Tabroom.com

2015 Kathryn Klassic Cal State Fullerton

2015 — CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Ben Allen Western Connecticut State University 4 rounds

Jared Anderson Sacramento State University 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 1, 2024 at 1:48 AM UTC

Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

Luis Andrade Cal State Fullerton 4 rounds

Michael Antonucci Harvard 2 rounds

Brendon Bankey University of Kansas 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 13, 2024 at 11:00 AM CDT

Director of Debate at the University of Texas

brendonbankey@gmail.com - please add me to your email chain

***Nukes Topic - NDT Update***

-Apology not accepted. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

-Don't pref me if you spent your NDT prep taking screenshots of your opponents' wikis or social media instead of cutting cards. The ad-homs have continued unabated all season and its pathetic that the community has created a competitive incentive for character attacks. To the coaches, what purpose are you serving convincing young adults that their path to success should include tactics that would be grounds for civil litigation in any other context? Aren't we all supposed to be educators?

-Students who abuse the subject line of the email chain to insinuate that their opponents are members of hate groups are committing harassment and I will vote against them if it occurs in front of me. Touch grass. No-one competing at this tournament is in the klan. Anyone who devotes themselves to winning the Larmon has forfeited their claim to be holier than thou. Get over yourselves.

***Nukes Topic***

General

I would like to see more evidence spin and storytelling. I think impact interaction matters on this topic. Narrate the trip wires that cause your impact to occur. Timeframe/probability matter a lot more to me than magnitude (it all seems pretty bad). I care whether the disad turns the case or vice versa.

Please engage and indict your opponents' evidence. Evidence quality matters. Several of the major topic authors on this topic were also the major topic authors on the 09-10 topic. I will reward debaters who can articulate the distinct warrants and disagreements between the policy wonks. I think this is especially important for kritik debating. Several topic authors are known quantities and fodder for epistemology links.

I think evidence matters when evaluating topicality and counterplan competition. In addition to reading evidence for interps/violations/textual competition, debaters should explain why their definitions should be preferred. I will defer to the negative on T or counterplan competition until the aff counter-defines the words. If the aff covers the definitions, the neg must also explain why its definitions are better for a year's worth of debates. I think "does this definition produce better debates?" is a more important question than "is this the most precise interpretation?".

K Stuff

-The oldies are goodies. Although the content of the nukes policy v k debate has changed over the past forty years, several of the warrants/justifications/conventional thinking continue to be applied on both sides. I am comfortable using old evidence to establish the thesis for a K as long as the 2N is capable at applying the oldies to give a convincing narrative that makes sense in 2023/4. I think framework/impact comparison becomes more convincing when 2Ns can put the aff's claims in context of the evolution in the academic debates that have occurred over the years. The same is true of 2As that can leverage old evidence that answers the K.

-I struggle with the competition for the abolition/nuclearism alts that include all of the plan. If the 2NR includes an alt that includes all of the plan I see myself voting aff even if the link debating is persuasive. I also think links that argue "the aff described the world problematically" are vulnerable to strategic perm debating. I think Ks are more persuasive that indict fiat and question the pedagogical benefit of reinvesting in gaming the ideal nuclear posture.

-This is the 5th topic in 14 years (Nukes 1, War Powers, Exec Authority, Military Presence, Nukes 2) with a viable version of the NFU aff. Affs should have a take in the 2AC (hopefully several) about why it is pedagogically valuable to debate about the nuclear posture.

-I am unlikely to disregard the nukes K because its unfair unless the block or 2NR drop fairness. I am more likely to disregard the K because the alt doesn't solve and the aff convinces me that the links are not unique to the aff.

-Fiat double bind is not a thing. It's never going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.

Debating Non-USFG Affs

-Will vote for T-US but will be bored if the aff claims to lead to disarm. No solvency/presumption + disad seems more viable/entertaining. I think the aff can win that T-US = FG is overlimiting and produces a stale topic.

-I think that competing interpretation debates are fun and will reward teams who invest in the interpretation debating. I don't think the aff's interps have to be the most predictable as long as they can describe what limits the counter-interps impose on the topic and why they provide a desirable division of ground.

-Affs should vet their authors to make sure they don't advocate the TVA. I think "your author says the US should actually do it" requires 1AR pen time. I don't think that the TVA is a counterplan but I do think that the TVA raises a necessary/sufficiency standard for whether shifting the point of stasis away from the resolution is required to solve the Ks of T. I think if the neg wins a TVA is compatible with the 1AC author's claims it substantially deflates the aff's "topic design bad" offense versus T/framework. If the aff introduces Acheson evidence in the 1AC I expect the 2AC/1AR to be able to explain the method comparison between US disarm and Acheson's vision of disarm.

Arguments Regarding Community Norms

-I think that teams are entitled to make non-resolutional procedural arguments related to argument style or the content that a ballot should endorse. Teams can present an interpretation and argue why that interpretation should be preferred. If I vote for those strategies my ballot just means that a team did the better arguing for the purpose of that debate.

-Ad-homs are not arguments. I do not flow ad-homs or use them to evaluate debates. I am an employee of the state of Texas and will never cast my ballot to assign positive or negative value to an undergraduate student's character. It is wholly outside of my jurisdiction to judge any individual's conduct outside of the words they say in a debate after the 1AC has started and before the 2AR has ended. If you believe the conduct of a member of the community is so reprehensible that it must come before evaluating arguments that occur in a debate, I strongly encourage you to pursue a resolution with the relevant NDT/CEDA/ADA committee prior to the start of a NDT/CEDA/ADA sanctioned competition. Those decision-making bodies are designed to evaluate complaints in a professional manner that protects the confidentiality of all parties. As a tournament director, I can attest to the usefulness of these decision-making bodies to carefully navigate sensitive issues concerning interpersonal conflicts between members of the community. I do not see any value in offering competitive incentives for tactically deploying reputation-damaging claims as procedurals.

***March 2022***

I am a clash judge set out to pasture. I am generally in a state of judging ennui because debates are often copies of copies of debates I've seen before. With that said, here's some advice:

1) All debate is role playing. You're lying to yourself if you think it's not. Make it entertaining, don't break character, and refrain from lobbing fallacies at your opponent.

2) I generally vote for the team that A) has a clear narrative throughout the debate and B) does the most to complicate their opponent's narrative. Be convincing. "Extinction outweighs" is an incomplete narrative. Talk about internal links more and use them to make more turns the case/da/k arguments.

A) Cross-examination is my favorite part of the debate. Don't waste the opportunity. If you can't defend your narrative in cx don't expect me to let you make up for it in rebuttals.

B) The 2NR and 2AR should collapse the debate to the most important questions. Boo to final rebuttals that race through the speech without communicating to me the ballot you would like me to write in your favor.

3) I hate your 2NR/2AR blocks. I don't want them. Just answer the previous speech instead and identify what the errors are of the previous speech. If you read them anyway don't be obvious. I flow on a laptop and will know/become irritated if you are rereading a block from a previous speech instead of developing arguments in response to opponent's arguments.

4) I like evidence-based arguments. Debate should be academically rigorous. The 2AC and the 2NC should read cards. Well-evidence arguments are important because they connect students' creative ideas to academic communities pursuing similar questions. Connecting arguments to academic literature is also important because no individual has a complete understanding of the world. If your strategy does not rely on evidence I expect you to be excellent at cross-examination.

A) If your style is not evidence-centered, I still expect students to connect important ideas to a clearly identifiable literature base. A failure to connect your arguments to a clear literature base feels to me like an effort to deprive opponents of link ground and implicitly an expectation that the opponent is responsible for refuting the un-published ideas of student debaters. I don't want to decide those debates.

B) I am very much over students referencing the history of cross-examination debate without reference to evidence. The rush for originality dismisses the rich history of academic work documenting the examples often invoked in competition.

C) Caveat: I don't read a ton of evidence to decide debates. The best debaters will deploy the claims/warrants of their evidence convincingly such that I feel like they know what they're talking about. I flow on the computer. If I have to read your cards during the debate to figure out what you're talking about I'm having a bad time.

D) If you introduce and convincingly deploy an evidence-based argument (tangential to the new topic) that I've never seen before I will likely tune in and reward you with higher points.

5) Debates over competing interpretations (definitional argument) is, without question, the most important skill that cross-examination debates provide. Interpretations/counter-interpretations provide instruction to the judge for how to interpret whether the teams have met their burdens. I'm agnostic about the content of your theory arguments but I'm unlikely to vote for them if there is not enough information to explain to your opponent what I am voting for when providing my reasons for decision.

6) There is some recent grumbling from my fellow old-heads about neg conditionality and judge kick getting out of control. I cosign those concerns. If the aff breathes a claim and warrant about judge kick in each speech starting in the 2AC I will disregard it. 2N's are entitled to their hustle but shouldn't expect my sympathy if the 1AR answers judge kick and the 2AR extends it. For the aff to win on conditionality the 1AR has to be airtight covering the 2NC/1NR.

***Old Paradigm***

Square up. Friday night lights. Fight night. Any given Sunday. Start your engines and may the best debater win.

