Sam Allen (he/him)
Randolph-Macon College

I am an Assistant Professor in Communication Studies at Randolph-Macon College, where I am also the Director of the Franklin Debating Society. I have been involved with high school and collegiate speech and debate as a participant, coach, and director for the past two decades. My background is primarily in policy debate. I continue to have a pretty good flow and attempt to limit my decision making to the arguments I have heard students make in the debate as they have made them. I do not have have many argumentative proclivities at this point other than a strong desire to hear reasoned claims being supported by evidence and weighed by the students debating. I have not been actively involved in judging or coaching this LD topic this year, so please take care to explain your argument to me as if I am intelligent, but uninformed. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you all for these debates and look forward to judging these rounds. Questions? Please ask!

UPDATE 10/14/22

TL:DR

I have not updated by paradigm in well over a decade but much of what I wrote then continues to be true. I've been coaching/judging various styles and forms of debate for over 12 years. I am most comfortable judging debates in Policy, Lincoln-Douglass, and Public Forum. I flow and listen to all arguments, so please debate in whichever way you are most comfortable and I will attempt to evaluate it to the best of my ability. That being said, if you have a position that is complicated or difficult to follow, the onus is on the debaters to ensure that their arguments are well explained. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand or are blatantly offensive/discriminatory. Otherwise, try  to have fun!

My email for chains is: carlito2692@gmail.com

Old Paradigm:

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I typically presume neg unless the affirmative advances arguments for why presumption should flow aff (i.e the negative team introduces a counterplan/kritik alt/etc.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

//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.

Amanda Atkins(Bass)
3 years debating (Liberty University) 
4 years judging

I started as a novice at Liberty and have judged on and off for high school and college. In general, I think I am fairly open to hear whatever. Having procured a 'real' job, I now judge less frequently, so I will understand the concepts you explain well, and in the case of acronyms, I might pull evidence to figure it out if its important.

In general, however, I try not to pull much evidence as this is a communication activity - I will not pull every shell card and every extension you read to weigh against the entire 1ac.

**I much prefer to vote on the better explanation of the card than the better card I have to pull and read myself.**

No, but for real, read that now. You'll be mad at me after the round if you don't. 

 If, at the end of the round, I have to decide a key question on "my Johnson evidence is on fire on this point!" vs. "Extend my Miller card, it talks about that", you are doing it wrong. 

Framework - 
I don't often think framework gets either side anywhere. Especially when it turns into "the aff loses for walking in" or, the related aff version "The neg can't have anything but a cp" after they already took 5 minutes to read a K. 
There are exceptions. If the aff doesn't do anything you can get links to, it might be your only choice. If the neg won't allow you to access your case until you give carded offensive justification for your dresscode, it might be framework time. 

Performance - if you want to do a puppet show or whatever craziness you had better set up a way for me to decide the round and win your framework. However, I think if the other team finds a way to meet your crazy framework better, you might be in trouble. Could be interesting either way. I also think the other side probably has leverage on framework, expecially if it is something they can't be ready to out-crazy you on. 

Ks - My last partner and I ran with a T/K strategy fairly often, so I will be fine with listening to your K. 

What this does not mean: 
1. You should run a K for the first/second/third time to adapt to me. Don't do it. No one will enjoy themselves. 
2. I understand your K by author's name. Probably not. Even if I do, I will only use the words you use to explain it in round to make my decision. If I can't use your words to explain to the other team why their aff is bad, I'm not going to do that work for you. 
3. You should act like an arrogant jerk because the other team "Just doesn't get it, Judge!". Be nice. You might not either. 

What this does mean: 
1. If you are a K team, do your thing. Explain in real terms what your alt or K means and you'll probably be fine. 
2. If you are a policy aff against a K team, do your thing too. I was the 2a on a policy aff, I also sympathize with you. But please find out what the status of the K is before you read your giant framework block, if they're going to let you have your aff there is almost no strategic value to this and it turns into "Ks bad", use that time to answer the K. 

T- The other half 
The short version is that I do vote on T. I don't think many of the Ks of T are very strategic, because I think the aff probably links to most of them too. I don't think that the neg has to run DAs and prove abuse, I think that's kinda dumb and certainly not strategic, I don't think Ts are always there for abuse, I think they're usually just strategic tools. I default to competing interpretations unless reasonability is dropped or really high-tech explained. In general I don't think a small difference is enough to vote against a team, but if they say something in their plan text they have no offensive ground, fairness or educational reason to have there, I think they should be punished for it. I think in that case it probably does lead to better plan writing. 

Theory- 
Just like everyone else, I don't want to hear your 15 point 10 second block. Read three standards and actually make the arguements instead and I can be convinced. I am not so sure about spec arguments, but I think I can be won on them if the other team entirely blows them off or you really convince me you need this ground. I think a single conditional CP or K is probably legit. I also think some multiple conditionality is alright as long as the strat doesn't link to itself. I can, however, be convinced if you are winning it. I'm not a big fan of obscure consult or conditions CPs, and I might be suspect of a wildly abusive shifting K alt. The later I would even be ok with being in the 1ar, as the K has not had the time to wildly shift until the block. If the abusive position is kicked, I think often reject the arguement not the team is fairly legit. 

Read this: I will probably not vote on RVIs. Maybe even if they are dropped. I think this is the cheap shot version of debate. Theory is one thing. Three words and a voter is another. 

DAs - 
The other two years of my college career were very straight up. When I was a 2n we ran t/cp/da/case. Every time. So I understand your DAs too, and I will be very happy if you can get some fun specific link. I think you are in trouble when the aff's link turn is so far beyond the specificity of your evidence that they don't talk about the same thing. Other than that, I like DAs. The only disclaimer is politics, I am not a huge fan of your 3 minute Obama PC link wall or generic debate. I will listen and vote, but I'm not a huge fan. 

CPs- 
I like cps, I think they have an important part of negs winning against well-played giant affs. I really like PICs out of important parts of the plan action/plan text, because I think if you do something you can't defend you should probably not do it. I do not think a crazy PIC like out of helping one random drug lord is predictable or fair. Consult or crazy conditions cps are a bit suspect, agent, actor, or different action CPs are usually legit. But again, I can be pursuaded otherwise. 

Case- 
Oh the wonderful case debate. I think this is one of the hardest and most techy debates of all and I will like you if you are able to pull it off. If you win a substantial chance of case defense and chance of a case turn I think this is the same thing as winning case/da and I will vote on it. I think, in general, the aff that is able to pull specifics out of their cards to answer your evidence is in a good place or read new evidence that applies. But, if their cards do not address your attacks, I don't think the aff gets to "clarify" out of what you say their plan action does if their evidence doesn't support it and yours does

Ryan Bass 
Years Debated: 4 (Middle East to Immigration)

Years Coached: 2 (Democracy Assistance and Energy)

School Affiliation: Formerly Liberty University, Hired Judge

I have judged substantially more "clash" debates than I expected to and I, given my individual proclivities, do not expect that to change soon. (Note: I still view myself as a somewhat left-of-center "clash" judge if that helps you in your prefs) 

First, I have voted for framework over affirmatives without plans/topical action a substantial number of times (with only a few notable exceptions). This is not necessarily a reason I am no longer good for those teams; instead, it means that affirmatives have not been answering a couple of questions that I ask myself at the end of the debate (below). Please note that these questions apply most to affirmatives that do not orient themselves around the topic AT ALL instead of using the res as a starting point. 
1) Policy debate gives me a (somewhat) objective way for me to evaluate the debate- what is my agency in this round as the judge? For example, if you describe the world in a way that I disagree with, why should I still vote for you? How does my ballot mean anything for me if I use it to join a movement/agree with an idea that I believe is not an ethical (or simply incorrect) way to view the world? I understand that not all affs make these claims, but the ones that do should make sure to explain to me how this is possible. 
2) Is the negative's interpretation limiting enough to justify your offense? For instance, a framework interpretation that says "take a stance on energy policy" is not the same as an interpretation that says "roleplay the USFG". Some pieces of offense are not intuitive for the former that are definitely applicable to the latter. 

Second, I almost universally prefer substance over theory (even in relation to critical/performance affs). Here are a few important elements to keep in mind. (Note the qualifier "almost"- there are exceptions to all of these rules as I try to be a relatively debate-centric judge) 
1) I will vote on topicality/framework, but I care more about critical thinking and grammar than predictability and ground. Practically, this means that as long as the affirmative makes a compelling case that their aff can be logically extrapolated from the resolution then they have met the burden of reading a topical aff. If it's a tricky aff, suck it up. Aff creativity should be rewarded in a world where conditionality is queen. 
2) Aff theory- I have found myself voting frequently for conditionality bad. The problem mostly comes either from an unwillingness of the negative to have a defense of their contradictions (or not having a good cx on the aff ground lost/neg ground gained by a contradiction) or to answer counter-interpretations. I think conditionality is good for the most part (but that the aff should either impact/link turn net benefits or make smarter arguments to make up for it). Smart neg strategies should be rewarded too. This does not mean that you can't win on a theory debate in front of me- theoretical line-by-line is very important. 
3) Performance affs (or others without plan texts) SHOULD forfeit the right to the permutation- they have changed the framework for the debate and should not get the ability to take the only ground that the negative has. The negative should be rewarded for creative strategies that are different methodologies than the affirmative. This also means that PICs/PIKs vs. these teams are competitive in my mind. As long as you have a method to solve the performativity of the 1AC you should be fine. Affirmatives should expect to answer these arguments substantively. 

Finally, I am becoming increasingly concerned with gendered and discriminatory language in our community. These words are frequently used innocently- as such this does NOT mean that the first time you say "guys" (a word that I believe carries distinct gendered connotations) you lose the debate. However, the way you handle the introduction of these arguments into the debate matters. If it is with an apology and genuine effort to respect the feelings of the other team then you will be fine (and will probably be rewarded for positive interactions). If you choose a path that is escalatory and more offensive (saying their perceptions don't matter, increasing their use) then you will receive a significant speaker point decrease and it will make me want to not vote for you. On the other hand, if you react to gendered language with yelling and a disrespectful attitude (as the offended team), you will also lose speaker points. This is a communication-based community and we should treat each other with respect. Please just be conscious of the other people in the room. 

Most of the other things are still the same (listed below for your benefit) 
GENERIC: 
Slow down on theory and tags (something you should be doing anyway). I will make it very clear if I'm not tracking with you, but I won't interrupt the speech to do it. That's your job, not mine. 

Kritiks- 
I am well read on Queer Theory, Capitalism, and Whiteness studies. I understand Feminism (most waves), Security Ks, Heidegger, Orientalism, and Nietzsche. I do know more about Baudrillard than I even did. I still have no idea what Spanos says. 

I like K debates a lot, especially k debates that are the focus of the strategy (as opposed to a throwaway advocacy). On the negative, I went for Queer Theory about 70% of the debates I was in my senior year. Link analysis is essential. Impacts should be treated like DA impacts- at the top of the flow and turning the case. If more people explained Ks like DA + CP they would pick up more middle of the road judges. 

Affirmatives are better off defending their methodology than saying "permutation- do the alt in all other instances". For example, the link that the aff uses the state can be answered with two arguments: the state is good and the state can be reformed- this makes a permutation competitive and makes all the difference to me. Too many judges let permutations rule the day without making affirmatives answer the link level of the debate. Impact turn if you bite the link, but answer the alt. Everybody has to answer the alt. 

Counteplans- 
I love CPs with internal net benefits. Smart CPs + DAs are awesome. On the other hand, CPs that compete off of the agent, immediacy, or "should" are probably cheating and probably discourage good aff creativity. Most PICs are good. Advantage CPs are almost always good. Uniqueness CPs feel like cheating to me but I don't really know why (nor do I care enough to contemplate their legitimacy). 

DAs- 
Like them. Elections DAs are the best, (some) politics DAs are the worst. A well-explained DA and case will get my ballot more easily than a K.

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.

I’ve been at this for 18 years, but I’m old and don’t hear that well.  It’s clear that among the two functions I think a debate judge has, accurate adjudication and furthering education, the latter is my comparative advantage.  If you're looking for a judge who will "get it right" in a fast, technical round, I'm not your judge.  If you're willing to talk slower, and there for education as much as competition, I might be your judge. 

3 rants, and then some explanation:

Rant #1 is about “traditional” kritikal debate.  Whoever decided that spewing excerpts from philosophic tracts at 300+ words per minute (with the reader often not having read the original) was a good idea, was wrong.  I’ll give you a concrete example.  I’m old enough that I actually knew Michael Hardt in graduate school.  I had a hard time understanding him talking face-to-face.  When two teams spew and shout seemingly random excerpts from Hardt and Negri without any explanation until cross-ex and then expect the judge (at least me) to resolve their differences, this is not a good thing.  Explanation is key!

Rant #2 is about “traditional” policy debate.  Whoever decided that reading the tiniest word salad excerpts from 50 cards in a 1AC, often from random Internet sources, and usually from sources the reader hasn’t actually read in their entirety, was a good idea, was wrong as well.  You can go on the Internet and find a bunch of stuff I’ve said as “a political expert” (I do at least 50 such interviews each year).  I know how full of crap I am, so I’m likely to think your Internet “experts” are as well.

Rant #3 is about “performance" debate.  It’s shorter.  Clash and explanation, Clash and explanation!

To sum up, I will weigh what you say and do in a round much more heavily than what you read or play.  Explanation and clash are key.  As for what arguments you run, I don't care.

OTHER STUFF YOU SHOULD KNOW:
A. Be nice to your partner, your opponents, and me.  Yelling at me is unfortunate, probably rude, and will result in me not liking you.  Mistreating opponents or partner is worse, and it will result in reduced speaker points.
B. It is vitally important that we remember that we are part of a larger debate community, as well as a larger academic community.  It is also important to remember that host schools make tremendous sacrifices to hold tournaments.  Tournament participants need to clean up after themselves, and they need to do things that will enhance the debate community's reputation in the larger academic community.  When you go to a campus for a tournament, PLEASE do your best to enhance the host program's reputation on its own campus.
C. I hope you have fun, learn a lot, meet interesting people, and make friends from other schools.

