific discussion in the round. Two times when advocating the perm *might* be okay: a) if a 2NC kicks a flow, says the perm is “just a test of competition” and that gets debated out for the rest of the round b) if there is some sort of reps/rhetoric key argument flowing around it is used strategically. A time when it is not okay: new advocacy in the 2AR.

Other preferences:
1. Very important: be civil towards the other people in the room.

2. If you are speaking, do so clearly. I will yell out a “louder” or “clearer” only once. I try to keep a good flow, but if I don't hear something you say then I'll probably not take it into consideration when I review my flow. PAPERLESS TIP: It really helps if you angle your laptop away from the line of sight between me and you. It is so much easier to hear your speech if the computer is tilted 45 degrees or so away from your face. Plus, looking straight at the cute stickers on the back of your laptop screen for 15 minutes is not exactly charming.

3. Don’t steal prep. If you are stealing prep, then don’t be surprised if my timer is ahead of yours.
PAPERLESS PREP: I’ll stop your normal, 10-minute prep timer when your files are transferred to a viewing/opponent’s laptop.

4. An argument has a claim and a warrant. If you make/extend something that lacks one of those components, then that is not an argument. An author citation is neither a claim nor a warrant (although it is very helpful in flagging an arg).

5. I generally think debate is good, in the grandest sense as an advocacy and critical-thinking based activity. It will be hard to convince me that “debating is bad.” However, this is not an endorsement of the norms and procedures of policy debate, specifically. Those norms are always up for, well…debate.

6. One last thing about "dropped args." Speaking from judging experience, crucial dropped args on both sides (ex. FW) in some rounds make it difficult to have a non-interventionist decision one way or another. I originally evaluated this dilemmas by punishing the team that make the first drop, but now I think it's most proper to just weigh the better arg that IS extended.

7. Don't assume that I am familiar with the literature base that you are reading from. I believe this is consistent with my previous recommendations on "explaining your arg." Even though I have been actively involved as a coach, I am not cutting cards like I did as a debater. Thus, I may or may not be as familiar with the topical literature base, critical literature, etc.

8. On speaker points: Here is the guide that I try to reference each round. FYI: this is the scale I have already been using. So this is mostly for transparency purposes rather than to signify a change in my judging practices.

I obviously reserve to right for some subjectivity, based on a number of other performance measures in the round (e.g., cross-x, humor, civility [or lack thereof], clarity, etc.). H/T to Shree Awsare, who I copied and pasted this scale from:

< 25 (< 50): You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale.
25 (50): You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech.
26 (60): You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents.
27 (70): You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims
28 (80): You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers.
28.5 (85): You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish.
29-29.9 (90-99): You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, you were hilarious (or if you aren't funny, you somehow connected with me as a judge and made me want to care), and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.
30: Life changed.

Geoff Lundeen Gonzaga 8 rounds

Sarah Lundeen West Georgia 3 rounds

Eric Lyons Vanderbilt 4 rounds

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

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

2015-2016 Topic

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

Philosophy

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

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

Public speaking practices

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

Susan Mader Vanderbilt 4 rounds

Mikaela Malsin Georgia

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:28 AM EDT

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either. In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate.

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree) I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of basic communication.

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently.

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive. I think that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact.

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo.

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame).

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial.

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny)

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Jadon Marianetti Florida 5 rounds

Erik Mathis Emory 7 rounds

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

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

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

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

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

Line by Line is important.

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

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

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

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

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

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

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

Longer thoughts

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

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

Reading cards-

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

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

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

Patrick McCleary George Mason 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 4:03 AM EDT

patrick.g.mccleary@gmail.com

I think this is my one old man pet peeve: please don't call it "cross."

I debated from 2006-2010 at Loyola Blakefield HS, then from 2010-2013 at the University of Mary Washington. Coached at George Mason University from 2014-2017. I've been mostly out of debate since then aside from a handful of debates each year. The place where this probably impacts you most is in T debates (if you're shotgunning a case list at me, especially one full of topic acronyms, I may not know what you're talking about).

Short version - do what you do. I’m not here to tell you what debate is supposed to be about or what arguments are best, so I won’t judge in a fashion that assumes I know the answers to those questions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that break ties. In other words, if two sides debate an argument as perfectly (or as poorly?) as humanly possible, this is how I would probably err in a given situation.

Top level stuff:
I enjoy fast, clash-heavy, policy debate. I think there are benefits to all three of those descriptors (though I am open to well-argued critiques of “policy” – see below). That necessitates certain things about the way I judge:
- I like to flow. I will evaluate arguments that tell me not to flow in order to determine if not flowing is a better model for debate, but I need to flow the arguments to make that determination in the first place
- Line by line is important in my decision-making. I have a tendency to reward direct clash over embedded/holistic argumentation. That doesn't mean I adhere strictly to the line by line, but keep in mind that it can be a tiebreaker, and that good line by line debating can only help your points.
- Clarity is crucial. A lot of “bad judging decisions” are the result of miscommunications between judges and debaters
- An argument is a claim and a warrant. A good argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Phrases such as “fiat solves the link” or “infinite regression” are not arguments. Teams are only responsible for responding to arguments.

Paperless prep - I took a decent amount, so I'm pretty lenient about it. I also think that the whole "when the email is sent/when the jump drive is out" standard reduces the quality of debates by forcing debaters to take prep when they aren't actually prepping. I think prep time stops when you are no longer prepping your speech. But you should know that the more prep you take means the less time I have to decide the debate. There's also a limit to the dead time I can allow because I do like having time to decide.

Speaker Points:
I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29.3-29.5 is a speaker award, 29-29.2 is good/should be clearing, 28.5-28.9 is on the cusp of clearing, 28-28.4 is average, 27.5-27.9 is below average, 27 and up needs work or might be in the wrong division. Any lower and you probably did something unethical or offensive. I try to roughly keep up with community norms here.

One more note on speaks - borrowed from Hester's philosophy:

"Debaters who have used the opportunity afforded by annual resolutions to learn about the topic and are able to apply that knowledge in the round will be in position to receive higher points than debaters whose speeches are lacking in this category. Debaters whose speeches reflect little to no effort at having learned about this season's topic may win the debate, but will not receive good points.

This does not mean the AFF must read a plan text...nor that the NEG can only debate the case (rarely a wise strategy). It simply means i am listening for proof that debaters are taking advantage of the opportunity to learn about a different topic area each season."

Topicality
I think it’s one of the most underutilized tools in the neg arsenal. I also think 1ARs don’t give it enough credibility. It’s a voter and never a reverse voter. Limits determines everything. I view topicality as a battle between functional limits for the aff and predictable limits for the neg. That’s also what determines whether or not an aff is “reasonable” or not. I frequently find myself caring very little about what government definitions or topic framers think, especially compared to arguments about debatability (for either side).

ASpec is a nonstarter unless you ask in c/x, and even then it’s probably an uphill battle. As a 2A, I respect the aff’s choice to refuse to give PIC ground in 1AC c/x, but affs need to understand that a mishandled vagueness argument can lead to an outcome, however unlikely, that they don’t want. Effects and extra T could just be reasons to reject the nontopical parts of the aff (I could be persuaded otherwise), but negative teams would be wise to point out the ways that the aff fails to solve/function logically without those parts.

DA
I’m most familiar with these kinds of debates. Here’s a laundry list of random advice and thoughts.

- I think DAs can have a tendency to be a series of strung together cards – it’s important to articulate a story to the DA that makes sense. Note - this is also an opportunity for you politics 1NRs out there to prove to me that you have some topic/current events knowledge and to get a nice boost in speaker points.

- I think there can be zero risk of a link, especially if your DA is one of the ones described above. That being said, going for a link turn can still be more strategic than terminal defense because controlling the direction arrow of the link/internal link chain necessarily zeroes the link.

- Link precedes uniqueness.

- Start impact calculus as early as possible.

- Cards should never be tagged “more ev.”

- Just respond to arguments instead of saying “uniqueness (or link) debate – group it.”

- In many instances (especially picking apart opponents’ cards), smart analytics are just as effective, if not more so, than cards.

CP
The absolute best thing the last rebuttals can do in a CP debate (and pretty much all debates) is to assume that the other side is going to win some part of their argument - whether that be case defense or a solvency deficit. That means you need to quantify the risk of the solvency deficit versus the risk of the DA/case. Affs should be smart and creative with permutations and explanations of the perm. Negs should lock down what the perm is early to avoid aff shiftiness.

If nobody says anything about it, I’m willing to kick the CP for the neg because of implicit assumptions of it being conditional. But I could definitely be persuaded that presumption flips aff/the neg should get one world in the 2NR. Caveat - if the block says "2NR choice checks" when answering conditionality in the block, I will almost definitely hold the neg to one world in the 2NR. Another caveat - if the 1NC response to the status question is "status quo is always a logical option" (or some functional equivalent) AND the block rearticulates that the judge can kick the CP for the neg, it would be too late for the 2AR to make an argument about sticking the neg with the CP.

***ADA/NDT 2015 Edit***

I think I'm more in the 1%/any risk camp than I initially thought I was. This is especially true with a 2NR that includes a CP that solves the case. A tiny net benefit lowers the bar for a perm/solvency deficit, but it seems logical to me that there needs to be a perm/solvency deficit to beat a CP.

Theory
Again – these are inclinations. Nothing is set in stone and I can be persuaded either way.

Conditionality – fine within reason. I personally believe more strongly in the justifications for 1 CP, 1 K as opposed to 2 CPs or 2 Ks. Neg debaters would be well-served making arguments that reflect that distinction.
Dispositionality – I would be surprised if I voted against a team on it
CPs that do the whole aff (consult, condition, etc) – probably not reasons to reject the team. Perm do the CP is probably a winner though.
PICs – probably good, especially the more aff specific and germane they are.

As a rule of thumb, smarter arguments like “conditional PICs bad” are generally better than reading your “conditionality bad” and “PICs bad" blocks.

K
Not the most familiar with all of the lit here, but probably not the least familiar either. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around justifying that you get the aff, then using the aff as a way to defend your scholarship, method, and way of understanding the world. The best neg arguments make the case irrelevant, either through framework arguments, root cause/terminal solvency takeout-type args, or establishing a different paradigm through which I assess impacts.

I’m more familiar with the standard –ism Ks: capitalism, feminism, imperialism, etc., but I’m willing to hear whatever K you’ve got if you do it well. But if you think there’s a chance that your K might be over my head, please label and describe it by the argument as opposed to just the random author.

Planless Affs/Framework Debates
I’m open to hearing types of affirmatives that criticize the topic or norms/structures/discrimination within the community. I have voted for these in the past, though more often than not this is due to poor execution by the neg. Some things about me that I think can influence my decisions in a “clash of civilizations” style debate:

- Debate is a game. It is highly unlikely that you will change my mind on this point.

- The more related the aff is to the topic, the less uphill the framework battle is for the aff - see above. For certain affs, I definitely understand that it's more strategic to run from the topic and/or be about debate. I'm not bad for these affs. It just raises the bar for both teams to make sure you're clashing in a framework debate rooted in impact turns
- Nebulous terms like fairness, education, and x-ology are not impacts in and of themselves
- I am more likely to reward teams who do line by line analysis than those who operate more holistically. This is both because I believe in the value of direct clash (see above) and because it seems to disincentivize that sort of clash if I reward embedding clash when the other team is doing the work to create clash directly.

[Post Coast 2015]

- I'm starting to realize that I think I'm better for the neg on theoretical framework than substantive framework, but I think this is a divergence from most judges who see clash debates as often as I do. I think aff teams in clash debates have way better answers to a 2NR that focuses on substantive framework args, whereas it is less likely I will be compelled by their answers to theoretical framework args. Neg teams would probably be best served using substantive args to limit aff offense, but get most of their offense from theoretical args.

This is obviously the most controversial area when it comes to preffing judges. So if you read a planless aff or are facing one with me in the back and you have questions, please ask them.

Case
Almost every single 2NR should address the case. Case debates are awesome. Please do them and do them well.

Colin McElhinny Kentucky 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat May 28, 2022 at 1:53 PM UTC

Colin McElhinny

Debated at the University of Mary Washington ('10-'14) and Cathedral Prep ('06-'10), coached at the University of Kentucky (‘14-‘16)

Updated: 9-8-15

I took debate very seriously as a debater and intend to take judging seriously as well. I know the amount of preparation that goes into every tournament and will work hard to make sure it has been put to good use. While I will attempt to remain as open-minded as possible when evaluating arguments, I do have some preferences that I may gravitate toward unless argued otherwise persuasively. But first and foremost, the cliché “do what you do best” applies here. My ideal debate would include a good topic DA or politics and a case specific counterplan or case defense/turns.

Speaker points – clarity and eye contact are both very important to me. Humor is much appreciated. I’ll use whatever speaker point scale is put out by the tournament.

Topicality – people don’t go for it enough. Just because half of the teams at GSU are reading your untopical aff doesn’t make it topical. I appreciate plan flaw and specification arguments – the devil is very much in the details. I think affs should specify their agent, especially on this topic. Competing interpretations seems like the most logical way to evaluate these debates.

CPs – I lean neg on most theoretical issues but could be swayed on: international fiat, 50 state fiat, PICs, multiple conditional worlds. The status quo is always a logical negative option at the end of the debate unless argued otherwise.

DAs – direction of the link > uniqueness. Politics is sweet.

Case debates – mad respect for teams that can rock the status quo and a DA or case turns. Try or die is overrated. Serious solvency debates don’t happen often enough. I probably have a lower threshold than most for voting neg on presumption if the neg is far ahead on case debates.

Ks – they were rarely my preferred strategy, but I definitely acknowledge their utility. Don’t assume I know your philosophical lingo. I dislike that role of the ballot claims are overwhelmingly self-serving. Alternatives seem to be chronically under-explained even though it’s generally the most important part of the debate.

Non-traditional affirmatives – I think the affirmative should defend a topical plan. I could potentially be persuaded that the aff can read a topically relevant advocacy, but the further you stray from the topic the less willing I’ll be to vote aff. As a baseline, I think some form of advocacy is probably necessary. Debate is a game; teams who try to convince me otherwise will be fighting an uphill battle. For the aff, if you’re not playing by the traditional rules/conventions of debate, you have the responsibility of laying out how the debate should evaluated, what neg ground includes, etc. For the neg, topical versions of the aff help but aren’t necessary. I’ll vote on fairness as an impact to framework/T.

Feel free to ask questions before the debate to clarify any of these points or to address something I’ve neglected to mention.

Cindy McGrath James Madison 8 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 21, 2014 at 2:29 PM +11

Background:

Although I am a fairly new judge, I am very invested in this activity and community and thus work very hard to make thoughtful decisions and provide productive feedback after rounds. I debated for four years with James Madison University and have experience in all three divisions.

Philosophy:

The way that I frame both my understanding of the debater’s roles and my role as a judge is that I think debate is for the debaters. I believe that debate should grow and adapt in order to accommodate changes in the debaters who make up the community. Debaters should be allowed to engage in debate in the way that fits both their educational and competitive goals (and that debate has to find some sort of balance between the two). That means that debaters who want to debate politics should have at least some debates that focus on those issues and debaters who want to focus on issues of debate pedagogy should have some debates that focus on that. I want students to feel as if they are empowered to make arguments that they are excited by and moved by and are not dictated by some myopic closed minded judge in the back of the room. I will do my best to be open-minded and evaluate the debate in front of me to the best of my ability.

What does this mean for you as a debater? Here are some guidelines:

1. Aff Framing: You should be able to state how your framework relates to the topic. I don’t mean to imply that you have to read a plan, or evidence, or defend fiat only that you should be able to explain how your plan engages with and relates to what we as a community are using as our starting point for the year. Second you should address how your framework is fair for both sides. Do both sides have the ability to engage meaningful issues under your framework? What does debate look like if your view of debate wins out?

2. Neg Framing: A negative framework that is not closely related to the resolution is probably more acceptable than a similar framework on the affirmative. Clashing with the affirmative generally provides a more interesting and fun debate as far as judging purposes go but is not necessarily a requirement for the neg.

3. Negative Kritiks – I generally like Ks. The best Ks directly engage the affirmative and contextualize specific examples of how the K interacts with the affirmative argument. That being said I have a fairly broad understanding of what it means to “engage the affirmative”. I think that state bad Ks, language Ks and kritiks of the system can be argued to engage the affirmative (I could also probably be persuaded that they do not). I have run or hit a large variety of Ks but please don’t expect me to be an expert on the arcane terminology of specific authors.

4. Affirmative Kritiks – Similarly I think the affirmative Ks should have some relation to what the negative says or to the resolution. I have voted on kritiks of the debate community, but these debates are much more persuasive to me when combined with some explanation about how the negative helps support or reify those norms.

5. Performance debates – See above. If you are affirmative relate what you do to the topic. When you are negative contrast what you do with what the affirmatives does. I prefer if you explain the implications of your performance to me. What happens if you win the argument that traditional debate evidence is bad? Do they lose the debate for reading the evidence in the first place or do I just not consider that type of evidence? Etc

6. Topicality/Procedurals – I will vote on T and procedurals. The number one reasons why I do not vote on T is that there is no clear extension of impacts. It is not enough to say “that’s a voter for fairness and education” rather these arguments are significantly better when you explain how T implicates your impacts and why I should care about these impacts versus other impacts in the round. While evidence is not required, it does tend to enrich the debate. Additionally, I think the negative normally needs to commit significant time to these arguments if they want to win them. A 20 second T argument in the 2NR is unlikely to get my ballot.

7. Theory – I am a hard judge to get to vote on theory. I tend to judge theory debates the same way I judge policy debates. You should win a link (they are a pic), an impact (pics are bad) and implications (why voting against them matters). When multiple theory arguments exist in the debate I often weigh the impact of each theory argument.

8. Disads – I like disads especially smart disads that engage a unique aspect of the affirmative. In general, debaters rely too much on evidence, especially in politics debates, and do not spend enough time exploiting holes in the evidence or even applying the evidence they previously read. Try combining evidence with some smart analytics, and explaining how your evidence compares to the other sides and your speaker points will be rewarded accordingly.

9. Cplans –I don’t really have a stance about pics, agent cplans or the like. I have voted for each of them and against each of them. I generally like Cplans although Cplans supported by specific evidence make me much happier than your super generic cplan strategy. Additionally, I think that Cplans that have a solvency advocate generally produce more interesting debates; however, they are not a requirement and I am equally likely to vote for either.

Some other things:

1. It is your job to be clear. I will say clearer once. After that if you are still unclear and I miss arguments it’s your bad.

2. Be nice – I dislike people who are jerks in debates and this will be reflected in your speaker points.

3. Every argument requires a claim, warrant and data. Which means arguments like “Perm: Do Both” mean little to me until they have some explanation attached to them. Also shadow extending will likely not get you very far.

4. Don’t steal prep – Try to be cognizant of the round, if I catch you stealing prep I will call you out on it and adjust your prep time accordingly. I am fairly lenient about paperless debate, but don’t be ridiculous about it. I am only human and thus I only have so much patience.

5. Debate should be fun. If you are not enjoying yourself (and making the experience enjoyable for others) then you should spend your time doing something else.

Speaker Points

I believe that speaker points are a community norm and that I cannot pretend that my point exist in a vacuum. So I will do my best to figure out what the community average at a given tournament might be and adjust my points accordingly. I am likely to deviate further from the average. Which means if the community average is a 29 you are still likely to see a few people in the 27s (teams that are going to be in the bottom quarter of the tournament) and probably quite a few points near 30.

Will Meissner James Madison 8 rounds

Background:

I debated for James Madison University for three years. I leaned more towards reading policy arguments on the affirmative, but have read and helped write affirmatives that went as far critical as a metaphorical kritik of language on the immigration topic. That said the arguments I have ran were generally based on strategic value, so you are best off reading what you think is most strategic for you as a team. As far as this topic goes, I graduated JMU last year with a degree in Integrated Science and Technology where in part I was studying energy sources and U.S. energy policy. This gives me a reasonable background on the topic even though this is the first tournament I am judging this year.

Most important in front of me is to do what you feel gives you the best chance to win the round, win a link and an impact to that argument and explain why your impact is the most important thing in the round

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. You need to flesh out why your interpretation is best for debate *and* prove why the abuse committed by the opposite team justifies a ballot in your favor. For T, I will try to evaluate based on competing interpretations. But there is a trend for the affirmative to defend they only have to be “good enough” which is a interpretation that does not really leave room for the negative to compete with them at all. In these instances I find that I default to reasonability on topicality. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate.

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

I have a strong dislike for presenting the “topical version of the aff”, because that doesn’t mean that the aff as is would not also be topical, just that some other action the negative came up with does what the aff does in a different way that fits under their definition. That said against affs that are untopical for the sake of it and clearly could be topical this argument can make sense. I just mean that I find it to be overused and not as strong as some teams seem to think of it.

Theory args need a clear link, and should be impacted on why they have skewed the debate to the point that it has created an irreversible strategic disadvantage. Lastly, if you're one of those fast-talkers and you start off with T in the 1NC/2AC, please take the first 10-15 secs at about 75% speed so I can adjust and catch how the other team is cheating/how you aren't.

Framework- Two main things: 1) I think debate is a game and 2) the aff should relate to the topic. The best framework allows for meaningful debate for both sides, and I think the topic usually provides some unique, critical area for investigation on both sides of the debate. I'll only hold FW to the same standards as T/Procedurals: if the other team is running an abusive arg/FW, then you need a clear link and a significant impact. If you are setting up a non-traditional framework for the debate round, then just make sure that it is explicit and consistently mentioned throughout the round.

Conditionality: As a debater, I had a tendency to read a cp and a k in nearly every negative round. I find that conditionality is a winnable argument for the affirmative when faced by this type of strategy but it must be executed well. You are likely to not get much farther then skewing your opponents time if you are just going back and forth reading your condo block in front of me. Debate theory like you would a Topicality arg. Give me your interpretation, explain why the other team violates it, and then have your standards as impacts to the arg. On the neg, make sure to read a counterinterpretation. If the aff has an interp and you neither read your own or meet theirs, I will vote on conditionality if there is any risk of an impact to their theory. The more specific your theory arguments are to the negatives strategy the better of a position you are in. Multiple conditional contradictory worlds is going to be a far more convincing line of attack than, “they are going to kick some things later in the round.”

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I have the option to kick the CP for them. This is actually a massive problem as far as I was concerned as a debater and now as a judge. I think it forces judge intervention and puts a burden on the 2AR that does not exist anywhere in the debate for the negative. It highlights the problem with the negative strategy in multiple worlds because it forces the 2AR to debate in both the world of the CP and the world of the staus quo. This is a large risk to take in front of me for a theory level and you would be much better off defending conditionality in front of me unless you think you’re prepared to have that debate.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it in the post-round (3NR?).

Performance- I’ll be honest about this. It is an uphill battle for a performance team in a round I am judging. You will have to win more separate aspects of the debate to win my ballot than a standard type of argument. I value debate arguments that engage both the topic and the opposition and often find performance arguments to be executed below this amount of engagement. That said if you are a performance team debating in front of me, heres what I want you to do. First win that your alternative form of debate is net beneficial to the debate community. Then win that it meets the burden of fairness that im assuming the other team is making(im grouping in ground, education… here). Last, you need to win the substance of your argument, the links and impacts of your argument (you might not lok at your performance has engaging in debate in the way of links and impacts, but this is how im going to view it) This does not mean you have to win an orthodox impact, per se, but I should know what I am voting for. If you have an unusual interpretation for the role of the ballot, you better drive that point in and why that’s important too. Performance affs should meet the framework note that I mentioned above (i.e. performance affs shouldn't just ignore the resolution).

Disads- Disads are core to policy debate. The more specific your link story is to the affirmative the better off you should feel going for a DA in front of me. Disads can be reduced to a point where I will give risk of the disad so little credit a chance of the affirmative solving will outweigh, but the more specific your link story is the less likely link mitigation will outright win the affirmative the debate. Don’t forget to debate the impact level of the disad. Too many debates play out with little to no work on the impact level of arguments. Explain why your impact outweighs the case and compare (magnitude, probability, timeframe…). The mre impact work you do the easier the judges job is.