My bias is that debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision. My bias is that I will only flow one speaker in each rebuttal unless it is clearly and compellingly established in the constructives why I should flow both speakers in the same speech.

For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate.

I think about permutations in a very precise way. I do not think it's the only way to think about them but I am unlikely to be persuaded to think otherwise. I think that a plan specifies a desired outcome. There are a set number of means to achieve the desired outcome. I also think that a counterplan or alternative specifies a desired outcome with a set number of means to achieve that outcome. A permutation asserts that it is theoretically possible for there to be a means of action that satisfies both the outcome of the plan and the counterplan or alternative. A permutation could be expressed as where the set numbers of the aff's and the neg's strategies overlap. Permutations are defense. Rarely do they "solve all their offense." It would behoove affs to know what offense they are "no linking" with the perm and what offense the perm does not resolve. This discussion should ideally begin in the 2AC and it must take place in the 1AR.

---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition that justifies such a perm AND 2) an explanation for where the aff and the cp/alt overlap

I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.

In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose, just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.

I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"

***Older Paradigm (Still True)***

I judge debates based on execution. My decisions rarely come down to just 2NR v 2AR. They are strongly influenced by how ideas develop in CX, the block, and the 1AR.

The best rebuttals will isolate a unique impact and explain why their opponent's impact is either less important or impossible to resolve. The most persuasive rebuttals, to me, are those that explain how I should evaluate the debate given the available information. This is especially true in debates about debate where neither side agrees on a normative method for evaluation.

I can't stress how irritated I am by students that make sweeping claims about argument styles that they don't usually engage in. Debate is hard and everyone puts in an incredible amount of work. Oftentimes, people don't get credit for their effort. That stinks. That does not mean, however, that other folks' contributions are less valuable than yours because they approach the game differently.

I think there is an important role for philosophical arguments in debate, with caveats. Ks should disprove solvency. I think creatively interpreting the resolution is interesting. Affirmative teams that decide the resolution doesn't matter in advance of the debate and only impact turn their opponent's positions bore me. I would rather affs be deliberately extra-topical than anti-topical. Link arguments should be consistent with framework arguments. The terms used in speeches and tags should reflect the language of the literature base they are meant to represent. Not all Ks of humanism are the same. Not all Ks are Ks of humanism.

I think there is an important role for policy arguments in debate, with caveats. Vague plan writing does not equal strategic plan writing. Impact evidence is often outdated and/or includes multiple alt-causes. I perceive a degree of self-righteousness from debaters that have extensive experience going for T-USFG but have little experience going for T in other situations. I perceive a higher degree of self-righteousness from debaters who preach the merits of research when going for T-USFG while very obviously reading evidence they copy and pasted from other school's open-source documents.

What you should expect of me:

1) I will evaluate the debate and cast a provisional decision about which team did the better debating based on the content of the speeches and the cross-examinations.

2) I will flow your debate in an excel template and save a copy after the debate for scouting purposes.

How I think about debate:

I. The aff's burden is to prove that the 1AC is A) an example of the res and B) a positive departure from the squo. The neg should disprove the 1AC and can win by establishing that the aff is wrong about either A or B. The neg can also win by offering a counter-proposal that competes with and is net beneficial to the 1AC.

II. In order to accomplish A, the aff should be able to:

1) provide an interpretation of the resolution

2) explain how the 1AC meets their interpretation of the resolution

3) demonstrate that their vision of the resolution is superior to the neg’s

III. In the event that the aff argues they do not have to abide by the terms of the resolution, the aff should be able to:

1) provide sound reasoning for why the agreed upon point of stasis fails to address the agreed upon controversy area

2) explain the roles of the aff and the neg in their vision of debate

3) demonstrate that their vision of debate is superior to the neg’s

IV. The aff cannot win by simply flipping the burden of proof and indicting the neg’s interpretation of the resolution.* The aff must at all times defend a contestable proposition. If III (see above) occurs, the neg's burden is not to disprove the solvency and harms of the 1AC (B). Rather, all the neg should have to disprove is that abandoning A is necessary to solve/talk about B. If the neg can demonstrate that the original stasis point can accommodate the harms area then the aff has not proven that abandoning the res must occur.

*Exceptions to IV: language Ks, conditionality bad

Things I enjoy:

· When debaters express a nuanced knowledge of the resolution/controversy area

· Good jokes

· Bold choices

· Exposing specious arguments in C-X

· Solvency debates

· Links to the plan

· Supporting claims with high-quality research

· Final rebuttals that begin with a brief explanation of the key issues in the debate and why they have won given the arguments presented in earlier speeches

· When debaters prioritize answering the question, “What should debate look like?”

· Creative permutations—a perm says that there is a possible world in which both the 1AC and the counter-proposal can occur simultaneously, or that the counter-proposal is an example of how the aff’s proposition could be implemented—the aff should describe the permutation in both rebuttals and explicitly argue what elements of the neg’s strategy it mitigates/solves. Asserting the hypothetical validity of a perm and being intentionally vague until the 2AR does not an aff ballot make.

Things I don’t enjoy:

· When debaters compensate for dropping an argument by asserting that it is new

· When embedded clash becomes an excuse for not flowing

· When debaters make straw person characterizations of argument styles they do not personally engage in

· Trained incapacity

· “Death good”/ “death not real”

· Basic strats

· Recycled strats

· Recycled blocks

· K 1NC shells that I can find in my inbox from previous seasons

· “Procedural fairness”

· Teams that don’t take advantage if/when their opponent impact turns fairness

· Affs that don’t defend a substantial departure from the squo

· Affs that don’t specify the terms of the 1AC/backtrack on the terms of the 1AC for the purpose of permuting the neg’s counter-proposal

· Bad internal links

· C-X belligerence

· Hyperbolic impacts

· Counter-perms (honestly, it’s been 10 years and I still don’t get it)

· Asserting “perm do the counter-proposal” when it’s shamelessly severance

· When great CX moments don’t make it into the speeches

· Failing to capitalize on 2AC/block choices and settling for coin flip decisions

· “Point me to a line in the card where it says…” OR “I just ctrl F’ed that word in the document and it isn’t there”

joseph barquin Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 4:53 PM PDT

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Christian Bato University of Nevada Las Vegas 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 15, 2015 at 1:39 PM PDT

UNLV

4-time NDT Qualifier

Second year judging college debate

*****UPDATE*****

I believe that there is a great value to flow-centric, line-by-line debating. Though I don't claim to have the best flow in the country, I believe many debates can be simplified and made clearer by emphasizing the basics of lining arguments up and answering them accordingly. Not only will teams have a better chance to win my ballot by attempting some semblance of organization, but I believe the overall clash of argumentation that would result from this focus could yield more in depth scholarship and understanding of the topic being discussed.

Debaters should clearly flag pieces of evidence they want evaluated after the debate. Failure to do so will more than likely result in me evaluating the round sans calling for cards.

****************

I believe that debate is an educational and competitive activity. It is my job to adjudicate and render a decision based solely on the arguments presented in the debate. That being said, I believe it is the burden of the debaters to effectively and clearly deploy their arguments if they feel they are critical to the outcome of the round. I will always do my best to match your level of effort from the other side of the podium (or tabletote), but if I can’t understand your argument, or you for that matter, any disagreements we may have about the decision after the round will be largely attributed to 'a failure to communicate’.

Specifics

Framework/Performance—I believe that framework sets the parameters for the debate round. Debate is an educational activity and it is important to understand what purpose the debate round serves in order to maximize learning. I also believe that the resolution matters and that there are unique benefits to learning and debating about timely issues, but if you can sufficiently explain why there is a more productive and educational reason to view the round you will find yourself in better shape. For me, the central question in these debates relies mainly on scholarship and knowledge production. If you can win that your view of debate is ultimately beneficial in that way, I will default to that explanation.

Ks—I am not well versed in this literature, so I would prefer not to hear any "high theory" stuff. I believe that if you are able to clearly establish a link to the aff/plan mechanism you will be in a pretty good position. Alternatives should also provide a specific option or worldview that I can advocate as opposed to simply rejecting the aff.

CPs—I’m not really a fan of process (condition or consult) CPs. I believe that competition is generated from the plan, not necessarily ‘immediacy’ or ‘certainty’.

A) Conditionality is fine if you’re reading 2 advocacies, anything beyond that gets a little iffy.

B) Other CP theory arguments will generally not be a reason to reject the team.

DAs—The most important issue here is that your disad makes sense. If there are logical holes in your story, the affirmative doesn’t need to have a card to point them out. Comparative impact calculus goes a long way.

Case—My favorite kinds of debate generally involve case defense and a disadvantage/case turns. When extending case arguments, be sure to explain the warrants of your evidence and compare them to that of your opponent. The winner of these debates generally isn’t the team that reads more cards, but the one who can explain and apply the cards they read best.

I’m happy to answer any other specific questions you may have.

Have fun. Be respectful. Compete.

Tom Boroujeni Fresno State 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 1, 2021 at 5:56 AM PDT

-Last Updated on 1/1/2020

Online Debate: SLOW DOWN - SLOW DOWN - SLOW DOWN

TLDR: I vote for K affs and I also vote for topicality against K affs.