Email: berchnorto@msn.com

Matt Brigham: Judging Philosophy (2012)

My Background:

*Debated and coached for the Glenn R. Capp Debate Forum at Baylor University (1999-2005).

*Coached for the William Pitt Debating Union at the University of Pittsburgh (2005-2007).

*James Madison University faculty member. Provide informal assistance to the JMU debate team (2009-present).

I was actively engaged in the college debate community from 1999-2007. Since the 2007 NDT in Dallas, I have judged at only two tournaments (coming into the 2012-2013 season): Clarion (Fall 2010) and Richmond (Fall 2010). Both because of the time off, and because my job is not tied to debate, do not make assumptions about my knowledge related to contemporary debate theory/practice or about the topic.

Judging Information:  (I will probably update this periodically during the season)

I begin with what appears to be a standard element of the genre of judge philosophies:

Disclaimer: you can and likely will choose to debate in ways that best meet your vision of debate, regardless of particular preferences or beliefs that I hold as a judge. I will do my best to adjudicate your arguments, strategy, style on your own terms, even if they run against my own vision of debate, but we have philosophies precisely because this is difficult to achieve.

Moreover, as a rhetorical critic, I do my very best to read a text on its own terms rather than forcefully apply a theoretical perspective that might not be a good fit whatsoever. In so doing, I identify with the concept of being a “close reader.” Just as I make that attempt as a critic of rhetorical texts, so too will I work my hardest to be a close reader of the particular debate in which I am judging you.

What follows is information about me, preferences, disclosures, and other comments that might help you in deciding whether to prefer me highly in the judging pool, how best to get high speaker points, and the type of tie-breaking criteria that might make the difference between a win or a loss.

*Debate is a communicative, performative activity. If there is absolutely no difference between what you transmit on your flash drive pre-speech and how you debate, it is unclear to me why we need to even be in the same room, university, city, etc… This means that your presence as a speaker, the ethos you develop as a communicator, and your ability to make a compelling case is much more important to me than reading 12,000 cards. If the choice is between 30 cards read at top speed with no inflection or affect whatsoever, and 20-25 cards read in a compelling way, you are better choosing the latter when debating in front of me.  My observation about the best debaters is that they are rhetorically effective and not merely technically efficient/proficient, because they have developed a unique style to set them apart from their competition.

*I approach debate as an academic process, rather than sheer gaming/competition. I do not like voting on cheap shots, and will not feel bad if I missed a 2 second hidden voter inside of another flow. More generally, I prefer debates that end in substance rather than theory, topicality, or procedurals, when that is possible. Also, I am happy to talk with you after the debate and to provide feedback and suggestions. However, if your ethos is to post-round judges with thinly veiled criticism, etc…, either as a personality characteristic or because you think it has some future competitive/strategic advantage, I have no interest in continuing the conversation and it will unavoidably influence my perception of you when/if I judge you again in the future. I will do my very best to respect you throughout this process, and hope that you will reciprocate, even if you did not win the ballot.

*Some specific requests/encouragements about specific elements of speaking:

-You should use some type of vocal/tonal variety to indicate transitions from analytical/tag to cite to card. Everything should not be read the same way at the same pitch and volume and pace.

-You should slow, at least a little, on plan and counterplan texts, permutation and alternative texts, and in general on theory debates that are heavily subpointed and, because there are likely to be no cards, end up being especially rapid fire and requiring of a minimum of “pen” time.

-You should think about putting together flowable tags- 2 words and 2 paragraphs are both less than ideal.

-Don’t be “strategically unclear” when reading the text of cards. Many debaters are clear (or at least mostly so) on everything until they get to the text of the card, when words start to slur, the volume gets quieter, and flowability diminishes. As judges we probably don’t call people on this frequently enough, but it is important to me that you maintain the same type of clarity in reading the text of evidence as in all other parts of the debate.

-For some reason 1NCs sometimes refuse to label the off-case positions but instead just start into them. I am unsure why, but I prefer to have a label when you initiate a new off-case position.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.  Best wishes on a great debate experience!

P.S. If it helps, I have pasted below the judging philosophy that I wrote for the 2003-2004 season, and has been my active judging philosophy ever since. You will notice some changes from the above, but in general it might help to give you an extra sense about my preferences.

Matt Brigham Baylor University Judging Philosophy For me, debate is first and foremost a game. I believe that debate also accomplishes many other goals, including education, activism, etc… but I believe the reason we choose to attend tournaments and compete is that we want to win just as anyone engaged in a game wants to be victorious. When I debated, I tended to enjoy/prefer critical arguments/strategies over traditional counterplan/politics debates. However, I enjoy both types of debates. I have no problem with people in engaging in non-traditional forms of debate, but I do have some basic assumptions that I carry with me even into those rounds: 1- Clash is a fundamental part of debate. This doesn’t mean that one necessarily has to do traditional line-by-line refutation and argumentation, but complete avoidance of your opponent’s arguments seems problematic. 2- Debate involves speaking for yourself. While this should not altogether exclude the possibility of non-traditional evidence (playing music, etc…), you must still speak and make arguments if you want speaker points. Simply showing a movie or playing music for your entire speech will make it hard for me to justify giving good speaker points. As for “regular” debates, here are some of my feelings: Topicality- I think topicality is important to providing a fair and predictable starting point for a debate. I will listen to arguments about why I shouldn’t vote on topicality, though I do not find RVIs particularly compelling. Counterplans- I tend to err negative on many counterplan questions, though I think that there are clearly abusive counterplans. Criticisms- I do not think that a criticism necessarily has to have an alternative. If the 1AC is shown to be bankrupt, in its methodology/assumptions/etc…, that can be a sufficient reason to vote negative. However, I do think that each team needs to frame the role of the ballot. Meta-issue Comparison- Each team needs to do the work to prioritize issues in the debate. For instance, in a debate where topicality, a counterplan, a discourse criticism, a methodological criticism, and other procedural arguments are involved needs to be analyzed in terms of a hierarchy of importance (is topicality the first issue, is discourse the first issue, and WHY).

I am a Ph.D. student in Political Science at West Virginia University. I have an MA in Foreign Languages and Literature from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a specialization in the rhetoric of Ghanaian presidential debates. I have no prior policy debate experience. However, I have had one year policy debate judging experience and have had the opportunity to panel with some experienced judges where in all cases I voted the same as them. I think debate is a competitive game that needs decency, fairness and decorous disposition.

When it comes to rounds, my preference is civility of speech and validity of argument. Please note that I value clarity over speed. Therefore, kindly take your time to read your Plan text and make sure that transitions between arguments are punctuated with appropriate speech art mechanisms. I also prefer coherent argument supported by specific EVIDENCE on which I place utmost value. Consequently, if the evidence does not support your argument, then it is just your argument and that will not help you much. Stylistically, I expect debaters to give a clear road map before each speech.

Below are some few thoughts:

TOPICALITY: Topicality is a very subjective concept thought it is a voting issue. I therefore, expect that the AFF is able to produce appropriate evidence in support of the topicality of their plan at the 1AC. Topicality only becomes an issue if the NEG brings it up but the AFF either drops it or if the negative wins the exchanges based on their framework. Note that I will be inclined to vote NEG on the grounds of education, fairness and predictability should topicality becomes a critical issue in a debate round.  COUNTERPLANS:

I’ll like the NEG team to hammer home the solvency of the counterplan and show how it’s mutually exclusive as well as net beneficial. Please, should you run counterplan theory, your best bet is brevity and vigor. When it comes to permutation of the counterplan, the burden of prove lies with the NEG team to show why the AFF cannot do her advocacy and that of the counterplan should the AFF select to perm. Again, AFF is also to prove that the counterplan is not mutually exclusive for instance.

DISADVANTAGES:

I think that running DAs is fine and can cause great havoc to the opposing team so try as much as possible to connect them bringing out the links, internal links and impacts in a coherent manner. Again, the opposing team has the burden to respond to all DAs ran against them which I prefer line-by-line address.

CRITICISMS:

I think that should the NEG team select to run a K shell, the NEG team needs to offer a cogent explanation how its particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. This implies that the NEG team must be prepared to pick evidences from the AFF’s argument and show how these arguments are inconsistent. For instance, the NEG team needs to explain why the AFF plan is a bad one. In this case the NEG needs to point out some impacts of the plan and explain why the plan’s assumptions cause that impact.

FRAMEWORK:

For framework, I believe that you’ll like me to judge the debate that way therefore, if a team initiates framework debate the burden of prove lies with that team to show that their advocacy is the best. The opposing team is also required to respond to the framework argument or take up the challenge and show that their advocacy is better than their opponent’s.  

Welcome aboard and Good luck.

I will prefer judging novice rounds now

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.

One could probably gues when you look at me that I might be slightly more traditional than the regular run of the mill debate judge these days.  I would agree with your observation and reinforce that idea.  My flowing skills are not what they once were and that combined with the general incohrence of todays debates makes for tricky judging.  I have decided that I may start asking for the same downloads of your speeches that you provide the other team.  It seems to me that given that the render of the decision should be the one that has the best idea of what goes on in the debate that giving yor speeches to the judge might be good.  I certainly would prefer a clearly presented set of arguments but absent that reading them maybe better.

All of the above aside I prefer a compelling affirmative case that outweighs the disadvantages and if you counterplan you should have a compelling reason to vote for you other than the aff advantages.  I still believe that topicality is a legit argument and can be a round winner but I prefer a persuasive reason why there is a violation vs a bunch of whining on standards, etc.  Kritik arguments can be round winners if they a shown to be germane to the aff and have policy implications that are couched in the topic being discussed.  I do not prefer teams that sidestep the topic to discuss other things even if they are of critical importance.  Most debate should be topic centered.

I have been in  debate a long time and I think it is still one of the best things an undergraduate can do and so I will work as hard as possible to understand what goes on in any debate and hopefully make a defensible decision that is semi satisfactory to all concerned.

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. 

Hi All!

I know you all have a lot of prepping to do. So, I'll keep my paradigm short (and I don't have much to say).

Things that are good:

I'm fine with CPs, Disads, T/SPECs, Framework, Ks, etc. I'm fine with performance.

***Note: I was not a performance debater. So, there are things you might want to explain more to me.

Things that are bad:

Language that is sexist, abelist, racist, classist, homophobic or otherwise uncool.

One last thing to note: I think what you say in round (even if it's not in a speech) is probably binding (i.e. the other team can hold you accountable for it and/or speaker points will reflect it).

If you have any questions about this or anything else, please let me know!

marie.eszenyi@gmail.com

(919) 323-1353

Years of Experience: 10+ (coaching and debating)
School affiliated with: Bedford Academy High School

I am a teacher at Bedford Academy HS, coaching a brand new team. I have debated and coached on every level: HS, MS, and college. I tend to see myself as a judge who is open to what you tell me to vote on. However, I want clean debates, clearly articulated arguments, and good decorum. In saying that, I like very specific debates on many of the issues that plague this nation's education system. Leave you generic strategies at home and come with some creative strategies that really push the critical thinking skills inside of the round.

• Topicality: T is for me is a hit or miss. If it is explained well and the argumentation is strong, then I will vote on it. I will never default to judge intervention. The topicality debate should develop itself. Abuse stories, especially, need to be proven to me, i.e. in order to win on topicality, I need an explicit description of how the abuse manifests itself in the round. If none of these things happen, I will not vote on it. Make the extra effort to explain either:

a. Why the affirmative's interpretation of the resolution is problematic OR

b. Why the framers' scope of what immigration reform should look like is a problem for the focus area.

• Kritiks: As I get older, I find that there is little to no creativity when it comes to making these arguments. Everyone is saying the same thing, which is pretty boring. The Kritik is by far my favorite position. So by default, I am looking for an excellent debate. This means a couple of things:
  • The explanation of the K needs to be done outside of the jargon of the author: for example, if you are running D&G, don't drop the term rhizomatic expansion and think that I know what that means. Explain it. Nothing gets me upset than a K team that drops terms and does not explain how those terms interact with the argument.
  • The more specific the link the more likely I am going to vote on it. I HATE GENERIC LINKS WITH A PASSION! Generic links illustrate lazy K debating. C'mon Son! If you are going to run the K, make sure that there a substantial and qualitative link scenario.
  • The alternative, I feel is the most important mechanism of the K. Therefore, take careful consideration as to what the alternative will be. I have voted on simple reject alternatives. I don't like voting on these alternatives too much. I like an alternative that does something more than just reject.
  • Be reminded that I am a teacher. You should be able to explain what your alternative looks like in the world of the classroom. Take that extra step to contextualize your alternative. It's nice (I guess) to say historical materialism, but to not explain it in the world of immigration reform is a sure fire way for me to ignore the alternative.
• Disadvantages: Even though I and DAs are not the best of friends, I have and will vote on it. I don't like shallow disad debates, which includes nonstop card reading and no real argumentation. This rings true for Politics. I prefer specificity on the DA. If I don't get that, then don't assume that I will vote on it.
• Counterplans: The CP has to make sense especially since the topic is education reform. The CP text needs to be stated clearly along with any planks that are added to the CP. Comparative solvency debates are the best way to get my ballot. Explain why your mechanism is the best one to solve the problem described in the 1AC. A good CP is able to create doubt as to why the aff's plan is needed in the first place, so as debaters you should create that doubt.
• Performance: Over the years, I have seen some performance arguments that dealt with the resolution and others that ignore the resolution altogether. In saying that, PLEASE ensure that your performance is at the very least resolutional. It's alright to talk about the resolution and its underlying assumptions. This is a good way to ensure that I am engaged in the round and makes you sound credible. If you are not going to talk about the topic in any way, I'm probably not the judge for you. When debating these arguments, please have an argument that makes sense. Framework is not a position on its own: it is just a way for me to look at impacts. You still have to answer the argument.