Kritiks- I know this will sound injuslting to many of the K debaters out there, but I was taught to view a K in the same fashion as a CP/Disad debate. The alternative is your CP and you’re using it to avoid the question of uniqueness. In 95% of K debates, without your alternative you have a nonunique disad. You have to win the alternative debate generally to win your K argument. On the trend toward rejection alternatives, as long as you have some reason why rejection of the affirmatives notions solves the harms I don’t have any problem with this type of alternative and it would be hard for a team to persuade me otherwise. The more specific the links the better. A lack of a specific link could hurt your analysis later. Don’t forget about impact comparison. If I wasn’t clear enough, Alternative solvency is probably the most important part of the debate for me (you wouldn’t allow a counterplan to solve the aff without a fight would you?). Most importantly know your arg and be able to explain it well. I’ve read or debated most of the stock K positions that exist within the debate community but if you are incapable of explaining your argument well, don’t be surprised when I vote affirmative on alt solvency arguments that “are not true in the application to our epistemological position or advocacy”. Knowing the buzzwords is one thing knowing the argument is another.

Counterplans- Counterplans should compete, if not then they go away. Just have a reason why it is competitive. There is no reason to read one that is not. Make sure to go for/win some net benefit to doing the cp over the plan. I have seen too many debates lost by the 2nr not going for a net benefit (We solve the aff better is not a net benefit).

Other preferences:
1. Very important: be civil towards the other people in the room.

2. If you are speaking, do so clearly. I will yell out a “louder” or “clearer” only once. I try to keep a good flow, but if I don't hear something you say then I'll probably not take it into consideration when I review my flow. PAPERLESS TIP: It really helps if you angle your laptop away from the line of sight between me and you. It is so much easier to hear your speech if the computer is tilted 45 degrees or so away from your face. Plus, looking straight at the cute stickers on the back of your laptop screen for 15 minutes is not exactly charming.

3. Don’t steal prep. If you are stealing prep, I’ll continue to run the timer and announce time remaining when youre actually ready.PAPERLESS PREP: I’ll stop your normal, 10-minute prep timer when your flashdrive is out of the laptop you were saving files from and being given to opponents.

4. I try not to call for much ev for review purposes. Usually if I do it's because a) I'm personally interested in the arg/ev cited or b) scouting. If you are already doing a good job comparing the claims, warrants, assumptions, etc. of your ev versus the other team then that is likely to deter me from intervening with an ev review.

5. One last thing about "dropped args." dropped args on both sides make it difficult to decide witout interveining in one way or the other. I believe in minimizing judge intervention and will likely try to find the solution to the round that requires the least intervention.

Brad Meloche Wayne State 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 27, 2024 at 12:57 PM EDT

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Piper's older brother (pref her, not me)

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Stealing this bit of wisdom from DML's philosophy: If you would enthusiastically describe your strategy as "memes" or "trolling," you should strike me.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Nicholas Miller Emory 4 rounds

Things I think:

1. Debate is a public speaking and communication activity. Good debaters engage the judge, speak clearly, and are able to explain their arguments and be funny despite time pressure. Debaters who look up from their flow while speaking will benefit from being able to see my reactions to arguments. Debaters who are clear will benefit from my ability to understand or flow the warrants of their cards. If I don't understand it/get it/know why it matters, I won't vote on it. I should know an argument is important from the way you extend it, both in terms of content and style.

2. Qualified evidence is very important, but only reaches its maximum value if it is unpacked and explained. Evidence or arguments that are comprehensible or well explained during the course of the debate are almost always preferable to evidence that I have to read after the round to understand, even if the latter evidence is "better". Well explained analytic arguments can slay bad advantages, disads, alternatives, and counterplans. To wit: I will privilege explanation in debates over reading I have to do after them.

3. I fucking love Cross-X. Most people don't care enough about cross-x. If you use your Cross-x well (eg, if it is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are used in speeches for important parts of the debate), my happiness and your speaker points will increase.

4. I like smart debates about the case. Case offense, case defense, the case and a disad, a counterplan the interacts with the substance of the 1AC, a K that is deployed in a case specific matter--those debates are awesome to watch. Process counterplans designed to avoid clash with the majority of the 1AC, generic Ks, and debaters who think impact defense constitutes case debate make me sad.

5. Topicality: T is a voter, but if the aff has a good interpretation, the fact that the negative’s interpretation is slightly better isn’t really a persuasive reason to vote neg.

6. I think the idea that I can kick the CP or Alt for a team is kinda silly. Defending something is your job. Make choices yourself.

7. Don't be a dick to your opponents or your partner.

--

Please ask me about Emory KT - Klimchack and Tankersley - of late 1970's fame. They were the two greatest and most revolutionary debaters of all time.

Nate Milton James Madison 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 3:28 AM EDT

natemilton@gmail.com

Background

I debated for four years in high school and three years at Liberty. I mostly debated a “CP and politics” type strategy on the neg and also enjoyed going for T and theory when it was strategic. I did read the K sometimes though. My favorite debates are large case debates with a DA or two.

General Philosophy:

I try my best to let the arguments in the debate determine how I evaluate the round although I will admit that I have biases that can influence how I view certain arguments. I have included some opinions that I hope you will find useful in specifically tailoring your arguments to me. I am flow centric. I enjoy clash. I believe that both sides should have an equal opportunity to win the round, so while not defending a “policy action” (ie not having a plan text) doesn’t mean you will automatically lose in front of me, I believe that if pressed, you should have some sort of a division of “ground” that enables the opposing side an equal chance to win (I believe in “fairness”). I believe that having to argue in favor of something you don’t believe is beneficial (“switch side debate is good”). I have a minimal threshold for arguments for me to evaluate them, they must have a warrant that makes sense. It is important for you to talk about impacts and compare them to the other side’s impacts on all arguments. I do not evaluate arguments that aren’t in the last two rebuttals. I don’t think debates should get personal, it should be about the arguments, not the people. I try not to have to read evidence, I prefer it to be explained and impacted in the debate, “call for this card after the round” is not an argument, explaining the warrants of the evidence in question is a more productive use of your time. Don't try to talk too fast (speed is overrated) and you probably shouldn't use profanity.

T + Theory

I will vote on T/Theory. I lean towards competing interpretations on T and that Condo is usually ok (1 CP and 1 K). I ere Aff on T, Neg on Theory. Please remember to impact these arguments, it’s not a “Voter” just because you say it is. T is not a reverse voter. Please be aware of argument interaction between different theory arguments.

Cross-Examination:

CX starts (my timer starts) promptly after the end of the constructive speech. Open CX is fine, however I feel that it is best to not engage in it whenever possible. I think the CX is an underutilized speech, and good questions are often not turned into arguments, it is important to turn CX questions and answers into arguments during a speech. I don’t flow CX but I do pay attention. CX greatly influences how I award my speaker points.

CP’s

I like clever PIC’s (not word PIC’s). I ran SC CP and politics a lot. However, I’ve been doing some thinking about agent CP’s, and the more I think about them the more I think they aren’t competitive (if the agent is within the USFG). Obviously this is a debate to be had and I can be persuaded either way. I am not a fan of delay or multiple CP’s (the exception to the multiple CP’s is if you are reading advantage CP’s and/or unconditional CP’s). In the 1NC, please SLOW DOWN when reading your CP text so I know what the CP is, thank you in advance. For conditional CP’s, unless the 2NR explicitly says that the SQ is still an option, if you go for the CP I transition into Plan vs CP framework in which the CP must be net beneficial to warrant a neg ballot.

K’s

I am not the biggest fan of the K. That being said, I will and have vote/d for/on the K, I would say that I just have a high threshold for the level of explanation that needs to occur for these kinds of arguments to be persuasive and make sense. I do not appreciate a bunch of post modern jargon; the simpler you can explain your K the better. Please explain what your alternative is and what voting for you means/does, what the role of the ballot is, and why all of that is more important than an endorsement of the Aff. I find that when I don't vote for a K it is usually because the explanation of what the alternative is/does is lacking. While I do not find some K's to be very persuasive, just because the debate makes me grumpy(ier) doesn't mean I won't vote for you, I'll probably just complain about it afterwards (although I will happily provide you with a list of my least favorite K's upon request). I will say that I very much dislikes K's based on a link of omission. If in doubt, read what you are best at and most comfortable with and tell me not to be so grumpy.

Paperless

Please be as prompt and courteous as possible. DO NOT: intentionally include 9 million cards that you aren’t going to read into your speech document (please feel free to ask for a new speech document with just the marked cards that are read, no charge), intentionally disorganize your speech document, or steal prep-time (no one should be doing anything during “tech” time). I am rather trusting on this issue so feel free to police yourselves, I won’t hold it against you if you call your opponents out (even if they are behaving).

MISC

I do not prompt for clarity, if I can’t understand you, I will stop flowing and make a face at you. I believe that judge adaptation is an important part of debate and so if you have a question about anything I have not covered here, please feel free to ask, but I will get angry if it’s clear you haven’t read this.

When in doubt: "Make with the good debating, not the bad debating."

Leah Moczulski Harvard 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 5:14 AM EDT

GSU 2019 UPDATE:

I'm walking into this tournament pretty cold on topic knowledge (read: I had Eric Lanning tell me what the topic was over the phone one time - so who knows if he even got it right) so please govern yourself accordingly. Everything below about how I judge or how I've judged in the past, I would suspect, still applies.

xoxo Leah

*************************************

Background:

Debated at Gonzaga University 2007-2012, Assistant Coach at Wake Forest 2012-2014, Assistant Coach at Harvard 2014-2015, Assistant Coach for Gonzaga 2015-2017, Assistant Coach Kentucky 2018-Present. I'm a commercial disputes attorney in Atlanta.

Meta-Level:

1. I’m not as involved in deep topic research as I have been on past topics. Be careful with jargon. Please define an acronym before you use it for the rest of the debate. I may not be up on the hip abbreviations for all things emissions. Please don’t assume that I am. It makes the debate even harder for me to judge and I could end up making a silly error because of a gap in understanding. You have to do some of the work here.

2. I flow on paper. This is to make sure that I’m giving you my full attention. I understand the debate better this way. However, it comes with some drawbacks. I need more pen time, especially on case and theory arguments. I am not writing down everything you say verbatim. If you have an important point, emphasize it.

3. I also flow cross-x. You should make sure that cross-x translates into arguments used in your speech. I tend to reward debaters with good speaker points for using cross-x wisely.

4. I do not have a poker face. You should use that to your advantage. I am very expressive. I do yell things like clear if I can’t understand you. Try to be clear before we get to that point.

5. I only read the evidence that I think is absolutely essential to my decision. Do with this what you will.

6. I reward hard work and smart thinking.

Case Debate:

1. I think overall, affs have gotten very cavalier about how they debate the case. I think affs should be wary of too much embedded clash in the 2AC and 1AR at the expense of answering the nuances in the neg arguments. If the neg invests a lot of block time with good developed case arguments the aff should be equally technical in the 1AR defending the case.

2. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

Topicality:

1. I’m very techy when it comes to judging T debates. If your argument is more “truth” then “tech” you better have very good evidence to back up that your interpretation is correct. Otherwise, make sure you are hedging your bets by taking the negative up on the standards.

2. Again, I am not incredibly familiar with the emissions literature so I’m not sure (as of Georgia State) if I have any predisposed idea of what “reasonable” or “heart of the topic” affs are. This is really up for debate, at least early in the season.

Disads:

1. I always think the neg can use more impact calculus when they are going for DAs.

2. I will vote on low risk of DA high risk of aff. I think having offense is a better path to victory for the aff but if the negs DA has a number of logical leaps if the aff explains those well I will vote on it.

Critical Arguments:

1. I’ll be the first to admit that critical arguments are not my area of expertise just because I have less experience judging these debates. I will do my best and try my hardest to judge whatever debate is in front of me. I stole this from Adrienne Brovero but I think this is really helpful “if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments.” With that being said, you do you. If you’re neg and your argument has a link and an impact – I’m game. If you’re aff and your argument has an impact and you can articulate why winning the debate is enough to “solve” your impact – I’m game.

2. My academic background is in the following: political science, history, feminism and gender scholarship, and rhetorical theory. I’m also a law student. I do find myself presuming that the law is good at achieving positive outcomes. That is a presumption that can be rebutted.

3. My default assumption is that the role of ballot is to vote for who does the better debating. If you say the role of the ballot is something else, be clear about it and prove that you meet that role of the ballot.

Counterplans:

1. I generally think the neg gets to be conditional. You can try to persuade me otherwise. It is an uphill battle.

2. I will vote on other counterplan theory though based around the mechanism or the type of fiat that the CP uses.

3. I think advantage counterplans are under-utilized. Affs put a premium on being able to solve big impacts but often the internal links are very weak. You can either make this a case argument or counterplan out of it.

Have fun!

William Mosley-Jensen Trinity 1 rounds

Judge Philosophy – Will Mosley-Jensen

Edited 9-19-12

***Short***

1. Win an impact. (If you can’t do that, join the band)

2. Compare that to the impact you think they win.

3. Compare evidence in steps 1 & 2.

4. If you are fast repeat steps 1-3. If not focus your efforts on steps 1-2 with a sprinkling of step 3.

5. Have Fun! Clarity, Humor, and Civility all help your speaker points.

6. Specificity > Generality

***Long***

General Comments

When making a decision there are three factors that precede other considerations first, the status of direct counter-arguments, has an argument been dropped; second, the quality of evidence supporting an argument, is the evidence superior, average or inconclusive; and third, the correspondence of an argument to reality (or the relative “truth” of an argument).

It is important to note that none of these factors is fixed prior to any given debate, but rather that the debate itself determines them. I should also hope that it is clear that my ordering of these factors represents merely my fallback position if there is no re-ordering argued for in a debate. Some of the factors, such as evidence quality could, and should, be a part of the ways that debaters compare their arguments and establish the relative priority of their argument. If this is not done in a debate, then I will evaluate the debate utilizing the order that I have established.

Specificity is important in all debates. If you say that your disadvantage “turns the case” because Romney will destroy hegemony, then it is probably important to compare this warrant to the affirmative warrant for why they solve for US credibility abroad. The best debates are a comparison of warrants; the worst debates a battle of claims, with most debates falling somewhere in the middle.

Specifics

Topicality debates-

Against Non-traditional (not topical and proud of it) teams

I find that I have a very strong bias that affirmatives should be topical. Most of the reasons that teams advance for why they do not need to fulfill this most central of affirmative burdens pre-suppose several problematic propositions. First, that there is some value that is external to the debate community that can be gained from not affirming the topic. Second, that participation in debate trades-off with other types of activism, rather than occupying a supplementary role. Third, that the value of debate is not intrinsically tied to the identification of a common topic of discussion. Finally and most heinously, that debate is sustainable without the minimum of fairness that is provided by having a shared topic. These assumptions seem to me to be easily answered by a team that is properly prepared.

Against traditional (ostensibly topical) teams

A well-executed topicality argument is one of the most enjoyable debates to judge or watch in my opinion. If it is thoroughly researched and considered by the negative, topicality can represent a strategic tool in a wide variety of debates.

That said, I think that the negative needs to clearly articulate the method of evaluating topicality, and avoid statements in other parts of the debate that question the assumption of the competing interpretations framework. It is not unusual to hear a negative argue that “hard debate is good debate” on conditionality and then extend a topicality argument that is based on some trivial loss of ground. Affirmative teams should capitalize on such inconsistencies when arguing that their interpretation does not make debate impossible but improves it by creating strategic bottlenecks for the negative.

Framework debates-

I find that these debates usually come down to what the role of the critic should be. Namely, should the role of the critic be that of an impartial observer that evaluates the relative advantages and disadvantages of government action versus the status quo or a competitive policy option or should the role of the critic be something else? I can be persuaded that this role includes things not traditionally associated with the assumption that I am an impartial observer, but it helps if you provide some specific articulation of the benefits of deviating from the accepted norm. I enjoy policy debates and am sympathetic to a well-argued defense of the educational and fairness benefits of this approach. I will say that most of the time if the affirmative defends a topical plan that is usually enough to facilitate a productive debate, and in that case it is generally wise to question the solvency of the affirmative. In other words, if the affirmative team has read a topical plan text and the crux of your negative framework argument is “they are not policy enough,” I am likely to vote affirmative.

Criticisms

I am pretty firmly rooted in a Western metaphysics of presence and the value of enlightenment rationality. I am also of the mind that adjudicating debates requires assumptions of rationality and so if you want me to adopt a different framework of evaluation it will require some pretty solid reasons on your part. That is not to say I do not enjoy critical debates, there are some fine criticisms that are firmly grounded in modernity. If you are going for a criticism in front of me, it is likely that I have at least a passing familiarity with the foundational literature of your argument (I got my B.A. in philosophy and my M.A in rhetoric) but that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t go out of your way to explain the specific application to the affirmative. Similarly if you are reading a critical affirmative you should be careful to explain the reasons that your affirmative renders parts, or all, of the negative’s strategy irrelevant. For example if you are arguing that epistemological considerations precede policy considerations you should explain the nature of that relationship.

Counterplans

In most circumstances when negatives read counterplans that are questionably competitive/legitimate (process, consult, conditioning) I find that aff teams are unwilling to engage in a protracted procedural debate and so become competitive/legitimate by default. Usually going for a permutation is a time intensive process, but can be rewarding if you spend the time to work through the competition theory that purportedly supports the negative’s counterplan. Advancing theory on a counterplan should always include controlling not only the specifics of the theory debate, but also the meta-questions. For example, a robust defense of competing interpretations is generally necessary for the affirmative to win that multiple conditional counterplans are a voting issue. Most affirmative teams tend to simply spot the negative that it is not a question of competing interpretations but rather a question of whether the counterplan makes debate impossible for the affirmative (which almost no counterplans, save fiating the object of the resolution, do).

Speaker Points

Although debate is a competitive activity that doesn’t mean that people can’t be civil with each other. Your comportment during a round can easily affect your speaker points as much as the quality of your arguments. Debate is a fun, rewarding activity and the people that I regard with the most respect are not only great debaters but great people as well.

John Nagy Liberty 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 13, 2024 at 9:22 AM EDT

Please include me in your speech doc thread. My email is johnfnagy@gmail.com

If I am judging you online, you MUST slow down. I will not get all of your arguments, particularly analytics, on the flow. You have been warned.

I enjoy coaching and judging novice debates. I think the novice division is the most important and representative of what is good in our community. That being said, I opposed and still oppose the ADA Novice Curriculum Packet. It's an attempt by some in the community, who don't even have novice programs, to use the novice division to further their vision of what debate "should" look like. I don't like that.

I really like judging debates where the debaters speak clearly, make topic specific arguments, make smart analytic arguments, attack their opponent’s evidence, and debate passionately. I cut a lot of cards so I know a lot about the topic. I don’t know much about critical literature.

Framework debates: I don’t enjoy judging them. Everyone claims their educational. Everyone claims their being excluded. It’s extremely difficult to make any sense of it. I would rather you find a reason why the 1AC is a bad idea. There’s got to be something. I can vote for a no plan-text 1AC, if you’re winning your arguments. With that being said, am not your ideal judge for such 1AC’s because I don’t think there’s any out of round spill-over or “solvency.”

Topicality: Am ok with topicality. Competing interpretations is my standard for evaluation. Proving in-round abuse is helpful but not a pre-requisite. If am judging in novice at an ADA packet tournament, it will be very difficult to convince me to vote on topicality. Because there are only 2-3 1AC's to begin with, there's no predictability or limits arguments that make any sense.

Disadvantages: Like them. The more topic specific the better.

Counterplans: Like them. The more specific to the 1AC the better. Please slow down a little for the CP text.

Kritiks: ok with them. I don’t know a lot about any critical literature, so know that.

Rate of Delivery: If I can’t flow the argument, then it’s not going on my flow. And please slow down a little bit for tags.

Likes: Ohio State, Soft Power DA’s, case debates

Dislikes: Michigan, debaters that are not comprehensible, District 7 schools that cut and paste evidence from other schools and present it as their own without alteration. Do that in front of me and I might vote against you automatically.

Len Neighbors Wake Forest 3 rounds

Len Neighbors Judging Philosophy
Wake Forest University

Technical Information You Should Know.

+My flow leaves something to be desired, but it always did and I have come to believe that this is not necessarily a liability. I can hear and understand rapid debates, but slowing a bit when you need to be sure I get something written down is a good idea.

+Citations are not arguments. Ideally, the last few rebuttals should focus on warrants.

+I am probably not going to read a lot of evidence. I will read evidence to resolve questions of fact, to determine the level of support for a claim, or to check for problems in reasoning pointed out during the debate, but if your ideal debate is one where large piles of evidence are sifted through by the judge, then I am not your ideal judge.

+Generic bad, specific good. This goes for links, counterplan solvency, critical arguments and their answers, cross examination questions, and plan texts.

+Choose early and choose often. Nothing in this judge philosophy should lead you to believe having more arguments in the late rebuttals is better.

Proclivities.

These are not rules in the sense that I enforce them regardless of what happens in the debate. You should be aware, however, that the other direction on these questions is often an uphill battle.

+I would like to think that I am open-minded about debate arguments, but in practice this is sticky. Whenever people have to decide what is more likely, more important, or more persuasive, those decisions are informed by how they view themselves. I’m about as politically, socially, and economically conservative as a person in mainstream America can be. I, of course, think of this entirely pragmatic, reasonable, and morally sound.

+I think of the activity as a sport whose purpose is competition. To that end, the ability for each team to compete fairly is the deciding factor in debates about theory. To me, conditionality and multi-actor fiat are good examples of theory arguments that make a debate unfair to one side or the other.

+If I have to choose between competitive equity and education, I will choose competitive equity. While education does play a role in debate, proving that something is important to talk about is only useful if talking about that thing preserves the fairness of a predictable topic. I prefer to see debates about the topic. This doesn’t mean I don’t vote for the K, but it does mean I will be more persuaded by the K if it is intrinsic to the topic. And “You use the state” doesn’t count as the topic, in my book. In the same vein, the Affirmative should present a topical plan.

+If you go for the K, have a realistic alternative. “Rethinking” sounds to me very much like doing nothing. Many judges self-identify as academics, but I self-identify as a businessman, a pragmatist, and a teacher. Over the years, I have discovered that this has a noteworthy impact on what I consider to be a “solution”.

+I also haven’t read a lot of modern philosophy because I don’t enjoy it. And by “modern”, I mean “unavailable to George Washington”. If you need me to understand an important philosophical concept for your argument to make sense, you’ll want to explain.

+I am willing to say that there is zero link of a disad. I am also willing to say there is zero solvency for an advantage. I think something missing from the more recent debates I have judged is a healthy sense of incredulity. Both teams will say a couple of reasonable things, and both teams will also say a series of preposterous things, and then the teams will conspire to make them indistinguishable. Perhaps this is because the preposterous things have larger terminal impacts, but that doesn’t interest me nearly as much as probability, subjection of internal links to reason, and the application of evidentiary standards to solvency and link evidence.

+I am probably not the best judge for your politics disad. I often think the evidence read doesn’t meet any reasonable standard of evidence, and many of the common internal link arguments (horsetrading, political capital, etc.) don’t actually work in the real world the way they must be described in debate in order for the politics disad to be a force in being.

Danielle O'Gorman Navy 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:27 AM EDT

I've been the Director of Debate at the US Naval Academy since 2005. I debated at Catholic University in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Put me on the doc thread: danielle.verney@gmail.com. Please use the wiki as much as possible!

Four things I hate--this number has gone up:

1. WASTING TIME IN DEBATES--what is prep time? This isn't an existential question. Prep time is anything you do to prepare for a debate. That means when it's start time for the debate, everyone should be READY TO START--restrooms visited, water gathered, stand assembled, doc thread started, timer in hand, snacks ready for your judge (jk). Any of these things that need to happen during a debate are technically prep time and thus should probably happen either during your prep or the other team's prep. The 2:15 decision deadline is an unequivocal good because it makes me 100% more likely to get a reasonable amount of sleep at night which makes me a better judge/coach/administrator/human, but y'all need to get better at managing your time to make it work.

2. Elusiveness (especially in Cross-Ex but during speeches too): “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. Taking your questioner on a goose-chase for the answer to a simple question is not. Pretending you don't know how the plan works or what it does or that there are a whole bunch of ways it MIGHT happen is not persuasive to me, it just makes it look like you don't know what's going on. Answer the counterplan; tell me it's cheating--I'm one of the like 5 judges in the community who believe you.

3. Debaters who get mad that I didn’t read their one piece of really sweet evidence. If you want me to understand the warrants of the evidence and how they compare to the warrants of the other team’s evidence, maybe you should talk about them in one of your speeches. Read less bad cards and talk about the good ones more--tell me how your one good card is better than their 12 bad ones.

4. Rudeness. Don’t be rude to your partner, don’t be rude to the other team, and DEFINITELY don’t be rude to me. Excessive cursing is frowned upon (louder for the people in the back). Conversely, if you are nice, you will probably be rewarded with points. Entertain me. I enjoy pop culture references, random yelling of "D7", humorous cross-x exchanges, and just about any kind of joke. I spend a LOT of time judging debates, please make it enjoyable, or at least not uncomfortable.