Please add me to your email chain: tom.boroujeni@fresnocitycollege.edu

Please do not contact me for other schools' speech doc. Contact them directly. I have been contacted multiple times by different people asking me to share other team's speech doc. Why don't you contact them directly?

Novices: I am the strong proponent of the novice packet. Do what you will with this information.

Who am I?

I was the Director of Debate at California State University, Fresno from Fall 2016 to the summer of 2020. I now coach the Fresno City College debate team. I started as a tradition policy debater and made the transition into K debate. I have respect for both camps and whatever is in between. I tell you what I tell all my students, only run arguments that you fully understand and can explain to the judge. I also believe that debaters should have a basic understanding of policy debate before venturing off into the critical realm but that is a decision you should hash out with your coaches. I understand the implications of that statement and I am willing to defend it if you want me to do so. There is not any particular argument that I will not vote for. However, it is your responsibility to persuade me.

Speech Time and Evidence Transfer:
Your prep time stops when you pull the memory stick out, send the email, or drop the document into Speechdrop. If you forget a card, your prep time will run until you give the other team the evidence. Stealing time will lead to severe reduction in speaker points. Speech time is non-negotiable (No 10 min constructions or extra rebuttal speech).

Evidence Quality:

I am very sensitive to the quality of your cards. Things are getting out of hand with power tagging and out of context evidence. Section XVII. EVIDENCE POLICY of CEDA's constitution indicates:
|
|
-B. Competitors shall be prohibited from using fabricated or distorted evidence.
------1. "Evidence" is defined as material which is represented as published fact or opinion testimony and offered in support of a debater's claim.
------2. "Fabricated" evidence refers to the citing of a fact or opinion that is either from a source that is found to be non-existent or not contained in the original source of the material in question.
------3. "Distorted" evidence refers to the misrepresentation of the actual or implied content of factual or opinion evidence. Misrepresentations may include, but are not limited to, the following:
------------a. Quoting out of context: selecting text from an article in such a way that the claim made with the selected text is clearly inconsistent with the author's position as that position is manifest in the article, book, or other source from which the quotation is drawn, when that material is taken as a whole.
------------b. Internally omitting words from a quotation or adding words to a quotation in such a way that the meaning evident in the resulting modified quotation deviates substantially in quality, quantity, probability or degree of force from the author's position as manifest in the quotation in question prior to modification.
------------c. Internally omitting words from a quotation or adding words to a quotation without indicating, either on the written form of the quotation or orally when the quotation is delivered to an opponent or judge, that such a deletion or addition has been.
------4. Fabricated and distorted evidence are so defined without reference to whether or not the debater using it was the person responsible for originally misrepresenting it.
-C. Competitors shall allow their judges and opponents to examine the evidence on request, and provide on request sufficient documentation on the source of the evidence which would allow another person to locate the quotation in its original form.
-D. Adjudication Procedures for by-law XVII
|
|

Any challenge over tagline and content of the card is important to me. Make sure you know what your cards say and tag them properly.

Speed:
This section used to say "I am comfortable with speed but if you have your 1AR analytical arguments pre-written and you are machine-gunning them at me, be sure that I will miss a couple on my flow and if it is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision on it. I will yell "CLEAR" if you are not."

But I had to change it. I don't feel comfortable with some of your speeds anymore. My ears do not process too high or too low pitch of voices. I will tell you to be "clear" or "louder". No matter who you are and what you are saying, I reserve the right to ask you to be more clear. Slow down ESPECIALLY on analytical arguments. Analytical arguments are very important so If you want me to put them on the flow, please slow down.

Topicality:
I enjoy topicality debates because I have some legal background as a litigation consultatnt. I argue (and defend) that at least half of the arguments in the legal field are topicality arguments.

How do I evaluate topicality you ask? As an Aff, you should be able to solidify a relationship to the topic or tell me why what you are talking about is so important that you felt the topic should be ignored. For me, the most important components of topicality are education and fairness in that order. OR why topicality is bad.

Framework:
I put a very high value on this flow because it is about the activity itself. Framework tells me how I should be looking at the debate. Part of wining the framework flow is how you win through your lens. Absent the explanation of how you win, I probably vote against you because I think you don't know how you are winning and if you don't know why you should win through the lens you are advocating for then you have no business running framework.

Disadvantage:
Love them. I think most negative arguments are modified DAs. You can run a DA on anything that advocates for an alternative (i.e., Case, CP, and K). Explain the scenario of the DA to me. You also need to win that the DA outweighs the Plan or the Alt (or part of it).

Counter Plan:
Counter Plan is a way of solving one or more of the affirmative's advantages AND offering a Net benefit. The perm must be dealt with adequately.

Ks:
Like them and will vote for them. My threshold of acceptance for your explanation is higher because I think Ks do not have argumentative breath so they need to satisfy the depth. That depth requires a lot of work. So do the work for me because I will not do it for you. Make sure you link to the case. If you are have a link of omission, then you probably should have a root-cause claim or some other sort of explanation.

You need to solidify and explain your links. Impact analysis is important to me.

Remember
It is YOUR responsibility to persuade me and not my responsibility to understand your argument. Unnecessary yelling and fighting in the round will lead to severely reduced speaker points unless it is your argument that yelling and fighting is good (In that case it would not be unnecessary).

Last word
I think respect for the judge's RFD is very important. I see the debate in a particular way and judge it based on that view. If you do not like that lens then you probably should have done a better job of telling me what lens I should use and why that is a good lens (See Framework above). You do not have to pref me if you do not think I am capable of judging your debates, but if you do, respect my RFD. Do not make any sort of assumptions about my judging style. I do not vote for a particular style of debate, a particular school, or a particular team. I vote for the team that does a better job of arguing. I do not care if you are a first round or a novice debater, if you make the better argument you are going to win my ballot. If you do not respect my opinion as a judge then you should probably put me at the bottom of your pref sheet (strike me).

Role of the ballots that are self serving are bad. I think role of the ballot is always to indicate who has done the better debating. I rarely find role of the ballots persuasive.

Brian Box University of Kansas 2 rounds

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

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.

email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.

I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.

Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.

I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.

Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.

1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.

2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.

3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.

4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.

5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.

6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.

7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.

Other things to know

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.

I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.

Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.

The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.

CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.

Max Bugrov Fresno State 6 rounds

Jeff Buntin Northwestern University 2 rounds

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

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryan Cheek Weber State University 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu November 5, 2015 at 8:34 AM MDT

Ryan Cheek

Assistant Director of Forensics

Weber State University

***Updated for Wake 2015***

This is my 12th year in college debate. I would like to be included on your email chain (ryancheek@weber.edu). For me, debate is the intersection of community, paraprofessional training, and gaming. I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. I will do my best to adapt to you. That being said, after eight years of judging, I’ve come to realize some of my own quirks and limitations more fully:

Clarity of thought is paramount. I often find myself voting for teams that can make complex arguments sound like common sense.
I can sometimes be facially expressive and I don’t think my expressions are counter-intuitive. If I give you a confused look, then I’m probably confused. If I give you a skeptical look, then I’m probably skeptical of what you are saying.
Debaters that can maintain eye contact and deliver a compelling speech are very impressive to me.
On occasion, and particularly in debates with a lot of perms, I will correct you in cross-ex in regards to what the perm texts I recorded you saying are.
Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.
If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it.
I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.
Well explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot, but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
I’m not a fan of two-person speaking. This comes in many forms. Debaters talking over each other in CX, partners prompting each other through extended monologue, performative elements that make it difficult to tell who is giving what speech, teams prepping very loudly with side commentary while the other team’s speech is going on, etc. Please, one person at a time.
I like to keep time. When your timer and my timer are in conflict, mine trumps.
Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and jump/email the 1AC before the round start time.
I don’t want to adjudicate ethical challenges. If I have to do so, then be aware that presumption is on the side of the accused.

Finally, I love debate and the community that it generates. Competition is fun, but is ultimately secondary to the communal nature of what we do. I don’t treat my job as a coach/critic much differently than I do my job as a teaching faculty member. In both spaces, pedagogy is my primary responsibility and I promise to do my best to live up to being the educator you deserve.

Deven Cooper Fresno State 5 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 2, 2024 at 8:23 AM PDT

High school debate: Baltimore Urban Debate League ( Lake Clifton Eastern High School).

College debate: University of Louisville then Towson University.

Grad work: Cal State Fullerton.

Current: Director of Debate at Long Beach State (CSU Long Beach), former Director of Debate a Fresno State.

Email for chain: Devenc325@gmail.com

Speaker Point Scale

29.5-30: one of the best speakers I expect to see this year and has a high grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and Swag is on 100. This means expert explanation of arguments and most arguments are offensive.

29 - 29.5: very good speaker has a middle grade of Charisma, Uniqueness, Nerve, Talent, and mid-range swag. Explanation of arguments are of great quality and many of the arguments are offensive.

28.4 - 28.9: good speaker; may have some above average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of good quality and several of the arguments are offensive.

28 - 28.3: solid speaker; needs some work; probably has average range/ parts of the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym but must work on a few of them and may have some issues to work out. Explanation of arguments are of okayish quality and very few of the arguments are offensive.