Ultimately, the last two speeches in the debate should help me in writing my decision. If that does not happen, then you leave me to my own devices in terms of looking at the flow and interpreting the flow for myself

Additional Things to know:

• Prep times end when the flash drive leaves the computer.
• Feel free to add me to your email chain: andrewgeathers@gmail.com
• A 30 speech does not exist (at least at the HS level) so don't expect one.
• Do not ask me what my preferences are: I will tell you how I like my steak, which sneakers I am going to buy, etc. Ask direct questions, assuming that you read this paradigm.
• Real world examples of how the aff/neg works help you.
• I am okay with speed....just make sure I understand you. I will make faces if I don't understand you.

Any questions: feel free to contact me @ andrewgeathers@gmail.com.

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

Samantha Godbey, PhD

Director of Debate

West Virginia University

Debaters please send speech docs here: wvucoaches@gmail.com I only check this email at debate tournaments.

If you would like to contact me, not during a debate tournament please email at SamanthaEGodbey@gmail.com.

A note about my education-I started as a novice in 2004 (fossil fuels)- debated through college mostly in CEDA Northeast. My PhD is in Political Science, in particular my dissertatation is on the American public policy process in the area of human trafficking policy. I also have comped in International Relations and Comparative Politics- I have never taken a communications class in my life. All of that means literally nothing except that there are pretty good odds I have not read whatever it is you are reading (policy or k lit). It is your job to explain it to me and pursuade me, not assume that I already know what you are talking about.

How I feel about arguments

I want you all to do whatever it is you do best/ enjoy the most. There is nothing I won’t listen to/ vote on. I really like offense. It is very persuasive to me. I feel as if that is what I look for when I am making my decision at the end of the round, I also like when debaters tell me how they won. I don't like having to look for those reasons/ decide which is most important myself.

Im not crazy about judge intervention, I do my best to come in to every round as tabula rasa as possible. It is your responsibility to persuade me in one way or another to get my ballot.

I believe that I am extremely flow centric (unless you tell me not to be), also seems like I should note that I flow what you say not what is in your speech doc. I wont have your speech doc open at any time unless I am reading cards at the end of the debate. So, if its said in the round, it'll be on my paper. The round is therefore decided by my flow (again, unless told otherwise).

I vote for who wins the debate, I find all types of arguments persuasive from critical to straight up policy. I don't care what you do, just do what you do best (and impact it).

I also think it is worth noting in framework debates that though I have, and I'm sure will in the future, vote on fairness being an impact to framework, I do not find it very persuasive. I am much more into topic education, roleplaying government good, TVAs, switch side education good, etc being a reason why debate should conform to certain guidelines (i.e. framework).

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 - 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.

1- There is nothing more important in debate than the link debate.  Have good, solid links and really articulate the link story.  Slow down if necessary.  You MAY NOT shadow extend your link cards.  Thats fine for uniqueness and the impacts (generally), but not for the links.  You are required to flesh out the link debate NO MATTER THE ARGUMENT.  Every part of my philosophy and the resulting decisions will flow from this premise.

2- The 1AC must link to the resolution.  This can be immediately accomplished with a topical plan text.  When I say topical plan text, I do not mean, for purposes of this topic, the following:

a- US should decriminalize x

b- US should (act in a way that constitutes decrim rather than legalization) x

c- US should legalize (something not on the list, however closely it may be related to something on the list)

The 1AC can also link to the resolution without a topical plan text, though this requires a bit more work.  Obviously, a topical version of the affirmative would be a devastating hurdle. If a topical version of your 1AC is possible, I would be hard pressed to consider whatever reason you decided on the untopical version to be the ideal route.  There must be some unique reason that being topical would deny your access to the advantages.  If you can present and successfully defend that unique necessity, you will not lose on topicality, IF your advocacy has a substantive and identifiable though non-topical link to the educational value of the resolution.  For an example of such an affirmative, that if argued corrrectly will not lose a T debate, see George Mason JT's Aff on the wiki.

3-  The 1NC must link to the 1AC. As there is more disparity in negative arguments, we can explore them in the following order.  The overarching theme for my philosophy in particular reference to the negative is a prohibition against running and extending arguments that are nothing more than throwaways.  

Topicality

First, the topicality violation must link to the 1AC plan text.  This means, DO NOT run topicality if it is clear the 1AC uses a topical plan text.  If it is unclear, either because the 1AC is arguably not topical, or because you are running Topicality as a test of the affirmative's claim the above referenced unique necessity, then feel free to have a T debate.  

Second, the only violation I can think of off the top of my head that is actually offensive in a T debate, so that I would vote neg on T, is education.  We are in debate as an engine to further our education, so for the 1AC to place an unreasonable barrier to our education destroys the value of the round. This is why the 1AC can be purposefully untopical, with good reason, and still win as long as they are at least resolutional.  The educational value of debate is directed by the resolution, not the plan proper.  This means you will gain much more ground on the negative by linking the negative interpretation of the violation to the specific resolutional departure that the affirmative makes and the impact the departure has on resolutional education.

Third, there may be other acceptably offensive violations available to the negative that I cant think of right now.  In any case, the violation must generally comply with the above discussed T framework.  Feel free to run the argument, but be darn ready to defend it.

Theory

First, theory debates should not include any reading.  Theory blocks should seriously not exist.  Articulation of the theory argument should happen SLOWLY and not in the laundry list style.  The idea behind theory is that the other team committed some kind of in round injustice against you and that only the ballot will suffice in making you whole.  You dont need a piece of paper to tell me how you suffered abuse in the round.  

Second, no one should enjoy theory debate or use it as a tactic, because it is literally asking the judge to punish the other team for abusing you and holds no educational value.  That said only in round abuse counts offensively enough to win on theory.  The theory argument must link to something the other team actually did in the round, and must have prejudiced you in the round.  Saying an argument is conditional and having a conditionality good/bad debate does nothing if the nature of the conditionality didnt change the flow of the debate.  In fact, in such a debate, the team defending WILL win, if that is the argument the complaining team advances.  

Third, in terms introducing a theory argument, while it is technically acceptable in my rounds to alert everyone to the possibility for an argument to become abusive, there neednt be an extensive analysis until the argument becomes abusive in fact.  The 2AC is free to point out that conditionality can be bad, but until the Neg leverages the conditonal nature of their argument to avoid debates they are losing, there is no abuse in fact.  Likewise, until the affirmative actually severs out of an argument and the severance caused some harm to the negative in the debate there is no abuse in fact.

Kritiks

The K must link to the plan within the context of the 1AC.  This can happen in two ways.

First, the plan can directly link to the K, allowing the K to function as a Disad.  For instance, you can use cap to turn an econ advantage.

Second, the plan can indirectly link to the K, allowing the K to function as a Counteplan.  This will usually apply with a K flavored 1AC.  For instance you can use fem  to solve the harms addressed by a prostitution affirmative.  Be warned, this strategy is susceptible to a floating pic violation.    

In either of the first two instances the offensive net benefit for the K is clear.  Clarity is important, because

Third, for the alternative to be independently offensive in the round, it must follow the same rules 1ACs must follow on the T debate, with plan text replaced with alternative and resolution replaced with plan text.  "Reject the aff" is not an alternative.   Alternative means "instead of doing this thing, I am going to do this other thing."  In no instance is the other thing doing nothing.  You cannot argue the alternative solves for anything if the alternative does nothing.  "Reject their methodology" is only barely an alternative.  If this is your intended strategy change it, because the 2A will pretty much always win the K is non unique and/or perm plan then alt solves. This K will then function as a solvency takeout to the 1AC, and you will have to win some kind of really compelling "brink" argument and/or whatever the advantages are, do not outweigh the impacts of the K.  

Fourth, link defense from the solvency flow does not get to cross apply to the K flow to prove too small a risk of the advantages to justify voting aff, despite the benefits of the advantages.  As the K neg, if you put yourself in the position to need to win impact calculus to win the round, you have to 1- defend your own links to the 1AC and 2- assume the truth of the advantages.  For the record, I do not mean to imply you cannot make both arguments, you are only restricted from using the link debate on 1AC solvency to factor into the impact calculus debate on the K.

Counterplans

Like em. Love em. Want some more of em.  

First, you can have a counterplan to better access their solvency.  This is usually the result of sloppy and flawed plan writing and/or lazily selected solvency cards.  Here if you win the CP links better to the 1AC solvency evidence, you win all the 1AC advantages by default.

Second, you can have a counterplan to better access specific advantages.  This is usually the result of a terribly generic 1AC link shoehorned between the plan and the advantages.  Feel free to write a counterplan specific to that link evidence.  

Permutations

The are usually a test of competition/K Cp uniqueness.  This is a legitimate perm.  A perm becomes a  voting issue level theory violation when they use the perm to spike links, or sever as discussed above.  A test of competition is not offensive.  Passing the test and proving non-competitiveness is offensive, because a non competitive counterplan or alternative deproves all five of us of the educational value inherent in the competing alternative or counterplan.  

Performance

We all agree this is a debate.  So if your performance makes arguments, have at it.  Just because you are performing does not mean or excuse topicality and the third part of the K analysis as discussed above.

CX

1- super underutilized in debate.  usually CX accomplishes nothing but allowing the constructive to reinforce the arguments they just made, but in a slower voice so the judge might understand them a little easier.  This does nothing for the examiner.  

2-  CX is a place to earn speaker points.  Use it to set up your arguments.  Lock the constructive into a particular position that you can exploit in your own speeches.

3-  CX COUNTS!  What you say in CX applies to the rest of the debate, assuming the CX is extended throughout the rebuttal arguments.  You CAN lose on severance based on what happened in CX.

4- Dont waste time answering questions.  If you are being shifty (such as rambling in response to a yes/no question) the 3 minute timer WILL NOT rescue you.  You can choose to answer the questions or have your speaker points suffer.

Disadvantages

Ah, finally, the topic that lead to my writing a philosophy.

1-  Disads are generally stupid because...

2- The link debate must be though rarely is, super on point, because a disad will lose to prediction alaysis somewhere in the range of 9 times out of 9.

'

3- Seriously if you want to win that the plan causes the human race to become extinct via global warming or some other ridiculous scenario, you better darn well win the most compelling link debate in history.  The slightest showing of an alt cause to the impact will devestate the disad.

4-  you must remember to include an internal link in the 1NC.  otherwise, I seriously wont even flow anything other than the 2AC's "no link" argument and then throw that piece of paper into the garbage.

5-  The links you do read in the 1NC have to be amazingly articulated beyond the random general link you have in the file.  The link must relate to the plan action not just the topic area.  This is not as automatic as part 4, but you will be fighting an up mountain battle in the 2NR.

6- I will not listen to midterms.  I wont flow them.  I wont vote Neg on them.  It takes actual physical willpower to not vote Aff as soon as I hear the word midterm in the 1NC, then spend the rest of the debate napping or watching Netflix.  Since that would be a violation of my duty as a judge I wont actually do that, but it is fully within my discretion to agree with the 2AC when he or she responds to the link by pointing at the flow, laughing for a few seconds, then talks about something else.

7- Other politix DAs, while dumb, are not as despised as midterms.  Make sure they link to the plan action as discussed in 2-5.

So thats it.  its how i judge debate these days.  I am always available for specific questions at harrismj4@me.com.

Hey everyone, I am a first year PhD student at the University of Pittsburgh this year. I am NOT working with the debate team at this time, and so am also not actively involved in any research or discussion of this year's resolution. I will be participating in limited travel and judging, but please keep in mind my only experience with the topic will be my own prior knowledge or what is debated in the round or other rounds I judge. I previously coached at U. Wyoming and coached and debated at James Madison. 

Nuances: 

1. Paperless debate –Be reasonable. 

2. Prep Time: I will keep the official prep time. However, I may not notice when you’re done so make sure you tell me and keep your own time. 

3. Play nice.

4. Speaking: Make sure to slow down a touch on tags. Make sure to slow down on your analytics- if they are that important to the round you will want to make sure I have them flowed. While I tend to evaluate who won debates based on line by line clarification; it is your overviews and warrants and decision calculus/role of the ballot that will guide my focus and your points so be sure to invest the time it takes to really win an argument. I prefer a team who condenses more towards the end of the debate and invests time where necessary over teams who keep big flows and card dumps with less analysis. Pick what you need to win and spend time there. If you are a team who likes to go for everything in the 2nr/2ar with little analysis, I'm probably not the best judge for you. In the past, I have not called clear much, but I am getting tired of unclear speakers. I will be calling it in the future, adjust your speaking accordingly.

5. I prefer not to have to call for evidence. If you take the time to really weigh out which pieces of evidence are most important for you in the round and spend more time on them, you will likely be rewarded more than a team who shadow extends a lot of arguments. 

6. Embedded clash is important.

7. Speaker points will be given based on the quality of debate I see in the round, never based off predispositions I may or may not have toward your team or argument style. 

8. I flow cx.

Specific Arguments: 

The K: On the neg, a clear, strong link between your kritik and the affirmative is always prefered- cards are good for this, so is actually reading and referring to the other teams specific aff evidence and arguments. Impact it out. It’s great if you have a link, but if I don’t hear/understand the impact/alt, it will likely not end well for you. On the aff, I know there will be affs that don't read a (traditional) defense of USFG action, however, I really prefer that they be at least based in a discussion of the resolution as a stasis point- role of the ballot args are key, having some kind of stable advocacy is useful for this. 

Framework- I really enjoy framework debates when done well. I like to hear about what type of standards we are setting for debate expectations, how we should engage the resolution, fairness v edu v predictability hierarchy, switch sides, ect. I like them to be impacted out as to what type of arguments should be in debate and why, particularly compared to your opponents interpretation. 

Topicality: I generally don't find T an RVI or some tragic attack on the aff. Provide a sound interpretation with a reason to prefer, a clear violation, and impact it. I think having some kind of stable plan-text or advocacy is generally important for clash and constructive, educational debate, however, this is also because my experience as a debater and judge has typically seen that kind of debate in 99% of my rounds. I would never impose that on you as a 'rule' of debate- you do you, I am just less familiar with judging planless debates, so that is something to be aware of when explaining your position. 