Performance/Ks of Debate:

I’m going to be painfully honest here and say that I don’t like performance debate or critiques of current debate practices. I’m also going to state the obvious and say that I really like policy debate. Why? Well, I guess it’s the same reason that some people root for the Yankees over the Red Sox—I’m evil. Actually, it’s because I think there are a lot of specific educational benefits to traditional policy debate that you can’t get anywhere else. There might be a lot of educational benefits to performances, but I think that you can get those benefits from doing other activities too, which isn’t necessarily true of policy-style debate. If this makes you want to strike me, I heartily encourage you to do so.

HOWEVER--the opposing team would need to advance those arguments to win the debate. Do I think status quo debate is good? Yes. Will I vote on "debate is good" without that argument having been made? No. If the opposing team concedes the framework debate or doesn't advance "status quo debate good" as their framework arg, I'm not going to vote on it, obviously; the debate would proceed as agreed to by both teams. I have judged these debates before and have voted on the arguments in the round.

Kritiks:

Whatevs, if it’s your thing, you can do it in front of me. I’m pretty smart, which means I attempt to avoid reading post-modern philosophy as much as possible, and the only languages I currently speak with any level of fluency are English and Pig Latin. This means you should probably SLOW DOWN and find a convenient time to define any words that are Greek/German/made up by an aging beatnik. The problem I have with most Ks is that they have totally sweet, awesome impacts but there’s little link to the aff (or no harder link to the aff than to the status quo), so maybe that’s something that both the aff and neg should work on in the round. I really prefer Kritiks with alternatives, and I prefer the alternative not be “reject the plan”.

Counterplans:

I think lots of counterplans (consult, international actor, conditions, etc) are probably cheating. As a director of a small school, I don't have a huge problem with cheating if you can defend it and do it well. I wouldn't make this the "A strat" for me if you've got other options, but I appreciate that there sometimes aren't any and I promise not to throw things or set the ballot on fire if you've gotta roll with it.

Not to sound like a grumpy old person (though I am) but I think conditionality run amok is hurting debate. I'm probably okay with 1 CP, 1 K, and the status quo as an option until the 2nr (test the rez from a variety of standpoints, etc). Any more than that and you're pushing my buttons. I'm about as likely to "judge kick" a CP for you as I am to kick a winning field goal for the Steelers (not gonna happen).

Disads:
There’s nothing better than a good disad. What do I mean by a good disad? Well, it should have a pretty clear, and ideally pretty specific, link to the affirmative. It should also (and here’s the part lots of debaters forget about) have some form of internal link that goes from the link to the impact. Aff—if the neg doesn’t have one of those things, you might want to point it out to me.

If your disad makes my internal BS-ometer go off I'm gonna tank your points.

Topicality/Other Procedurals:
I don’t evaluate T like it’s a disad, which I think is the current fashionable thing to say, because unlike lots of people, I don’t think your aff advantages can outweigh T in the way that the aff could outweigh a disad. So I don’t focus as much on the “best” interpretation—if the aff interp is good but not as good as the neg’s, the aff will probably win in front of me. This means I think the neg really needs to focus on the ground and limits debate—here is where you can persuade me that something is really bad.

I think topics are becoming more broad and vague, and understand negative frustration at attempting to engage in a debate about the plan's mechanism or what the plan actually does (often the very best parts of a debate in my opinion). I feel like I can be fairly easily persuaded to vote against a team that just uses resolutional language without a description of what that means in a piece of solvency evidence or a cross-examination clarification. I think neg teams will need to win significant ground loss claims to be successful in front of me (can't just roll with agent cps key) but I think I am more easily persuaded on these arguments than I have been in the past.

Jonathan Paul Georgetown 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 13, 2013 at 5:33 AM EDT

Update: WFU 2013: I will use the speaker point scale provided by WFU and encourage others to do the same.

Updated: September 2012

1. Be comprehensible. Aside from it having a huge impact on how I assign speaker points, I’m far more likely to vote for arguments that I can understand.

2. I don’t think my predispositions will be that relevant in many theory debates. I could envision a scenario where I vote on conditionality bad, but the way it is typically advanced (‘you make the 2AC too hard’) is usually unpersuasive to me. I’m aff-leaning on competition issues involving counterplans that result in the full enactment of the plan or PICs about things that the plan doesn’t explicitly commit to, but this probably shouldn’t effect your decision to go for one if you think you are winning the theoretical issues.

3. If the neg reads a conditional CP, I will consider the status quo as an option if I conclude that the CP is worse than the plan absent explicit instructions from the other team. This is a default setting that can easily be overcome if the aff makes arguments about why the neg has to explicitly choose in the 2NR, but that’s what I’ll do if no one says anything. Obviously, if the neg says ‘we’ll only go for one policy’ as an argument to defend conditionality, then I will only consider the option they select.

4. “Perm-Do the CP,” “A logical policy maker can do both,” “fiat means the plan doesn’t cost capital,” “voting issue for fairness,” etc. are not complete arguments and do not require a negative response until the argument is developed. All of those claims could be winners in certain circumstances, but that doesn’t obviate the need to make complete arguments in the 2AC. Generally speaking, I’m ok with new arguments in a lot of situations. The one exception is if the 2AC omits a genre of argument (doesn’t perm, read a link turn, etc.).

5. I vote neg on the K occasionally. I tend to evaluate these debates the same way I evaluate policy arguments. This means you are best served by winning your impact, debating about the plan, and making arguments about why the alt solves the case instead of attempting to convince me that I should ignore the aff because they had a problematic representation or because fiat is not real.

6. I prefer that the aff defend a topical plan.

Dallas Perkins Harvard 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:55 AM EDT

By far the most important thing you need to understand in order to successfully debate for me is that I am not going to follow along with your speech document in order to try to understand what you are saying. If you cannot deliver your arguments and read your evidence in a fashion that is comprehensible, I am not a good judge for you. I read a very limited amount of evidence after debates, always and only to decide arguments where the two sides have advanced detailed disagreements about what the evidence in question actually says. I only hold teams responsible for answering arguments after I have understood them: calling 1AR answers to a kritik new will not avail if I only understood the basics of your argument after the block. I am not saying this is an oratory contest, but it is oral advocacy.

When I do read evidence, I am increasingly suspicious of cards that consist of a few words highlighted here and there over several pages of text. If you can't find a single sentence from you author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.

My "paradigm:" I try to judge as if I were at a town meeting or other public forum where the audience would listen to a discussion and then each person would vote their opinion. I deviate from the real world as little as possible, mostly to exclude my own predispositions and decide based on what is said by the contestants. If weighty matters are at stake, I would hope that I would not be persuaded to vote for bad ideas because the advocates of better ideas had committed some argumentative indiscretion. (This is a fancy way of saying that I am a tough sell for "discourse kritiks"--you'll do much better to attack your opponents' thinking than their language.) I generally do not accept arguments that urge me to "punish" a team for advancing an ill-considered position in the debate.

I do believe that both sides should stick to one policy system to defend. This requires that they eschew "conditional" advocacy, whether that is vague plans or multiple counterplans. I see both of these strategies as needlessly diluting the advocacy in what is already a short time to discuss even one policy comparison. I see the attempt to discuss multiple comparisons in a single debate as far more motivated by nefarious strategy than any sort of truth seeking.

My voting record on kritikal arguments is far better than my reputation suggests. Solid, topic-specific attacks on the logic and worldview of the opposition, with specific links and impacts I can understand, frequently succeed om winning my ballot.

Jackie Poapst George Mason 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:33 PM EDT

About me:

Director of Debate at George Mason University.

Please add me to chain: japoapst@gmail.com

11/26/2023 Speaker Point Update:

I will be utilizing the Regnier speaker point scale

May be an image of ‎text that says '‎Fabulous Percentile 100 100 99 98 97 96 Excellent Good Median Point 30 29.9 29.8 29.7 29.6 29.5 29.4 29.3 29.2 29.1 29 28.9 28.8 28.7 28.6 28.5 28.4 28.3 28.2 28.1 28 27.9 27.8 27.7 27.6 27.5 Below Average 93 89 84 77 69 60 50 39 28 20 13 Ùˆ 6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 Poor Very Poor‎'‎

5+ Random Things that Annoy me:

1. Hostility - I am too old, too cranky, and too tired to hear undergraduate students treating opponents, partners, or me like trash. I literally can't handle the levels of aggression some rounds have anymore. Please just stop. Be community minded. You are debating another person with feelings, remember that. Opponents are friends on the intellectual journey you are having in debate, not enemy combatants. Give people the benefit of the doubt and try to practice grace in rounds.

2. Debaters who act like they don't care in debates. If being a troll or giving some performance of apathy about debate is your shtick I am absolutely not the judge for you. Debate is a privilege that many individuals do not have the ability to participate in due to lack of collegiate access or financial well being, and I think we should treat the opportunity we have to be in this activity with respect.

3. Multiple cards in the body of the email.

4. Yelling over each other in cx - everyone will lose speaks.

5. Interrupting your partner in cx - I am seriously close to saying I want closed cx, I am so annoyed at how egregious this is becoming. I will deduct speaks from both partners.

6. Extending Cross ex past 3 minutes. I will actively stop listening in protest/leave the room. Anything past the 3 minutes should be for clarification purposes only.

7. Wipeout, Baudrillard, Malthus, Con Con CPs, Strike 'x' country CPs, trivializing the holocaust, reading re-prints of books from 1995 but citing it as the reprint date, fiating mindset shifts.

Topicality:

The nukes topic is great for the negative and I do not think I will be persuaded on sub-sets arguments against NFU. This topic is too small give the aff a break.

If cross ex actually checked for specification questions (i.e. "who is the actor" - and they tell you "Congress") - that is the only argument the 2ac needs to make against a 1NC spec argument.

NOVICE NOTE: I think it is ridiculous when novices read no plan affs - do whatever you want in other divisions, but these kids are just learning how to debate, so providing some structure and predictability is something I think is necessary. I err heavily on framework in those debates for the negative in the first semester.

Theory:

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. I genuinely do not know how I lean in condo debates. Some rounds I feel like the amount of conditional positions we are encouraging in debates is ridiculous, others I wish there were more. Open to being convinced in either direction.

Counterplans:

Are awesome. The trickier, the better. I’m okay with most of them, but believe that the action of the CP must be clearly explained at least in the 2NC. I don’t vote on something if I don’t know what my ballot would be advocating. I shouldn’t have to pull the CP text at the end of the round to determine what it does. I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff (if you can defend theory though, this doesn’t mean don’t read them). Also, I think that perm do the cp on CPs that result in the plan can be rather persuasive, and a more robust textual/functional cp debate is probably necessary on the negative's part.

**Delay and consultation cp’s are illegit unless you have a specific solvency advocate for them. Agenda DA Uniqueness cp’s are too – I’m sorry that the political climate means you can’t read your politics strat on the negative, but that doesn’t mean you should be able to screw the aff’s strategy like that. Have other options.

Important CP Judge Kick Note: I always judge kick if the negative would win the debate on the net benefit alone. However, I will not judge kick to vote on presumption. Going for a CP forfeits the negative's right to presumption.

Disadvantages:

Wonderful. Disadvantages versus case debates are probably my favorite debates (pretty much every 2NR my partner and I had). I love politics disads, however, I can be very persuaded by no backlash/spillover answers on the internal link – in so many situations the internal link just makes NO sense. I think there is such a thing as 100% no link and love thumper strategies. Like elections DA's - not a huge fan of impact scenarios relying on a certain party/candidate doing something once they get in office. Think shorter term impact scenarios are necessary.

Kritiks:

2023 update: For the past several years my work with Mason Debate has primarily focused on research and coaching of our varsity policy teams and novices. I am not keeping up with the K lit as I was a few years ago. Please keep this in mind. Everything below is from a few years ago.

I wrote my thesis on queer rage and my research now focuses on a Derridian/Althusserian analysis of Supreme Court rhetoric - but that does not mean I will automatically get whatever random critical theory you are using. Due to who I coach and what I research for academics, I am most familiar with identity theories, biopower, Marxism, any other cultural studies scholarship, Baudrillard, Derrida, and Deleuze. If your K isn't one of those - hold my hand. I think the most persuasive kritik debaters are those who read less cards and make more analysis. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line/tied into the case debate. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it structured. Unless your kritik concerns form/content - be organized.

Note for policy v K regarding the "weigh the affirmative or nah" framework question - basically no matter how much debating occurs on this question, unless the affirmative or negative completely drops the oppositions' arguments, I find myself normally deciding that the affirmative gets to weigh their aff but is responsible for defending their rhetoric/epistemology. I think that is a happy middle ground.

Critical Affirmatives:

Nukes note: I think the affirmative should *at least* defend that the US' reliance on nuclear weapons for military policy is bad. Some type of critique in the direction of the resolution. Inserting the word "nuclear" or "weapons" into your aff is not enough of a topic relevant claim imo. In general, I believe affirmatives should defend some universalized praxis/method and that deferral is not a debatable strategy.

Overall Framework update: Procedural fairness IS an impact, but I prefer clash key to education. I find it difficult to vote for impacts that preserve the game when the affirmative is going for an impact turn of how that game operates.

Generic Case Update: I find myself voting neg on presumption often when this is a large portion of the 2nr strategy. I recommend affirmatives take this into account to ensure they are explaining the mechanism of the aff.

I find judging non-black teams reading afro-pessimism affirmatives against black debaters an uncomfortable debate to decide, and my threshold for a ballot commodification style argument low.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable). I enjoy critical methods debates that attempt to develop a praxis for a certain theory that can be broadly operationalized. For example, if you are debating "fem rage" - you should have to defend writ large adoption of that process to give the negative something to debate. It is pretty difficult for a negative to engage in a debate over what is "good for you" without sounding incredibly paternalistic.

Overall Sound:

I am partially deaf in my left ear. It makes it difficult to decipher multiple sounds happening at the same time (i.e. people talking at the same time/music being played loudly in the background when you are speaking). I would recommend reducing the sound level of background music to make sure I can still hear you. Also means you just have to be a smidge louder. I'll let you know if sound level is an issue in the debate, so unless I say something don't let it worry you.

Flowing:

I love flowing. I do my best to transcribe verbatim what you say in your speech so I can quote portions in my RFD. I do NOT flow straight down, I match arguments. I most definitely WILL be grumpy if speeches are disorganized/don't follow order of prior speeches. If you ask me not to flow, the amount I pay attention in the debate probably goes down to 20% and I will have mild anxiety during the round.

Your Decorum:

Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent. This includes anything from ad homs like calling your opponent stupid to super aggressive behavior to your opponents or partner. Speaker points are a thing, and I love using them to punish jerks.

My Decorum:

I am extremely expressive during round and you should use this to your advantage. I nod my head when I agree and I get a weird/confused/annoyed face when I disagree.

<3 Jackie

Dylan Quigley Harvard 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM EDT

Dylan Quigley

Currently an attorney for foster youth, coached at Dartmouth ('11-'13) and Harvard ('13-'16), debated at Kansas ('06-'11)

Updated: 9/2023

Note for 2023:

I've been out of the activity for a bit now so do with that what you will. I did debate on the last nukes topic and have continued to follow nuclear policy some so I should be ok with topic jargon, but probably not more recent K authors or generics.

Some distance from debate also makes me feel that my original paradigm below is a little too serious. It's a game; please have fun.

Note for 2019:

Being out of debate has not substantially changed my views except maybe to deepen my belief in empathy for others. I think the stereotype is that people leave debate and become more skeptical of K alts which is probably true, but I think I have become equally more skeptical of the "pragmatism" of most plans as well.

Original Philosophy:

I like nerdy, wonky, academic debate.

I don't flow that well, slow down.

I like and reward people who take on big debates, rather than avoid them with fancy footwork.

I think I am most impressed by debaters who can use small concessions or the given facts in the debate to create a complex vision of how the world operates.

I try to try hard to resolve debates because it's what I valued most in a judge when I debated and because its what I value most from those judging my kids.

If you are doing your prefs, I may not be a good judge for you if:

I am turned off by highly abstract arguments or things that rely heavily on an anything goes, game playing model of debate. If your jam is irony, conspiracy theory, word pics, OOO, death good and Ashtar, I may not be a very good judge for you. If "trolling" is a word you use to describe your arguments or debating style, I may not be a good judge for you. If your argument is against making the world better in any way, I may not be a good judge for you. [2023 edit: I still sort of believe this but would also tell my past self to chill out a little.]

But since you are mostly likely a policy team about to debate a K team or vice vera, I have pulled the following sections to the top.

Topicality versus non-traditional affirmatives:

As a debater, I both read non-topical affirmatives and also went for topicality against teams that did not defend the resolution. I have found myself very turned off by affirmatives that defend exceptionally minor revisions to the sqo or an unwillingness to defend a large vision for social change and have been voting on T with much more regularity.

I think that the question of the value of debating the particular Aff at hand is very important. For the Aff, I think that explaining clearly what the core controversy of the affirmative is and why the negative should be reasonably expected to negate that claim is key. (Put differently, what is productive about asking the negative team to negate the 1AC you’ve presented?). I want to hear about why and how either teams interpretation facilitates debates over particular mechanisms for social change.

Competition in non-traditional debates:

I do not enter the debate with the presumption that competition functions in the same way in plan focused and non-plan focused debates. I think that one possible way the debate community can facilitate debates that do not necessarily require the affirmative to defend the resolution while ensuring relative side equity and quality debates is to demystify permutations and develop new ways of thinking about competition. I look forward to judging debates about this issue.

Now the rest...

The quick stuff:

-I believe strongly that intentionally conceding the claim of another team means that that argument is true regardless of evidence quality etc.

-I don't believe that the Aff has an absolute right to define the scope/meaning of the plan.

-For some reason, it really bothers me when people look at each other and not me during CX.

-My default facial expression is often a scowl – it’s not you, it’s me.

-I believe zero risk is possible (and often likely) for the purposes of deciding a debate.

-I reserve the right to not vote on a sufficiently stupid theory argument.

-An all-case 2NC will likely receive extra speaker points.

CP Theory:

I find myself leaning aff on some competition questions especially for CPs that could result in the entire Aff. I'm fairly skeptical of states/international cp's - I’m especially interested in the way CP's like states constrains the affirmative research process at a very early point and how it affects the common sense of the debate community as to what counts as a “good aff.” My default is that presumption shifts aff when vs. a CP/K alt.

Critiques:

I have an academic basis in critical theory and debated mostly critical arguments at the end of my debate career. I think many critiques I see are vulnerable to being impact turned and I'm surprised and disappointed I don't see Aff teams doing it more.

In the context of a traditional aff versus a critique, I think the vast majority of debates that center around the question of "should I evaluate the plan or ontology/epistemology/scholarship/whatever first" are a waste of time for both sides. Frameworks that ask me to ignore large portions of the 1AC rarely make any more sense to me than frameworks that ask me to ignore portions of the 1NC. Both sides time is likely better invested in other parts of the debate.

Dig it especially when placing an emphasis on evidence and normative/literature based argument rather than abstract limits based arguments. I think we are almost always served best by drawing our lines from the literature, not imposing them ourselves.

Conditionality/judge choice:

I don’t have any strong feelings about conditionality, though I find myself moderately uncomfortable with judge choice. My default assumption is that if you extend a CP/Alternative in the 2NR, you are giving up the possibility of advocating the status quo. I do not feel comfortable kicking anything for you unless this framework has been well developed earlier in the debate.

Side bias/case debate:

Though I said above that I lean aff on many competition questions, I am disturbed about much Aff teams seem to get away with on extending their case in the 2AC and 1AR. I think just as strong of a burden of rejoinder should apply to the case debate for the Aff as would apply to the Neg on a DA.

Speaker points:

-I care deeply about cross-examination, presence, persuasiveness, eloquence, cross-examination and clarity. By “eloquence” I mean speaking at a rate and style that I can flow and that allows you to talk continually with out stumbling, stopping or repeating yourself unnecessarily. Mentioning cross-examination twice was not an accident.

Will Rains Emory 3 rounds None

Andrea Reed Northwestern 1 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**New section on evidence and card clipping:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Repko Michigan State 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Updated - Pre-NU - 09.12.23.

On balance, J Philosophies should prob cut to the chase - but I'm gonna violate my own rule this time:

We exist in an era where being unfiltered gets glorified.. where the smartest person in the room is also encouraged to be the loudest.

Every now and again, someone arrives in our small pond - and they have all the characteristics of a great judge. They are quietly brilliant. They are thoughtful. They hold the community's respect for the simplest reason of all: they are undeniably good at what they do. It doesn't need to be broadcasted - it finds itself on display in each oral critique.

I won't be the guy that pretended to know Brian McBride on a deeply personal level. Our interactions were often limited to those panels that finish their task at 2am.

... but I know enough to say this with confidence. I learned a great deal by letting that guy go first in the post-round. He rarely called attention to himself. I am hopeful that our community finds ways to honor his contribution - even if he would've bashfully declined such praise.

I had a great deal of respect for who he was in this community.

Customary biz:

Yes - speech Doc.

Repko.Debate@gmail.com

Side note - I often miss non-speech doc correspondence sent to that address bc I only use it for judging.

** New - Topic Specific - Nuclear weapons, 2023-4

With all the asterisks that often accompany this, I'll say I'm not going to deeply break-down my thoughts on hyper-generics and the kind of K's that tend to get run on every Res. I do have thoughts on these matters - but I am much more apt to be placed in a Policy-Policy round... this is bc clash/K teams have (correctly) concluded that there are many judges in the pool where their win% would be higher.

I have sneaking suspicions that Topicality will arise more in Policy-Policy rds - what follows is designed to be helpful:

- As a general proposition, I am more Aff than most on T - but I do think the Framer's worded things in a manner that gives the Neg something to argue here. Enough will come down to execution that some of what follows could be overread.

- I do not enter into the T Debate presumptively assuming Negs are structurally hosed on *this* Res. This ain't the water or CJR Res - there's at least room to argue that this Res= atypically good for Negs. I often judge on panels where the lone conception of "ground" is Neg. Absolute kudos to the Neg if they can pull of that framing - you should (as ever) run with the premises your opponents concede. But - in an evenly matched debate - I do think there's space for the Aff to push back on the some of the classic Neg ground claims.

- While I can certainly imagine hypotheticals where one side's interp is noticeably imprecise (i.e. old school "substantial" defs about a Court case involving a kitchen measurement), I tend to think most prepared teams read a reasonably precise interp. Once the opponent's interp has exited the theater of the absurd, I am open to threads that argue that we should consider defaulting to other RTP various interps. Better put - if you're trying to win that an inch of precision >>> a mile of balanced ground/limits, I would recommend you have technical execution on your side.. bc I am going to need to read the opponent's interp and chuckle at how non-applicable it is. If your lead on precision is NOT an inch - I am very good for your side.

Deterrence and Assurance are a thing. If/when the Neg blends them together, they create Aff openings where "thumping one" can "thump both".

Revisionism has become the Policy equiv of ontology. The 2N uses the fact that "Russia has revisionist tendencies" to lower the threshold for the link, the impact, the "turns case" thread, etc.... OK - I suppose it's somewhat helpful to the cause - but let's not overdo this. No one would pretend that reading a card that "X nation is revisionist" is - by its lonesome - a link to the NFU Aff... The best K research takes the ontology claim and contextualizes it to the Aff in question. The best disad research takes the revisionism premise and applies it to the NFU Aff. I find no dissonance here - it feels logical (to me) to demand scholarly contextualization from both revisionism claims and ontology claims. And - to be candid - I suspect I have a higher bar for Neg contextualization than most.

*Older stuff starts here - I'd only read through it if you needed more than the basics

I'm somewhat correctly stereotyped as a "good judge to break a new aff in front of". And, certain broad strokes will not change between now and Monday:

- I am bad for some Neg generics that get run in these spots (process CP, many K's)

- I will do enough "reading" in the post-round to at least try and comprehend a novel Aff or Neg arg - and, as these things go, that can open room for a prepared new Aff to win on various appeals to specificity

- I get that Neg's adore the Cap K... but the way this is getting deployed in the modern era is just so far from what I feel is a complete reason to Negate. I could break down my creative Cap K 2.0 blueprint ..or go on some rant - but, unless your Cap K has some very unique twists, I'd say that I am the second worst judge in the pool for your Cap K (behind Katsulas). This is meant to be helpfully honest as you make pref decisions;

- I am one of the better judges in the pool for "the impact turn doesn't link". Let me unpack - as this might read as illogical. Just bc the Aff said "heg" doesn't mean that *the way* the Aff enhances Heg auto-links to your backfile... similarly, just bc the Neg read an impact module that loosely referenced "ag" or "econ" doesn't mean the camp backfile is simply greenlit. Often times the OG impact is about "preventing a future decline in Heg"... or helping a sector of the econ that may solely be a piece in the dedev puzzle. I'll obviously "play ball" if both teams opt to ignore this int link minutiae. But I do sometimes find myself on the bottom of a 4-1 bc I strongly consider analytic threads appealing to whether the impact turns applied in the first place. This is not intended to full-on dissuade. Teams seeking to impact turn should invest some time connecting the "top-level" dots between the opponent's impact claim and their impact turn. Impact turn strat can also wind-up defending a squo that's very messy (transitions, other Aff impacts). Think about more than the narrow impact turn itself - and the broader system being defended.