27.1 - 27.5: okay speaker; needs significant work on the Cha.Uni.Ner.Tal.S acronym. Not that good of explanation with no offensive arguments.

< 27: you have done something deeply problematic in this debate like clipping cards or linguistic violence, or rhetorically performed an ism without apology or remorse.

Please do not ask me to disclose points nor tell me as an argument to give you a 30. I wont. For some reason people think you are entitled to high points, I am not that person. So, you have to earn the points you get.

IF YOU ARE IN HIGHSCHOOL, SKIP DOWN TO THE "Judging Proper" section :)

Cultural Context

If you are a team that reads an argument based in someone else's identity, and you are called on it by another team with receipts of how it implicates the round you are in, its an uphill battle for you. I am a fan of performing your politics with consistency and genuine ethical relationships to the people you speak about. I am a fan of the wonderful author Linda Martin Alcoff who says " where one speaks from affects both the meaning and truth of what one says." With that said, you can win the debate but the burden of proof is higher for you....

Post Rounding

I will not entertain disrespectful or abrasive engagement because you lost the round. If you have questions, you may ask in a way that is thoughtful and seeking understanding. If your coach thinks they will do this as a defense of your students, feel free to constrain me. I will not allow my students to engage that way and the same courtesy should be extended to EVERYONE. Losing doesn't does not give you license to be out of your mind and speak with malice. Keep in mind I am not from the suburbs and I will not tolerate anyone's nasty demeanor directed at me nor my students.

"Community" Members

I do not and will not blindly think that all people in this activity are kind, trustworthy, non-cheaters, good intentioned, or will not do or say anything in the name of competition or malice towards others. Please miss me with having faith in people in an activity that often reveals people engaging in misconduct, exploitation, grooming, or other inappropriate activities that often times NEVER get reported. MANY of you have created and perpetuated a culture of toxicity and elitism, then you are surprised when the chickens come home to roost. This applies to ALL forms of college and high school debate...

Judging Proper

I am more than willing to listen to ANY arguments that are well explained and impacted and relate to how your strategy is going to produce scholarship, policy action, performance, movement, or whatever political stance or program. I will refer to an educator framework unless told otherwise...This means I will evaluate the round based on how you tell me you want it to be framed and I will offer comments on how you could make your argument better after the round. Comparison, Framing, OFFENSE is key for me. Please indict each other's framework or role of the ballot/role of the judge for evaluation and make clear offense to how that may make a bad model of debate. OR I am down with saying the debate should not be a reflection about the over all model of debate/ no model.

I DO NOT privilege certain teams or styles over others because that makes debate more unfair, un-educational, cliquey, and makes people not feel valued or wanted in this community, on that note I don't really jive to well with arguments about how certain folks should be excluded for the sake of playing the "game". NOR do I feel that there are particular kinds of debate related to ones personal identity. I think people are just making arguments attached to who they are, which is awesome, but I will not privilege a kind of debate because some asserts its a thing.

I judge debates according to the systematic connection of arguments rather than solely line by line…BUT doesn’t mean if the other team drops turns or other arguments that I won’t evaluate that first. They must be impacted and explained. PLEASE always point out reason why the opposing team is BAD and have contextualized reasons for why they have created a bad impact or make one worse. I DO vote on framework and theory arguments….I’ve been known to vote on Condo quite a bit, but make the interp, abuse story, and contradictions clear. If the debate devolves into a theory debate, I still think the AFF should extend a brief summary of the case.

Don’t try to adapt to how I used to debate if you genuinely don’t believe in doing so or just want to win a ballot. If you are doing a performance I will hold you to the level that it is practiced, you have a reason for doing so, and relates to the overall argument you are making…Don’t think “oh! I did a performance in front of Deven, I win.” You are sadly mistaken if so. It should be practiced, timed well, contain arguments, and just overall have a purpose. It should be extended with full explanation and utility.

Overall I would like to see a good debate where people are confident in their arguments and feel comfortable being themselves and arguing how they feel is best. I am not here to exclude you or make you feel worthless or that you are a "lazy" intellectual as some debaters may call others, but I do like to see you defend your side to the best of your ability.

GET OFF THEM BLOCKS SOME! I get it coaches like to block out args for their students, even so far as to script them out. I think this is a practice that is only focused on WINNING and not the intellectual development of debaters who will go on to coach younger debaters. A bit of advice that I give to any debater I come across is to tell them to READ, READ, READ. It is indeed fundamental and allows for the expansion of example use and fluency of your arguments.

A few issues that should be clarified:

Decorum: I DO NOT LIKE when teams think they can DISRESPECT, BULLY, talk RUDE to, or SCREAM at other teams for intimidation purposes in order to win or throw the other team off. Your points will be effected because this is very unbecoming and does not allow this space to be one of dialogue and reciprocity. If someone disrespects you, I am NOT saying turn the other cheek, but have some tact and utility of how you engage these folks. And being hyper evasive to me is a hard sell. Do not get me wrong, I do love the sassiness, sarcasm, curtness, and shade of it all but there is a way to do it with tact. I am also NOT persuaded that you should be able to be rude or do whatever you want because you are a certain race, class, gender, sex, sexuality, or any other intersection under the sun. That to me is a problematic excuse that intensifies the illegit and often rigid criticism that is unlashed upon "identity politics."

Road maps: STICK TO IT. I am a tight flower and I have a method. However, I need to know where things go so there is no dispute in the RFD that something was answered or not. If you are a one off team, please have a designed place for the PERM. I can listen well and know that there are places things should go, but I HATE to do that work for a team. PLEASE FLOW and not just follow the doc. If you answer an arg that was in the doc, but not read, I will take it as you note flowing nor paying attention to what is going on.

Framework and Theory: I love smart arguments in this area. I am not inclined to just vote on debate will be destroyed or traditional framework will lead to genocide unless explained very well and impacted based on some spill over claims. There must be a concrete connection to the impacts articulated on these and most be weighed. I am persuaded by the deliberation arguments, institutional engagement/building, limits, and topical versions of the Aff. Fairness is an interesting concept for me here. I think you must prove how their model of debate directly creates unfairness and provide links to the way their model of debate does such. I don't think just saying structural fairness comes first is the best without clarification about what that means in the context of the debate space and your model of debate.

Some of you K/Performance folks may think I am a FW hack, thas cute or whatever. Instead of looking at the judge as the reason why you weren't adequate at defending your business, you should do a redo, innovate, or invest in how to strategize. If it seems as though you aren't winning FW in front of me that means you are not focusing how offense and your model produces some level of "good." Or you could defend why the model approach is problematic or several reasons. I firmly believe if someone has a model of debate or how they want to engage the res or this space, you MUST defend it and prove why that is productive and provides some level of ground or debatability.

Winning Framework for me includes some level of case turn or reason why the aff produces something bad/ blocks something good/ there's a PIC/PIK of some kind (explained). This should be coupled with a proficient explanation of either the TVA or SSD strategy with the voter components (limits, predictability, clash, deliberation, research burden, education, fairness, ground etc.) that solidify your model of debate.

Performance: It must be linked to an argument that is able to defend the performance and be able to explain the overall impact on debate or the world/politics itself. Please don’t do a performance to just do it…you MUST have a purpose and connect it to arguments. Plus debate is a place of politics and args about debate are not absent politics sometimes they are even a pre-req to “real” politics, but I can be persuaded otherwise. You must have a role of the ballot or framework to defend yourself, or on the other side say why the role of the ballot is bad. I also think those critics who believe this style of debate is anti-intellectual or not political are oversimplifying the nuance of each team that does performance. Take your role as an educator and stop being an intellectual coward or ideology driven hack.

Do not be afraid to PIK/PIC out of a performance or give reasons why it was BAD. Often people want to get in their feelings when you do this. I am NOT sympathetic to that because you made a choice to bring it to this space and that means it can be negated, problematized, and subject to verbal criticism.

Topic/Resolution: I will vote on reasons why or why not to go by the topic...unlike some closed minded judges who are detached from the reality that the topics chosen may not allow for one to embrace their subjectivity or social location in ways that are productive. This doesn’t mean I think talking about puppies and candy should win, for those who dumb down debate in their framework args in that way. You should have a concrete and material basis why you chose not to engage the topic and linked to some affirmation against racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism/white supremacy and produces politics that are progressive and debatable. There would have to be some metric of evaluation though. BUT, I can be persuaded by the plan focus and topic education model is better middle ground to what they want to discuss.

Hella High Theory K: i.e Hiediggar, Baudrillard, Zizek, D&G, Butler, Arant, and their colleagues…this MUST be explained to me in a way that can make some material sense to me as in a clear link to what the aff has done or an explanation of the resolution…I feel that a lot of times teams that do these types of arguments assume a world of abstraction that doesn’t relate fully to how to address the needs of the oppressed that isn’t a privileged one. However, I do enjoy Nietzsche args that are well explained and contextualized. Offense is key with running these args and answering them.