DAs: I like-  please don't read terrible, blippy evidence.

Cplans: Consult and condition cps are not enjoyable for me. I enjoy creative adv cps. Agent cps that get bogged down on mechanism questions are not my strong suit, don't assume I have a fantastic obvious grasp on those interactions, just keep it clean. 

Case debate- I'm a big fan

Random last words:

I try and keep my expression fairly neutral during the round. Friendly behavior will earn you smiles, rude behavior will bring clear disappointment. 

Don't rely on the assumption I have a background on everything you talk about. Regardless of my previous knowledge, you will win or lose based on how you present your arguments in the round. 

Debate has always been a community I have loved being a part of, for better or worse. I have met most of the smartest/interesting/caring people I know because of it. As a previous debater and now coach, I hope to continue to support making this activity something everyone else in it loves to be a part of as well, so remember to take the time to enjoy the people you meet and debate your heart out.

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~

Updated March 2019

New School Debater 2007-2010 / New School Coach 2010-2014 / WVU Coach 2014-2019

Please feel free to do what you are most comfortable with. I have a reputation for being very critically oriented, but I feel as if I vote for policy arguments more and more. I am still pretty far left of center, but not as far left as I was when I first started. I will not, however vote for arguments that I find morally repugnant. If you don't know what those things might be, then "better safe than sorry" might be a good strat.

Some general comments that will help you understand how I feel about certain parts of the debate. I think that a compelling, developed argument without cards will often beat a highly carded, poorly explained argument in almost every case. If you can make smart arguments and analytics, then I am probably going to be persuaded by you. I don't think that every arguments needs to have a card to be true, and I don't think an unwarranted card makes a bad argument true.

A few technical things: I vote more and more on my flow than on my overall perception of a debate. If I don't know what you're saying, then you should probably be clearer or slow down. I don't want to read a lot of cards after the round, but I will read important ones that you tell me to if you explain why I have to read that card. Tell me that it directly answers their important cards, or that it is the best piece of evidence that shows why you win, or that it's written by an author I like, and then I'll probably read it. When it comes to the end of the debate, give me specific ways to vote for you. The easier you make it on me, the more likely I'll be to vote for you.

T- I used to be very biased towards T arguments, but I am less so now. I think that T arguments can devolve into blippy extensions of a three word definition. Those are the kinds of T debates I dislike. If there is a specific reason why an interpretation changes the way an aff functions, then I am open to that debate. I think that an argument over "how much is substaintial" is not particularly useful. I am completely fine with non-topical affs, in fact I like them a lot. With that having been said, with great power comes great responsibility and that responsibility is often answering T and FW. For me, “T is fascist” is not enough. You need to explain why you need to be non-topical and why a topical version of your plan is a bad idea. I am more likely to buy abuse stories that involve education in a coherent way, saying non-topical plans kill education is not enough, explain how that type of education is bad, and why a topical version might work better, or just a modified version. If you are going for the "topical version" argument, then you should probably have an example of what a topical version would be.

FW- I default to the framework of the aff unless the neg on face challenges it, but the aff also has to defend their framework and answer the other team’s objections with substantive answers, “aff choice” isn’t enough. If they want to use USFG policy to do something, then so be it. If they want to use themselves as agents, then that is good too. You have to defend which option you choose. I feel that debates about debate can be important and useful, but only if they are substantive and meaningful (I don’t find the Shively “Euthanasia” card falls into those categories).

DA’s- As a debater, I never read DAs, but I am becoming more comfortable with them. I don't do tons of policy research every day, so I may not know every scenario currently being read. That only means that it is the neg's responsibility to explain the story of the disad and the warrants of the cards. This is the bare minimum for any argument. I am sympathetic to K’s of DA’s, so be warned. That doesn't mean that I have an aff bias on disads, but that I am more familiar with the literature critiquing them than the uniqueness card you cut last night. Just one thing that might help you out, I am pretty willing to buy a “try or die” situation against a DA if there is not enough impact work done. This is especially true absent a CP. If it comes to Plan v. DA, I’m probably going to pick plan unless you explain to me why I can’t. If you make it seem like the plan action will certainly lead to the demise of the entire world then there should be some seemingly factual warrants to why this is the case (remember this doesn't have to be a card, see above).

CP’s- Competition is key. Explaining it is even better. There needs to be a clear discussion to how the CP competes and is net beneficial to the aff. I need a clear net benefit and why that is more important than plan action. I also need clear explanation on the Perm debate. Each Perm should be answered individually or group for some logical reason. Do not make a Perm argument on one perm, drop the others and then pretend you answered them all. I flow your answers on the specific Perm you mention. Be clear and be precise on the Perm debate. I will get to theory below.

K’s- I said at the top I was a K debater, so if you are a K team, this is a blessing and a curse. I will be automatically more attracted to these arguments, but will also hold them to a higher standard. Don’t expect that I know what you’re talking about even if I do. I try my best to only evaluate the arguments made, not what I know about the philosopher/philosophies you are citing. You will win easily if you explain how your arguments function in relation to the other team’s arguments. You will lose easily if you throw out high theory jargon and expect me to connect the dots.

Theory- I don’t particularly like it because it always seems to be lacking. Are multiple perms really that detrimental to anybody? Does it really skew your time that much to answer “do both” and “do the plan, then the alt?” I’ve never seen a really good theory debate and I don’t want to see a lot of bad ones to find a good one. If it’s something you like to do, then do it, but you’re really going to have to sell me on why your scripted block beats their scripted block. One way to do this is give specific examples to the debate you're in. I will be much more likely to buy your theory argument if you make it seem like X thing is bad always, but in this round it is just egregious.

Non-Topical Affs- These are the affs I have the most experience with and what I am used to judging. If you are the team that is looking for the straight up policy debate judge that just finished spending his Friday night cutting politics updates, I am not the judge for you. If you are the K team that is looking for the person that won't automatically vote them down for not being topical, then I am the judge for you.

I think that debate should be much more of an open space than it is. Just because something isn't what you do, doesn't make it automatically wrong and if you debate in front of me with that mentality, you will probably lose. Engaging arguments is the most important part of debate for me.

Former debater for Towson University -- 2006 - 2010
Former Baltimore Urban Debate League debater for Digital Harbor High School.
2 time qualifier for NDT -- 2009, 2010, Double Octo-finalist - 2009
CEDA Nationals Quarter-finalist -- 2010, Octofinalist - 2009, Double Octo-Finalist - 2008, Triple Octofinalist - 2007

Arguments: Revolutionary Aesthetic, Black Nation-State, Black Quare Theory, Black Liberation Theology, African-American Research Paradigm.

CEDA/NDT JUDGING NOTE:

I have only judged at one tournament the entire season (JV/Novice Nats) and I'm not really familiar with this year's arguments.

I'll be blunt. I like certain kinds of debates. I like debates that center on the people in the room and how their arguments are tied to the ballot and the "real world".

That being said, there are some things that are really bad to do in front of me:

1. Topicality - I will NOT vote for Topicality, so don't run it in front of me.
2. Wierd Stuff - For example, if you like Post-modern theory and expect me to "get it" out the gate, you are mistaken. Unless it is explained in a way that translates into the context of the debate, I will NOT vote for it.
3. Fairness and Ground impacts on any argument - If you're using these as the terminal impact to the aff/neg, don't expect a 'W' because you don't get your PX Link.

This does not mean you can't run your "traditional" DA's, CP's or K's. Be explicit in the warrants and why they are important to the debate.

Other than that, I just like arguments that are well explained. I'm pretty open to whatever debaters are thinking about or feeling.

I will also mention that I am a former performance debater for Towson. If you are doing performance debate, PLEASE EXPLAIN THE ARGUMENTS. There's nothing I hate more than really shallow performance debates. You will not win simply because you "perform". Take time to explain the warrants of the args during throughout the debate. 

I'm pretty simple when evaluating the debates at the end. I actively listen throughout the debate and don't try to "reconstruct" the debate at the end from the flow.

I will NOT do work for you at the end of the debate on impacts. A well orchestrated impact analysis in a 2NR/2AR can seal the deal for me. If there is no terminal impact to your argument at the end of the debate...expect to lose.

CX is important and I flow CX. Speak wisely.

If I can not hear you, I will not flow it. Speed reading is OK but be worried if my pen is not moving. I'm not a robot. Talk at a reasonable speed. It will affect your speaker points.

Just so it's clear...I'm a 24 year old, black, heterosexual, man from Baltimore City. I funnel all of my post-round analysis of arguments through my social location. I'm not a "clean slate". If you say something that is morally repugnant in debates with me in the back...you will be held accountable in your speaker points and possibly the decision.

Debate well and you will get my ballot.

Experience:  

In my four years of college debate, representing CUNY, I have mostly ran kritics concerning Quare Theory, Anthroprocentrism,  Natives,  and Black Fem.

General Note: 

I believe debate to be a place for the cross pollination of ideas and welcome the knowledge provided by speaking from one's social location. However, every argument must be warranted either by card or supported by  real world examples of common knowledge such as demonstrated in historical and current event refences.

Having been a performance debater, I enjoy and encourage the expansion of argumentation through all forms of expression . However,  respect is key, so you will be penalized for any morally repugnant argument.  I also ask that you keep vulgarity to a minimum. 

Things to Know: 

Speaking: Clarity is better than quantity.  It doesn't matter how much you say if I cannot hear or understand when you spread,  it won't be on the flow.

Flowing: Everything in round,  1AC to 2AR and all the dialogue and performance in between,  will be written down and serves as the foundation for my decision. 

Jumping: After calling for prep to be stopped there is a (very) brief window- for the other team to receive files and for you to begin your speach- before I think you are stealing time and will deduct time to its proper allocation.

Updated: March 29, 2016

Experience: This is my 10th year coaching collegiate debate.

Position: Assistant Professor, University of Pittsburgh, Department of Communication

Education: BA, Pittsburgh. MA coursework, Wake Forest. MA, University of Iowa. PhD, University of Iowa.

I have been involved in debate for 18 years.

An argument involves a claim, data, and some line of reasoning that connects the data to the claim. This data could be something taken from the correlates of war, it could be something taken from a political performance, it could be spoken word. I'm not in the business of sorting between these various bits of data and their relationship to claims. That's your job as the debater. Explaining to me the impacts in the debate, their relative importance, and how they interact with one another remains vitally important in every debate. Magnitude, probability, all that. Those are metrics that matter whether the debate is about various nuclear wars in the Middle East or fighting racism domestically.

I have primarily spent my time this year as a coach cutting policy cards. I have various and sundry familiarities with a lot of critical literature, keep up with the caselist more or less. My scholarly interests are not coterminus with my voting record. I tend to reward teams that privilege clarity of argument, have a well organized approach to the issues present in the debate, and those who innovate within the framework of the opportunity provided by the debate. Essentially, if you defend reducing military presence and have a novel, well-thought out interpretation of what that means that diverges from the conventional understanding, I am a good judge for you. If you are just grabbing some cards about a K you love and mention the resolution in passing, I am less good. 

I have some common notes here about things that tend to happen:

1. If you want to "escape capture of the line by line", I may not "get" that unless you are particularly good at doing so. This is just a warning based on my track record as a judge.

 2. Many framework/T debates posit two competing values: on the one hand, a fair and predictable debate community, and on the other, the set of practices/people/institutions to whom violence is done in the name of this debate community. Whats remarkable to me is how often the LINK to the former is often taken as the end of the story, with the goodness of debate taken to be an enthymematic given. Similarly, the "trained incapacity" of debaters to clearly weigh how a certain kind of structural or ideological violence is more important than the debate community's smooth functioning is befuddling to me. DONT ASSUME I KNOW WHAT YOUR TERMINAL IMPACTS VALUE IS. You need to make very clear why, if I'm put in the position of deciding between an opportunity cost of either preserving the debate community as a predictable/fair space or combating pernicious forms of societal injustice, I should prefer the one over the other. It seems simple, but trust me, you've got to do it.

4. . What sort of citizens is debate crafting? What interests do they have, and what attitudes towards the world are we trying to inculcate? These are meta level questions relevant for debates about framework, topicality, theory...

5.  What you want to do as a debater matters more than what you think you should do to appeal to me. Aside from some basics (answering arguments, going either in line by line or in some organized fashion that makes sure you don't drop things, weighing impacts, being clear) you should probably not futz with your content really. Those triangulating moves often don't pan out.

6. LISTEN to the other teams argument. Respond to it in a way that appreciates the difference in how debaters process arguments and how judges process arguments. Don't assume you and the panel share priorities: you aren't the same people. You have to communicate the importance of the values and content of your argument.

Other things

Topicality/Theory: I have grown to like topicality debates a lot more as I get older. contextual evidence: good. arbitrary definitions: bad. Also, for pete's sake, topicality/theory debates are really hard to flow. Slowing down a little on these will make my flow a lot better. Theorywise, I can list things I think are suspect: states, multiactor fiat i.e. Lopez, consult. But really, it doesn't matter. I haven't seen anyone go for theory in front of me in ages. I respect capable theory debaters not only for that talent but also because it gives them a powerfully abusive arrow in their strategic quiver.  Conditionality seems more or less ok. You could change my mind on something, or easily persuade me in a given debate to vote for something I don't really agree with. I ran agent counterplans and the states counterplan more than any other argument by about a billion, so I know how the game is played. Most judges just hunger for excellence. If your excellence is an artful destruction of the states CP on a theory argument, go for it.

 performative contradictions: i do think if the neg engages in some wacky reps, but makes a similar reps K against the aff, that it begs the question of why the aff can't just kick the advantage. Also raises some clear questions about the alt solvency if we're talking about an "unflinching paradigmatic analysis" or some such when the 1NC had contradictions...i have never understood why "negation theory" means you can just do what you want.