- I differ from many judges on "disad turns case". I was recently asked to recount an NDT elim I judged a few years back. In it, Aff slams on Adv... Neg slams on Disad... Aff is bad on "disad turns case"... neg is silent on "Aff solves case"... 8 out of 10 judge vote neg here: after all, Neg turns Aff. I regularly vote Aff on "aff solvency claim is every bit as dropped as the neg's claim to turn solvency". There are some exceptions where I would vote Neg - suppose the neg's "turns case" arg is couched as comparative to the 1AC solvency... OR maybe the neg claim simply makes more sense than the OG Aff solvency.. etc... but I tend to not punish the Aff for lacking large re-explanations of (dropped) swaths of their case. Negs would do well to make comparisons that bake-in the particulars of the Aff.

- there is a risk of overcorrection to all of this. I have voted on "PIKs bad" at the NDT - and it was the correct 2AR choice.. I voted on a "meh" human innovation disad earlier this season bc the Neg tailored it so well to the opponent's solvency claims. There have been other decisions that might surprise a third party coach - unless they watched the debate itself. I do understand that debate is a game. All of this advice assumes situations where both sides have the time to evenly execute on a position - but sometimes that hasn't taken place. Capitalize accordingly.

--- Everything below this is older stuff... all of it still applies - but may be more than you need ------

TLDR - general

More apt to be placed in Policy v. Policy rounds. A great deal of the research that I do is on critical/culture theory. And, a lot of outcomes are possible in a world of imbalanced coverage/attention to detail.

That said, I have a poor track record for planless Affs. I have enough "argumentation teacher" in me to give a range of oral critiques. But, I do think K of this Res/Topicality struggles vs. standard (policy) boilerplate responses.

If your pref decisions hinge on post-round academic convos, I will be an engaged critic. But if a big component of your pref decisions are about the grizzled bottom line of winning (which is 1000% understandable, IMO), I think much of the pool has a better track record on behalf of the K.

Seems like there's two sets of Policy judges on this particular Res:

Camp 1.0 - summer pleasure reading was about Bostrom, gray goo bloggers, and meta-physical q's posed by British scholars.

Camp 2.0 - not that.

I'm more in camp 2.0. I have cut policy cards on the topic. I am not dismissive existential risk. I think the Sci Fi impacts are fine - strategic even....

And, I am (quite fairly) accused of letting your ev do some work for you. But there's a wave of oral critique out there that's akin to: "the sub-text of the Aff entropy claim rests on Toby Ord's The Precipice - which is hardly viable without a deeper defense of hypercomputation".

... huh ?..

I can get there - but you'll need to at least start me down that journey.

TLDR - process CP, compete on "should"

Anything is poss in the land of wildly disparate in-rd execution/coverage - but I am quite Aff here

Where are you good for the neg ?

Disad, CP of non-process flavor... the 1AC itself = often pretty silly.

'Rona

For me, I am judging INP for the first time in a minute - mostly bc it would not be great if I brought COVID back to my household.

I am appreciative of the efforts the tournament and the participants are making to reduce the risk of COVID. I mean that quite genuinely

... this simple statement could be over-read or cause students to overreact when I am judging. I understand that sure-fire solutions are rare... and I do not need to 2A to debate outdoors or something. Just a friendly - not judgmental - reminder that I will be on the cautious side of this one.

--wrote this pre '21 NDT - I'll leave it up a bit longer, but it has little to do w. arg preferences ----

This strikes me as an audience where one can make a bold claim... and be granted an opportunity to back it up.

Here goes:

One of the strongest people I know is only 3 yrs old.

... I've watched her figure it out.

When the six yr old points and stares.

When the family switches lanes in swim class.

When they ask why her mask is the kind that ties in the back.

...and I've watched in amazement. Somehow, she channels her exasperation into thoughtfulness. Somehow, these aftermaths are productive.

A few years ago, I heard rumor that a student was thinking of foregoing her final NDT - ending her career after her Junior season. This student had challenged MSU Debate ...in the best ways possible. Judging policy rds as I do, I knew this debater. I decided to drop her a note. I thanked her for the hard work she'd put in.... for the indirect ways in which she'd made our program grow. One never knows what to expect once the send key is hit. I do think she was a little surprised to receive it. But I came to learn it made a small difference... that it landed with the right timing.

Later that season, I wrote a similar note - this time to a non-traditional debater. The same premises held. This student pushed our program and drove us to be more prepared. I extended an overdue "thanks". I imagine they were more than a little surprised to receive it. Judging policy rds as I do, I had even less of an idea how it may land. I was glad to learn it landed well.

The days leading up to the NDT are an especially good time to keep one's head down.

...But when the dust settles... when the inevitable frustrations grow distant... consider crafting a simple note. Consider sending it to a judge... a rival... a teammate.

Above all, consider sending to someone that may not expect it.

In doing so some will accuse you of being weak. Why extend energy to your rivals ?.. Why breathe life into the foe ?

But - in doing so - you will be anything but weak.

You will exit a challenging season... perched atop a most-challenging 12 months... and you will have done something genuine.. something unexpectedly thoughtful.

And - in doing so - you will show strength.

Strength similar to the strongest girl I know.

A girl who is Earless... and Fearless.

A girl named Robin Jane Repko.

#E&F

Thanks - and best of luck to each of you this weekend.

NDT 2021

---------old stuff here-------------------------

True non-starters:

A - Teams that joke-y or playful about death or trauma - esp as part of some high-theory attempt to illustrate a point. I was early to this train - but I think a lot of people in the community are ready to close this chapter.

B - Consult Cplan in almost any variety - it's quasi comeback is surprising.

Topicality:

I'm overwhelmingly Aff on "contrived" interps bad. In general, I think I am more Aff than most on T in policy rounds. If it helps, I did not happen to judge the elim between UGA AR + KU HM on the Exec Authority. Here - by all accounts - the neg did a dazzling job on a T thread that amounted to "you gotta be a big Aff".

I cannot know - but I suspect I would have been an above-average judge for UGA in that spot. It has nothing to do with the debaters - all four were/are magnificent. It's more that I find T interps of that ilk tend to break-down under strict scrutiny.

I don't mention this example out of nowhere. I am writing in 2021 bc I suspect it could be instructive for this yrs college topic. I would not be shocked if I voted Neg on T - hard work has dividends. By this is a game of inches - and this is me being transparent about an inch.

Just be honest, please:

In an evenly matched-debate where all the best args are on the table (two important caveats), rate yourself on the following items relative to the field of possible policy judges:

A - CPlan competition theory.... Aff (esp vs. "resolved", "should", etc).

B - Kritik - even the flex variety - Aff by a considerable margin.

C - Truth or tech.... truth by a decent amount..

D - Are you lying - lots of judges just lie in these philosophies ?..

Not really... I'm pretty ardent - but I will say that anything is possible in the land of wildly-disparate in-round execution. I did vote on PICs bad (dropped) last season.

-------------- old philosophies start here -------------

I wrote this a few years ago - it still holds:

Often, the K struggles on the alt... and can be a little over-reliant on the checklist for someone (like me) that's a bit of a truth-seeker and post-round ev reader.

To give a concrete example:

Suppose a (policy) Aff said "a Small Modular Rector will *solve* for a nuclear accident". Further suppose that the Neg did not engage this claim in any way.

Then suppose the Neg said "interrogate our relationship to neolib -- as it may *solve* neolib". Suppose the Aff was comparably inattentive to that alt.

I would start the post-round evaluating competing solvency claims. Both teams 100% won their original statement -- but the word *"solves"* in both sentences does not get at questions of magnitude/likelihood. "Solve" was not posited as a 100% affair in either the ev, the tag, or under any standard of logic.

So, yes, both teams "solve", but the degree to which an SMR could prevent an accident is miles ahead of the degree that individual interrogation might solve neolib. I acknowledge that not everyone judges these args in this manner -- in part because they fear being labelled "interventionist". I happen to feel it "intervenes" to impose magnitude onto either team's claim (as stated).

I can imagine a future time where the K more assertively attempts to have Alts that inform policy praxis or generates non-institutional collectives... And if you think your arg is novel in that regard, then I might be a better judge for you... But, the odds are that you've learned to run the K based on the prevalent community norms that have developed over the previous 15 years... Over that time, your predecessors did an exceptionally mediocre job of helping the K inform praxis and be PART (not all) of negating an Affirmative.

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

Rando:

- I rarely think "literature" alone makes a cplan competitive. I consider the two as wholly unrelated and I struggle to grasp this line of thinking. Some are aghast if the two options that are compared by a think tank article are somehow not auto-competitive. This borders on laughable - as there's lit that defends plan-plus cplans....Sometimes I have judged literature that demonstrated that the perm severs - that might be germane.

- I think "judge kick" needs to be flagged early and often - not merely implicitly as part of a conditionality answer in cx - for it to be a presumptively strong arg for the Neg. I consider "conditionality" to be a question of whether multiple strategies can/should be carried through the middle of the debate - and *not* whether the Neg should ultimately be afforded multiple choices at the end of the debate. I will assume that you went for the one damn strategy that you did extend in the 2NR unless you play your "multiple options" card earlier in the debate.

If you have specific questions about how I'd evaluate an item, feel free to ask. I'll strive to respond with candor.

Best,

Will

Sean Ridley Florida 4 rounds

Collin Roark Trinity 1 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 18, 2020 at 12:01 AM GMT

Updated Pre-Emory 1/9/2020

Email chain please: croark@trinity.edu

Professor and Assistant Director of Debate at Trinity University, Coach at St. Mark's School of Texas

I view my role as judge to be an argument critic and educator above everything else. As part of that, you should be mindful that a healthy attitude towards competition and the pursuit of kindness and respect are important.

Biases are inevitable but I have been in the activity for +10 years and heard, voted, and coached on virtually every argument. I genuinely do as much as possible to suspend my preconceived beliefs and default to explanation/comparison.

Quality > quantity – 1NC’s with a high volume of bad arguments will have a hard ceiling on speaker points & I will generously allow new 1AR arguments.

Speed is the number of winnable arguments you can communicate to your judge. I will usually say “clear” twice before I stop flowing your speech. If you can't flow or comprehend your partner that's a problem. If you don't sign-post I am likely to give-up on flowing your speech.

I try to flow CX so please make reference. CX is about LISTENING and responding – let your opponent finish their answer/question, acknowledge it, and then move to the next point. Be polite if you have to interrupt.

Everyone should give two speeches. I’ll only flow the assigned person during speeches.

Framework --- I’ve voted on all kinds of different impact arguments. Debate has wide-ranging value to folks and I think you should be willing to defend why it’s important to you in any given situation. Defense can be very compelling: Neg teams should win an overarching theory of how their model absorbs/turns the 1ac’s offense with explanations of switch-side or TVA examples that interface well with the aff. The TVA should be a proof of concept, not a CP. Aff teams should win a counter-interp/alternative model of what debate looks like OR terminal offense to the neg’s model of debate. Above everything, you should think strategically and react instead of just reading some dusty, generic blocks.

Vanova Robles West Georgia 2 rounds None

Wes Rumbaugh Hire 8 rounds

Last changed on Mon December 30, 2019 at 11:04 AM EDT

General Principles

My main goal as a judge is to resolve arguments made by debaters to form a coherent decision about the issue that the debaters have decided upon. I will attempt to do this, as much as possible, solely based on the arguments presented by the debaters in their speeches and transcribed onto my flow. I will likely read a decent amount of evidence, but will use it mostly as a fact finding/verification mechanism that there was a complete version of that argument presented in the first instance. I will try to be vigilant about policing new arguments, though debaters are encouraged to assist in this task.

Updates

- I only judge two or three times a year and don't actively coach, so my knowledge of topic/argumentative conventions will be limited. I may not be familiar with certain acronyms or shorthand all the cool kids are using. On the other hand, I really enjoy wonky in-depth debates, so feel free to really dig in on topic-specific issues. With regards to the college space topic, you can expect that I will be fairly familiar with the issues that are security/military related (particularly anything to do with missile defense) due to my job, but less familiar with cooperation/exploration parts of the topic.

- Affs that write vague plan texts to avoid relevant counterplans annoy me. These Affs are essentially value statements, not statements of policy. Debating against counterplans is valuable because it provides focus to debates and forces affs to think about important details of the policies they propose. Find some stuff you can defend and put it in your plan.

- When reading evidence after a debate I am looking for very specific things, mostly whether the evidence supports the argument that I have written down made by the debaters. This can also lead to me missing things that hurt the team that read the evidence if I am not looking for it. The best way to ensure I notice these problems is to control the spin of evidence while debating.

- It's pretty hard to get me out of the competing interpretations mindset, even when judging theory debates. Arguments about potential abuse not being a voter and 'it's what we did not what we justify' have been tough in front of me. I think in some ways this is a viscereal reaction I have to these arguments from T debates where they make much less sense. Using the term reasonability to describe these arguments will make them sound more persuasive to me even though there isn't much of a functional difference.

- Debaters would often be better served by going for fewer arguments in front of me. This will give you more time in final rebuttals to resolve arguments by setting up metrics for evaluation and indicting your opponents evidence. When I have to resolve debates with larger numbers of arguments I often feel like I impose a bit too much and my decision doesn't reflect the debating as well.

Topicality

Topicality is a potentially relevant and important argument to every single affirmative. The length of time and number of teams reading an affirmative do not make an aff topical.

To me there has never really been a mutual exclusivity between competing interpretations and reasonability. Topicality is fundamentally about comparing interpretations, and naturally in a competitive format, those interpretations tend to have points of contention. Reasonability to me has always meant a presumption-style bar to clear for differences in those interpretetations, i.e. it's insufficient to win that there is a 1 case difference between Aff and Neg and "small topics are good, judge."

Affirmative teams often lose these debates because they fail to question the aforementioned "small topics good, judge" forumla.

Topicality debates are often very messy to flow. Extra speaker points to debaters who efficiently organize concepts in these debates rather than throwing debate catch phrases around willy nilly.

Disads

Debaters should recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different impacts in the traditional timeframe, magnitude, probablity frames. Your warming impact is not fast so stop wasting your time trying to convince me of that and instead spend it arguing about why magnitude is more important. Feel free to use novel impact evaluation frames outside these golden oldies, just explain why your frame makes sense for the context of the decision at hand.

The link is usually very important to me in these debates. The strength of the link determines if uniqueness can overwhelm it. Rarely will a disad already be literally happening, i.e. totally non-unique, but previous examples of things that should have triggered the link raise the bar for proving the plan is enough to cause a negative impact, and thus raise the threshold for the link.

Counterplans

Debating CP competition forces debaters to think about essential economic concepts like opportunity costs and decisionmaking at the core of policy debate. I will try to keep a very open mind in judging debates about questionably competitive CP's to foster some of these educational values. The affirmative still has a strong gripe about many of these CP's being wholly unfair debate creations, but I would say I am more willing than most to hear the Neg out.

My general feeling about presumption is that it favors less change due to institutional inertia against change.

Most conditionality counterinterps strike me as arbitrary. I tend to think of these debates as simple referendums on conditionality good/bad as long as this is pointed out.

Case Debating

2A's must actually make an attempt to be flowed while they are on the case in the 2AC. Preferably, this is done by responding to the arguments made by the 1NC in the order that they were read.

I like really dorky impact turn debates. I also really appreciate strategies that revolve around case turns. These strategies are both often difficult to pull off and I will likely be more generous to teams that are willing to take on the challenge.

Critiques

I have very little academic background in these arguments, so will likely need more guidance in deciphering what arguments mean. Being able to clarify dense philosophical concepts for me will help me understand the implications of your arguments more fully.

Oddly, these are the debates I see turning on technical problems most often. I think this is related to both sides talking past each other in a lot of these debates. Aff teams should be sure to not drop the standard tricks

Framework arguments are often central to my decisions in these debates. These issues often implicate what impacts are relevant to my decision, what an alternative should have to accomplish, and what link arguments a perm can solve. I think that most compromise framework formulations make negative sense, but if debaters agree to them I will do my best to resolve the debate as they have told me to.

Nontraditional Affirmatives

Negative teams forwarding any version of a framework argument should likely have a topicality component to it. Affirmative teams should be attentive to answering the framework argument made by the negative, not just reading their general A2: Framework block.

When answering topicality style arguments, nontraditional affirmatives should have some sort of counterinterpreation of what the topic means. This interpretation should clarify what debates would be about under this interpretation. I generally think that the issues for debate should be founded in something that all debaters can predict and research before the tournament. The depth of preparation is what differentiates the style of debate that we do from others in my mind. These are values that I will likely be persuaded are important to continue under alternative visions of debate.

Competition questions are very difficult to resolve in many of these debates for critiques and counterplans. The less clear it is to me what the aff will defend, the more likely I will be persuaded by negative arguments against permuations. Framework arguments about what I am deciding between can often be the tipping point for these debates even if neither team labels these arguments as "framework" arguments per se.

It is likely that I will think that arguments that link to methodologies and their application outside of debate are relevant considerations to 1AC's unless they are explicit that their criticism applies only to the debate community. This is especially true if the negative argument is something that is a a core topic impact turn.

The "role of the ballot" and "role of the judge" to me will always be to determine a winner and lose of the debate. Arguments about what I am deciding to determine that winner and loser are welcome, but a team dropping the words "role of the ballot" is not a slayer in my opinion.

Speaker Points

Make debate an enjoyable experience. Seriously, these people are willing to fly across the country to argue with you on weekends. Debate has an awesome group of people that combine intelligence and competitiveness in a way that is unique and incredible. I will use any scale published by the tournament. Most of your speaker points will be determined by the quality of debating done (which includes both answering and asking cross-x questions).

Clipping is a fast way to make me angry. I was really slow and resisted the temptation. You can do it too. I won't have the speech documents in front of me so challenges will have to come from the debaters. Those caught clipping will lose and get zero speaker points. The same is true for those whose allegations are proven false. A recording is required as evidence of clippling so that I have something to evaluate. The debate panoptican has become ever present enough to where this technical hurdle isn't too large.

My flash drive policy is do it fast enough to not annoy me.

Questions: wesrumbaugh@gmail.com

Jason Russell Oklahoma 1 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 6, 2017 at 12:33 AM CDT

jasonlrussell1@gmail.com

School: Wichita State University
Years Judging: 20
College Rounds 2017: 40, High School Rounds: 50

Have the email chain set up starting around 5 mins before the debate. The prep time doesn't end until you've sent the email, not when you start compiling documents or attaching them. Part of preparing for paperless debate is having a time efficient method for document dissemination. That should start at home, in practices.

New new new content:

I strongly support policy debate. Most K affs that are just policy debate bad do not appeal to me much. If you believe that there ought to be some changes to policy debate, they ought to be specific, strongly supported, and feature a well articulated alternative model of debate. Absent any of these, you'll struggle to win. If your aff does not support the implementation of the topic as a policy, you'll almost assuredly lose. If your K on the neg fails to articulate an alternative or defend the SQ, you'll almost assuredly lose. I will vote for K's, but your window is much narrower than it would be with a friendlier audience. I will not lower my expectations nor will I apologize for it.

I still think most Aff framework args are bad. The cheatingest thing about Ks is the alt so win that they need one and theirs is unfair. I'm pretty much always going to weigh the Aff impact but that doesn't mean an ethics arg won't precede it necessarily if well articulated and won. Aff framework is probably a waste of your time & potentially a liability.

Method doesn't make anything compete and just saying that is adequate for me. This arg is nonsense. If the alt can't be desirably combined with the Aff, then it competes. And only then.

I strongly prefer to hear debates about the policies involved in the topic, although the approach to implementing and rebutting those policies may vary widely.

Generally, most kritiks are mumbo-jumbo. The links are stale and weak, the alt is contrived and probably contradictory to many of the links, in addition to being wholly ineffective, and the analytic lens is generally far less insightful than they purport to be. If the K aff doesn't do anything, I will vote on presumption without hesitation. A great number of K's make psychologically untenable claims that can be defeated easily with limited to no evidence. Often, the team debating a K would be well served to read fewer generic K cards and make some strong arguments from the perspective of logic that suggest that the thing they're suggesting folks should just do isn't as easily done as they make it out to be (embracing insecurity, fugitivity, abandoning hope, etc).

Indignant complaints about how it's rude to disagree with people will not be accepted as arguments.

The room a debate occurs in is shared by the opposing teams and the judge. Do not monopolize the room by loudly playing music, taking up all of the space with your materials and coaches, or generally behaving in such a way that both teams can't adequately prepare for a debate in a reasonable manner. I will give you points that are akin to clipping or other cheating practices if you do so.

New content 2015-2016

Points:

Between UMKC and UNLV I decided to raise my points a bit. Nothing radical, but probably a .2 increase on the top end. I'm still giving points below the mean as often as ever, but my high end points will more accurately reflect trends for the top 20 speakers at a major. I do this reluctantly as I don't like point inflation, but I also don't want to disadvantage quality speakers that would like me to judge them by holding them to a different expectation than the rest of the pack. I find it very troubling how often 29.6 and above points are handed out. People should stop that.

Don't ever ask me for speaker points. Those are mine and mine alone. I mean, I guess you can ask, but I won't do what you're asking me. I will give you the points you deserve.

Decision-making and diversification are figuring highly into my points. So, good argument choices throughout -- recognition of your strengths, their weaknesses, time allocation, block division, 1AR elaboration, etc -- will be rewarded and bad choices will be deducted. Diversification can be horizontal or vertical. In other words, you can still be a one-off K team and have excellent points provided that your block is interrogating the case, developing a variety of well-explained link arguments, engaging in good epistemological attacks on the aff ev, and explaining your impacts. Lazy polemic will not be as highly evaluated as in-depth attacks involving clash throughout. In other words, "state bad" is not my jam unless it's some very well-developed, context-specific state bad arg. I can imagine one, but haven't seen one.

A great many things are not T. I'd encourage you to go for it. I like evidence-based T debates. What should be considered military presence is highly debatable and many affs do not meet a reasonable interpretation of military presence. Even fewer are significant reductions in said military presence.

K's:

The "aff didnt do enough" K isn't doing much for me. If this is your best option, I'd recommend T instead. Perms solve it and it's not offense.

K debaters that can't debate the case enough to prove that the aff doesn't simply reduce military presence but somehow reinforces it or some other bad process in trying to do so are having a really hard time winning with me. You need links. "You touched the gov't" isn't getting the job done. If this is your best strat, I am not the judge for you.

Negative state action undermines a lot of "we shouldn't have to debate as the gov't" args, absent more detailed elaboration by the aff team reading a non-topical or non-plan aff. I can personally entertain some reasons why this arg might still be true, but teams have yet to advance args that are not facile extensions of the standard "gov't bad" arg in explaining this for me. "Decrease military" and "gov't bad" are in the same direction on face. You'll need to do more to prove that they are not.

Politics:

Thumpers are a thing, UQ CP's aside. I can't even begin to understand people who don't believe they are. I'm not saying they're a universal problem for every politics DA, but there are times where they are a problem for a lot of popular politics DA's.

New content 2014-2015

1) K-related info

I am not sure if I’ve voted aff against framework this year (could be once or twice I’m forgetting about). A lot of things can explain this (lop-sided matches, conceptual mistakes, drops, I’m dumb), but teams with non-topical affs should probably know this.

I think most people’s framework args are soft and easy to beat if the aff actually interrogates them, but few do except saying “it’s anti-black” or “it links to Baudrillard/other French guy”. Do the work of K’ing something; your K is not a yellow card: “Penalty: anti-black!”. Develop content.

If you haven’t thought about the existential question “If the laws you are against are anti-black/otherwise rude, what should be done about them?”, you will have a hard time winning w me. As far as I know, getting rid of laws requires state action. If you are doing something else to get rid of or otherwise address those laws, I’m gonna need to hear some details. Unflinching paradigmatic analysis is a buzzword requiring further elaboration.