Disadvantages: I’m cool with them just be well explained and have a link/link wall that can paint the story…you can get away with a generic link with me if you run politics/econ/tradeoff disads. But, it would be great to provide a good story. In the 2NC/1NR retell the story of the disad with more context and OFFENSE and compartmentalize the parts. ALWAYS tell me why it turns and outweighs case. Disads on case should be impacted and have a clear link to what the aff has done to create/perpetuate the disad. If you are a K team and you kick the alt that solves for the disads…that is problematic for me. Affs need to be winning impact framing and some level of offense. No link is not enough for me.

Perms: I HATE when people have more than 3 perms. Perm theory is good here for me, do it and not just GROUP them. For a Method v Method debate, you do not get to just say you dont get a perm. Enumerate reasons why they do not get a perm. BUT, if an Aff team in this debate does make a perm, it is not just a test of competition, it is an advocacy that must be argued as solving/challenging what is the issue in the debate.
Additionally, you can kick the perms and no longer have to be burden with that solvency. BUT you must have offensive against their C/P, ALT, or advocacy.

Counterplans/Advocacies: They have to solve at least part of the case and address some of the fundamental issues dealing with the aff’s advantages especially if it’s a performance or critical aff…I’m cool with perm theory with a voter attached. I am cool with any kind of these arguments, but an internal net benefit is not enough for me in a policy counterplan setting. If you are running a counter advocacy, there must be enumerated reasons why it is competitive, net beneficial, and is the option that should be prioritized. I do love me a PIK/PIC or two, but please do it effectively with specific evidence that is a criticism of the phrase or term the aff used. But, know the difference between piking out of something and just criticizing the aff on some trivial level. I think you need to do very good analysis in order to win a PIC/PIK. I do not judge kick things...that is your job.

Affs in the case of PIK/PICs, you must have disads to the solvency (if any), perm, theory, defend the part that is questionable to the NEG.

Race/ Identity arguments: LOVE these especially from the Black/Latinx/Asian/Indigenous/Trans/Sexuality perspective (most familiar with) , but this doesn’t mean you will win just because you run them like that. I like to see the linkage between what the aff does wrong or what the aff/neg has perpetuated. I’m NOT likely to vote on a link of omission unless some structural claim has risen the burden. I am not familiar with ALL of these types of args, so do not assume that I know all you literature or that I am a true believer of your arguments about Blackness. I do not believe that Blackness based arguments are wedded to an ontology focus or that one needs to win or defeat ontology to win.

I am def what some of you folks would call a "humanist and I am okay with that. Does not mean you can't win any other versions of that debate in front of me.

Case Args: Only go for case turns and if REALLY needed for your K, case defense.…they are the best and are offensive , however case defense may work on impacts if you are going for a K. If you run a K or performance you need to have some interaction with the aff to say why it is bad. Please don't sandbag these args so late in the debate.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am of the strong belief that Congressional debate is a DEBATE event first and foremost. I do not have an I.E or speech background. However, I do teach college public speaking and argumentation. The comments I leave will talk about some speech or style components. I am not a judge that heavily favors delivery over the argumentation and evidence use.

I am a judge that enjoys RECENT evidence use, refutation, and clash with the topics you have been assigned.

STRUCTURE OF SPEECHES

I really like organization. With that said, I do prefer debaters have a introduction with a short attention getter, and a short preview statement of their arguments. In the body of the speech, I would like some level of impacting/ weighing of your arguments and their arguments ( if applicable), point out flaws in your opponents argumentation (lack of solvency, fallacies, Alternative causes), cite evidence and how it applies, and other clash based refutation. If you want to have a conclusion, make sure it has a short summary and a declarative reason to pass or fail.

REFUTATION

After the first 2 speeches of the debate, I put heavy emphasis on the idea that these speeches should have a refutation component outside of you extending a previous argument from your side, establish a new argument/evidence, or having some kind of summary. I LOVE OFFENSE based arguments that will turn the previous arguments state by the opposition. Defensive arguments are fine, but please explain why they mean the opposition cannot solve or why your criticism of their evidence or reason raises to the level of rejecting their stance. Please do not list more than 2 or 3 senators or reps that you are refuting because in some cases it looks like students are more concerned with the appearance of refutation than actually doing it. I do LOVE sassy, assertive or sarcastic moments but still be polite.

EVIDENCE USE

I think evidence use is very important to the way I view this type of debate. You should draw evidence from quality sources whether that is stats/figures/academic journals/narrative from ordinary people. Please remember to cite where you got your information and the year. I am a hack for recency of your evidence because it helps to illuminate the current issues on your topic. Old evidence is a bit interesting and should be rethought in front of me. Evidence that doesn't at some level assume the ongoing/aftermath of COVID-19 is a bit of a stretch. Evidence comparison/analysis of your opponent is great as well.

ANALYSIS

I LOVE impact calculus where you tell me why the advantages of doing or not doing a bill outweighs the costs. This can be done in several ways, but it should be clear, concise, and usually happen in the later speeches. At a basic level, doing timeframe, magnitude, probability, proximity, or any other standard for making arguments based on impact are great. I DISLIKE rehash....If you are not expanding or changing the way someone has articulated an argument or at least acknowledge it, I do not find rehash innovative nor high rank worthy. This goes back to preparation and if you have done work on both sides of a bill. You should prepare multiple arguments on a given side just in case someone does the argument before you. There is nothin worse to me than an unprepared set of debaters that must take a bunch of recesses/breaks to prepare to switch.

Travis Cram University of Wyoming 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 18, 2024 at 2:14 AM PDT

Travis Cram

Director of Debate, Western Washington University

Years Judging: several

Email chain/contact: traviscram@gmail.com

My background is in policy debate, but I have been most involved the past 6 years through developing CARD (https://www.westerndebateunion.org/pnwdebate). I do not often judge debates these days, but every now and then I have the chance. Here are things about my approach that I think are significant:

I flow closely, and I think you should too.
I work hard to keep an open mind about the issues and arguments that are offered throughout a debate. I believe my purpose is to consider how effective you were at communicatingandarguingrather than evaluating the actual, empirical truth of a statement. At the same time, that purpose often asks me to consider how effective you were in convincing me that your argumentative content istrue or desirable. I will inevitably, as is true for everyone, have to resort to my own filters and experiences in making those assessments. However, I will always work to keep what was said or argued in a debate in focus as I decide and critique.
I provide post-round feedback that seeks to provide instruction and lessons for future debates, rather than reporting the (dry) details of how I decided this debate. I thus often discuss better paths taken, or ask you to think about how arguments, evidence, or perspectives interact in a larger sense. If you want more detailed explanations for how I resolved minutiae on the flow, please ask. I find my time is better spent providing future-thinking advice (my training in education tells me it is also in your interest), and so that is how I will couch my feedback.
Debate is about communication. It is also about research, advance preparation, and strategy. However, there is not a day I wake up where I am not going to be mostly concerned with the communicative, rhetorical, and argumentative elements of debate. The values and standards of communication may vary based on the format and participants, and I will work to meet participants (and the format) where they are at. However, I hold the expectation that the primary purpose behind debate is to learn how to communicate and argue well, particularly through oral communication.
The affirmative has the burden to prove a comprehensive case for change, and everyone has the burden to prove any single individual argument offered by them. The debate should focus on the topic, with the affirmative endorsing it. I do not provide a deeper theory beyond that. It is your debate; I expect you to provide those things. They are known as arguments.

There are a few things that I am increasingly not willing to compromise on. Those are important to know as well:

Value people.I believe you should show everyone who participates a basic level of respect even as you work through serious disagreements with them. Everyone has an obligation to promote community, or at the very least not actively undermine it.
Value debate, especially at the collegiate level. A considerable amount of resources are constantly expended to create the opportunity for people to debate. Seize and honor the opportunity, regardless of your goal or experience level.

I am happy to answer questions for those who ask in good faith.

David Cram Helwich Minnesota 1 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Crossan University of California, Berkeley 3 rounds

Liz Dela Cruz Southwestern College 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 22, 2024 at 5:02 AM CDT

Name: Liz Dela Cruz Contact Info: lizdelacruz@me.com PF Paradigm (Updated 021621)

Expirence: I debated and coached Policy (Cross-ex) debate for a number of years. If you want to know what I did, scroll down, I have my Cross-Ex (Policy) Paradigm below.

Note:

I am a flow judge! I will provide a Google Doc Link to use. I prefer this to an email chain because I there is a delay in getting emails sometimes. I also don't like putting the evidence in the chat function. It is easier for me to go back and review the evidence.

I also usually always pop up a couple of minutes before the round to take questions about my Paradigm. If you have clarity questions, please feel free to ask.

General:

1. Debate is about having a good time and learning, please be respectful to everyone. Just remember that this is just a round and there will be another. Do your best and have fun.

2. Due to my policy background, I like Signposting. Please let me know where to go on the flow. Think of my flow as a blank slate. You tell me what to write and where. Moving contentions or switching from Pro flow to Con flow? Tell me.

3. I will vote for FW, independent Voting issues, and Pre-req arguments. But there needs to be enough substance for me to do so. If you decided to go for any of these, make sure to extend the case evidence that is needed to back it up. If not, it tends to be hard for me to vote on it.

4. I debated both theory and K in debate. If you want to do it, I am fine with it, but make sure to elaborate on how it correlates to the topic and your corresponding side.