Embedded clash: its about the only way to give a top tier 1AR, but also about the only way to give a total catastrophe of a 1AR that no one can follow. If you can do it, and do it well, you'll be the master of your domain. Caveat: If you are trying to do this while working from the speech document and not the flow, yeeesh

Just debate. Some of the best speeches I have ever seen were based on a simple premise (The aff doesn't understand how deficits work, these Baudrillard cards don't make any sense, etc) and so you shouldn't be afraid to stake on a debate on a really salient point. I think there are a number of debates a tournament I see where the arguments being made are so (conceptually) unclear that a team which simply said as much would benefit substantially. 

I make audio recordings of every debate and I don't take kindly to clipping.

Finally, lets all try our best to debate our best, to compete, and to work hard. Our competitors honor us with their work and arguments. We honor them by taking their arguments seriously.

WWACD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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!!

My masters is in literature and translation studies, so I can be compelled by performance or discourse centric proposals, but I naturally gravitate to more traditional solvency / impact calculations, and I am particularly compelled by strong analytical arguments unless it is an issue of data or other expertise. 

SHORTEST VERSION: THINGS I BELIEVE ABOUT DEBATE

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Good -----|----Neutral Good -----|----Chaotic Good

1AC Plan Texts, ----|----- Case Debate,------|----Performance Debate,

Open Debaters -----|----Novice Debaters----|----JV Debaters

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Neutral ---|---True Neutral------|---- Chaotic Neutral

Topicality -----------|----Counterplans ------|------Dispositionality

_______________________________________________________

Lawful Evil -------|----Neutral Evil ------|-----Chaotic Evil

Framework args ---|----Standard Nuke ----|----- Baudrillard

from 1996 that ----|---- War Disad

say no K's

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

SHORT VERSION:

You are prepping and don't have time to read everything, or interpret. So this is the stuff you most need to know if you don't know me :

1) I run The New School program. The New School is in the Northeast, around the corner from NYU where I actually work full time. (CEDA has Regions, not Districts. The NDT and the Hunger Games have Districts.) I care about things like novice and regional debate, and pretty much only coach for resource poor programs. You need to know this because it affects how I view your ETHOS on certain "who are we" arguments.

2) Email: vikdebate@gmail.com. Skip the rant below about want/need to be on chain.

3)SLOW THE HELL DOWN, especially ONLINE. I flow on paper. I need PEN TIME. I am not reading along with the doc unless the connection gets bad or I have serious misgivings.

4) Do what you need to do to make the tech work.

5) Do what you do in this activity. Seriously, especially in novice, or on a panel, you are not 100% adapting to me, so change how you debate those things a bit maybe, but not what you debate. To help with that:

6) Yes, my threshold for "is there gonna be a nuclear war" is WAY higher than it is for "what we talk about in the debate round going to affect us personally". I will vote on the wars, but I don't enjoy every debate about prolif in countries historically opposed to prolif. That isn't "realism" - that's hawk fetish porn. So if this IS you, you gotta do the internal link work, not read me 17 overly-lined down uniqueness cards.

7) I am more OFTEN in K rounds, but honestly I am more of a structural K person than a high theory person. Yes, debate is all simulacra now anyway, but racism and sexism - and the violence caused by them - ARE REAL WORLD. Your ability to talk about such things and how they relate to policies is probably one of your better portable skills for the modern world in this activity.

8) Performance good. Literally, I have 2 degrees in theater. Keep in mind that it means I am pretty well read on this as theory. All debate is performance. (Heck, life is performance, but you don't have time for that now...). My pet peeve as a coach is reading through all the paradigm that articulate performance and Kritikal as the same thing. It.Is.Not. Literally, it is Form vs. Content.

9) Winning Framework does not will a ballot. Winning Framework tells me how to prioritize or include or exclude arguments for my calculation of the ballot. T is NOT Framework (but for the record I err towards Education over Fairness, because this activity just ain't fair due to resource disparity, etc, so do the WORK to win on Fairness via in round trade offs, precedents, or models.)

10) Have fun. Debate can be stressful. Savor the community you can in current times.

PS: I am probably more flow focused than you think, BUT I still prefer the big picture. Tell me a story. It has to make sense for my ballot.

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

Previous Version

The 2020 Preamble relevant to ONLINE DEBATE:

1) Bear with my tech for September for the first round of each day - I work across multiple universities and I am still sorting out going across 3 Zoom accounts, 5 emails accounts, and 2 Starfish accounts for any given thing. Working from home for 6 months combined my day-job stuff into my debate stuff, so I may occasionally have to remember to do a setting. This is like the worst version of a Reese's peanut butter cup.

2) Look, it would be great if I COULD see you as you debate. I am old - I flow what you say and I don't read along with the speech doc unless something bad is happening (bad things include potential connection issues in 2020, concerns over academic integrity/skipping words, and you don't actually do evidence comparison as a debater when weighing your cards and theirs). I don't anticipate changing that in the online debate world. But also, tech disparity and random internet gremlins are real things (that's why we need so many cats in the intertubes), so I ALSO understand if you tell me the camera is off for reasons. That's cool.

3) Because of connections and general practices - SLOW DOWN. CLARITY is super important. (Also, don't be a jerk to people with auditory accommodation needs as we do this). Trade your speed drills for some tongue twisters or something.

4) Recording as a back up is probably a necessary evil, but any use of the recording after a round that is shared to anyone else needs explicit - in writing, and can be revoked - permission of all parties present. PRACTICE AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT. See ABAP statement on online debate practices.

5) I have never wanted to be on the email chain/what-not; however, I SHOULD* be on the chain/what-not. Note the critical ability to distinguish these two things, and the relevance of should to the fundamental nature of this activity. Email for this purpose: vikdebate@gmail.com .

(Do not try to actually contact me with this address - it’s just how I prevent the inevitable electronically transmitted cyber infection from affecting me down the road, because contrary to popular belief, I do understand disads, I just have actual probability/internal link threshold standards.)

((And seriously Tabroom, what the F***? First you shill for the CIA, and now you want to edit the words because "children" who regularly talk about mass deaths might see some words I guarantee you then know already? I was an actual classroom teacher....debate should not be part of the Nanny State. Also this is NEW, because the word A****** used to be in my paradigm in reference to not being one towards people who ask for accessibility accommodations. ARRGGHHH!!!))

-------

Things I am cool with:

Tell met the story

Critical Args

Critical Lit (structural criticisms are more my jam)

Performative strategies - especially if we get creative with the 20-21 format options.

CP fun times and clever intersections of theory

A text. Preferable a well written text. Unless there are no texts.

Not half-assing going for theory

Case debate

Reasonability

You do you

Latin used in context for specific foreign policy conditions.

Teaching Assurance/Deterrence with cats.

Things that go over less well:

Blippy theory

Accidentally sucking your own limited time by unstrategic or functionally silly theory

Critical lit (high theory … yes, I know I only have myself to blame, so no penalty if this is your jelly, just more explanation)

Multiple contradictory conditional neg args

A never ending series of non existent nuclear wars that I am supposed to determine the highest and fastest probability of happening (so many other people to blame). You MAY compare impacts as equal to "x number of gender reveal parties".

Not having your damn tags with the ev in the speech doc. Seriously.

As a general note: Winning framework does not necessarily win you a debate - it merely prioritizes or determines the relevancy of arguments in rounds happening on different levels of debate. Which means, the distinction between policy or critical or performative is a false divide. If you are going to invoke a clash of civilizations mentality there should be a really cool video game analogy or at least someone saying “Release the Kraken”. A critical aff is not necessarily non Topical - this is actually in both the Topic Paper for alliances/commitments and a set of questions I asked at the topic meeting (because CROSS EX IS A PORTABLE SKILL). Make smarter framework arguments here.

Don't make the debate harder for yourself.

Try to have fun and savor the moment.

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

*** *** ***

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

*Judges should be on the chain/what-not for two reasons: 1)as intelligence gathering for their own squad and 2) to expedite in round decision making. My decisions go faster than most panels I’m on when I am the one using prep time to read through the critical extended cards BEFORE the end of the debate. I almost never have the docs open AS the debaters are reading them because I limit my flow to what you SAY. (This also means I don’t read along for clipping … because I am far more interested in if you are a) comprehensible and b) have a grammatical sentence in some poor overhighlighted crap.) Most importantly, you should be doing the evidence comparisons verbally somehow, not relying on me to compare cards after the debate somehow. If I wanted to do any of that, I would have stayed a high school English teacher and assigned way more research papers.

For the email chain: kozakism@gmail.com

I am the former founding Director of Debate at Rutgers University-Newark and current Speech and Debate Coordinator for the Newark Board of Education.

I do not have any formal affiliation with any school in the City of Newark. I represent the entire district and have been doing nothing but competing, teaching, coaching, and building debate for the last 22 years. I have judged thousands of debates at almost every level of competition.

I am in the process of rewriting my judge philosophy to reflect my current attitudes about debate better and be more helpful to competitors trying to adapt. The one I have had on tabroom is over ten years old, and written in the context of college policy debate. I apologize to all the competitors in the many rounds I have judged recently for not being more transparent on Tabroom.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to evaluate arguments as you tell me.

I will keep a slightly edited version of my old philosophy while I work on my new one, as it still expresses my basic feelings about debate.

If you have questions about my judge philosophy or me before a tournament, please email me at ckozak@nps.k12.nj.us.

You can also ask me any questions prior to the debate about any preferences you might be concerned about. Good luck!

Old
.................................................................
My judging philosophy/preference is simple. Make arguments. That includes a claim, a warrant, and why your claim matters in a world of competing claims. I don't have an explicit judging "paradigm," and to say that I am a tabla rasa is naive. I am going to split the difference and just explain to you what kinds of arguments I am familiar with.

I debated the K for most of college. I value nuanced Ks that are well-explained and applied to a specific context. I like original thinking in debate and will try to adapt to any performance style you wish to present in the round. Just be aware to all teams when debating framework on these issues that I do not consider appeals to "objective rules" persuasive in the context of determining debate norms. Debate is a rare activity in which students can define the conditions of their education. I take this aspect of debate very seriously. This does not mean I am hostile to "policy debate good" arguments; it just means that I am holding both teams to a high standard of explanation when evaluating framework arguments.

I was mostly a traditional policy debater in high school, so I am very familiar with the other side of the fence. I love an excellent straight-up policy round. Give me all your weird counterplans and ridiculous disad scenarios. I am a current events junkie and find that form of debate extremely valuable. I enjoy speed; but I have a hard time flowing quick blips analysis (who doesn't?). If you just make sure you pause for a breath or something between arguments, I will get everything you need me to get on my flow.

It may sound like I have a lot of "biases," but I do honestly try to evaluate arguments exactly as debaters tell me to. These preferences mostly come into play only when debaters are not doing their jobs.

Avoid having to adapt to me at all, and just tell me what you would like my preferences to be, and we will be good.

I welcome you to ask any specific questions you may have about my philosophy before the debate, considering I don't have much of an idea about what to put in these things, as I found most judge philosophies deceptive as a competitor.

Updated for 2014-2015 debate season.

I am no longer awarding points for people taking the veg pledge. However, I still strongly believe that if you care about the environment, racism, or injustice that you should register at tournaments vegetarian or vegan. Tournaments will provide for your nutiritional needs and you will have abstained from using your registration fees paying for the slaughter of sentient creatures whose death requires abhorent working conditions for people of color, massive greenhouse gas emissions, and the death of individuals. 

What people decide to consume is a political act, not a personal one. Deciding to consume flesh at debate tournaments continues the pattern of accepting violence and discrimination. This happens for workers, for people living in food deserts, people living in countries across the world, and for the non/human animals sent to slaughter. Tournaments are not food deserts. Your choice to consume differently can make a tangible impact on debate as a community and beyond. Your choice has global and local ramifications. I urge you to make the correct choice in registering your dietary choice even if it has no impact on your speaker points. Several people said that they didn't want to be coerced into making the decision to go vegetarian or vegan at tournaments for speaker points. Now is your chance to make that choice without the impact of speaker points.

All that being said, how you choose to debate is a political choice as well. You can debate however you like but you should realize that the methodology and the content you put forth are not neutral choices. Whatever choices you make you should be ready to defend them in round. “As Stuart and Elizabeth Ewen emphasize in Channels of Desire: The politics of consumption must be understood as something more than what to buy, or even what to boycott. Consumption is a social relationship, the dominant relation-ship in our society – one that makes it harder and harder for people to hold together, to create community. At a time when for many of us the possibility of meaningful change seems to elude our grasp, it is a question of immense social and political proportions.” (hooks 376).

If it is not already clear, I will say it outright: I view debate as a space for education, activism, and social justice. This does not mean I won't vote on framework or counterplans. What it does mean is that the arguments that I will find most appealing are those arguments that speak to how traditional approaches to debate are beneficial to us as individuals to create a better world. It is not that fairness is irrelevant, but that fairness is relevant only to that extent. Fairness plays a part in constructing meaninful education and activism but is not the sole standard to enable good debate. Concepts of fairness are not value-neutral but it is a debate that can be defend and won in front of me since I do not think fairness is irrelevant either. For teams breaking down such structures, you still must win the debate that your approach to debate is better for advacing causes of social justice. If you like policymaking and are running counterplans you merely need to win that your counterplan is a better approach. The same applies for theory violations. I will vote on them if you win that the impact to the violation is important enough for me to pull the trigger. The same is also true for kritiks and other styles of debate. Win that your approach and your argument deserves to win because of the impact that it has.

Again, to be clear, this does not mean that I intend to abandon the flow or vote based upon my personal beliefs. My belief is that debate is more than a game and that the things we say and do in it are not neutral-choices. This does not necessarily mean that so-called traditional policy debate is bad but that the way it should be approached by those teams should not be assumed to be neutral.

Whether it is what you eat, or what you debate, your choice is political. Our world can change. It is up to all of us to make it happen. Movements are already happening all around us. Don't let the norms dictate what you debate or what you consume. Debate should be at the forefront of these initiatives. Use the education you gain in debate to say something and to do something meaningful both in round and beyond.

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.

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.

Random: I really, really appreciate electronic debating. I stop your prep when you're "emailing" but if it takes you more than 2x to send, I will start your prep again. I just think it's an abuse. Unless your partner just puts their hands up and stops thinking. Which is impossible for debaters. Let's just be real. 