The strongest part of anti-K framework args is their “topical version of the aff/do it on the neg” cooptation args. The weakest part is the overall impact. If they win the cooptation args, they don’t need to win much of an impact, though. Food for thought.

Most K’s need an alt. If they don’t, be prepared to put some time into explaining why not.

Neg K’s are worse at permutations than ever. The “it’s a method” arg school of thought doesn’t make much sense to me without further elaboration. Some methods compete; others do not. You still need a link that’s not solved by including your alt (or some part of it) with the aff.

Aff’s typically lose K’s by not questioning a sweeping claim at the center of the K that takes out their case. A perm won’t help you much against that. Don’t fool around and forget to answer the central contention of the K. These claims are almost always an overreach; they’re not as absolute as they’re purported to be.

A lot of performances seem to be disconnected from the subsequent content. That’s not bad esoterically I guess, but it’s unstrategic because then the time you spend performing isn’t helping you win the debate.

I’m pretty much over role of the ballot. It’s just an impact framing arg. You still have to win that it’s a comparably preferable impact to whatever you’re debating.

K’s that go after the entire aff – their evidence, their harms, their plan, their solvency, their worldview – have a strong chance of winning even with a weak alt. They simply need to find a way to prove that an un-interrogated adoption of the plan would be worse than doing nothing or very little. That’s harder than just wishing away the SQ through magic, but debate is hard and that’s why it’s awesome.

K affs should defend changing the laws they criticize, but K the remainder of what the neg says is required to be complete legalization. Or read some cards on T. Or both. If your aff is nothing about the topic, or is anti-topical, you’ll want to be prepared to have a more comprehensive impact turn strategy for framework. This is a much tougher road.

2) CX-related info

Answer questions in CX. Seriously. Don’t repeat the question at them. Don’t ignore them and do something else. I’m going to start docking points for wasting people’s CX time. Mark my word. I will intervene once and after that I’m just going to start making notations to knock off some points.

Don’t extend the CX unless you absolutely have to. Usually you’re doing it for something useless and wasting your prep time. Also, feel free to deny your opponents a CX extension. Just say “no” if they ask to take prep to ask another question. It’s your prep time too.

3) Presentation info

I hate your pre-written overviews. No one can flow those. Your overview would be far better if tailored to the particular circumstances of the debate and delivered as if you were trying to reply to your opponents.

Prep time runs until your flashdrive leaves your computer or the email is sent. Start the chain/prepare the jump prior to the debate and deliver it a couple of minutes prior to the start of the debate. Feel free to tell people not to open it until it’s time and I’m sure that they won’t. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE DEBATE STARTS TO BEGIN PUTTING THINGS ON YOUR DRIVE OR I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME WHEN THE ROUND IS SCHEDULED TO START. Also, don’t wait until the debate is scheduled to start to pee.

You should think about how the music you’re playing affects others’ ability to hear you. A lot of times, music playing during your speech if not accompanying some performative component is a distraction from or direct hindrance to understanding speech content.

Loud music before the debate is irritating. I’d be glad to lend you some headphones.

Don’t act offended because someone is debating you. That’s what they’re supposed to do. Disagreeing with you is not akin to disrespecting you. Quite the opposite, in fact.

Consider how you’re tagging evidence. No one can flow your paragraph of mumbo-jumbo that precedes your French philosophy. Tags ought to communicate your interpretation of evidence to the judge, to demonstrate the way the evidence will be used. Tags are not story-time. If your tag is mega-long and uses a lot of high theory, plan to slow down so people can flow it.

I will 100% discount evidence from weirdos. Astrologers talking about global warming or conspiracy theory websites will require deep defenses to stand up to someone merely asserting that they’re not qualified. Honestly, it’s probably not worth your time to defend them. A couple more pointed jokes will likely beat those too. The Internet has caused you all to cut some scandalously bad ev.

4) DA-related info

Politics UQ answers are so bad. Don’t expect me to interpret “Opposition exists” as “won’t pass” if the neg questions it. Everything in Washington has opposition. That doesn’t mean it won’t pass if they have evidence saying it will. You need to have some conclusive ev.

I’m never voting on logical policymaker or a perm to a DA unless it’s dropped. Maybe not even then.

Their new DA, whatever it is, probably has a terrible link.

I would sacrifice a close family member to judge a good economic DA.

5) CP-related info

I still believe in limited counterplan competition. I believe counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive, not one or the other. I still rarely see this arg pursued against CP’s that clearly violate it.

I’m defaulting to judge kick CP’s that are deemed non-competitive unless I’m told not to do so. That means if you’re aff, your answers to the net benefit cannot be all premised around the CP, but must also take into account the SQ.

Nothing can flip presumption to the aff. Presumption is 100% neg. Change is scary.

Don’t forget to review the basic plan vs. CP competition on a technical CP. This is probably your best perm answer (or perm arg if you’re aff). A lot of teams presume we know more about what the original plan was than we do.

6) Case-related info

Actually debating the case is good. Impact D is not actually debating the case. It’s a fair accompaniment to, but is not a substitute for, debating the harm and solvency. Solvency is where it’s at.

Aff plans are too vague. Many would be circumvented as a result of the loopholes the wording of these plans allows. I love this stuff.

7) Points

My points are probably marginally higher than 2 years ago, but not substantially. I would guess I use a 28.5 as average now over a 28.3. 29’s are not common and you won’t get one unless you’re actually really good. I won’t give you one for being a senior, or for showing improvement or effort, or for being snarky and mean. I will give you one (or one plus some more) if you’re very good, technical, complete, display vision and clarity, handle the CX, perform the CX, and read and analyze evidence well. Excessive reading will not get the job done. Excessive slow rambling will not get the job done. Comprehensively replying to your opponents’ arguments is a must for a 29+. If you’re dropping key content, you’re a 28.9 at best. Organization is important. It doesn’t have to be line-by-line (although I have a slight preference for it, historically), but it had better have a logic that makes sense and flows well.

I’m sure whatever is already in here is also fine and true. I dunno. I’m not re-reading it. END NEW CONTENT 2015

New addendums: I've adjusted my speaker point scale quite a bit in recent years. I think it's much higher than it used to be when people are good and maybe a little lower when people are bad. The additional variability allowed by the 1/10's system has given me more room to provide finer evaluations.

I assert myself into the CX more than I used to. Blame Dallas. I always thought it was cool when he did that. I typically do this just to protect people from your rambling incoherent responses to questions.

NEW, NEW Addendums:

Cheating of all kinds in debate is deserving of the deepest penalty we can level. I will vote against you and give you zero speaker points if you clip cards. I will not debate with you about clarity or unclarity. I will ask you directly what portions of a card were read and, if your response doesn't match the recorded evidence, I will level the punishment. I don't require the argument to be made in the debate. I will not necessarily be recording every debate, but I will record many. Any accusation of clipping will require recorded evidence to be prosecuted.

I think most people already knew how I felt about this. I did want to clarify in case you're a cheater and want to stop preffing me bc you cheat.

I like basically all styles of debate roughly equally. I think my points reveal a pretty well balanced rewarding of excellence on all sides of the ball. I think "topical version of the aff" and "knowledge is racially subjective" are just about equally difficult to beat. I think my points are often highest for "degree of difficulty" wins -- taking on tough issues eloquently and with style. A large component of my points are subjective -- I don't just give points to teams for "winning"; I also give points based on aesthetics. No rubric is going to alter that, at Wake or anywhere else. I think fast, technical debate can be pretty when combined with, say, humor, insight, intellect, and reason as much as I think performance style debate can be detail oriented when combined with penetrating analysis of the other teams arguments using the lens of their perspective on the world. These styles are, in my opinion, not fundamentally distinct, but different in emphasis.

My points roughly lie in the norms of the Wake judging rubric (I may give slightly more 28.5's and slightly fewer 28.9's than they're suggesting, but, whatever). I wouldn't expect my points to either change much because of the rubric or vary much from it. I'm not going to pay real close attention to it as the numbers seem to indicate I'm basically on par at the moment. One thing to note: your best speech and THE best speech are two very different things. You might think you gave the best possible speech you could and I would still not rate that speech as a 29.9 or 30. It's not just possible, but entirely likely, that you are not capable of giving a perfect speech. That's ok. No one is perfect.

Depth is almost always better than breadth, but I do expect people to answer arguments. I won't ever answer them for you. I don't care in what order you answer them or how clearly you signpost your answers or whatever (i.e. line-by-line as defined traditionally is not that crucial), but if you never answer an argument and expect me to intuit the answer for you, you're not likely to succeed.

I judge a lot. I'm kinda grumpy, but it's not just you. I'll be expressive in debates, a lot of it will be negative; don't cry. I just don't like watching you be bad. Other parts where you're good I'll like a lot (hopefully).

Big picture issues: Debate is for the debaters. I won't tell you what to do and what not to do. I have voted for some terrible arguments. Almost every debate involves some argument I hate. I often vote for arguments I loathe. Don't spend your time trying to decide which arguments I like. You play to win the game. Where this contradicts with something I've said below, you do your thing.

Topicality: Is ok. You need an interp. It needs an impact. The aff needs a reason to prefer their interp, or to meet the negative's interp. I believe aff's deserve predictability as much as the negative does. More aff's should say that. T can be outweighed by substantive arguments against the interp, like that it causes biopower, the state, zphc, derrida, la-dee-da, etc. In the instance that the aff attempts to "outweigh T", the neg should further elaborate on the substantive impacts of their standards. They should also probably say T isn't like the holocaust.

Framework: Is ok. I believe any argument can be introduced and won in a debate, but I'm often convinced that the harm to doing so outweighs the benefits. These debates are often tied up in issues I've discussed in reference to T. See above. Aff's especially should IMPACT their framework arguments. If the K has a link, I'm probably not going to be persuaded that they're trying to play football with a baseball bat (wrong forum) and patently exclude their argument. I may however decide that the neg has lost their alt and that doing so means the margin of the link is outweighed by the affs advantages. However, it is also possible that the K just takes-out the aff solvency and harm claims and turns the case, in which case the neg would win. Many framework debates are, as a result, stupid.

Other theory: PICs, Dispo, Condi, ASPEC, CESPEC, alt text, multi actor, conditional CPs, international CPs, etc. are all ok. So are objections to them. They're like T to me: theoretical disads to the other team's conception of debate. Most of them, however, do not rise to the level of VI. Typically, I believe that they prove that the argument should not be considered, not that the team running the argument should lose. In most debates, these argument are asserted to be a VI and countered by an equally assertive response that they are not. In those instances, I agree, they aren't. Basically, explain the voter if you want to win on 'em. I won't punish your points for consulting because I'm not a douche.

DA's and CP's: If the CP solves 100% of the case, I typically believe that there is a risk of a link to the net benefit. I have been, on occassion, convinced otherwise, but these instances are few and far between. I do not think presumption flips aff in any instance. I can't imagine how it could. I'd need to hear an amazing argument in favor of doing so. Link turns need UQ. If the disad sounds too good to be true, it probably is. "Their evidence is from liars" could count as a zero risk argument for me if articulated well. I tend to believe that the SQ is always an option for the neg unless it is explicitly foregone in the CX or a speech. Plan-plus counterplans are abusive and many CP's are plan-plus. Textual competition is good and many CP's are not textually competitive. Again, these are predilections, not hard and fast rules. I've been persuaded against my beliefs in virtually every debate I've ever judged.

K's: Alt, alt alt. The aff usually loses because the neg lies about their alt and the aff almost always wins if they beat the alt. Realism is real is unhelpful. I rarely know why this argument links. See comments on framework above. The aff typically gets to weigh their impacts regardless of the fabricated nature of fiat. The instance that the aff loses the case because of the K is typically associated with some indict of a. the evidence b. the impact claim itself or c. the solvency. In those instances, winning that you get to weigh the aff is not helpful; you still have to defend it. Good link and impact illustration is always helpful. Why does the K access the aff harm? Why does the alt solve the case? I often leave K debates wondering these things and it'd be helpful to have these questions answered and asked by the debaters.

Performance: Is ok. I don't love it; I can't lie. A good topical performance used as evidence to support a policy conclusion can successfully defeat a lot of the substantive arguments against a case, but performance for performances sake, the non-topical, obfuscatory variety, does nothing to impress me. I'll vote on it. I'll consider the merits of the argument. I may even find parts of it witty and funny. But if you think I'm a member of your project because I worked at OU, you're probably wrong. P.S. don't run your bad version of the Churchill K or nihilism because you think it will get me on your side. It won't. Run what you're good at and do it well.

CX: Is good. I love a grilling CX. You should have an agenda and follow it. Ask a lot of questions. Set things up. Don't badger the witness and don't bore me. CX has a lot to do with the points I give. I will probably be on the Internet and reading and stuff during CX, but, trust me, I'm listening. It matters greatly that you do well here.

Speed and flowing: I judge a lot of debates. I've judged people way faster than you and I get it down when it is clear. I often ask for clarity and the debaters go right back to being incomprehensible. I'm not asking anymore. You'll be clear or you'll get bad points. Seperate your cards, cites, and tags with good vocal inflection or I won't understand you and I won't try anymore. You don't need to be as fast as most of you try to read. Many of you would be more efficient at 75-80% speed. Theory debates are notoriously too brief and too quick. I'll just ignore you if you do this. If you want to win a theory arg, slow down so I can flow it.

Evidence: I don't read a lot of evidence after debates. I don't usually need to. Asking me to read some evidence doesn't mean I will. I think evidence is a tool, not a weapon, and blanket extension of cards without talking about their contents doesn't make an argument. Use evidence to support arguments, not to make them. That said, unevidenced, but well reasoned arguments are good. I'm for it! I don't think only cards can be evidence; a good story, poem, allegory, song, dance, whatever, could be evidence too. Of course, cards can beat non-traditional evidence also.

Overviews: Honestly, I'm pretty tired of them. Most of them are a waste of your time. Typically they are some long unnecessary diatribe about components of the disad ignored by the aff that I already understand. If you have an overview, it ought to be functional and make an argument rather than just "explain the thesis" of the argument or preview why you are so awesome and the other team so dumb. Worthless overviews are a negative speaker point in my mind. More line-by-line, more cards, more content.

Prep time: Don't steal prep. Once the timer stops, everyone must stop filing, writing, typing, etc. until the speech begins. Don't cheat. That said, don't be annoying and take hours to give the order. When you stop the prep time, you'd better know where you're going.

Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.

Sexist/Racist behavior: Is not ok. Under any circumstances. Ever. The line is often unclear, but don't do anything that could hurt someone else in debate. Diversity is the heart of the activity, it is only just now getting better, and we don't want to turn back the clock to the good ole bad ole days. I'd prefer evidence not use sexist language in their evidence too, but that's not the type of behavior I'm talking about here. I'm talking about debater-directed verbal or behavioral evidence of prejudice. I've never actually seen a debate where it happened, but if it did I'd want to do more than give the team a loss and zero points. I have anger management issues.

Humor: Is good. But if you aren't funny, don't press it. Be yourself. If you're just some debate machine, do that and do it well. Good natured humor can get you good points though. Oh, and making fun of me, my colleagues, my debaters, and my friends are all welcome. If you've got a good burn, bring it. Jokes about the quality of the other team's arguments can be persuasive evidence.

William Russell Northwestern 4 rounds

Last changed on Mon November 12, 2018 at 11:37 AM CDT

Bill Russell Judge Philosophy

Overview- I love good debates of many kinds. I try to decide debates solely on what is said in the round. I love good evidence, but love good explanation, and evidence comparison even more. I will give a lot of weight to the way you argue the evidence. Everyone works very hard to get where you are, and I know these rounds are very important to you, so I try to work hard as a judge also. It is important that you treat your opponent and your teammate with respect, so that everyone can enjoy the debate. Doing otherwise will be reflected negatively in your speaker points.

Paperless debate and flowing- I usually will ask to be included on your file sharing email, but, I am generally not reading along while you read. I will look at cards after the debate to the extent that I need to, and in light of how the evidence is debated. As a result, you need to make sure you are debating your arguments and evidence with the understanding that-unlike most of the debaters-I am not reading the cards as you go. Debating the details, and making evidence comparisons will go a long way in how I view the evidence after the debate. If you don't do that, I will interpret the evidence as I see fit.

Topicality- For the most part I prefer limits arguments over ground arguments. In other words, I prefer interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden, to any asserted right to particular ground. Case lists are important. My default standard on Topicality is likely reasonability, with the debate about the interpretations determining what is reasonable. The phrase competing interpretations, as it is often used makes no sense to me, because often no standard is given by which to evaluate the “competing interpretations”, with the implicit assumption seeming to be most limiting. Similarly, the “topical version of the aff” argment, when applied to non-critique affs makes little sense to me. The point of the violation is the aff isn’t topical. If what you mean is the same ground can be debated (advantages, etc) say that, but I think it is unlikely to be useful.

I generally believe that the affirmative should be topical but I have been persuaded otherwise for numerous non-policy affs of differing types. I don’t have strongly formed opinions on this at this point on topicality/framework as applied to non-policy affs, so tend to judge it like any issue, and attempt to decide based on what I hear in the round, and who I think is more effective at impacting their arguments, and blunting the impact of their opponents arguments.

Theory- I don’t especially enjoy theory debates, and don’t vote on theory issues very often. I tend to default to “reject the argument” not the team. As a result, in order to win on theory issues it is likely that a team will need to commit time to it, get beyond tag lines, and do a good job of explaining why simply rejecting the team would not be enough under particular articulated circumstances in that round.

An Additional Comment on Theory and T Debates- One issue that I think contributes to problems in theory and topicality debates is the tendency to make 1NC shells as short and fast as possible, and due to the fact that often there are few cards, these can become unflowable. I think if the argument is one you might be going for, you will benefit in front of me if the argument has some development when it is first presented.

Counterplans-I generally think conditionality is okay, but have been persuaded otherwise. If the negative goes for a conditional counterplan in the 2NR, and doesn’t make specific alternative arguments as to how the status quo would compare or why I should consider the status quo, I won’t do that work for you. In other words, no "judge kick".

I tend to think that the affirmative plan is not automatically immediate, and that a counterplan that conditions the plan on something that isn’t explicitly in the plan is not competitive. However, that personal preference is not very strong, and must be considered along with what I said on theory issues: that I haven’t voted on them often. So, I think an affirmative can beat these counterplans on theory, but they will need to do the work.

Disads/Impact Comparison It is obviously useful to have “offense” against a disad-or case advantage-but that it is not essential if a team does a very good job debating the uniqueness and link can win on that alone. Impact comparison is important, but I often hear more about the minutiae of “magnitude” when the relative risk seems like the place where better inroads can be made.

It should also be remembered in your impact comparison that when I evaluate the round at the end, I don’t usually decide “neg won the link” or decide most issues as yes/no, win/loss, but instead on some continuum of how much I thought you win on that, so the more comparison you do assuming the worst case, the better.

Critiques- I enjoy good critique debates the same as I do good policy debates. I don’t see critiques as a different way to run a disad, or counterplan, so debating it like a disad or counterplan makes little sense to me. That said, the more the negative treats it like another disad or counterplan, and doesn’t articulate some reason why they should win on the argument, or provide some explanation for why the judge should be doing something different than comparing policies, the more leeway the affirmative has in treating the argument that way as well. The more the critique can be related specifically to the aff, the better, and the reason to vote for the critique should be related as closely as possible to the type of argument presented in the critique. Feel free to ask me questions if that does not make sense to you.

Nick Ryan Liberty 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

Sandoz Sandoz Vanderbilt 2 rounds

Abby Schirmer Michigan State 8 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:46 PM EDT

Marist, Atlanta, GA (2015-2019, 2020-Present)
Pace Academy, Atlanta GA (2019-2020)
Stratford Academy, Macon GA (2008-2015)
Michigan State University (2004-2008)

Pronouns- She/Her

Please use email chains. Please add me- abby.schirmer@gmail.com.

Short version- You need to read and defend a plan in front of me. I value clarity (in both a strategic and vocal sense) and strategy. A good strategic aff or neg strat will always win out over something haphazardly put together. Impact your arguments, impact them against your opponents arguments (This is just as true with a critical strategy as it is with a DA, CP, Case Strategy). I like to read evidence during the debate. I usually make decisions pretty quickly. Typically I can see the nexus question of the debate clearly by the 2nr/2ar and when (if) its resolved, its resolved. Don't take it personally.

Long Version:
Case Debate- I like specific case debate. Shows you put in the hard work it takes to research and defeat the aff. I will reward hard work if there is solid Internal link debating. I think case specific disads are also pretty good if well thought out and executed. I like impact turn debates. Cleanly executed ones will usually result in a neg ballot -- messy debates, however, will not.

Disads- Defense and offense should be present, especially in a link turn/impact turn debate. You will only win an impact turn debate if you first have defense against their original disad impacts. I'm willing to vote on defense (at least assign a relatively low probability to a DA in the presence of compelling aff defense). Defense wins championships. Impact calc is important. I think this is a debate that should start early (2ac) and shouldn't end until the debate is over. I don't think the U necessarily controls the direction of the link, but can be persuaded it does if told and explained why that true.

K's- Im better for the K now than i have been in years past. That being said, Im better for security/international relations/neolib based ks than i am for race, gender, psycho, baudrillard etc . I tend to find specific Ks (ie specific to the aff's mechanism/advantages etc) the most appealing. If you're going for a K-- 1) please don't expect me to know weird or specific ultra critical jargon... b/c i probably wont. 2) Cheat- I vote on K tricks all the time (aff don't make me do this). 3) Make the link debate as specific as possible and pull examples straight from the aff's evidence and the debate in general 4) I totally geek out for well explained historical examples that prove your link/impact args. I think getting to weigh the aff is a god given right. Role of the ballot should be a question that gets debated out. What does the ballot mean with in your framework. These debates should NOT be happening in the 2NR/2AR-- they should start as early as possible. I think debates about competing methods are fine. I think floating pics are also fine (unless told otherwise). I think epistemology debates are interesting. K debates need some discussion of an impact-- i do not know what it means to say..."the ZERO POINT OF THE Holocaust." I think having an external impact is also good - turning the case alone, or making their impacts inevitable isn't enough. There also needs to be some articulation of what the alternative does... voting neg doesn't mean that your links go away. I will vote on the perm if its articulated well and if its a reason why plan plus alt would overcome any of the link questions. Link defense needs to accompany these debates.

K affs are fine- you have to have a plan. You should defend that plan. Affs who don't will prob lose to framework. A alot.... and with that we come to:

NonTraditional Teams-
If not defending a plan is your thing, I'm not your judge. I think topical plans are good. I think the aff needs to read a topical plan and defend the action of that topical plan. I don't think using the USFG is an endorsement of its racist, sexist, homophobic or ableist ways. I think affs who debate this way tend to leave zero ground for the negative to engage which defeats the entire point of the activity. I am persuaded by T/Framework in these scenarios. I also think if you've made the good faith effort to engage, then you should be rewarded. These arguments make a little more sense on the negative but I am not compelled by arguments that claim: "you didn't talk about it, so you should lose."

CPs- Defending the SQ is a bold strat. Multiple conditional (or dispo/uncondish) CPs are also fine. Condo is probably good, but i can be persuaded otherwise. Consult away- its arbitrary to hate them in light of the fact that everything else is fine. I lean neg on CP theory. Aff's make sure you perm the CP (and all its planks). Im willing to judge kick the CP for you. If i determine that the CP is not competitive, or that its a worse option - the CP will go away and you'll be left with whatever is left (NBs or Solvency turns etc). This is only true if the AFF says nothing to the contrary. (ie. The aff has to tell me NOT to kick the CP - and win that issue in the debate). I WILL NOT VOTE ON NO NEG FIAT. That argument makes me mad. Of course the neg gets fiat. Don't be absurd.

T- I default to offense/defense type framework, but can be persuaded otherwise. Impact your reasons why I should vote neg. You need to have unique offense on T. K's of T are stupid. I think the aff has to run a topical aff, and K-ing that logic is ridiculous. T isn't racist. RVIs are never ever compelling.... ever.

Theory- I tend to lean neg on theory. Condo- Good. More than two then the aff might have a case to make as to why its bad - i've voted aff on Condo, I've voted neg on condo. Its a debate to be had. Any other theory argument I think is categorically a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I can't figure out a reason why if the aff wins international fiat is bad that means the neg loses - i just think that means the CP goes away.