5. If there is something said in Cross and you would like to use it in the round I am fine with it. But you need to make sure that you bring it in the speech to make it binding.

6. Just saying cross-apply case doesn’t mean anything. Or extend …. Card from case- give me substance and warrants for why you are extending it for me to consider it.

Summary/FF:

1. Make sure to extend the arguments and evidence from the Case to the summary and from the Summary to the Final Focus. It is key make sure to extend and explain.

2. You can only use what you extend in the Summary in the Final Focus.

3. I am a big fan of weighing! Magnitude, scope, impact analysis, substance love it all. Makes my job easier.

4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!

Speed:

1. I did policy, speed is not an issue. Please don’t ask me if you were to fast. I can hear you.

2. Do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If you are concerned about me not flowing your speech, then slow down and enunciate!

3. I will not tell you clear or slow, those things are for you to work on as a debater. If you are worried about it, then do speaking drills before the round and speak slower.

Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)

Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University

Paperless Ish: Flashing is Preferred: Prep time ends when you hit "save on the USB". Flashing is not considered part of prep time. If you take more than two minutes to save on the USB and get files flashed over, I will ask that you "run prep time". If you are going to do an email chain and would like to put me on it feel free. My email is listed above. If teams have spandies and tubs and USE 60% or more paper in a debate, will get some sort of candy or asian yummyness!

Experience: I was a policy debater for SouthWestern College. We run socialism and sometimes not socialism but more often than not it’ll be socialism. Did I mention we run socialism?

Voting Style: Do what you want but make sure it’s on my flow. Be clear and concise and tell me how I should interpret the round. Don’t make the assumption that I’ll randomly agree with your arguments. Spell it out for me so that there is 100% chance I get it. Spend time on the overview or underview. Make it very clear where I should be voting and why. This is something that makes my life easy and the life of all judges easy. Paint me a picture using your arguments. Give me reasons why I should prefer your position over theirs. The clearer the debate is the easier it will be to vote for you. Heck clear up the debate if it gets messy you’ll get nice speaker points. See how I’m telling you all to do the work? That’s because the debaters not the judge should be deciding how the judge should judge. I’m an open canvas. Paint me a nice picture. Just no nemo.

Speed and flowing: There’s fast and then there’s fast. As much as I’d like to admit I can keep up with a giant card dump in the neg block with a billion arguments, it’s just not going to happen. I can keep up with most speed reading. It’ll be easier for me to get your arguments down on my flow if you slow down during the tag/citation so I can actually hear it super well. If you spread your tags and I’m not keeping up, that’s on you as a debater. Arguing when you lose because I didn’t have that card or arg flowed when you made it a blippy mess isn’t going to do anything so don’t even try. That being said, I keep a very concise flow. And what you say in the 2nr and 2ar will be what I vote on. Policy

Argument Issues: Case: I feel like sometimes case debates get overlooked a lot. If you’re aff, don’t be afraid to use your case as giant offense if the other team is only to go 1 or so off. Good cases can swill outweigh da’s and K impacts if done well.

Non-Traditional Affs I evaluate Non-traditional Affs the same as traditional ones. However, there are things I like clearly defined and explained: 1. Explanation of advocacy 2. Role of the Ballot 3. Role of the Judge 4. Why is your message/mission/goal important.

Topicality I don't really care to much for T, but I will vote on it. I haven't voted yet on T being a reverse voting issue, but I do believe that T is a voting issue. I also tend to lean towards competing interpretations versus reasonability. Although, if the argument and work is there for reasonability, I will vote on it. Especially if the other team does not do the work that is needed on Topicality.

Theory Just saying things like "reject the team" or "vote Aff/Neg" typically doesn't do it for me. I would much rather hear, "reject their argument because it … blah blah blah." On the other side, saying "reject the argument not the team" is not enough for me to not consider it. I need solid reasons to reject the team like abuse. Actual abuse in round based on what was run is very convincing.

Performance I like watching performances. Since I judge by my flow, it allows me to separate myself from how I evaluate the round. Please note: Just because I am expressive during the debate does not always mean that I am leaning to your side. I am a very expressive person and thus why I judge strictly by my flow. So if there are points that you want me to highlight, pull them out in the later speeches. It will help with clarification and clash.

Kritiks I like kritiks. That being said a lot of mumbo jumbo gets thrown around a K debate. If you want me to pull the trigger on the K I need to know how it functions. Explain the rhetoric of your K to me in the block. Don’t assume I know what your alt is and what it will do in conjunction to the aff. That’s your job to make sure I know. Explain what your alt is and how it solves not only the impacts you read but also the aff’s or why the aff’s impacts don’t matter. Don’t assume that I’ll vote for “reject the ***” alts. Spend time in the block and in the 2nr how your K works in the round. Give me a picture of what the world of the K looks like and what the world of the aff looks like.

DA Not all disads are created equal. The Aff should attack all parts of the DA. Impact calculus is a must.

CP I believe that CPs should compete with the 1AC. Not only does this give better clash, but it also allow the 2A to defend their Aff.

Tiffany Dillard-Knox University of Louisville 1 rounds

Kendra Doty Whitman College 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 3, 2014 at 9:45 AM PDT

I’ve been reading a lot of philosophies to kind of gain my footing when writing one and as such I have found that you can learn a lot from a person from their paradigm. That being said, I am a new judge and will be updating my philosophy as I gain more experience so consider this draft one.

I debated for four years in high school and three years at Idaho State University under the advisement of Jim Schultz, Scott Odekirk and Lindsay VanLuvanee. The three of them sculpted how I view debate which should tell you more than the rest of what I’m writing. My last two years at ISU I was a 2A so I tend to view debate at a more holistic level than just the moving parts (I really dig impact calc/framing at the top of the 2NR/2AR); however, I am very flow oriented. I prefer line by line debating and specifically referencing arguments you are answering. I am open to alternative styles of flowing.

While I may not be able to tell you what the res was last year, I have done significantly more topic research since coming to Whitman and have been exposed to more traditional styles of debate. I am comfortable judging these debates but the nit-picky things (ie. intrinsicness theory on the politics DA) should be explained.

Framework: I understand debate as an educational activity and have a tendency to prioritize education over fairness. I come from a background of discussing “in round/community impacts” over hypothetical impacts of plan passage, but I believe there is definitely a debate to be had. While I only went for framework once in my college career (thanks, Whitman BD), I participated in “clash of civ” debates almost constantly and find value in them.

K: I think that the status quo is always an option so you can go for the K without the alt as a linear disad but make that clear and still answer the perm and whatnot.

Theory: Please go slower for these sections; if you want me to evaluate an argument make sure I can write it down. I interpret theory similarly to framework debates—answer arguments, don’t just read blocks.

CP/DA/etc.: you do you. I enjoy watching and thinking about these arguments even though I never really went for them. (See: explain nit-picky things like hyper-specific theory args)

Speaker points: I have been struggling to determine how I feel about speaker points and ultimately I think they are pretty subjective. I will be basing the points I give off of the speaker point scale Wake suggested for their tournament in 2013 (see: http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,5326.0.html).

I am here to listen and evaluate what you say but overall, the debate is about you. You are sacrificing your time to participate and you should do what makes you happy.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me: kendra.doty@gmail

Michael Eisenstadt University of Kansas 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat March 23, 2024 at 11:09 AM PDT

Michael Eisenstadt, Ph.D.

Director of Forensics, California State University Long Beach

13th Year Judging College Debate | 18th Year Judging High School Debate

2014 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year | 2018 "Top Critic Award" at the Las Vegas Classic (UNLV) | 2019 CEDA Pacific Region Critic of the Year

For questions of any kind, please e-mail me at: michael.eisenstadt@csulb.edu

Tournaments Judged This Season (2022-2023):

Updated 9-17-19

***I would like to be on the e-mail chain (m.stadt89@gmail.com, not my Tabroom e-mail).***

I will not necessarily read along with your speeches, but I would like to have evidence in the case that particular cards are disputed in cross-x and/or to make reading them after the debate concludes quicker.

This judge philosophy is just that, a philosophy. I think I have become more ambivalent to what your argument is over the years and more concerned with how you argue it. My job is to evaluate the arguments made in a debate, your job is to tell me why and how I should vote for them. Therefore, I think the following information is more helpful for you than me telling you what arguments I "like." This is your debate and not mine. Every day is #GAMEDAY and I will work hard when judging your debate, the same way I appreciated those who worked hard to judge my own.

An important meta-theoretical note: I believe in a 'healthy diet' of persuasion. I perceive there to be a serious problem with communication in competitive debate. Debates are won by important communicative moments (see below). Whether they are fast, slow, passionate, or hilarious, they must happen. I believe Will Repko has called these "Moments of Connection." Reading into your computer screen with no emphasis or clarity would make having such a moment extraordinarily difficult.

Debate is a communicative activity. This means that to win an argument a) I have to understand it and b) I have to hear it clearly enough to know it was there. At the end of the round, if we have a disagreement about something, usually a failure to achieve those requirements will be my explanation. Reading directly into your computer during your speeches and/or making no attempt at eye contact drastically heightens the risk of a miscommunication.