Also, I really hope we can have fun. :) 

Prefs:

1) Net benefits/Impact analysis. I think it's imparative that both the Aff and Neg should conduct an impact analysis on how their framework will playout if I vote in that favor. While I have voted on the impact analysis performed in the rebuttals, if you're extending clear voters throughout the round, I will have no choice but to vote on them. I evaluate speaks during your cross x. I want speakers to be able to expand upon their evidence in an argumentative and analytic way. While evidence is absolutely worth reading and necessary to the rhetoric of policy debate, a good, quality analytic argument will outweigh evidence (especially if that evidence is outdated, skewed, or a conversation about the author has taken place). 

2) Theory. When entering a round, I think that the rules in each debate are up for examination and reinterpretation. If you're going to introduce theory, you have to explain all elements of the theory: a) link/uniqueness b) impact c) implications. Do not forget to extend these elements. I really love a good theory, aspec, etc. debate. 

3) Topicality. Bring it up. Talk about it. See where it goes. Usually a clear impact analysis will help me determine if we're on topic or not. Put it in context. Use examples. Paint me a picture.

4) Permutations/PICs. If these are not addressed in the 1AR and extended in the 2AR, you will not win the debate. End of story.

5) DisAds/Ads. I prefer not vote on the disad or ad flow, I am looking at the round as a whole. 

6) Performance Debates. (partially stolen from JMU's Mike Davis): Go for it. I'm not going to discount a performance debate just because it isn't the style in which I debated. "But 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?" (and why?) 

I debated for three semesters at JMU in JV and open. During that time, I went for the K most often, though during my last semester I was more partial to CP/Politics/Case.

Last season, I judged quite a lot. I haven't judged at all this season, nor have I read many of the arguments that have come out. I just got pulled into judging this weekend and had to get something up quick, so here are some random thoughts that might give you a feel for how I judge. Despite the time constraints and how awful this is, I promise you it's better than my paradigm last year.

If last year is anything to go by, I ended up in a lot of method rounds (my judging philosophy then kind of asked for it). I enjoy judging these debates and just have a few things to say regarding them:

1. I think permutations in method debates are probably bad. It does not take much argumentation to win that debate in front of me. Instead of perm: do the aff, I'd rather hear the aff explain why their affirmative solves the k. You almost certainly won't get access to a perm: do both in front of me if the negative reads anything at all on why perms in method debates destroy competitive equity and create massive aff side bias.

2. I think root cause debates get super muddled and are really hard to win on. I'd rather hear how your alternative/aff helps mitigates the impacts of the aff/k or is a prerequisite to the solvency of those impacts. For example: you will almost definitely not win that capitalism is the root cause of anti-blackness in front of me, but I can be persuaded by arguments such as capitalism is an enforcement mechanism of anti-blackness.

3. I need a clear picture of what your method is throughout the debate. It doesn't have to be something concrete, but I need to know what it is (concrete action, thought process, rejection, etc), who can participate in it, and what it affects. Am I endorsing a movement or am I supposed to be enacting something? That's the kind of question I don't want to be asking myself after the 2AR.

3. I really, really, really hate Zizek.

4. I really, really, really hate Badiou.

5. I have a Deleuze tattoo that covers the entire back of my left forearm, if that gives you any idea of what kind of critical theory I'm into.

6. Despite my background being in that kind of philosophy, I think my voting record last season had capitalism losing to race teams far more often.

Despite that being what I judged the most, I want you to do you (I'd actually really love to hear politics arguments this weekend cause I think they could be super interesting).

Theory: the only real thing I have a bias towards is that I believe it's fair that neg has 2 conditional worlds + squo in the block, consolidating down to one world in the 2nr. That doesn't mean I won't vote on conditionality, just that it's hard to get me to. It also doesn't mean that I'll immediately vote you down for having 8 conditional CPs in the 1nc. And I will not judgekick the CP or alternative you brought into the 2nr with you, so you choose either the squo or the cp or the alt in the 2nr.

Topicality: I have no idea what (if any) consensus has been reached regarding this topic, so I'm a blank slate. I feel like this topic is super broad, so any kind of limits arguments are even stronger to prevent aff side bias, but I haven't heard this play out at all nor have I seen how many effective affs actually exist, so maybe I'm wrong. I'd still love to hear a T debate or two.

Neg Framework: Probably a good tool against K affs if you don't want to have a method debate. I just need you to really impact out your framework (e.g. tell me why fairness/topic specific education/whatever matters so much and why it matters more than the impacts of the aff). Poorly impacted framework will not win you a ballot.

CP + DA strats: I like them a lot. A good advantage CP with a couple of DAs and some good work on case is probably the most satisfying debate to watch and judge for me. I don't see them often, so I don't have that much of a preference toward any types of arguments in particular, but I enjoy them a lot.

Other notes: I'm not the best at flowing, so I can get very easily lost in super techy debates. Please slow down when you're doing your T/theory blocks, and please put those blocks in the speech doc for me. I was a mathematics major and work as a research engineer for a government contractor, so I come from a different educational background than most debaters and that probably shows in how I think about things that happen in rounds, and probably in a way I can't adequately describe.

I debated for James Madison University for 4 years.

General/obvious nonsense:

I will do my best to adjudicate neutrally. I am pretty much open to all args. Please don’t abuse that. I believe it is my job first to be an educator and judge each round as it is debated.

Smart/funny debates are preferable. You can be an asshole- just don’t be rude about it. This will influence speaker points.

As much as I love competition at the end of the day debate is a learning experience. Enjoy it.

Framing issues are necessary. I am much more persuaded by 1 or 2 well thought out and articulated args than a bunch of shitty ones.

Probably wont pull the trigger on a new arg in last 2 rebuttals- obviously this is debate dependent but stop cheating.

Arguments:

T: I default to competing interps. I default more aff on reasonability. I prefer limits over grounds claims. Have a case list. Impacting is extremely important.

CPs: Willing to vote on cp theory (I feel for the 2A struggles).  Still lean towards reject the arg not the team. I can be persuaded that condo is the worst.

K: Please explain alt. Specificity of links is important.

DAs: I don’t think there’s ever 100% uniqueness/link- 0 risk is possible. Love me some terminal d/presumption. That being said I can easily be persuaded with some good impact work. 

I started in the activity in 2003 as a debater and haven't left. Please note that over the past couple of years, I've judge a lot less, and have spent much more time in the tabroom. As such, my ability to handle unintelligible speed has probably diminished. 

Etiquette: Debate is a fun activity; if you don’t enjoy it, you probably shouldn’t be doing it. Don’t make it miserable for others. Be polite, answer cx questions (tag team is ok, just don’t take over your partner’s cx time). Extremely offensive language will probably be reflected in lower speaker points (unless of course, it’s an actual argument). Most importantly, have fun!!

Pet Peeves: Don't steal prep time, it's unfair and it causes the whole tournament to run slower.  For paperless teams, prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer to hand to your opponents.

Speed: Speed is fine IF you’re clear. Slower is better when it comes to T, theory, and framework. Don’t sacrifice good analysis and argumentation for speed. I’ll shout “clear” if I can’t understand you, but I won’t do that more than two or three times. While I will call for important cards at the end of the round, I won’t call for so many that I’m reading everything you read on the position you go for at the end of the round.  

Do what you’re comfortable with doing. I will listen to what you say, flow it (unless you tell me not to), and vote for it; but there are certain types of debate that I’m much more comfortable with adjudicating.

Topicality: T is about competing interpretations. Provide a sound interpretation, a clear violation, and impact it. T exists to establish fair ground. It’s ok to take a different perspective and/or use a different style of argument, but I believe that you should have to affirm the resolution to provide some predictable neg ground. I believe switch-side debate is good. While I’m open to the argument, it will take some work to convince me that T is genocidal and/or shouldn’t come first when evaluating the round.

CP/DAs: I love good CP/DA rounds. Make sure your DAs have good uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts. Weigh the impacts against the aff impacts! Magnitude, probability, timeframe: they’re all good things to analyze. What are the solvency deficits or DAs to the CP? 

Kritiks: I’m open to listening to kritiks, but keep in mind that I don’t spend the little free time I have reading Zizek, Derrida, etc. Clearly explain the link and implications. Have a well-articulated alternative. Reject the aff is not usually a good alternative. Articulate how the aff can’t solve or how the K solves the aff better if that’s what you’re going for. What are the disadvantages to the perm? A lot of analysis and good explanation will go much farther than reading a few extra cards.

Performance: If you are going to perform, have a framework that allows for fair debate. Make an argument. Respond to your opponents’ arguments (yes, you may have to respond to a DA; you don’t have to read cards, but you do have to answer it). This is not the type of debate I’m most comfortable judging, but I will listen to you. I just may be easily convinced that you aren’t topical and/or don’t provide a fair framework for debate. If you do those things, go for it!

Theory:  Conditionality is fine, however running multiple contradictory conditional positions is probably abusive.  Don't just read blocks.  Draw distinctions, have a clear interpretation.  Show in round abuse, or explain why potential abuse should be a voting issue.  Impact analysis is important. 

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.

Joe Patrice

USMA

Paperless Policy:I'm at joepatrice@gmail.com. Or I can do the situational dropbox thing. Whatever. Regale me with your evidence. I don't read it during the round, I just want it all for post-round evaluation and caselist obligations. I still flow based on what you SAY so don't cut corners on clarity just because I have your speech docs in my inbox.

Flowing: Seriously, I’m not reading your evidence during your speech. Why doesn’t anyone ever trust me on this? Did I do something in a past life that makes debaters pathologically incapable of believing me? Anyway, if you’re not articulating your distinct arguments, you’re taking your chances that I’m not getting what you’re trying to put out there. I consider debate to be a contest between teams to communicate to me what should be on my flow and where, so orient your argumentation accordingly.

Everything Else: I characterize myself as a critic of argument, which is the pretentiousway of saying that I listen to everything, but that, all else equal, certain things are more compelling than others.

NOTE: Do not necessarily interpret any of my preferences as bans on any kind of arguments, or even guides to how to select down. It's a threshold of believability issue.

Policy Debates: Compare your impacts, weigh them, and tell me a story of the world of voting Aff vs. voting Neg. I’ll choose the one that’s comparatively advantageous.

I prefer fewer positions withlonger evidence, clearer scenarios, and more analysis of impact probability ratherthan harping on the massive scale of the impacts. If I hear that a slight increase in spending collapses the world economy triggering a nuclear war, you may as well tell me aliens are invading. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll vote on it, but I’ll die a little inside and there’s frighteningly little of my soul left to kill – I’m a lawyer.

I’m not particularly excited about the world of flinging 4 CPs at the Aff and just playing the coverage game. It’s just not the makings of a compelling debate, you know? Pick a lane! And it doesn’t seem especially cool on a topic featuring legal scholars proposing almost infinite specific counter-proposals to research. I’ve got no preferences on CP/Perm theory arguments other than it bugs me that people don't feel compelled to explain the abuse story like they would on T. I do not think the blip "the Perm is severance" is enough to get the job done and if I’m going to vote on it, I’d really prefer if, before the round is over, I can comfortably explain why it severs and preferably a reason why that is uniquely disadvantageous. But given that caveat, I'm more than willing to vote on these args because people all too often don't answer them well enough, probably because they don't know how to flow anymore. NOTICE A TREND!

In other words, if you're going the policy route, you’ll make me so happy teeing off with specific arguments tied to the real academic/policy debate over the subject.

And if you’re reading this harsh criticism of policy debate with a smug look on your face, slow your roll there Kdebater...

Kritik Debates: Kritiks challenge the advocacy of the other team in salient ways that could be lost in a pure utilitarian analysis. Issues of exclusion and oppression ingrained in the heart of a policy proposal or the representations of the other team can be called out with kritiks ranging from simple “-ism” args to a postmodern cavalcade.

It is NOT an excuse to say random pomo garbage that sounds cool but doesn’t bear upon what’s happening in the round. Esoteric ramblings from some dead French or German thinker can – and often do – have as little to do with the debate round as the hypothetical global nuclear wars that have killed us a million times over in this activity. Look, I actually KNOW what most of that garbage means, but that's not a reason for you to not make sense. Make the K relevant to the specific policy/issue discussion we’re having and I’ll be very happy.

Again, I vote on this stuff, but see above about killing me inside.

When it comes to K/Performance Affs, I’m pretty open to however you justify the Aff (metaphorically, as activism, as some kind of parable), so long as deep down you’re advocating that all things equal, “giving rights or duties to the things listed in the topic would be good.” Faint in the direction of the topic and you’re in good shape.

With that caveat, if you outright refuse to "affirm" anything in the "topic," that's all well and good, just be a really good T/Framework debater. I'll vote for a compelling justification — I’ve recently been told that according to Tabroom, I’m almost exactly .500 in K v. Framework debates over the last few years. I don’t know if that’s true, but it sounds right. Frankly, I'd rather hear "we can't be Aff because the resolution is broken and we'll win the T/Framework debate" than some squirrely "we're not topical, but kind of topical, but really not" thing.

But who am I to judge! Oh right... I'm the judge. Kinda my job.

An honest pet peeve (that I can be talked out of, round-by-round) is that I don't think “performance” means acting out the argument in-round. For example, Dadaism is an argument, not a reason to answer every question with “Fishbulbs!" You job is to sell me that people answering questions with “Fishbulbs” would be good – if you’re doing it in-round you’ve skipped the foundational part.

Topicality: I feel like I've told enough people in enough rounds about this that I'm comfortable putting it here: if you're running this Scalia evidence as a definition of "vest" despite the fact that it is EXPLICITLY not about rights and duties and solely about Article II power or if you're running the "rights are 15 things" from a definition about how the Indian legal system makes distinctions between constitutional rights and statutory legal rights, you're engaged in an act of such intellectual dishonesty that I think I'm willing to vote on that alone if the other team mentions it.

Every time you steal prep time will also kill me a little more inside. But you’re going to do it anyway.