Remember!!! All of this is just a guide for how you chose your args in round. I will vote on most args if they are argued well and have some sort of an impact. Evidence comparison is also good in my book-- its not done enough and i think its one of the most valuable ways to create an ethos of control with in the debate. Perception is everything, especially if you control the spin of the debate. I will read evidence if i need to-- don't volunteer it and don't give me more than i ask for. I love fun debates, i like people who are nice, i like people who are funny... i will reward you with good points if you are both. Be nice to your partner and your opponents. No need to be a jerk for no reason

Jim Schultz Wake Forest 8 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nick Sciullo Georgia State

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

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

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

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

The philosophy... more or less...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other debate information…

Coaching Experience:

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

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

Assistant Coach, Georgia State University (11-15)

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

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

Assistant Coach, West Virginia University (03-04)

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

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

Education:

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

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

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

J.D., West Virginia University

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

Will Scott James Madison 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 11, 2014 at 10:59 AM HKT

Will Scott
2nd year Graduate Assistant at James Madison University
Debated for three years for Liberty University (Nukes, Immigration, Dem. Assistance)

Argument Types

Kritikal/Performance Debates

I like these debates, partially because it’s what I did as a debater. I definitely prefer it when you explain your K to me in very concrete terms by the end of the debate. If I can’t understand the thesis of your argument until late in the debate, I will give the other team some leeway in new arguments. I don’t spend my free time reading lots of white philosophers, but I’ll listen to them.

Policy Debates

Know your plan and defend it. I hate sheisty plans that refuse to say what they actually do. I will judge whatever DA/CP/K/Case arg you want to run, but you should make sure you explain your argument so that I can understand. I keep up with what’s going on in the world, but I'm probably not an expert on your specific scenario. I spent this election season focusing a lot on local politics, so I'm not as familiar with current national issues in Congress.

Framework/Clash Debates

I’m a strange creature in that I really enjoy a clash debate. I prefer it when the negative tries to engage the aff that rejects being topical/resolutional with more than Shivley and Steinberg and Freeley. These are the debates I was in most as a debater, so I feel comfortable here. You need to be telling me what my role as a judge is and what the purpose of the ballot is, or you run the risk of me making that decision on my own (which I doubt you want).

What you should know about me

-- Debate means different things to everybody. For some people it is a game, for others it is a place of advocacy, activism, and/or liberation. I'm not here to dictate what debate is to you, but you should know that for me debate is a place that has been a home for me. There have been times when debaters from both my own school and others have stood in for my family when I lost family members while at tournaments. I see the debate community like a family: we all have people in our family that have beliefs that are fundamentally different from our own, but when push comes to shove family is there for each other. I wish this was true of more people in our community.

-- I’ve found myself learning more and evolving as a judge now that I’m coaching. A lot of this change has been influenced by coaching with/under Lindsey Shook, if that tells you anything.

--I am very expressive, which can give you a clue to what I’m thinking.
--I do think that speed is only persuasive insofar as I can understand what you’re saying. I still flow debates on paper, so I need pen time, especially on analytics and theory blocks.

--Any evidence tagged along the lines of “more ev” will result in a loss of at least 0.5 speaker points.

--Saying they violate ADA/AFA/NDT/CEDA rules as an argument on framework will earn you a very hearty laugh from me and a loss of at least 0.5 speaker points.

--I like to have fun in the debate. We have to be together for 2.5 hours, we might as well have some fun.

Policies

Read as necessary. I write these as things happen, so these are in response to something I’ve either seen happen, heard of happening, or have been a part of.

Paperless-

If there is a question by either team, I'll default to: Your prep time stops when the flash drive is ejected. I expect paperless teams to be courteous and helpful to non-paperless teams.

Computer fail-

If your Word crashes, I will give you a chance to revive it and save your document. If your computer crashes, I will give you a chance to start your computer and save your document. If your document doesn't revive and you have to rebuild your speech, that is prep. I know this is harsh, but you take a risk by having your whole speech on the computer. If there is a serious tech issue you can't resolve, don't be afraid to ask for help.

Jumping too much/wrong files/too little-

If you jump your opponents a huge file or a substantially incorrect file before a speech, you will use your prep directly after the speech to jump them a file of the cards that you actually read. Additionally, if you have an unreasonable number of cards that were read and not jumped, you will use prep to jump them directly after the speech. I understand that sometimes there are a couple of new cards that your partner pulled up, or a card or two is skipped, but many teams are abusing this.

Recording (for district qualifying tournament)-

I will be recording every debate I judge in the qualifier division. I will also ask that I be included in all speech jumping, email chains, or however else evidence is being shared. If either team wants a copy of the recording, I will be glad to get it to you after the tournament.

Cheating/Clipping/Ethics Challenges-

If there are accusations of cheating (card clipping, evidence fabrication, etc.) that rise to the level of calling an ethics challenge, I will use the recordings and speech docs I have been given to evaluate it, as well as any other evidence available to me. They should never be used as a strategy to win a debate. I take these accusations as very serious ethical questions that end the debate immediately and will be the only thing I evaluate the debate on. The team losing an ethical challenge will receive 0s for speaker points and lose the debate. Anything less than one hundred percent proof is unacceptable.

Jonathan Shane Florida State 8 rounds

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

Jonathan Shane

Head coach at Florida State University

Debated at Georgia State and South Florida

Updated September 2014

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

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

I also tend to strongly prefer specificity over generics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feel free to ask questions before the round or email me

jshane@fsu.edu

Shyam Shanker Georgia 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed November 12, 2014 at 11:03 AM EDT

Background: I debated at UGA for four years and debated at the NDT three times. Was a 2A for most of my time in debate, except my senior year.

Currently affiliations – UGA & Pace Academy.

Quick Notes –

1) Tech outweighs truth but that doesn’t mean truth isn’t important. Debate is a game and can often be decided by truth/evidence quality but if you are ahead technically in a debate, you will typically be in a good position in front of me.

This does not mean that spewing bad arguments with little or no explanation, hoping that the other team drops them, is a winning strategy. It will frustrate me, give you lower speaker points, and probably won’t win you the debate.

2) Impact calculus. It’s very important and can easily decide the debate in your favor. I will read evidence after the round but how that evidence is explained and impacted can change how I evaluate it in my decision. This is true whether the argument being discussed is T, theory, a DA, etc.

3) I consider myself as someone who enjoys and is more knowledgeable about “policy” debate. If you don’t defend something in the direction of the topic, I am more easily persuaded by negative topicality arguments. I also tend to be persuaded by arguments about institution engagement, especially on legal topics like this year’s topic.

While these are my predispositions, that doesn’t mean they are hard rules. You will be best suited doing what you do best in front of me. If you want me to use a different standard for impact comparison or want to defend a non-topical affirmative, you can still win my ballot. I’ll do my best to not intervene and let you all hash it out, but those are my biases.

Specific thoughts –

Counterplans – The more case-specific, the better. I lean aff against many counterplans such as those that compete off of normal means, certainty/immediacy, or other shenanigans: consult CP’s, agent CP’s, Intl Actor CP’s, Process CP’s. I lean neg when it comes to counterplans that directly test the mechanism of the plan or are specific, such as PICS. That being said, I can persuaded otherwise because of #1 above (tech o/w truth). Aff teams have to make the smart permutation and theory arguments against cheating counterplans and if they drop the ball, it can be an easy neg ballot.

Disads – 0% risk of a DA is possible. Just because it was in the 1NC and block does not mean the DA makes sense. When compelling aff arguments are coupled with statements on why I should grant zero risk, it’s possible I do.

Kritik – It was never my strong suit as a debater but I dabbled. If you want to go for the K, pull out all the tricks, explain how the alt functions, what framework I should use and what the implication of that are (i.e. is alt solvency irrelevant, should I privilege your impact over the 1AC, etc.), and how the impact interacts with the affirmative. I like a link that is well explained in the context of the aff. I think the best place for affirmatives to attack the K is the alternative. For the most part, my knowledge base is lower so explanation on your part will be more important to win these arguments.

T – I default to competing interpretations but can easily be persuaded by reasonability. T is a voter and never a reverse voting issue. Make sure you explain which standard is the most important when I evaluate these debates.

Theory – Theory is mostly just a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Tech over truth does not mean spewing bad theory arguments and hoping the other team drops it so you can win the ballot. Saying “not intrinsic” is not an argument and if the neg drops such a statement with no explanation, I’m not voting aff. If it was well explained in the 2AC, and you dropped it, then that’s a different story even if I think it is a bad argument.

I lean negative when it comes to conditionality, to a point. 1 CP and 1 K is probably fine. Beyond that, you are doing so at your own risk. Maybe it is just me, but as a former 2A (admittedly faster than most), sometimes this comes off more as complaining too much instead of answering arguments you could have. Proving abuse in round can sway me the other way on this (such as how the 2AC was dramatically affected in a way that helped the neg).

Speaker Points –

Good things: Funny Jokes, evidence of hard work, good cross-x, and clarity

Bad things: Being rude and not being clear

Lindsey Shook James Madison 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:43 AM CDT

EMAIL lindseyshook@gmail.com

Currently - Director at the University of Oklahoma

Previously – Director at James Madison and Univ. of Central Florida

Way previously – graduate student coach at Univ. of Kansas

Long long ago – debated for the Univ. of Central Oklahoma

BIG PICTURE

My default way of viewing a debate is as follows – I am deciding between hypothetical worlds. In general debates are either about the world at outside of our activity (fiated plans, CPs, and critical advocacies that are about what society at large should do or think or change). Or debates are about debate as an activity (topicality, theory, critical advocacies that are about endorsing or rejecting particular kinds scholarship or argument or forms of presentation).

In either case I assume I am being asked what is the preferrable world? The world where the aff plan is enacted into law? The status quo? The world of debate where everyone meets your version of the topic? The world of debate where no one reads conditional advocacies? Etc.

Arguments that directly challenge this are things like reject the team for reasons of fairness or because they did something problematic. I have and am certainly willing to vote on those reasons but they need to be clear and specific to what has gone wrong in the debate you are in. Ideally not a generic set of reasons (at least by the last rebuttals).

I can certainly be persuaded to understand debate in a different way or to evaluate your arguments from a different perspective but just so you know that is where I start.

OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES

- - A drop matters if you make it matter and if it actually implicates the round

- - I am not offense defense oriented. You can win on defense alone particularly against poorly written advantages and disadvantages.

- - It is hard but not impossible to win you link you lose style debates. You are better off with some version of an alt or a more specific framing argument in front of me.

- - I flow on paper. I can generally keep up with speed but the less you sound like a person reading fast and the more you sound like a robot spitting out random words with no rhythm or cadence the harder it is for my brain to process what you are saying. So if you know you are in the wordwordwordwordwordword spreading habit either slow down a bit or work on getting some normal speech patterns into the reading.

- - I’m old so I try to line arguments up on my flow. This makes me annoyed with overviews and people who don’t do the line by line. I will still flow it but I will try to line things up until I can’t keep up with you and line things up. Then I will flow straight down but it makes my decision take longer at the end so be warned.

SPECIFICS

Case – more case debate is good. Always. In every kind of debate. The more specific and in depth the better. I think that is coldest take in debate at this point.

T – I mostly judge clash debates and I don’t hate judging them or T. If the aff can be used as offense against your topicality argument you would do well to have specific arguments to neutralize that (not all TVAs or do it on the neg etc. are good and having a bad one is a waste of time). You can win fairness comes first. Again it helps to have some specificity about why this round or affs like this one are so bad. I am not convinced affs have to have a counter interpretation to win. Impact turning the neg. interpretation can be enough.

Kritiks – framework against the K from the side of a traditional policy aff is generally meh. You get to weigh your impacts if you win that those mechanisms are good. Util? policy making? Extinction? If those are good things to value when I make a decision win that. Fairness is useless as a standard. They get a K. Stop it. See above for alts are preferable. Floating PICs are generally useless. Most K tricks are tricks for a reason they don’t work in the face of answers. I still have no idea what no perms in a method debate is supposed to mean.

CPs – I love theory and think it is absolutely crucial for most 2As (including critical affs) to help fend off counter advocacies and counter plans. CPs are probably the easiest way to neutralize the aff – I probably care more about how they solve than most judges so more time on solvency deficits in both directions is a good idea.

Disads – great arguments with often terrible evidence and spin. If your ev is bad debate well enough that I don’t have to read it. You are better being honest about your evidence and making up for it with spin and common sense than pretending your cards are amazing only for me to figure out that’s not true.

Sean Slattery Samford 1 rounds

Sarah Spring Houston

Last changed on Thu November 13, 2014 at 8:05 PM EDT

Edits - minor 11/13/14

Director of Speech & Debate - University of Houston

Previously coaching at (Iowa, Miami (Ohio), Wake Forest)

As of the 2014 Shirley - I have judged (according to Debateresults + tabroom):

475 - College Debates

I have voted AFF in 226 of those debates (47.5%)

I have voted NEG in 249 of those debates (52.4%)

First rule of judging - judging is subjective.
Second rule of judging - get over it.

Judge philosophies are in fact an attempt to compensate for this inevitably subjective activity. We try to minimize personal opinions, but in the end who you vote for is more than often related to how you feel and the style of the debaters as much as it is about any particular argument. You have to convince the judge (me) to vote for you. This is as subjective as really any other activity.

T - A paradox - I am a bad judge for T. I love T debates.

Competing interpretations doesn't make much sense to me because the aff can't win on T. Reasonability is largely good (I am not a good judge for trivial interpretations like "and/or means both") - see above re: subjectivity. Reasonability is also a good answer to most affirmative theory complaints.

Legal topics are ideal for T debates, given that the law is all about definition. I find these questions interesting, but in order to win on T with me as a judge, you typically need to have insightful argument and some decent evidence about the educational harm (and not just to negative ground) of the affirmative's interpretation. These arguments, of course, can take many forms, but be careful.

Avoid specification arguments. Please. While implementation might be 90% of whatever, ASPEC is still not a reason to reject the affirmative.

I think T is an important check against non-topical affs, you have to read a plan and defend the federal government and your plan, reading the resolutions does not seem to be enough. Switch-side debate is a good thing.

Framework/Non-plan Topicality arguments -

Framework debates are not fun. I judge them a lot.I think that these debates have both gotten stale and also very detached from the actual arguments at hand. Both sides would do well to connect their arguments to the actual positions relevant to their debate. My previous statements about reasonability tend to apply in these questions as well. A small advantage to an very limiting interpretation is often not enough for me to justify a ballot.

The best framework debates don't read the Shively card.

My suggestion is to try to have a good interpretation that takes the middle ground, this will make me much more sympathetic and open to listening to your arguments. A violation is often overlooked by both sides, but is often where the crux of the decision lies - don't neglect this (or the "we meet")

Theory – I think in general most aff theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument not the team. That means theory is rarely rarely a voting issue for me.

Conditionality - I think conditionality is a good and necessary thing. Dispositionality is not a thing. I am open to kicking CPs on my own (without the encouragement of the negative) - I do indeed possess that power.

PICS (or whatever) is not a reason to reject the team, only the position, in these cases if the CP goes away the aff would still win.

International agent fiat, in some cases, may be a legitimate test of the necessity of USFG action.

50 State Fiat - eh?

Consultation/Condition - Not a fan.

Disads – Politics DAs are my favorite.

I won’t vote on 1% risk.

Magnitude and probability are far more important than timeframe.

"DA turns the case" by itself is not a full argument.

Also "DA turns the case" is often wrong, the DA impact must complicate the aff's ability to solve or access the internal link to the impact, not just be the same impact. The aff should point this out.

Don't read a bunch of new impacts in the block unless you've got a real reason to do so. Most teams won't have a reason beyond, we didn't feel like answering their arguments.

Case debate. I think debate should be more in depth debating of the specifics of an aff, I will reward hard work and understanding on the topic, which is often demonstrated in good case debating. The more specific your strategy is, the better.

Reading impact defense to all of their impacts does not count as a case debate (maybe necessary, but certainly not sufficient).

There are rules for debating the case - http://goo.gl/FliJY The treaties topic was awesome because of case debates.

CPs – Most are good. I really like a smart advantage CP. Consult CPs and Condition CPs are cheating. How much cheating? It depends. See above on theory.

Ks -

Critiques are often times strategic and I also think can be won very easily because the aff doesn’t attack the argument at its weaknesses. Weakness include, the alternative, the links to the aff (and not to the law, society, etc), other stuff. I often end up voting for Ks when the aff fails to contest these issues.

Framework arguments are usually underdeveloped on off-case Ks, this makes me not vote on these arguments.

Like any other argument, it has to be well explained. I also have an inherent distaste for generic backfile Ks (or consult CPs or Framework ....) that you have resurrected year after year because you were too lazy to do any work. I like debating new topics, don’t just cut one new Zizek book and consider your work done.

As an academic, I think I know a bit about critical theory and so forth -as a rhetorician there are things I like by trade - critiques of rhetoric, language and discourse, well executed understandings of theory, that is to say criticism of actual instances of things that are objectionable. Things that I don't like (or understand very well) include vague psychoanalytic theory (ie Zizek) or rabbit-holes of very complicated post-structuralism - the event of the non-part or something.

Other things – I don’t like reading a lot of cards after the debate, although I know I will at times, I change my mind on this every couple of months. Right now, I'll probably skim a lot of cards and read some carefully.

I will also probably be open to getting emailed your evidence during the debate, but won't really want to look at it until the end of the debate. Maybe during CX or prep to figure out something I missed. Maybe. I do think it is incumbent on the teams in the debate to communicate to the judge verbally, not via email.

If I have to reconstruct the debate I might not see it like you think it happened. The final speeches MUST do this for me.

I've taken to answering some questions in CX, particularly informative questions, especially if I think an answer might be confusing. How many perms? I'll answer. If you are just wrong about something, I might say something.

I'm very emotive during debates, you should look up and see if I'm scowling or nodding, this can be a clue (to what? I don't know, but to something).

Underviews are the worst thing ever.

I also think the 1NR should not be used to make new arguments. It is a rebuttal not a constructive.

Terms that have lost meaning to me - "Role of the Ballot," "the debate space" (more later)

Speaker Points – I think I give fairly good points, simply because I think most debaters deserve a chance at clearing if they have the wins.

My scale goes something like this;

26.5 and below – bad debating,

26.6 - 27 - Needs a lot of work,

27 -27.5 – average, but has a way to go,

27.5-28 - better than average, some things to work on,

28-28.5 – Good varsity debating.

28.6 - 29 - Very good - should be in contention for a speaker award.

29-29.5 – Excellent debating

29.6 - 29.9 - Almost Gabe.

30 – Gabe

I will punish your speaker points for lack of clarity, rudeness, or inappropriate language (these issues could also result in a loss).

I think clipping is bad, though I'm not sure what the threshold is to warrant a ballot. These questions stop the debate. If you are making an accusation of cheating, I will decide the debate on that question. You need to be fairly certain to make this kind of claim, so be ready to explain.

David Steinberg Miami 7 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 12, 2019 at 11:18 AM EDT

Update (2/12/2019): I am in the novice/JV judging pool for the upcoming D6/SECEDA tournament. Except for the Miami Dade Urban Debate League, I have not judged a policy debate this year, and only a handful last year, so please take it easy on me! Be slow, clear and organized. The rest of this judging statement reflects my thoughts when I was judging policy tournaments regularly and is fairly accurate.

I will vote for the team that in my opinion wins the debate, even if inconsistent with my predispositions. But if you adapt your arguments and presentation to me, you have a much better chance of winning. Keep in mind that I do not hear many policy debates and I am not researching the topic as you are. I still enjoy debate, and I believe in it. There are as many ways to do debate as their are debaters, and I appreciate creativity.

I believe that the focus of the debate is the proposition. And if (as with the current CEDA Resolution) that is a policy proposition, it is impingent upon the affirmative to offer and defend a topical plan. Affirmative advantages and negative arguments should have unique links to the affirmative plan, and policy comparison is my default decision framework. I also believe in the burden of rejoinder, the expectation that you offer on-point answers to your opponent’s arguments, and so, the flow matters. But, my flow is not great, especially in a very fast debate, so you should work to keep a clear and clean flow with references to the specific arguments to which you are responding and which you are extending. Computer debating has diminished the direct clash in debate. Debate is defined by clash. You should reference and respond to each other's arguments and track the linear progression of arguments as they evolve horizontally across my flow. Debate requires reading (of evidence), but reading is not debating. I believe that debate is an oral communication activity requiring some reading, but at its best, also offering spontaneity, wit, and creativity.

I believe that debaters should adapt to their audience (i.e., the judge, ME), NOT the other way around. So I am pleased to offer my thoughts about debate in hopes that you will respect them. And feel free to ask me for more detail. Also, I will at times offer some nonverbal feedback during the debate. Pay attention.

Moral, ethical and critical considerations are not only relevant in debate; they are essential components of policy analysis. But the link to the proposition and the plan advocacy do matter to me. I focus on the topic or the topical plan. So negatives, run counterplans, disads, case turns, solvency arguments, and relevant Kritics that link. Run topicality not as a technical violation based on the game, but as a genuine difference in interpretation or definition based in the world. Don’t assume that I know what you know. Please start with clear explanations and definitions. It is your job to identify points of clash or decision criteria for me.

I have no problem admitting that I didn't get it or understand it if I didn’t. It is your responsibility to help me understand the evidence and position during the debate, not after.

I enjoy style and creativity in debate and I support the effort to expand what is considered acceptable proof. But your time is better spent making arguments than playing music during the round, and profanity does not belong in debate. I appreciate style, humor and wit in debate. On the other hand, I am somewhat uncomfortable with excessive self-disclosure and emotion in debate (and, probably, in most contexts outside debate as well).

For years, I have identified myself in the role of debate judge as an educator and evaluator of argument. I am not a referee. Debate is a subjective activity and there is generally not an absolute winner. Rather, it is my job to express my inherently biased perception of which side did the better job of defending or opposing the proposition based on the content of their arguments. I try to minimize my intervention, but to suggest that I can operate outside of my own perceptual screens and personal history is unrealistic.

I look forward to hearing debates, and I enjoy and believe in the process. I hope I will be able to promote a learning environment and a comfortable experience.

Please enjoy the experience and don’t take it too seriously! It is a game in which we are priviledged to participate. It should be enjoyable. And treat your opponents and me with respect and courtesy.

Rebecca Steiner Wake Forest 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:39 PM EDT

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Cody Stothers Vanderbilt 2 rounds

Last changed on Mon September 15, 2014 at 10:58 AM CDT

I debated for 3 years in local Arkansas high school debate and 4 years at Vanderbilt University. I am an assistant coach with the Vanderbilt debate team while I am in medical school there.

My judging philosophy is dependent on the philosophies of those who helped teach me how to debate (Cameron Norris and Neil Butt are two examples), so reading theirs if mine seems lacking is a good idea.

Most importantly, I don't want to have to lean on my predilections too much -- for (almost) any argument, I will simply vote for the side who did the better debating in the round. I'm a big fan of evidence, so you can gain some ground back if you're getting "out teched" by another team, but your evidence is way better. With that being said, I will not reconstruct debates after the round and will look to my flow for which arguments to evaluate.

An argument is a claim and a warrant. Decent argument + warrant > great argument without warrant - as long as you point out that they are talking out of their ass.

Below you'll find some of my predispositions for certain types of arguments:

Topicality/framework/plans: Having debated in a traditional style for 7 years and being influenced by those around me, I will default to the assumption that the affirmative is defending a policy option that represents real-world implementation of actions that affirm the resolution.

Given the lack of "federal government" in this topic stem, I am much more open to interpretations of what a "policy option" is than I would have been otherwise, but my personal knowledge base is centered around governmental action. Keep that in mind.

Ultimately, I find affirmatives that perform a K of debate without addressing the topic myopic and self-serving. Sometimes they can be very educational, but I often find that the affirmative is constructed in a way to obfuscate the topic and defend a self-serving, one-sided issue. The world can be quite discriminatory and these are important problems to talk about, but I feel that they should framed within the context of the topic.

How to win T/FW debates in front of me on the aff/neg: Be specific and focus on the impacts (standards) of your position. Negative: realize that my personal bias is that the round should be topic-focused, but I will try my hardest to not do you any favors if you defend this position poorly. Affirmative: realize that I enjoy the detail-oriented educational debate that traditional policy options promote and convince me that this sort of discussion is impossible for certain groups of people (or inherently flawed) on this topic and you can get my ballot. Admittedly, these debates will be the hardest for me to keep my personal predilections out of, but I will try my hardest.