I am deeply concerned about the trend of evidence quality in debate. Teams seem to frequently read evidence that either fails to make a warranted claim OR that is highlighted down into oblivion. I think that a team who reads fewer, better (read: warranted) cards and sets the bar high for their opponents has a much better chance of winning their nexus/framing arguments.

Debate is what you make it. For some, debate is a game of verbal chess that is designed to teach them about institutional policy-making. For others, it is a place to develop community and advocacy skills for the problems and issues they face on an everyday basis whether at school, within debate, or elsewhere. I believe that one of the best things about this activity is that it can accomplish so many different things for so many individuals and it serves a variety of purposes. I think either or any of these approaches teach us the transferable skills debate can offer. No matter the arguments presented in a debate, I will always recognize this and will always support you for what you do. Over the years I have found myself voting fairly evenly for and against "framework" arguments because I will evaluate the arguments made in the debate itself. My ballot will never be an endorsement of one form of debate over another, it will very simply represent who I thought did the better debating.

Framework. In 1984, Dr. David Zarefsky famously argued, "the person who can set the terms of the debate has the power to win it." Generally, the 2NR that goes for "Topicality + Case D to Aff Impact Turns" is more likely to win in front of me than the 2NR who only goes for "State Good/Inevitable," though that is typically suitable defense on the case when the affirmative criticizes governmental action. The negative wins in front of me going for this 2NR strategy most often when it includes some combination of the following 3 arguments:

1. An interpretation supported by definitional evidence (that is ideally contextual to the topic). I am uncertain why negative interpretations like "direction of the topic" circumvents affirmative offense. These softer interpretations typically hurt the negative's ability to win the limits DA without much payoff. I have found that negative teams have a more uphill battle in front of me when the only term in the resolution they have defined is "United States Federal Government."

2. A Topical Version of the Aff and/or Switch Side Debate argument - I think of "framework" as the intersection between Topicality and argument(s) about how I prioritize impacts, which impacts should be prioritized, and what the best strategy for dealing with those impacts is. So, having a "counterplan" that plays defense to and/or solves portions of the case (and/or the impact turns) can be a good way to beat the affirmative. I find myself voting affirmative in debates where the 2NR did not address the affirmative's substantive offense (so, you did not respond to internal links to impact turns, address impact priority arguments, etc.). I also think this sets the negative up to make arguments about potential neg ground as well as a switch-side debate argument.

3. An impact - I have voted on procedural and structural fairness, topic education, and argument advocacy/testing impacts. Ideally, the 2NR will be careful to identify why these impacts access/outweigh the affirmative's offense and/or solve it. I think that debate is generally more valuable for "argument testing" than "truth testing," since the vast majority of arguments made in a debate rely on assumptions that "the plan/aff happens" or "the alternative/framework resolves a link."

Conversely, the affirmative should point out and capitalize on the absence of these arguments.

Presumption: This is a legal term that I think folks are often confused about. Presumption means that the affirmative has not met their burden of proof (sufficient evidence for change) and that I should err negative and be skeptical of change. Although a 2NR should try to avoid finding themselves with no offense, I am increasingly compelled by arguments that an affirmative who has not chosen to defend a(n) change/outcome (note: this does not mean a plan) has not met their burden of proof. For instance, an affirmative that says "the State is always bad" but does not offer some alternative to it has not overcome the presumption that shifting away from "the State" would be inherently risky. Of course, a framework argument about what it means to vote affirmative, or whether the role of the debate is to advocate for/against change factors into how I think about these issues.

Flowing: is a dying art. Regardless of whether I am instructed to or not, I will record all of the arguments on a flow. You should flow too. Reading along with speech docs does not constitute flowing. I am frustrated by teams who spend an entire cross-x asking which cards were read and requesting a speech doc with fewer cards. In the days of paper debate (I am a dinosaur to the teens of 2020), you would not have such a luxury. There are clearly instances where this is not uncalled for, but the majority of cases appear to be flowing issues, and not "card dumps" from an opposing team.

Permutations: I am almost never persuaded by the argument that the affirmative does not get a permutation in a "method debate." Permutations are mathematical combinations and all methods are permutations of theories and methods that preceded it. I could [rather easily] be persuaded that if the affirmative has no stable advocacy or plan, then they should not get a permutation. That is a different case and has a different warrant (affirmative conditionality). "Perm do the aff" is not an argument, it is not a permutation and says nothing about how a counterplan or alternative competes with the aff. I have also found that teams seem to have difficulty in defending the theoretical legitimacy of permutations. Although I would have an astronomically high threshold for voting on an argument like "severance permutations are a voting issue," such arguments could be persuasive reasons to reject a permutation.

Risk: I find that I am mostly on the "1% risk" side of things when a team has [good] evidence to support a claim. However, I can also be easily persuaded there is a "0% risk" if a team has made too much of a logical leap between their evidence and their claim, especially if the opposing team has also indicted their opponent's evidence and compared it to their own. This is especially true of "Link->Internal Link" questions for advantages and disadvantages.

Tech and Truth: If all arguments were equal in a debate, I would err on the side of truth. However, that is rarely (and should not be) the case. When there is not a clear attempt by both teams to engage in line-by-line refutation, one team tends to miss important framing arguments their opponents are making that undercut the "impact" of their truth claims. This understanding is distinct from "they dropped an arg, judge, so it must be true," since that is not a warranted extension of an argument nor is it a comparison that tells me why the "dropped argument" (how do we know it was dropped if we aren't debating line-by-line and making these comparisons? Could an argument somewhere else or on an entirely different sheet answer it?) should affect the way I evaluate other portions of the debate.

Other important notes:

A) I will vote for the team who I found to do the better debating. This means if your framing argument is "your ballot is political because _______" and I vote for you, my ballot is NOT necessarily an endorsement of that politics. Rather, it means you won your impact prioritization and did the better debating, nothing more, nothing less.

B) I do not want to preside over accusations about what has or has not happened outside of the debate I am judging. In these situations, I will always defer to the arguments presented in a debate first and try to resolve the debate in that fashion, since I am often not witness to the events that are brought up about what may or may not have happened prior to a debate.

C) I am ambivalent about argument selection and theory and am willing to vote against my own convictions. E.G. I think the Delay CP is 100% cheating and unfair but I will not credit a 2AR on that position that does not defeat the negative's arguments about why the CP is good/legitimate or I think conditionality is generally good but would still vote that it is bad if the negative is unable to defend their 1NC strategy.

D) I am unwilling to "judge kick" a CP extended by the 2NR unless they have explicitly told me why I should. The affirmative should, of course, contest the claim that I can always revert to the status quo in the event that a counterplan is insufficient/unnecessary.

Kyle Eriksen University of Nevada Las Vegas 3 rounds

Ignacio Evans Towson University 5 rounds

Rashad Evans Hire

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 11:53 AM PDT

I will choose from among the arguments presented to me. I pay close attention and keep an accurate flow of the debate. Both are important to me. Cross examination exchanges are important as well in shaping how I view arguments and debates. Consequently, I usually have thoughts about who won the debate immediately after its conclusion. Then my decision making process goes something like this: (1) who do I think won and why? (2) does that team think they won for this reason? (3) why does this team team think they won? (4) Are they correct? (5) why does the other team think they won? Are they correct? (6) who has the better claim to victory? (7) Decide. (8) what will be the losing teams complaint and what will I say? (9) Vote. 10. Deliver.

I vote for plans, counterplans, interpretations, performances, alternatives, permutations and presumption. You should be clear about what you are asking me to vote for. Know your plan, interpretation, etc. Know the other team's interpretation, permutation, etc. I usually start with a very narrow question to resolve a debate and they center around these issues. I usually ignore role of the ballot arguments except and unless it helps me resolve an otherwise irresolvable debate. I will usually just dismiss these arguments.

As a judge in a competitve academic activity I find that maintaining fairness is a paramount concern. Deciding these issues usually take precenden over other issues because as ther judge I am the only protection that eitther team has against unfair practices and these matters must be resolved immediately, in the round. Education is an important but secondary concern for me in my role as judge. It's a primary concern of mine as coach. You will notice that my decisions focus exclusively on who I voted for and why and rarely on what I think either team could do better or where either team or debaters came up short. I will talk about these things if asked, but I am primarly concerned with delivering a correct decision that resonably honors both team's expectations. A decision that is fair.

Card clipping: I have been convinced that this is an important thing. If you are caught card clipping in any debate that I am judging I will vote againtst you and give you 0 speaker points and ensure that you receive any and all of the proper punishment. However, anyone who accuses another debater of card clipping in any ddebate that I am judging will be held to an incredibly high burden of proof of clear and convincing evidence. That's something less than beyond a resonable doubt, but should still effectively deter anyone from making any weak accusations. I would much rather not have to decide this debate. Also, it would help me and you significantly if you included a materiality argument when making such an accusation. I.e. the other team clipped cards AND it's materially impacting the outcome of this debate. This is the equivalent of an in round abuse requirement.

Lastly, I do not vote for critiques of performances in front of white audiences. I am not a white audience. You must take note of this when you debate. Even if there are white people around, they don't matter to me as a judge (even on a panel).