I will keep this brief and if you have more specific questions, please ask me before round. I debated a variety of arguments at JMU for 4.5 years and have out of the debate game for a while. I would say that I do not have any preference in arguments, but that would be stretching the truth. I believe Affs should have an interpretation that gives both sides fair and equitable ground to debate based on pre-round prep/ strategy. I also am not a fan of blippy theory arguments. If you want to go for theory, go for theory. Explain why it is bad for the debate and what implications it has outside of the round. If not, don't waste the time.

Although, I believe I am fairly knowledgable about a number of topics, it is your job to explain what your argument is, why you deserve to win, and/or what the other team is doing wrong. Please go the extra step in explaining your Ks, the internal links to your DAs (please have solid internal links), why your CP is best, and why you think your topicality (not a huge fan of topicality debates) or framework argument is best for debate. My job is to observe, listen (and of course flow), and at the end of the round choose a ballot based on the information provided during the round. Lastly, let’s keep it civil folks, debate is a game and I know it can be stressful, but you should be having fun.

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

CURRENT THINGS WITH JAYE:

I am currently working as an assistant coach to the Newark Science debate team. I am very much indebted to debate for the person that I am today. I find debate (and especially debate rounds) to be very much a part of life. This means that I would encourage everyone to understand that the things you say in a debate round have real implications even outside of the debate round. Fellow debaters and opponents in the past, present, and future are not just obstacles, but are other people whether that is outside or inside civil society. Debate does not allow the things you say to exist in a vacuum, so as a judge, coach, educator, and a petty black man I will not tolerate or evaluate the following ideas (LIKE EVER):

RACISM GOOD/ RACISM DOES NOT EXIST

SOCIAL DEATH GOOD

STOPPING WARMING WILL SOLVE RACISM

(These are the only things that come to mind at the moment, I know and will try and add more, but understand I put these first for a reason.)

BACKGROUND THINGS WITH JAYE:

I’m a proud member of the Eastside debate team senor class of 2014. I am the closest friend with Daniel Mendes (who all of sudden became a celebrity in HS debate) and Chaz Wyche (if you don’t know about him you shouldn’t worry about it to affect my judging.). From my time on the Eastside debate team (Eastside BR) I am a member of the few teams from Newark to ever get a TOC bid (Scranton 2013) in over a decade. All my time in policy debate has been devoted to traveling, and debating in national tournaments all over the country (Scranton, Yale, Georgetown, Emory, U-Penn, NAUDL, etc). During my travels I have had Elijah Smith (CEDA AND NDT 2012 CHAMPION), Chris Randall (CEDA AND NDT NATIONAL 2013 DEBATER, and also Elijah’s partner), and Willie Johnson (CEDA 2013 FINAL ROUND JUDGE) as my coaches and most influential to my success as a debater. I am luck enough to have even judged at the college level of policy debates at tournaments such as Vermont, and West point and look forward to judging the HS level. 

DEBATE THINGS WITH JAYE:

GENERIC THING WITH JAYE:

I’ll try and be quick and painless for the people who are waiting to know how they should pref me. Now I have judged policy, critical, and performance, but I find performance to be the debates I’m truly most comfortable with. If you could not tell by the three coaches I have stated above, I am very familiar with performance rounds and by coincidence I am also a performance debater. I ran an Afro-pessimist critiques in all my national tournaments my senior year (exception Yale and Georgetown: I ran Decolonaility, there is a difference btw). At all the other the tournaments I have read at least 2 Wilderson cards in every speech I’ve given. There are other authors that I read that talk about anti-blackness, but the point is that if you are talking about black people I have probably read the books/articles they came from. Now policy is by no means something I can’t judge. No performance debaters I know have started out running performance arguments, the same is true for me that I had to learn policy debate in order to be the debater I am today so I’ll talk about the specifics of policy first. 

POLICY THINGS WITH JAYE:

TOPICALLY

• AFF

You should pick up on whether the negative will truly go for the argument, and let that choose how you will answer in the 2ac and 1ar. Reasonability is a really strong argument in front of me, but that does not excuse you for dropping any arguments that can be used to make topically important.

• NEG

I do evaluate topically. If you are going for topically you need to go hard people. I will not vote for topically if you don’t hard for me in the block. I need in round abuse, topical versions of the Aff, and voters that are going to be impacted in the round in order for me to take topically as more than a time crew you thought of for the round. If you actually do go for topically in the 2nr (which I would be beyond shock and a little impressed if you do it well) to make me vote on topically you need to go for this argument for the whole five minutes. Topically is a prior question in the round it would only make sense to just go for topically in the 2nr. The way I see topically used now as a time screw for a very minimal infraction of the Affirmative that is probably resolved through reasonability.   

THEORY

• AFF

 The best thing you could do for me would to try and set up theory in cross x. A simple “What is the status of the off case position?” would help me to at least prepare for a theory debate. I also like theory on a separate flow so that needs to be in the order at the beginning of the speech.  That helps me evaluate the separate offense and defense on that debate. Theory like topically needs to have same time spent on it in order for me to vote for this argument. Your tagline will not be enough for me.  

• NEG

It is of the utmost importance for you to set this argument up in cross x for me if you can. Theory should also be on a separate flow, and similar to what I said on the Aff. You need to spend time on his to have me vote on this.  

FRAMEWORK

• AFF

For the Affirmative the framework is really helpful to how I should evaluate. I can guest that a utilitarian framework is the way to evaluate your impacts or you can tell that utilitarianism is the framework, and give some comparative analysis if the negative has their own framework.  A role of the ballot and judge is something you also want in any 2ac because it makes sense.

• NEG

I’m talking about the “Resolved means a USFG topical policy action”. This type of frame is the scorn of my life. You don’t know how many times I’ve heard this argument. I WILL CRINGE EVERY TIME I HEAR THIS ARGUEMNT. I will unfortunately listen to the argument, but no one will like this debate. I believe that you should probably just run the topical version of the plan against whatever Aff you didn’t care to engage with. You can still weight all the education and ground arguments, but we now have a better debate, and I’ll be a lot happier.

AFFFIRMATIVE

All Policy affirmatives NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR LINE BETWEEN THE INTERNAL LINK AND THE IMPACT OF EACH ADVANTAGE. I also need a clear line to the SOLVENCY AND HOW THAT WORKS FOR EACH ADVANTAGE. The Aff should tell a story and have a good flow to it. This means the Aff should not be you trying to read as many cards as you can in the 1ac. The 1ac should be slow on tags to contribute to the idea of telling a story. Even policy Affs can be creative. Don’t be afraid to something other than nuclear war/extinction and have some cool advantage with a framework behind how I should evaluate the advantage. The best example of this I can tell you is probably structural violence advantage that stops something like police brutally, but this will require work. I will be happy to see that effort in a debate round and be sure to recognize you in some way for that work.   (Probably a speaker higher)

DISADVANTAGES

They are ok, but make sure think is a clear link to the Aff. You also need to tell me how to evaluate this impact in round. The answer is YES! I would like a specific impact calculus for the round that compares all the impacts in the round.

COUNTER PLANS

If the counter plan doesn’t make any sense after the permutation then I will probably not vote for the counter plan. It needs to complete. That means a net benefit and a reason why the Aff is a bad idea. I believe that even if the counter plan solves the Aff it does not mean game over. The negative still needs a reason why the Aff is a bad idea on top of the net benefit or I will just vote Aff on the permutation. 

CRITICAL THINGS WITH JAYE:

• AFFIRMATIVE

This for the Affirmative that have a plan text, but have a very philosophical background:

YOUR AWSOME 

• CRITQUE

I LOVE CRITQUES, BUT IF YOU DON”T KNOW THE LITERATURE I WILL NOT LIKE YOU. This simply means if you read a critique you should have picked a book and read. Not just the introduction, but have read the book. You can easily tell an experience K debater from someone who is just beginning. I find that people can earn high speaks here, but with all high speaks they come to those who have a working knowledge of the hell they are talking about. Know Your Stuff. Links need to be as clear as possible. The better the link story, the better the speaker points. The alternative needs to solve the Aff or resolve the essential question posed in the debate. Make sure I know what the world of the alternative looks like. If you say that you end the work I need to know what the process looks like because my ballot will final end the world and I’ll take great pride in that.  

PREFORMANCE THINGS WITH JAYE:

• AFFIRMATIVE

As stated above I’m very comfortable with this argument. Be sure to have some clear connection to the topic. IF YOU RUN THIS ARGUMENT YOU ARE THE REASON WHY THE SUN SHINES (not really tho)

• NEGATIVE

I do believe that the negative can also have performances. These are really trick to deploy in a round sometime, but when done correctly they are one the most powerful arguments in debate. I prefer these debates to happen when the Aff gives there performance, and he neg provides a counter performance/methodology. These argument hold a special place in my heart as this was the only I ran on the negative of my senior. There is nothing special you get from me by reading this argument but that shouldn’t hinder you from reading this argument in front on me anyway.    

END OF THNGS WITH JAYE

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.

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.

I see the activity of debate as an opportunity for students to develop their ability to deploy and engage individual arguments.  But ultimately, debaters must deliver by bringing arguments together to generate a bigger picture that provides a compelling case for voting for them.  Explaining link stories effectively is a compelling way to create this picture.  Articulating a clear impact analysis is another way to do it.  Showing how individual arguments on the flow or across flows interrelate is yet another way to create this picture.  

I like debates with a lot of clash, in which both sides are maximally required to put a set of opposing arguments in dialogue with their own. The team that is able to provide argumentative depth and sophistication in how they compare arguments and evidence will get my ballot. 

This should probably go without saying, but the task of deploying arguments and framing them effectively and persuasively is the burden of the debaters.   What I might personally believe about the truth or falsity of the argument is of little to no consequence; what matters is what the debaters on each side have to say about it.  No matter whether what is being promoted is the advocacy of a plan, or that consciousness needs to be raised about a particular issue, the onus is on the debaters to convey how their arguments show why they should win the round.

"He was a man of talent and ability, to be sure…He knew how to knock his opponent down quickly and effectively with the fewest possible words. He had an animal instinct for sensing the direction of the wind. But if you paid close attention to what he was saying or what he had written, you knew that his words lacked consistency. They reflected no single worldview based on profound conviction. His was a world that he had fabricated by combining several one-dimensional systems of thought. He could rearrange the combination in an instant, as needed. These were ingenious—even artistic—intellectual permutations and combinations. But to me they amounted to nothing more than a game. If there was any consistency to his opinions, it was the consistent lack of consistency, and if he had a worldview, it was a view that proclaimed his lack of a worldview…

He had nothing to protect, which meant that he could concentrate all his attention on pure acts of combat. He needed only to attack, to knock his enemy down. Noboru Wataya was an intellectual chameleon, changing his color in accordance with his opponent’s, ad-libbing his logic for maximum effectiveness, mobilizing all the rhetoric at his command…He knew how to use the kind of logic that moved the great majority. Nor did it even have to be logic: it had only to appear so, so long as it aroused the feelings of the masses.

Trotting out the technical jargon was another forte of his. No one knew what it meant, of course, but he was able to present it in such a way that you knew it was your fault if you didn't get it. And he was always citing statistics. They were engraved in his brain, and they carried tremendous persuasive power, but if you stopped to think about it afterward, you realized that no one had questioned his sources or their reliability…It was like boxing with a ghost: your punches just swished through the air. There was nothing solid for them to hit. I was shocked to see even sophisticated intellectuals responding to him. It would leave me feeling strangely annoyed…All they looked for on the tube were the bouts of intellectual gladiators; the redder the blood they drew, the better."

-Haruki Murakami, The Wind-up Bird Chronicle

The section below explains my judging predispositions. These all stem from my hope that debate can avoid being/becoming what is described above.

I am significantly more persuaded by framework as a method question instead of a voting issue.  There is a vast literature base over whether working within or outside of the state is the best way of combating social ills. I find these method debates are best (and most persuasive) when the theory that underlies each side is tied to specific historical examples. For example, what positive and negative effects has previous government reform entailed? What accomplishments and change have individualized resistance actualized? While it is always up for debate, I am open to the idea that the affirmative should not get a permutation in a method debate.

I find probability before magnitude to be very persuasive but will listen to arguments that disagree. In the event that I am judging a round in which both sides are claiming extinction impacts, a solid tactic could be to emphasize a more real world impact (ie instead of saying plan solves extinction, say plan increases jobs which reduces poverty) and then make fun of their scenarios.

Education arguments are the most persuasive when evaluating theory. For example, is the counterplan real world and does it provide valuable education? Or, does it allow the negative a contrived position to merely by-pass topic education?

For me, the most important part of a critique debate is applying your theory to specific aspects of the affirmative. This often requires substantial explanation that may not be carded. Well-developed analytics are far more persuasive to me than a slew of poorly explained cards. When in doubt, use historical examples of why the affirmative’s ideological underpinnings are problematic. Perhaps this is a personal bias since I am currently getting a PhD in history, but I am a huge sucker for utilizing history to contextualize arguments.

I am willing to and have voted on ethical issues that occurred within a debate round (ie overt racism, sexism, homophobia, abelism, etc). For me to vote on such an issue, it must be a fully developed argument that includes an explanation of what the problematic instance was, why it was problematic, an impact, and a reason why my ballot should be centered on that instead of other arguments in the debate.

Be civil. No, that does not mean you have to fake liking your opponent or be overly nice. It does, however, mean that I will reduce speaker points if I feel like you are degrading your opponents in an attempt to control ethos.

There is a high probablility I will be overly talkative (and make bad attempts at jokes) during dead time. You are more than welcome to ignore me/tell me that you need to concentrate.

2 years debate for JMU in novice, JV and open, this is my second year coaching & judging at JMU, and have judged at numerous tournaments, including Georgia State, Districts & the NDT

While as a debater I was more inclined towards straight up policy debate, as a judge I am open to absolutely anything, but I'm not going to pretend you're making sense if you aren't.  Run what you're good at and feel comfortable doing.  Hit me with your best arguments and methodology.  I judge the debate in front of me, not what you did last tournament, last round, or anything else.  I don't have a preference what you run.  Performance, K, straight-up, doesn't matter. 