Kritiks: I think they are incredibly strategic, if run properly. Here is what properly means: you have a clearly articulated specific link to the affirmative, you can explain to me what the impacts for that link are, and you have a proposed solution to fix it or a reason why that link makes voting aff impossible. Notice that the word specific was underlined. Notice again that it was bolded. My threshold for "you use the state" type links is incredibly high and will be willing to vote aff on a defensive no-link argument. With that being said, I think I am more leinent for alternatives than other people, as long as you can explain it in plain english. *Disclaimer*: I was a philosophy major in college and can understand most critical theory literature, but often found myself befuddled by explanations of alternatives by other teams in rounds. As a judge, I will not let this slide. If you are as confused about your alternative as the other team is, that is not a reason to vote negative. I am not a fan of the "dance around answers so that the K seems mysterious" strategy. I will be looking for clear explanations of the alt early in the debate -- not for them to magically appear in the 2NR.

For "reps" Ks or reasons that it should be impossible for me to vote aff: I think I have a soft spot for these arguments. I believe that the affirmative should be ready to defend the assumptions of their authors and if the negative can explain to me why that assumption complicates your arguments, I will reject the aff. The impact needs to be clearly articulated, though. I find it hard to vote negative on these arguments without a clear explanation for why the assumptions complicate affirmative solvency.

Theory: I come into theory debates with very few preconceptions. I will be looking for well-warranted (read: not tag line extensions) arguments on both sides and will evaluate them in the same offense-defense paradigm that I do other arguments. Conditionality: The negative probably gets one CP and one K as long as the aff doesn't point out serious loss of argument they suffered becuase they had to answer both. Anything more is up for debate. Politics theory: Intrinsicness makes very little since, so my threshold is higher for this argument, but I will vote on it if well-articulated. Bottom of the docket, vote no, etc. -- These make more sense to me and I have no idea why aff teams don't use them more. CP Theory: Really neutral here. Negative - be creative; Affirmative - tell me why their creativity was abusive. Reject the argument not the team is my default unless persuaded otherwise.

Topicality: Competiting interpretations makes more sense than reasonability to me, but I will hear you out. I view topicality debates with links and impacts like any other debate, so give your me your definition/counter-definition (link) and standards (impacts) in great detail. I will let the flow dictate my ballot on topicality. It is always a voting issue.

Speaker points: I am still figuring out my speaker point scale. Things I will reward: humor, aggressiveness (without being rude), clarity, in-depth explanations of evidence, strategic decisions, author comparisons, good use of CX and prep time. Things I will detract points for: offensiveness toward other people (swearing is fine unless someone asks you to stop), vapid catch phrases like "cold conceded," lack of organization, tag-line extentions.

Stupid arguments: Luckily this has fallen out of favor recently, but I will not vote on arguments that don't pass the common-sense threshold unless the other team really shits the bed. This refers to spark, timecube, etc. For god's sake just tell me how they are logically inconsistent and that will suffice.

David Strauss Michigan State 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 19, 2022 at 8:59 AM EDT

Plans and aff "clarification"

I have seen an increase trend towards aff teams reading normative "solvency advocacy" evidence that they would *like* to be descriptive of the plan, that includes a variety of clarifications and specifications *not* in the plan text. Plans are determined by *the plan*, not by aspirational solvency evidence that includes things not in the plan. The aff does get to clarify. There is a mechanism for that. It's the plan. If the aff chooses not to clarify something in the plan, then it is determined by 1) binding cx clarification in situations where the neg does not contest that clarification and 2) normal means as determined by logical argument and descriptive evidence if the neg does choose to contest. normative solvency evidence is not a description of normal means. the decision not to clarify something in the plan is a CHOICE - as with all choices, it comes with strategic upside AND strategic baggage. if something is important for aff solvency, but not in the plan, you are running a grave risk of not being able to access it.

Risk

I think too many judges address issues as absolute “yes/no” questions. I am much more likely to think of things in terms of relative risks. That said, relative risks can be EXTREMELY small.

Counterplans

If debated equally, I am prone to thinking that counterplans which are desirable because they result in the affirmative, are, generally speaking, not competitive and make for worse debates. At a fundamental level, I don’t believe they express disagreement with the affirmative plan, which I sort of think is the whole point of debate. That said, I’ve written many of these counterplans, and voted on many of these counterplans.

I lean heavily neg on all other counterplan theory questions.

If both teams are silent on the question, my presumption will be that counterplans identified as “conditional” mean that status quo is always an option for the judge to consider, even if the counterplan is extended by the 2nr. This presumption can easily be changed if debated by either side.

Kritiks

If you are going for a kritik in front of me, the place its most likely to fall apart for me is the alt. You would be well advised to explain what your alternative does and how it is able to meaningfully accomplish its own objectives. If someone is going for a kritik against you, the easiest way to lose me is to drop a “checklist” impact calc claim: “turns case, solves case, X first, extinction inevitable, etc”

Topicality

I generally view this as question of competing interpretations. I’ve become worse over the years for “silly” topicality arguments. I’m generally easily persuaded that precision is the most important standard. For instance, if the military has a precise and official definition of “presence” it would be difficult to persuade me to disregard that for the sake of limits.

As it may come up, you deserve to know I’m probably a better judge than most for “T-significantly”. Obviously I’m not saying it’s an auto-win, but against some tiny new aff, its definitely a credible option for the neg.....my brain will judge fairly, but my heart can't get over its first love (the negative).

Planless affs

I will do my best to fairly adjudicate any argument made in front of me. No argument is ever procedurally disqualified in advance. I will judge only based on arguments made in the round, rather than arguments I may believe to be “true” that are not well defended within the debate. That said, debate is a persuasion activity, and when arguments are advanced well by both sides, you should know that my proclivities are that debate is better when the affirmative defends topical action. Again, its not impossible, and I will, as always, attempt to judge fairly based on arguments made in the round, but you deserve to know my preferences…..I don’t think they are a secret.

If you are advancing this strategy in front of me, I will say that I think teams sometimes try to “adopt” by attempting to win the “race to the middle”. In my experience this tends to help negs win that “topical version solves aff offense” more than it helps the aff win "link defense" to things like limits and fairness. My advice to you is that you are actually probably better off sticking with a more hardline position that simply impact turns topicality rather than spending time trying to minimize the “link” to the aff standards.

Matt Struth Minnesota 4 rounds

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

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Peter Susko George Mason 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:09 AM EDT

If you are starting an email chain for the debate, I would like to be included on it: psusko@gmail.com

Default

Debate should be centered on the hypothetical world where the United States federal government takes action. I default to a utilitarian calculus and view arguments in an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

Most topicality debates come down to limits. This means it would be in your best interest to explain the world of your interpretation—what AFFs are topical, what negative arguments are available, etc—and compare this with your opponent’s interpretation. Topicality debates become very messy very fast, which means it is extremely important to provide a clear reasoning for why I should vote for you at the top of the 2NR/2AR.

Counterplans

Conditionality is good. I default to rejecting the argument and not the team, unless told otherwise. Counterplans that result in plan action are questionably competitive. In a world where the 2NR goes for the counterplan, I will not evaluate the status quo unless told to by the negative. The norm is for theory debates to be shallow, which means you should slow down and provide specific examples of abuse if you want to make this a viable option in the rebuttals. The trend towards multi-plank counterplans has hurt clarity of what CPs do to solve the AFF. I think clarity in the 1NC on the counterplan text and a portion of the negative block on the utility of each plank would resolve this. I am also convinced the AFF should be allowed to answer some planks in the 1AR if the 1NC is unintelligible on the text.

Disadvantages

I am willing to vote on a zero percent risk of a link. Vice versa, I am also willing to vote negative on presumption on case if you cannot defend your affirmative leads to more change than the status quo. Issue specific uniqueness is more important than a laundry list of thumpers. Rebuttals should include impact comparison, which decreases the amount of intervention that I need to do at the end of the debate.

Criticisms

I am not familiar with the literature, or terminology, for most criticisms. If reading a criticism is your main offensive argument on the negative, this means you’ll need to explain more clearly how your particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. For impact framing, this means explaining how the impacts of the criticism (whether it entails a VTL claim, epistemology, etc.) outweigh or come before the affirmative. The best debaters are able to draw links from affirmative evidence and use empirical examples to show how the affirmative is flawed. Role of the ballot/judge arguments are self-serving and unpersuasive.

Performance

In my eight years as a debater, I ran a policy affirmative and primarily went for framework against performance AFFs. The flow during performance debates usually gets destroyed at some point during the 2AC/block. Debaters should take the time to provide organizational cues [impact debate here, fairness debate here, accessibility debate here, etc.] in order to make your argument more persuasive. My lack of experience and knowledge with/on the literature base is important. I will not often place arguments for you across multiple flows, and have often not treated an argument as a global framing argument [unless explicitly told]. Impact framing and clear analysis help alleviate this barrier. At the end of the debate, I should know how the affirmative's advocacy operates, the impact I am voting for, and how that impact operates against the NEG.

Flowing

I am not the fastest flow and rely heavily on short hand in order to catch up. I am better on debates I am more familiar with because my short hand is better. Either way, debaters should provide organizational cues (i.e. group the link debate, I’ll explain that here). Cues like that give me flow time to better understand the debate and understand your arguments in relation to the rest of the debate.

Notes

Prep time continues until the jump drive is out of the computer / the email has been sent to the email chain. This won't affect speaker points, however, it does prolong the round and eliminate time that I have to evaluate the round.

I am not a fan of insert our re-highlighting of the evidence. Either make the point in a CX and bring it up in a rebuttal or actually read the new re-highlighting to make your argument.

The debaters that get the best speaker points in front of me are the ones that write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR and shape in their speeches how I should evaluate arguments and evidence.

Depth > Breadth

Candis Tate Wake Forest 8 rounds

Terrell Taylor Mary Washington 4 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 9:53 AM EDT

Terrell Taylor

add me to doc chains: terrell taylor at gmail dot com. No punctuation, no space, no frills.

Debated at Mary Washington from 2007-2011

Debate is an intellectual activity where two positions are weighed against each other. A part of this is making clear what your position is (plan, cp, alt, advocacy, status quo etc.) and how it measures up against the other team’s position. Arguments consist of a claim (the point you want to make), warrant (a reason to believe it), and an impact (reason why it matters/way it functions within the debate). Evidence is useful when trying to provide warrants, but is ultimately not necessary for me to evaluate an argument. Debates get competitive and heated, but staying polite and friendly and remembering that the name of the game is fun at the end of the day makes for a more enjoyable experience for everyone involved.

Disads/Case and Advantages

These arguments should be stressed in terms of a coherent story of what the world looks like in terms of the status quo, affirmative plan or alternative option. These positions should be attacked from a variety points including the link and internal link chain, impact and uniqueness level. When it comes to link turning, my default thought is that uniqueness determines the direction; if you have an alternative understanding that is particular to a scenario, be sure to explain why it is that the direction of the link should be emphasized or what have you. Impacts should be compared not only in terms of timeframe, probability and magnitude, but in terms of how these issues interact in a world where both impact scenarios take places (the popular "even if.." phrase comes to mind here). Also, keep in mind that I have not kept up with the trends in disads and such within the topic, so explaining specifics, acronyms and otherwise is useful for me. I prefer hearing case specific scenarios as opposed to generic politics and similar positions. This does not mean I will not vote for it or will dock your speaker points, just a preference.

Counterplans and Counterplan Theory

Counterplans should be functionally competitive; textual competition doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me (see later section on theory). I think that perms can be advocated, but am more than willing to hear reasons why they shouldn’t be and why that is a bad way to frame debates. When it comes to agent counterplans, I tend to think that topic specific education should trump generic presidential powers or judicial independence debates. Consult and condition cps just make the logician inside my head painfully confused (not sure why a reason to talk to X country is also a reason why the plan is bad). International fiat is suspect to me, and I tend to think that limiting the discussion to US policy (including its international relevance) is a good thing.

All of this being said, I am open to voting for any of the above arguments. These are merely my general theoretical leanings, and I will certainly flow, listen to, and evaluate arguments from the other side.

Topicality

I haven’t seen many debates on this topic, so if a debate comes down to T, don’t be surprised if you see me googling to find the resolution to check the words. In general I think Topicality is important for two reasons. One is the general reason that most people think it’s good, being that we need to be prepared/have set limits and parameters for debate. The second is that I think each year presents an opportunity to gain in depth education on an issue, even if it's not a policy perspective of that issue. I feel that competing interpretations is generally the default for T, but I am open to defenses of reasonability and in fact, think that there are cases where this is the best means of evaluation. Standards should be impacted in terms of education and fairness, and the debate should come down to the best internal links between the standards and these terminal values. If you are the type to critique T, your critique needs to come down to these terms (education and fairness). RVIs don’t make sense to me. If you want to take the challenge of trying to make one make sense, be my guest, but it’s an uphill battle.

General Theory

As mentioned, I am not wedded to any particular frame or “rulebook” for debate. Part of the beauty of debate to me is that debaters get to be both the players and referee. As such, I enjoy theory and think that such discussions can be fruitful. The flipside to this is that most theory debates devolve into tagline debating, shallow and repetitive arguments, and a race to see who can spit their block the fastest. These debates are 1) hard to flow and 2) not really a test or display of your ability so much as a test of your team’s theory block writer. I reward argumentation that is clear, comprehensible and complete in terms of theory debates, and urge debaters to these opportunities seriously.

I’ve laid out most of my theoretical dispositions in the counterplan section. Conditionality to me is like siracha sauce: a little bit heats up the debate, too much ruins it. I don’t know why three or four counterplans or alternatives along with the status quo is key to negative flex or good debating (one is good, two is ok). Also, if you want to use a status other than conditional or unconditional, (like the imaginary “dispo”) you should be ready to explain what that means. Again, I think that it is okay to advocate permutations as positions in the debate.

In terms of alternate frameworks for the debate (i.e. anything other than policy making) I’m honest when I say I’m not extraordinarily experienced in these areas as I’d like to be. I’ve seen a decent few of these debates and think that they provide some nuance to an otherwise stale activity. That being said (and this is true for all theory positions) you should try and weigh the educational and competitive equity benefits of your position versus the other teams proposed framework the debate. I debated for a squad that saw framework as a strategic and straightforward approach to most alternative forms of debate, so those arguments make sense to me. On the other hand, especially when it comes to arguments concerning structural issues in society/debate, if argued well, and with relevance to the topic in some way, I am willing to listen and evaluate.

Critical arguments (Kritiks/K-affs)

Much of what I just said applies here as well. I had the most success/felt most comfortable debating with these types of arguments as a debater (I did, however, spend most of my career debating with “straight-up” affs and disads that claimed nuclear war advantages). I studied English and Philosophy in undergrad and am pursuing a MA in English with a focus on critical theory, so there’s a decent chance that my interests and background might lean more towards a topic oriented critique than a politics Da.

I will avoid following the trend of listing the genres of critiques and critical literature with which I am familiar with the belief that it shouldn't matter. Running critiques shouldn't be about maintaining a secret club of people who "get it" (which often in debates, is construed to be a club consisting of the critique friendly judge and the team running the argument, often excluding the other team for not being "savy"). In other words, Whether I've read a great deal of the authors in your critique or not, should not give you the green light to skimp on the explanation and analysis of the critique. These debates are often about making the connections between what the authors and literature are saying and the position of the other team, and hence put a great burden on the debater to elucidate those connections. A shared appreciation or research interest between a team and a judge does not absolve you of that burden, in my opinion.

I agree with many recent top tier collegiate debaters (Kevin Kallmyer, Gabe Murillo, etc.) that the difference between policy and critical arguments is overstated. An important piece of reading critical arguments with me in the back of the room is explaining what your arguments mean within the context of the aff/da. If you read a no value to life impact, what about the affs framing makes it so that the people involved see their lives differently; if the critiqued impact is a merely constructed threat, reveal to me the holes in the construction and explain how the construction came to be. Doing that level of analysis (with any argument, critical or policy) is crucial in terms of weighing and relating your arguments to the other teams, and engaging in a form of education that is actually worthwhile. This probably entails removing your hypergeneric topic link and replacing with analysis as to the links that are within the evidence (and therefore, the assumptions, rhetoric, methodology, so and so forth) of your opponents. In terms of vague alts and framework, I have mixed feelings. The utopian fiat involved in most alts is probably abusive, but there is something to be said for making the claim that these arguments are vital to thorough education. On the framework question, gateway issue is probably a poor way to go. I don’t understand why the fact that your K has an impact means that you get to suck up the entire debate on this one issue. Instead, a framing that opens the door to multiple ways of critiquing and evaluating arguments (both on the aff and the neg, or in other words, doesn’t hold the aff as a punching bag) is preferable.

Performance

I didn’t do a whole lot of handling with this genre of argument, but have debated semi-frequently and enjoy the critical aspects of these arguments. I think that there is a difference between the type of critical debater that reads a couple of disads along with a K and case args, and a team that reads a indictment of the topic or reads narratives for nine minutes. If you read a poem, sing, recite a story or anything of that nature, I will be more interested in observing your performance than trying to flow or dictate it on my flow (my reasoning for this is that, unlike a speech organized for the purpose of tracking argument development and responses, I don't think flowing a poem or song really generates an understanding of the performance). More importantly, framing should be a priority; give me a reason why I should look at the debate through a certain lens, and explain why given that framing you have done something either worth affirming your advocacy. I think that these types of debates, especially if related to the topic, can be fruitful and worthwhile. Performance affirmatives should try to find some in road to the topic. If your argument is pervasive and deep enough to talk about, I generally think it probably has a systemic implication for the resolution in some way, even if that doesn’t manifest as a topical plan or even agreeing with the resolution.

For teams going against performance strategies, Framework based arguments are options in front of me. A good way to frame this argument is in terms of what is the best method to produce debates that create the most useful form of education, as opposed to just reading it like a procedural argument. I do think it is important to engage the substantive portion of their arguments as well, (there are always multiple dimensions to arguments of these forms) even if it happens to be a critical objection to their performance or method. Many policy based strategies often want to avoid having to engage with the details involved, and in doing so often fail to rigorously challenge the arguments made in the debate.

Good luck, and have fun. I spent a great deal of my debate career stressing out and losing sleep, instead of experiencing the challenge and fun of the activity; Enjoy your time in the activity above everything else.

James Thomas West Georgia 8 rounds

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

James Thomas (updated 9/14/14)

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

Who I am

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

How I judge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But above all, have fun!

Joshua Turnage Liberty 8 rounds

Last changed on Sat November 16, 2013 at 7:19 PM UTC

Introduction:

I debated for Liberty University for four years and have judged for the past two seasons. I have a B.A. in international relations and philosophy, a master’s in religion and theology, and am working on my master’s in public health with a concentration in global health policy.

Because of my diverse educational background, I feel equally at ease adjudicating policy rounds as well as those that are critically oriented. I will discuss specific strategies and positions below, but I would like to highlight two important preferences here:

First, your rebuttals must contain impact analysis. This seems rather intuitive, yet again and again I hear rebuttals that are 95% solvency and link articulations and then, with 20 seconds to go, I hear “extend the impact, causes extinction” or “causes violence.” Write down all the impacts in the round, both your impacts and those of your opponent. Ideally, the 2NR and 2AR should mention each of these impacts, elucidating why yours are more important and how they relate to those of your opponents.

Second, do not alter your strategy for my sake; do what you do best and I will adjust accordingly. If you think you are winning T, go for T. If you think the other team has severely mishandled the K, then go for the K. You can win my ballot with a lucid articulation of just about anything.

Topicality and Framework:

I believe the topic can be a strong starting point for discussion. If you – as the affirmative – believe this is not the case, then argue otherwise. If you believe that the resolution does not provide the best approach to discussing violence or oppression, by all means, offer your viewpoint on the issue. Though I am fairly lenient on what the affirmative must do, I want to make it clear that I will vote on framework if I believe the negative offers a more persuasive articulation as to why USFG action - or, in some instances, any action - is critical for education and ground....and/or the affirmative drops important arguments like topical version of the aff.

Above all else, interact with each other’s arguments, particularly the framing issues. Yes, line by line is important and all of your opponent’s arguments should be responded to, but please remember the meta-debate that is happening here: what should the aff be doing and how does debate educate those of us who participate in this activity.

Lastly, if you are going for topicality, please explain potential aff’s the untopical aff justifies as well as what abuse as occurred. If you are answering topicality, extend a counter-interpretation. The neg’s interpretation versus no-interpretation extended by the aff almost always means a neg ballot.

K’s/Performance:

I will listen to whatever you feel best conveys your argument. If that involves singing, dancing, powerpoints, or cross-dressing, so be it. You must, however, explain the relevance of your performance to the debate round and to your argument. I am familiar with a wide swath of critical literature; however, my knowledge of Wilderson, Baudrillard, Butler, or Deleuze does not excuse you from explaining what your position is and how it provides a better method of approaching the world.

Role of the ballot: what does “role of the ballot” actually mean? So often – too often – I hear both sides advancing ROBs that are conveniently tailored to their positions. Please do more than just extend the ROB and how you meet. In fact, I would rather hear a somewhat shallow ROB extension and a more detailed discussion of why your impacts outweigh or come first. At the very least explain how the two ROBs interact and attempt to give me a reason why I should prioritize yours.

Disadvantages:

Link and impact analysis is of utmost importance. I really enjoy a good politics debate, one with ample impact analysis and specific link scenarios. Affs: you need uniqueness for that link turn. Please stop extending link turn cards without uniqueness. Also, just because you link turn doesn't mean you should forego putting defense on the DA's impact.

I will only pull cards if they are highly contested; otherwise I go strictly on what either side has said about those cards. Reading more evidence in the block is strategic; extending the evidence by name and tag in the 2NR is not. Explain why things are true and give me warrants. The greater your specificity, the higher your speaker points will be and the more likely I will believe your scenario.

CPs:

I do not like consult CPs or CPs that compete based solely on the immediacy of the plan. Aside from that, I am open to any CP you have. In terms of theory, I view them in a similar fashion to DAs. If you win a link, but fail to articulate an impact as to why that’s bad, I will not vote for you. Spend most of your time on the impact standards if you are going for theory. As I said on T, an aff that does not extend a counter-interpretation is in trouble. Please do so.

I do not enjoy theory debates (and who does, really?), but for the umpteenth time, I will vote on persuasively articulated and impacted positions.

Concluding thoughts:

I flow and you should do the same. I’ll know if the other team actually dropped an argument or not. I also flow cross-x, or at least things I deem important from cross-x.

I have an utmost desire to be useful and to make debate as educational a game as it can be. Over the past few years I have judged a wide array of debates and I truly enjoy the variety. Never be afraid to impact turn K’s, critique specific words, perform, or go for politics DA’s for the entire block; do what you need to do and I will give you my attention as unbiased as I possibly can. If you have any questions regarding arguments, authors, etc. feel free to talk to me.

John Turner Emory 4 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rajiv Varghese Florida 5 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 18, 2014 at 2:19 PM EDT

History:

I have 3 years of college debate experience and mostly debated traditional policy arguments.

General:

I really like college policy debate. I like being exposed to new arguments and points of view. I like the logical breakdown of arguments with great analysis as to how the arguments relate to each other. I think an educational and fair debate with a lot of clash is the most important contribution of this community.

I’m about as tabula rasa as they come when judging. I’m very open to any style of debate so long as its explained very clearly to me what I am voting on.

I do enjoy humor and wit and will probably reward it. Don’t try too hard. Be nice. Not saying you have to hold hands, but whatever you do don’t yell at each other. I will reward great evidence comparison.

CPs:

It’s legitimate until the other team calls you out and outdebates you on it. Although, you should probably have some external NBs. Also consult CPs suck.

Ks:

I didn’t have as much time to go deep into as much literature as I would’ve liked, but I am more than happy to vote on these args. Just make sure I understand the thesis of the arg and how it interacts with the aff (impact, link, alt analysis). The more specificity the better, including aff responses. The aff calling you out on performative contradictions might be persuasive if they debate it well.

There’s a possibility that I won’t vote on the Cap K if you own a Mac.

DA:

Probably spend a little more time on the link. Make sure they are specific, but I will vote for a generic DA if the characterization is good. Impact calc is VERY important.

Case:

Favorite part of the debate. It’s (usually) where I learn the most if it’s done well.

Theory:

Everything is up for debate, just make sure you outline in round abuse. I’m probably not going to flow everything if you just shotgun a theory block.

Non-traditional debate/Performances:

Again, I’m very tabula rasa. My enjoyment and education will diminish significantly if you can’t relate what you’re saying to the topic. I need a good role of the ballot explanation for these debates. For framework responses, please be specific to the argument at hand.

Christopher Vincent Louisville 4 rounds

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

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

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

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

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any other questions, just ask.

Christina Vitolo-Haddad Wake Forest 8 rounds

Patrick Waldinger Miami 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 9:27 AM EDT

Patrick Waldinger

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School

10+ years judging

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area. The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree.

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for.

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making.

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.

Ryan Wash Wake Forest 6 rounds

Hays Watson Georgia 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat October 7, 2023 at 3:32 AM EDT

Hays Watson, former head debate coach @ University of Georgia. whwatson@gmail.com. I split my time between political consulting and caretaking for a dying parent. Haven't judged a debate since 2020.

Online debate 411 - Please slow down, speak up, have patience, and make sure that everything (sound/camera/wifi/tech) is on and working properly. I will do my best to judge as I normally do and make the best decision possible while providing helpful feedback.

My primary goal is to evaluate the arguments made in the debate. That being said, I remain a teacher at heart and I'll also offer suggestions for how you can improve. That's why I still write full ballots and send them via email to the teams that I judge.

Here are many of my preferences, simply-stated:

Clarity trumps speed...the best debaters are able to achieve both.

Evidence matters...but not much more than logical, analytical arguments. Many positions (case advantages, politics, etc.) can best be defeated with smart, analytical responses. Use your brain.

Efficiency and explanation both matter - but doing one while sacrificing the other produces bad debate. Explanation seems to lose out quite a bit these days...there is such thing as being "too efficient."

Process questions determine substantive questions. The "who" of action does, in fact, determine the effectiveness of "what" action is being taken.

I prefer that Affirmatives advocate topical action. Specific plans of action are preferable over vague/generic policy suggestions. Yes, that means I still appreciate spec-based args.

I tend to find more persuasive logical/plausible scenarios ("truth") than technical/strategic ones ("tech"). A dropped DA is a dropped DA, but a card saying the economy will collapse tomorrow doesn't make it so.

I reward arguments grounded in the topic literature over arguments based upon non-germane net benefits or advantages. In other words, I'd prefer that you read the deterrence DA and an advantage CP over a made-up counterplan with an artificial internal net-benefit or a crappy politics DA.

Links/internal links are more important (and more interesting) than uniqueness questions. Most debate impacts are silly - not everything causes extinction. Yes, advantages/harms can be linked turned. Yes, impacts can be turned as well.

I'm increasingly frustrated by the relative absence of debates about important theoretical questions. Topicality no longer is seen as a strategic Negative tool. Affirmatives consistently refuse to challenge the theoretical legitimacy of various negative positions (conditionality, politics DAs, kritiks, etc.). Why?

Impact defense alone is an insufficient way to answer an argument. I'm confused as to how case attacks based solely around impact defense have become the "norm." The best argumentative strategies involve mixture of offensive and defensive responses. "No impact" doesn't cut it.

Effective cross-examination is still the most underutilized tool in debate. Poor, un-strategic cross-ex questions (and responses) make me sad.

I can spell 'K' despite my reputation. It's impossible not to acknowledge (albeit begrudgingly) that a well explained and case-specific kritik supported by high-quality evidence is an important strategic tool. Play to your strengths - even its gooey and critical.

I flow. I still flow on paper. It's hard to flow stuff - blippy T args, theory, embedded clash on the case, etc. Keep that in mind, especially if you are debating online.

Stephen Weil Emory 4 rounds

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

Updated 9/9/2016

A few firm rules:

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

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

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

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

A few argument leanings:

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

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

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

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

A couple general reflections on my judging:

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

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

Abi Williams Pepperdine 8 rounds

Last changed on Tue August 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM EDT

Assistant Director of Forensics, Pepperdine University

General

A couple of years ago I repositioned myself in my relationship with debate, geographically and literally. This was an active choice to genuinely integrate my identities as a debate coach, mother, advocate, educator and partner. This only relates to you in that this choice is fairly clearly reflected in my judging philosophy, most directly under the “critical” section. After a recent CEDA one of my debaters asked me if I’d let my daughters grow up to be policy debaters. Unexpectedly, yet without hesitation, I said: NO. I didn’t want to have that answer. But I still do.

I’m not sure how I change that sentiment immediately, but I’m sure that it starts by being here to listen to the voices, the arguments of the debaters; to know what y’all want and need this activity to look like. This philosophy is my imperfect attempt to communicate that to you.

Specifics

Counterplans & Disads

I love a specific, creative strategy and that includes counterplans. I think it’s fair to say that I lean neg on cp theory, but don’t take that as license to favor generic/abusive strategies over specificity and creativity. I’m ok with conditionality and PICs generally (love specific PICs – solvency advocates, net benefits we don’t hear every year…) but I sympathize with the aff when the neg runs multiple CPs or CPs in the block.

Much like my thoughts on CPs, I enjoy creativity and specificity. I spend a fair amount of time talking about/cutting politics cards, and I enjoy listening to those debates. I think that impact calculus usually doesn’t happen early enough or sufficiently, beyond the tagline blurbs spewed out at the top of 2ncs/1nrs (“nuke war outweighs, that’s our X evidence”). Solid impact debating can save/win debate rounds. Side note: Case debates are appreciated, undervalued and under-utilized.

Critical Debate

Like CPs, I prefer these arguments to have specific links and a tangible alternative. I’m ok if that link is something like our orientation to particular issues in the topic, a practice of the community, language, framing, etc., and the alternative is a method of resistance (or something in that vein). I appreciate arguments that are supported by scholarship and articulated as germane/responsive to the resolution and/or the other team’s argument(s). I think there are myriad ways in which a person/team can respond creatively.

Topicality

Slow down on T for me. I probably default to “Eh, you’ve got some ground” more often than people (who like T debates) like. I will listen to your T argument and evaluate it however you tell me to (or win that I should). The first sentence is just full disclosure. People often have this as a “/framework” section and I guess you can largely apply my sentiment re: T to those fw debates. If your fw argument is more exclusively about the way we orient ourselves to debate, you should probably see my philosophy re: critical debate.

Other Stuff

I don’t want to be in your email chain or sent a slew of cards I don’t ask for at any point. This is nothing against you. I just want to focus on evaluating the arguments as I hear them, as we create them in this space. I will call for cards if something is unclear and I feel it’s my fault OR if the debate is close on an issue.

George Williford Vanderbilt 4 rounds None

David Michael Woodward George Mason 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 9:28 AM EDT

Hi all

-----Paradigm Starts here-----

Background:

Current Head Coach/ADoD? at Binghamton University (2021 - Present)

Debated/Coached for George Mason University (2009-2019)

-----Super short version 10 min before round-----

I always want to be on the email chain - email to woodward@binghamton.edu

I have judged or have seen pretty much every argument in debate at least once.

As a debater I mostly read policy arguments, but ended my career doing critical arguments. I was also a 2A and 2N at different points.

I prefer you do what you're best at- don't over adapt to me

Am a sucker for judge instruction -> If you tell me to evaluate in a certain way and the other team doesn't rebut it then I'm going to.

I require explanation - my understanding of K lit is better because I've been at Bing for a while now, but I still not super great at it. Assume you know your lit more than I will. Examples from the 1AC or historical examples go a long way. This also applies to policy things. I cut policy cards but that's not my main focus most of the time so I'm not gonna be super up to date on the latest meta shifts/counterplan acronyms.

Good analysis and explanation beats a card the majority of the time in front of me

Be polite. (This is different from being nice, but there is a cutoff point)

Have fun!

Would prefer that people slow down/go to about 90% of top speed. I don't think this matters for most debates but it would be appreciative. I will yell slow/clear as applicable.

Harvard HS Tournament specifically - Two things to note.

I have read/judged/thought 0 about the HS topic- most of my time is focused on NDT/CEDA topic. I will need explanation and clarifications about jargon, arguments, etc.
My limits for "acceptable" behavior in terms of how people should treat each other is lower than in college rounds.

-----You have time to read/more specific things-----

---Novice/JV---

Is the most important division. We should be doing what we can to help the division grow and new debaters to improve and feel welcome- the community depends on it.

The packet at this point is not helpful outside of providing evidence to programs who need it to help start their programs. It needs healthy reforms to make it a better educational tool. That being said I will not enforce packet rules after the first two tournaments, or in any division above novice.

I'm fine with novices learning whatever arguments they wish. I would prefer if novices did defend the topic, or if they took alternate routes to the topic they still defended topic DAs and were in a topic direction.

I am also not a fan of misinformation type arguments in novice. This doesn't mean hiding DAs or case turns on case, or an extra definition on T (because those promote better flow practices) This means arguments that are obtuse to be obtuse for no reason.

---Topicality---

Is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

I am not persuaded by "norms" or "it's 1st/last tournament etc." style arguments. I do not need abuse to vote on topicality.

Competing interpretations is what I default to.

After Fall Semester/Wake- I feel even more strongly we have overcorrected and have made the Nukes topic entirely too small. I still have some limits when it comes to subsets of topic areas, but I can be persuaded that allowing a few more affirmatives is a good thing.

Going into Districts/NDT/CEDA thoughts - Still think letting the aff have subsets makes this topic more interesting but after hearing 2-3 debates on it, I am still 50/50 on this debate but my default leans aff, if both sides debated perfectly. I'm still down to hear the argument because I do think there's some room to convince me.

---Disadvantages---

DAs are good, turns case arguments are good, I think there isn't a ton of nuance here. My only 2 caveats are as follows.

I wish more teams would attack DAs on the internal link level-

Politics and Elections DAs are decent educational discussions and are strategic. But the current political system is so flawed it is hard to take the arguments seriously. I am very persuaded by arguments about why radicalism in our government has doomed the ability for it to function. (or arguments that explain why congress is in a terrible spot for legislation currently)

Elections/Midterms DAs, the closer we get to November 2024, the better the DA sounds in front of me. Interpret this as you wish.

---Counterplans---

They're good - but I reward teams for more specific reasons why the CP solves the aff vs no federal/xyz process good key warrant. I'm not a fan of no solvency advocate + just the CP text in the 1NC, but generally i'm cool with most counterplan ideas.

I don't judge kick the counterplan, it promotes neg terrorism. I can be persuaded otherwise, but outside of strong neg defenses, and/or a lack of aff response I will not give the neg the status squo if a CP is in the 2NR.

I default to reject the argument on theory. I can be persuaded most things could be a reason to reject the team, or gives leeway on other arguments. My standards for voting on theory even with this are somewhat high.

Conditionality in limited instances are good. That being said my cutoff is lower than most judges. The max before I start to err affirmative is 2 conditional worlds. If there is a new aff, i'm fine with 3. I do think more than 3 conditional worlds isn't needed. I also think kicking planks compounds and makes any conditionality arguments even stronger

---Critiques (When you are neg) ---

Judge instruction + framework is your friend. I usually compare the aff vs the alt in a vacuum, but when one team is telling me what to do, and one is not with this information this goes a long way into deciding my ballot. Sometimes good judge instruction can overcome technical drops. "Weigh the aff" is not an aff interp on framework. I think it does you a disservice unless the neg's interp is legitimately you don't get the aff without jumping through multiple hoops. I would prefer interps based on something more specific, whether it's extinction/impact based, or even better education towards an issue, or even the self serving ROB = best at fighting nuke weapons.

I require a bit of explanation. My critical knowledge is better than it was in the past but you are more likely to know your argument more than me. Empiric examples, applications to the affirmative, etc are all useful and persuasive.

Go for tricks, if the aff messes them up then it's a valid strategy, I don't think you need the alt alone if you're winning a sizeable enough impact + link for a case turn type of argument

But do what you do best, I do genuinely like any presentation or idea for argument, as long as it's explained clearly and developed before the 2NR.

--- Critiques (When you are aff) ---

I prefer affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic and do something, or if they do neither have a good justification for doing otherwise.

Defend your arguments and be strategic. IF your 1AC is saying Heg + Prolif, it does not make sense to go for the link turns. This doesn't mean don't make the arguments if it's what you've prepped for but think about what your aff is designed to do and don't shy away from impact turns or alt offense.

Framework is viable and a decent strategy in front of me. I default to Limits > Fairness > Skills based arguments. Another thing from being at Bing is I am slowly leaning towards Fairness is more of an internal link vs an impact alone BUT I can be persuaded otherwise. I am also fine with impact turn debates but not having defense on neg framework standards (Or case defense to the aff) is pretty devastating and a problem for the team without said defense.

Something I have noticed as a pattern for lots of the framework rounds I judge is that not having defense, or at least references/cross applications that can be clear to answer terminal impacts on either side is usually something that can be a round ender. I find that I am somewhat persuaded by 2NR/2ARs that go for conceded impact scenarios on framework/affirmative answers to framework. Outside of heavy framing articulations this is usually hard to overcome.

When resolving a clash debate (most of my rounds) I think my preference is Case specific strat > Framework > Cap unless that is your specific thing you do.

Case should be in the 2NR in some way or fashion. I am willing to vote on presumption or case turns alone.

Critical teams should think hard about if they want to defend DAs or not. I'm not sold one way or the other, but i do get a bit concerned if the 2AC says they'll defend the deterrence DA, but the 1AR/2AR drastically doesn't apply (unless the neg doesn't read a link)

---Misc---

Speaker points are weird and rough at the moment. I don't want to keep people from breaking however. My speaks guidelines end up looking like this for varsity. This may adjust due to trends at all levels.

Nationals

Speaker award - 29.3

should/can clear - 28.7

Regional

Speaker Award -29

Should clear - 28.6

I adjust for division, but IF I give a student in JV or Novice a 29+ I believe they could debate a division up and succeed.

I don't like trolling - if you do not want to debate, simply forfeit, or have a discussion/pursue other methods of debating. IF you read an argument with the sole plan of being disruptive or trolling a debate you get a 15. IF you're funny you get a 25.

Don't cheat- I have fortunately only had to resolve this in 1 round. But if you accuse someone, round ends and will not restart. We don't have that many rules in debate, we should follow them, especially the rules about academic honesty/evidence.

Be polite- doesn't have to be "nice" but generally we shouldn't make rounds overly hostile for 0 reason. We will see each other multiple times over the next few years. There is a cutoff for being snarky and being a jerk.

---Other Events---

I am a policy coach. I have spent the vast majority of my time coaching and preparing things in policy formats. I will flow, I evaluate my decisions based on that flow. I believe the best debaters are ones who both prove their side of an issue is the most effective, and have combatted the opposing side effectively. I will never determine a round solely based on presentation, decorum or speaking style unless something problematic happened to where coaches/tab have to be involved.

LD - i've judged maybe 40 LD rounds in my life (if being generous). I still am shaky about value criterions, I will have done 0 topic research. If you do LD like it's mini policy I am prob very good for you. Disclosure is virtually mandatory. I have heard explanations from LD'ers about theory. My gut is if it's something like counterplan competition or conditionality it is fine. If it's something frivolous or ridiculous I am not great for your speaks or chances to win the ballot. But do what you do best. I don't believe in RVIs

PF - I did PF in 2007-2009 while in high school. I coached a team in PF in the spring of 2021. I generally vote on and will flow. I will heavily follow judge instruction. Disclosure theory is a very persuasive argument and I think evidence practices are egregiously awful for PF. Paraphrasing, and only sending links for evidence is not acceptable for evidence. It must be in a format that is easily accessible and reviewable by both teams AND should be provided before the speech. I'm very flexible on most things, Evidence and disclosure I am not.

Other formats- have 0 experience but will take notes and evaluate based on the rules given.

Natalie Woodward Minnesota 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 16, 2014 at 4:55 PM CDT

Natalie Woodward Dwyer

Univerisity of Minnesota

Background: I have been coached debate at both the college and high school level since mid 2001. I took time off when I went to law school and was beginning my legal career. Along with a law degree, I have a M.A. in Political Theory. This is my second year back coaching.

Communication:

The debate round is the debater's to direct and determine and as such your argument selection is your own. However, I believe the role of coaches is as educators and in my role as a coach I believe I have an obligation to keep the debate round a safe space for all participants. This does not mean that students, judges, and observers should not encounter ideas that are difficult or challenging including to them as individuals. I understand that norms of "civility" and "niceness" are often deployed as a medium of reinforcing power relations and appreciate that ours is an intense activity. However, I will enforce a space in which we do not do violence, including rhetorical violence to each other. I expect you all to respect each other and me and I will afford you the same respect.

I would greatly prefer not to hear graphic depictions of sexual violence.

Evaluation:

I "think like a lawyer." This means a couple of things. First, I will evaluate your arguments and am less willing to vote on arguments that are weak. Highlight arguments, develop them and tell me why it's important. Also, I really dislike embedded clash. I will attempt to d the work of connecting arguments together . Second, the quality of your evidence is crucial. I like knowing the qualifications of your authors. Make evidence comparisons because I would rather default to your arguments than my own reading of your evidence. If I end up having to make the evidence comparisons myself you may not agree with my reading. As such, your rebuttals should not just be a list of author names and shallow extension of a lot of arguments but instead increase depth and compare the strength of your arguments to your opponents. Think depth.

Paperless debate:

Prep time stops when the jump drive is removed. I prefer email over flashing. My email is nwoodward@gmail.com.

Flowing:

I do flow, evaluate the debate strictly on my flow and even when asked not to flow, I wil often take some sorts of notes to help me when it comes to making a decision. I attempt to take down the argument and author and name but am not always successful at author and date. Thus, when you refer to evidence later, help me by giving me a reference point at where I should be looking on my flow. If you help me keep my flow clean and not just random columns of arguments (with no direct clash) that I have to connect to each other, then you will be rewarded.

Topicality and Procedurals/Framework

I will vote on well developed theory arguments though it typically takes an an investment of time to fully warrant these arguments for me. I view topicality as a debate about competing interpretations. As in all other forms of debate, you should have high quality evidence (including definitions). I am more persuaded by clearly deliniated fairness, ground and other sorts of debatability issues as reasons to prefer a certain interpretation.

Critical Arguments (on the Aff):

My default is not that you have to be topical but I do think you should present a viable workable political stratey. I do not have as high of a threshold for voting on framework arguments as I do on most topicality arguments. I am willing to listen and analyze a wide variety of forms of evidence, but you need to tell me what to do with the evidence and how to analyze it. As someone who has been out of the activity awhile, you should recognize that I do not view debate as the "end all" but rather an educational laboratory.

Critical Arguments (on the Neg):

As a graduate student and coach I have read a lot of the literature in this area and am familiar with many of the authors I have heard read in the last year. I am a good judge for you in this area if you use good link specificity (If you are defaulting to general "state action leads to x" then you may want to rethink). Similarly, I prefer a specific alternative and explanation of what the alternative does. I also want these arguments to have a concrete and comprehendable impact. I prefer a clear (and correct) explanation of the theory. Explaining the role of the ballot for both teams is crucial and must be consistent and well-articulated.

I have been more willing to vote on permutations lately for a few reasons: this is an area where I have seen embedded clash at it's worse and a team's generic perm block doesn't interact with what the plan in particular would add to the permutation or a variety of throw away threory answers. I am most persuaded in answering perms with explanations of how the perm itself links without solely a cross-application of all the other links.

Counterplans:

My ideal counterplan has specific solvency evidence for the plan. Absent that, I hold counterplan solvency to pretty high standards. I tend to default neg on mycounterplan theory, i.e. condo, PICs, agents, etc. I generally view the status quo as always an option at the end of each round. I have often found theory debates to be utterly incomprehensible and virtually impossible to flow and simply a battle of competing threory blocks that never answer each other.

Disads:

Focus on developing the link both through depth and increasing the number of link scenarios. I often find this work benefits the negative more than adding on impact scenarios and hoping for an RFD that is "I vote neg because there is a 1% risk of x,y and z impacts." I like applications of the disad to case and explanations of how it turns various case advantages and otherwise interacts with the affirmative works well for me. Please evaluate the impacts using evidentiary support and not just assertions.

Carly Wunderlich Michigan State 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 6:49 PM UTC

Background: Debated 2006-2010 at Michigan State University, Assistant Coach at Gonzaga 2010-2011, Coach at MSU 2011-present

carly.wunderlich@gmail.com

---Updates Based on Getting Old---

1. What happened to 1NC DA shells that were complete arguments? Card 1 – Dems will win now – health care is a thing that matters. Card 2 – Dem win stops impeachment. Card 3 – Trump causes nuclear war. Um, no. You don’t have an argument here. The aff gets a wreck of leeway to answer stuff in the 1AR because this isn’t even starting to establish a causal link chain in the 1NC.

3. What happened to 1NC solvency cards for CPs? If your 2NC starts “they dropped the announcements plank in the 2AC it’s GAME OVER” but you haven’t read solvency for that plank that’s a no as well.

They all have huge strategic benefits, I get it – you can just spread them out and then piece it together once the aff drops everything. It’s gross to watch, your speaker points will reflect it and I won't forget who's fault it is that the debate is a wreck to try to decide because the debating didn't start until the block. This is also all true of ludicrous aff moves in the same vein

---Old Philosophy + Minor Revisions---

Things I like about debate

1. Working hard/preparation--- I think quality research should be a guiding factor when making decisions. Specific strategies rewarded, poo-nuggets punished

2. Critical thinking--- nothing gets you thinking you your feet like debate. I like interesting pivots and fast-moving debates

3. Argument testing---looking at both sides of an issue to parse out the most compelling arguments on both sides without confirmation bias – more important than ever, in my opinion

Topicality

As an old 2A I think reasonability works out well for the aff in a lot of spots. I'm very close to living in a post-T world if I'm being honest. The link to the limits DA should be well explained and evidenced (either by analysis or with actual evidence). Need clear case lists with explanation why you do/don’t include a specific case. T-substantial/significant is no for me.

CPs

I find myself leaning neg on a lot of CP theory questions (agent, pics, states) as reasons to reject the team. I do not think that CPs that compete on the certainty of plan (consult, condition) are competitive but that this is a reason the aff should get permutation and not a reason to reject the CP in most instances. I also do not think that distinct is competitive and I think the neg should compete off a mandate of the plan.

Conditionality- for the last decade my philosophy has read “this is an area where I've started to move farther into the aff camp. My predisposition is that the neg should get one conditional counterplan. I've not heard many good reasons that the neg should get multiple counterplans. It think that 1 is a logical limit and that to say that 2 or more is OK becomes a slippery slope. I think we all need to do a better job of protecting the aff in this department.” Unfortunately, I have failed the aff and voted neg in a LOT of spots. I still wish in my heart that we could limit the number of CPs read in a debate but unfortunately my voting record has not reflected that.

Unless the neg explicitly says it I will not "reject the CP and default to the status quo because it's always a logical option."

DAs

I think there are many logical inconsistencies with DAs that often go unremarked on by the aff in favor of impact defense. I think the aff would generally do better on engaging at the link/internal link level of dubious DAs. Picking one argument to deal a death blow to the DA works better than death by a thousand cuts.

Topic specific Ks that turn and/or solve the aff are better. Links to the plan action are best. Affs get far on “K doesn’t remedy “x” advantage and that outweighs” if the neg is not good and explicit about it. Almost all frameworks are a race to the middle. Neg gets to question assumptions of the aff, aff gets to weigh advantages- that’s a warning to the aff and the neg.

The Aff

I feel that there are lots of instances where crummy affs get away with it because the neg only focuses on impact calc. I think this is another instance, like DAs, where focusing on solvency/internal link args can pay bigger dividends than impact calc.

Speaker points

Things I like in speeches

1. Connections on central questions- slowing down and effectively communicating about guiding issues

2. Technical proficiency- answering clearly all necessary arguments

3. Clarity- I’m doing my best to be mindful of this but I honestly sometimes just forget- I’ll call clear once if you’re incomprehensible but at a certain point it will affect whether or not I vote on arguments

4. Strategic cross-exs- I’d prefer not to spend another 12 mins listening to “where does your card say that?”

Things that will result in reduced speaker points

1. Cross-reading, clipping- if there is an ethics challenge made I will stop the debate and evaluate it. If the person in question is found to be doing it they will lose the debate and receive zero speaker points.

2. Tech fails- please be prompt and quick with tech things. In a world of decision times this is increasingly getting to me.

3. Creating an environment that is hostile or unsafe for me or the other team – It's important for productive conversations and it's not healthy for all of us to leave tournaments hating each other.

4. Talking over everyone in c-x – I get it, you think you’re cool but I’m pretty bored with watching people get themselves all worked up and then just yell over the other team

My Speaker Point Scale (unless otherwise published by the tournament)

29.6 -30: You should receive a Top 10 speaker award

29.3 – 29.5: In this debate, you were an quarters level debater

28.8 – 29.2: In this debate, you were a 5-3, octos or double octos debater

28.4 – 28.7: In this debate, you were a 4-4 debater on the verge or bubble of clearing

28 – 28.3: You are improving but not quite there on big picture issues

27.5 – 28: You need some improvement on technical items as well as big picture things

Login to Tabroom

GSU National College Debate Tournament

2014 — GA/US

Policy Paradigm List

My Philosophy

Judging

Specifics

Speaker Points

James Thomas (updated 9/14/14)

Judges