No matter how the debate is going, there is always a way to win. It may be a longshot, may be unlikely, but the best advice I got as a debater is you always go for the win.  It doesn't get you anything to look good losing; try and know when you're behind and do something about it.  There's a lot of ways to generate offense, it just may not be obvious.  Don't go plunging off the cliff...go for the win.

Tell me what the role of the ballot is and why I'm voting for you; otherwise I default to cost/benefit analysis in the lens of a straight-up policy debate.  If you don't explain it or mention it in the round, don't be surprised when I tell you that one element outweighs the other.

K/Performance teams

Just keep in mind I am not as up to date with the literature (I don't read biopolitics/Wilderson for fun, sorry), so you're gonna have to explain it.  Don't assume I know what element of Agamben/Deleuze/Wilderson your link or analysis is.  I'll vote for it (and often do) but you'll need to help me understand how/why the K/performance matters, how/why it earns the ballot and how I should compare it to a non-performing team.  Sequencing explanations are very beneficial.

Neg

FW

Again, I default to a straight up policy mindset until you tell me otherwise.  Explain your framework, how I'm to view/judge the round, sequencing, etc.

DAs

The more diverse impacts, the better.  Make your internal link clear and strong, don't assume that I'll just get it.

CPs.

Assuming equal solvency, an external net benefit that outweighs will likely earn my ballot.

PTX

I always took politics in the block and prided myself on my PTX blocks and my walls.  Paint the story, explain your scenario and how it trades off, why the plan kills PTX.  I have a very high threshold for voting politics theory; I'll far more likely to just toss the card/argument, rather than voting them down unless you can really establish abuse.

T/SPEC

I'll vote for topicality, but it should be explained with some big picture impacts.  Why/how would allowing their affirmative be harmful to you in the round and to debate as a whole?  Clearly establish some in-round or potential abuse.  Don't just read your blocks after the constructives if you're going for this, and the 2NR better have more than 1 minute if you're going for a win on T.

If you're going for a SPEC argument, it better be good/applicable.  Given the resolution, SPEC arguments (especially ASPEC) are pretty pointless and just a time suck.  I appreciate time sucks, but recognize it's just that.

Other notes:

Don't steal prep.  I hated it debating and I'll call you out for it, including docking your prep time.  No, I don't count flashing as prep time, but keep it speedy.

I prefer not to call for evidence; the burden is on the team to explain the card and the warrant and why it matters/applies/outweighs/links, etc. Generally I'll only call for evidence that a 2A or 2N has flagged repeatedly, or if both sides try coopting the same card.  

I dislike judge intervention, the round is the round and my decision is independent of that.  I'll do my best to not. If you cut the card during a speech, you or your partner should mark that in the highliting.

Debate is fun, have fun, make me laugh and remember at the end of the round you're gonna have to shake the other team's hands.

any questions, email me

danieljspiker@gmail.com

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

Have fun and be your best you!

2 Years Graduate Assistant @ Pitt.

2 Year Coaching MA @ Wake.

Debated Four Years at Clarion University.

Quick notes

1. Be nice to the people you debate, being rude to them during/after will cost you speaker points and I will judge you as a base creature

2. Love big debates with a bunch of arguments made (Warrants > Cards).

3. Author qualification matters.

4. Love specificity of argumentation and analysis. If deeply theoretical connect it to practice (in-round or normalized experience).

5. I think debaters relying on judges calling for evidence has gotten out of hand. A team will win a micro-argument if they explain the warrants of their evidence albeit they read less/worse evidence. If I call for cards it will be because the area of debate is undecidable based upon the analysis in the round.

6. I'm much more open to framework discussions for critical affirmatives then previously thought.

Rest of it.

Paperless Debate: I'm not really a stickler about prep time as long as people try to progress the debate to the best of their abilities. I understand that issues arrive because technology will be technology but I ask everyone in the room to be as ethical about not stealing prep as possible.

Framework: Without instruction, I will look at it from the view of an informed citizen trying to decipher whether or not the question of the resolution is met by the affirmative or not. If you want me to resolve the debate in another manner I need you to explicitly frame what voting aff/neg means and/or what the ballot represents and WHY that is important. Teams that want me to act more traditionally have the same presumption when telling me why I should actively execlude the performance of alterity.

Theory: I like interesting theoretical arguments; this is usually garnered by teams being specific when it comes to theory. Example, conditionality by itself seems good, multiple worlds without advocacy of a permutation while the status quo always being logical seems bad.

Biases I can think of:

-Multiple conditional Cp’s or alternatives are ok.

-Multiple conditional worlds - combination of Alt’s/Cp’s seems problematic.

-International Fiat – no opinion

-Agent Cp’s – No opinion

-Consult – Dirty/Cheating

-I find arguments for advocating a permutation to be persuasive.

-States Cp: No Opinion

Be topical. Reverse voters aren’t arguments. Substantial matters.

Critiques: Fine. The strength of the link qualifies how much weight I give to the impacts.

Speaker Points - It's all relative - Have fun - do what you love - be funny if you can - be true to yourself and the speaker points will follow.

Much Love,

Swan.

Refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names.

Add me to the chain: thoma.austin@gmail.com

I've noticed that as a judge I tend to close my eyes while I'm thinking. Some debaters have assumed that I was sleeping during their speeches. I assure you that this is not the case.

Fifth year judging college debate. Director of Debate at Wyoming. Previously coached for Cornell. Judged and coached high school in the past.

Philosophy:

I do not reject any argument on its face. Everything I say here is preliminary - these ideas can be changed by arguments in-round. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I do have predispositions that will influence my decisions - as we all do. I will try to highlight critical points here, but will clarify anything at tournaments or via email - contact me at thoma.austin@gmail.com. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it in any particular order.

It takes an awful lot for me to call for cards. If you aren't explaining it, it doesn't really matter. The arguments you make about the cards are more important than the evidence itself.

One good argument is better than lots of bad arguments. I have noticed that my theory threshold is not as low as it once was, but I believe that it is still lower than average. Theory debates are my favorite, but only if teams engage instead of just reading blocks.

My presumption is neg - aff should propose a change from the status quo.

Aff should be in the direction of the topic. This is a fairly ambiguous concept, but I feel like you'll know it when it happens. Does your aff want more executive control? If so, I probably won't be predisposed to vote for it, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Engaging "the system" (political, social, whatever power structure you want to talk about) is productive (perhaps with negative consequences).

Rhetoric choices matter - and come before evaluation of plan action.

Aff severence of 1AC rhetoric / assumptions is illegitimate.

Conditionality on neg is good for debate.

Condo does not let you no link rhetoric/reps arguments.

2NR condo is illegitimate.

Fiat is good for debate.

Performative argumentation is good for debate.

Fairness is of at least as much importance as education in the context of debate.

Narratives - personal or otherwise - need to be applied to broader, more generalized arguments to make sense in the context of the round.

"100% no link" is real and possible, but difficult.

Politics DAs are pretty silly.

Debate rounds are not particularly good forums for starting social change.

"Traditional policy" framework is a legitimate strategy better served with fewer arguments that are better developed than a multitude of arguments that are less developed. To get my ballot here, I suggest focusing on skills development.

Preferences:

Try to refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names. I rarely write all of these down. This is obviously less true when attacking cites or comparing evidence, but it is certainly true in extensions. "Extend the Johnson evidence" doesn't do much for me.

Prep stops when you tell me it stops. Prep starts when speeches end. Don't prep during evidence flashing/emailing. I will punish it.

I debated Policy in the national circuit for Science Park High School for three years and Public Forum for the remaining year. Since then I have judged for LD, Public Forum, Parliamentary and Policy.

As a judge I feel that my only obligation is to give both sides an equal opportunity to present and defend their arguments. I will not do any work for either side, what is not said is not assumed and will not be considered. I will vote on any winning argument. (theory, K, etc.)

Impact calculus is very important but don't forget the links. For example, how should I weigh solvency deficits and links ? In my mind, the lower the risk of the link, the lower the risk of the impact.

Offense-defense: this is the second most important issue. Realize that winning a bunch of defensive arguments will most likely make it hard to win if your opponent has an offense against you.

Nexus question: what is the most important thing to evaluate a debate. You don't have to clearly flag this in the 1 AR for me, but I should at least see the inkling of the doors to analysis you are going to blow up in the 2 AR.

1 ARs and 2 NRs if you could clean things up for me, it would be so much appreciated. Labeling groups of arguments helps me know what you are extending or responding to.

Prep time starts when cross x ends. Please don't try to steal prep time.

If the aff is going for theory against the neg like process counter plans bad, they should know I have a high threshold for rejecting the team and not the argument. I think the 2AR has to provide examples of arguments they would not have been able to run or examples of in-round abuse. This is not impossible. It just requires some thought on your part going into the 2 nc and 2 nr as to what kind of topic-specific education you think is lost or round advantages the neg procures. Against topicality try to use offensive reasons to prefer your counter-interpretation. I may have trouble voting on reasonability unless you can articulate what the vagueness of the resolution is this year and what might be considered reasonbly topical or untopical.

arontrujillo@gmail.com

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. 

I debated for USMA for 4 years from 2004-2008. I am now a Gynecologic Surgeon. I enjoy the debate activity.

Email for round evidence chains: fairshasta@outlook.com

In summary, I will vote for anything as long as it is clearly articulated and explained to me. I do prefer that the Aff be topical, but if the Aff can demonstrate that topicality is not important better than the neg, I’m fine with voting for a non-topical aff. I also prefer to hear well articulated policy debates. Assumptions and perspective are important parts of policy making and should be debated if relevant. Good argumentation leads to good education however that may play out in the round. Do not take my leanings as an indication that any arguments are banned. This is not the case. I vote for the best argumentation, not what I agree with.

Be nice to your opponents, even if you are winning/losing badly. Debate is about exchanging ideas, so don’t get upset if someone disagrees with you. It’s sort of the point of the activity. Just debate the arguments. If you think something is immoral and that morality is important, make that argument rather than whining. People will disagree; get over it. Cross ex is binding. Don’t shout at each other or start fighting here either.

Topicality:

I think T is about competing interpretations. Impact your voters. Debaters must define what they are arguing about. Don’t be afraid to go for T, but if the Aff is doing a good job here, it may not be your best option, especially if you are winning some other position in the round.

Theory:

I like deep theory debates if relevant. Debating rules and procedure can be an important aspect of life. Reading a bunch of shells with no examples at lightning speed may not help you. Be strategic here. Tell the story, impact the voters, and cover all your bases on the flows if you are going for this.

Kritiks are just like any other argument in debate. If it is well explained, I’ll vote for it. You must defend your alternative. Tell the story. I prefer well articulated debates with clear impact analysis.

Disads:

Explain the scenario. I don’t want to see some amorphous disad throughout the round that suddenly makes sense in the 2NR. Weak disads (aka, ridiculously complex, improbable, poorly written, bad internal links) typically are not that compelling to me. Trying to win how many times the world will be annihilated based on budget rules stretches my imagination to say the least. War is miserable without needing to escalate to nuclear winter. Tell the story, win the links and uniqueness, and do some impact calculus.

Counterplans:

I like Counterplan debates. Be tight on the theory. Multiple conditional advocacies can be abusive. Gateway arguments can be abusive, but if you can win the theory args, run whatever floats your boat. I do tend to protect Affs from really abusive counterplans, but that doesn’t mean I won’t vote for them. Determine how you are running arguments and go for it. Wanky counterplans can be fun if you do it well.

Performance:

Fine if done well. I see many poorly constructed policy affs with improbably impact scenarios spoken at lighten speed to be a performance in some ways. Be prepared to debate the line by line. Impact the arguments. Tell the story and tell me why you win the ballot. I am not a fan of opacity. A clear exchange of ideas is important.

In general, I prefer specific argumentation to generic. This mostly applies to theory
debates. Basically, any number of generic arguments will not overcome a few specific
and well-linked arguments. This will actually save time in most cases for the debaters as
they can make fewer arguments that actually have some relevancy to the argument at
hand. When I read cards it is usually because there is a debate about
the evidence. This doesn’t mean that you repeat a name in the last rebuttal, it means that
there is some debate about the relevancy or validity of the evidence.
Theory: See above about specific argumentation. Also consider that I probably am
slightly affirmative leaning on “abusive” counterplans. I think that the negative in
general has the burden of defending the theoretical justification of the counterplan. I
believe that, when questioned, the negative team has to justify the theoretical argument
they have presented, NOT the ability of the negative in general to make theoretical
arguments (e.g. negation theory isn’t even an argument, don’t even waste your breath).
Topicality: I believe an illustration of ground lost or preserved for either side’s
interpretation is the best way to evaluate topicality debates. This, I suppose, is pretty
obvious but I think it is important to remember and not lose focus on the importance of
the ultimate impact of topicality and how the standards and definitions relate to a good
division of ground. A side note, I, in general, look rather unfavorably on things like generic A-spec.
There are times when these should be used, but as a generic fall back strategies they will not go far with me.
Policy issues: I evaluate arguments to the best of my ability as they are presented in the
debate. I hope to evaluate the impacts as they are presented in the debate but when the
debaters do not provide this option I will fall back upon a risk/impact calculus. This does
not mean that the largest impact always wins. This means that likelihood of a risk along
with magnitude will determine the weight of the argument. In general, I don’t think that
saying the word “extinction” grants you the largest impact in a debate. I think a real
evaluation of the impact scenario and its effects will do much to overwhelm catch phase
impact assessment.
Critical arguments: There isn't much inherently different about critical arguments vis-a-vis other arguments that makes me evaluate them differently. Specificity is always going to be better especially on the link level as I think links to the system or links of omission are about as useful as they would be to any other debate argument. To make things easier on me, I would suggest that you phrase the arguments in terms that I am better able to understand, i.e. link, impact, alternative. Also
I would not operate under the assumption that I understand the specific authors or arguments you are making without an explanation.

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.