Jack Ewing Harvard 2 rounds

Do whatever you do best.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel Fitzmier Northwestern University

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

Hello -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Best of luck at the 2016 NDT!

Jordan Foley Wake Forest University 4 rounds

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

Background

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

5 years of policy debate in college at Missouri State University

1 year coaching policy debate at the University of Michigan.

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

last updated: 1/16/14

Philosophy

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

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

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

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

1. 1. Clarity of interpretation

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

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

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

2. 2. Articulation of comparative significance –

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

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

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

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

Odds and Ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Andres Gannon University of California, Berkeley 3 rounds

andres.gannon [at] gmail.com - Updated 11/09/2013

I am not altering the manner in which I give speaker points unless the tournament provides a particular set of guidelines, recommendations, or suggested metrics for points.

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (big picture):

- It is productive and possible for all people to have an opinion about things the federal government is doing and should do

- Warranted arguments made from personal experience are not inherently less persuasive than warranted arguments made from those who professionally study the issues we debate, but arguments about the broader accuracy, applicability, and relevance of a personal experience to the broader issues in question should be debated in a productive fashion

- Offense-defense obsession counterproductively incentives a race to hyperbole. I won't give you full weight of an impact just because its dropped, you have to persuade me. An argument must exceed the threshold of being a credible, coherent, warranted, and plausible warrant before being one that helps you win the debate
- I've never been convinced any aff or DA actually accessed extinction of the human race. People are more concerned with the "terminal" part of their impact than they should be.
- The most important skill we acquire from debate is learning how to make and evaluate decisions in a way that is applicable to life outside of debate. Teams that win debates oriented around this question are those that convince me their model of debate is the most productive means of doing this. (http://t23367.education-region-usa-edebate.educationtalks.info/challenge-to-the-community-t23367.html)
- Debate needs to be more technical and specialized when it comes to discussing federal policies. The issues we discuss are incredibly complex. We should dive into that, not shy away from it (http://osdir.com/ml/education.region.usa.edebate/2007-06/msg00001.html)
- Try or die is a peculiar way of making decisions
- Impact and impact defense evidence are one of the most useful things to debate when it comes to education about public policy

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (small picture):

- Winning uniqueness does not mean the link turn isn't true/your link is true
- Counterplans that fiat an actor other than that of the resolution are not productive for debate
- Affs don't get to define the words in their plan in whatever manner is most convenient. Evidence gets to define words from the plan.
- Many impact turns to advantages are not intrinsic
- Arbitrary roles of the ballot are not persuasive. An issue being important doesn't mean it is a good role of the ballot
- Feasibility is a factor in determining the desirability of K alternatives
- Perms are a better way to eliminate unproductive counterplan discussions than theory

Logistics:

- Debate should be a safe space. Hostility, vulgar language, unnecessary antagonism, aggression, and patronization will not be appreciated
- I may want speech docs as the debate progresses
- I don't want it to be your job to monitor for card clipping. You debate, I'll enforce the rules
- Prep time stops when the jumpdrive is on your opponents hand
- You are not helping your partner's cross-x when you get involved
- I'd rather hear your cards than call for them after the debate

Samantha Godbey West Virginia University 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed February 7, 2024 at 5:33 AM EDT

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).

Justin Green Wake Forest University 2 rounds

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

Justin Green - Head Coach - Wake Forest University

wfudbt@gmail.com

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

Argument Defaults

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

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

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

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

Case Debates - Where have all my heroes gone?

Effective Techniques:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ENJOY!

Omar Guevara Weber State University 6 rounds None

Cecilia Hagen Cornell 6 rounds

Ben Hagwood Liberty University 2 rounds

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

Benjamin Hagwood, Director at Vancouver Debate Academy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sherry Hall Harvard 1 rounds

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Renan Hamoy Western Connecticut State University

David Heidt University of Michigan 2 rounds

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

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

******

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

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts about topicality:

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

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

Craig Hennigan Wayne State University 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 2:57 AM UTC

Updated for IPDA and Policy judging

Craig Hennigan
University of Nevada Las Vegas

TL/DR - I'm fine on the K. Need in round abuse for T. I'm fine with speed. K Alts that do something more than naval-gazing is preferred. Avoid running away from arguments. Actual dropped arguments will win you the round. I vote a lot on good CP/DA combinations.

I debated high school policy in the early 90’s and then college policy in 1994. I also competed in NFA-LD for 4 or 5 years, I don't recall, I know my last season was 1999? I then coached at Utica High School and West Bloomfield High school in Michigan for their policy programs for an additional 8 years. I coached for 5 years at Wayne State University. I was the Director of Forensics at Truman State University for 7 years and now am the Director of Debate at UNLV and started in 2022.

Dropped arguments can carry a lot of weight with me if you make an issue of them early. This being said, I have been more truth over tech lately. Some arguments are so bad I'm inclined to do work against it. If its cold conceded I will go with it, but if its a truly bad interpretation/argument, it won't take a lot to mitigate risk of it happening. I have responded well to sensible 'gut check' arguments before.

I enjoy debaters who can keep my flow neat. You need to have clear tags on your cards. I REQUIRE a differentiation in how you say the tag/citation and the evidence.

With regard to specific arguments – I will vote seldom on theory arguments that do not show significant in-round abuse. Potential abuse is a non-starter for me, and time skew to me is a legit strategy unless it’s really really bad. My threshold for theory then is pretty high if you cannot show a decent abuse story. Showing an abuse story should come well before the last rebuttal. If it is dropped though, I will most likely drop the argument before the team. Reminders in round about my disposition toward theory is persuasive such as "You don't want to pull the trigger on condo bad," or "I know you don't care for theory, here is why this is a uniquely bad situation where I don't get X link and why that is critical to this debate." Intrinsic and severance perms I think are bad if you can show why they are intrinsic or severance. Again, I'd drop argument before team.

I don't judge kick. If the CP is in the NR, the SQ isn't an option anymore.

I don’t like round bullys. If you run an obscure K philosophy don't expect everyone in the room to know who/what it is saying. It is the duty of those that want to run the K to be a ‘good’ person who wants to enhance the education of all present. I have voted for a lot of K's though so it's not like I'm opposed to them. K alternatives should be able to be explained well in the cross-x. I will have a preference for K alts that actually "do" something. The influence of my ballot on the discourse of the world at large is default minimal, on the debate community default is probably even less than minimal. Repeating jargon of the card is a poor strategy, if you can explain what the world looks like post alternative, that's awesome. I have found clarity to be a premium need in LD debate since there is much less time to develop a K. Failing to explain what the K does in the 1AC/NC then revealing it in the 1AR/NR is bad. If the K alt mutates into something else in the NR, this is a pretty compelling reason to vote against the K.

Never run from a debate. I'll respect someone that goes all-in for the heg good/heg bad argument and gets into a debate more than someone who attempts to be tricksy in case/plan writing or C-X in order to avoid potential arguments. Ideal C-X would be:

"Does your case increase spending?"

"Darn right, what are you gonna do about it? Catch me outside."

I will vote on T. Again, there should be an in-round abuse story to garner a ballot for T. This naturally would reinforce the previous statement under theory that says potential abuse is a non-starter for me. Developing T as an impact based argument rather than a rules based argument is more persuasive. As potential abuse is not typically a voter for me and I'll strike down speaker points toward RVI's based on bad theory. Regarding K's of T, it is a high bar and you probably shouldn't do it.

Anything that you intend to win on I need to have more than 15 seconds spent on it. I won't vote for a blip that isn't properly impacted. Rebuttals should not be a laundry list of answers without a comparative analysis of why one argument is clearly superior and a round winner.

Performance: Give me a reason to vote. Make an argument still with the performance. I don't typically want to do extra work for a debater so you need to apply your performance to arguments your opponent makes. I don't place arguments on the flow for you through embedded clash.

Small note: If you're totally outmatching your opponent, you're going to earn speaker points not by smashing your opponent, but rather through making debate a welcoming and educational experience for everyone.

Policy:Most of this is the same. Know that I'm getting older. I used to be around an 8 on the scale of speed and its probably dropped down to a 7. This means don't spread analyticals if you want me to vote on them. If you group 4-5 perms at once very quickly I may not get them all. I'm only in the game 2-3 times a year so some of the newer terminology or tricks I may not be as up to speed on. I won't vote on short blip arguments. Not the biggest fan of too many conditional worlds, 1 K and 1 CP is my default. I don't do judge kick either. I'm probably a bit of a dinosaur in this area now.

IPDA: IPDA is not policy nor should it resemble policy. I'm much less flow oriented. I'm of the belief that IPDA is far more of a speech activity and judge it accordingly. Dropped arguments carry weight, but less weight for me if they aren't really quality arguments. I'm of the opinion that a debater can win even if they aren't winning "on the flow" by being persuasive and speaking well. This is a publicly oriented event, so being cordial and good natured is important. This is a showcase to what debate ought to look like for the public, so treat it that way. I aim to be a judge that tries to leave behind my Policy/LD experience to substitute my speech experience and quality argumentation knowledge.

Card Clipping addendum:

Don't cheat. I typically ask to be included on email chains or ideally a speechdrop so that I can try to follow along at certain points of the speech to ensure that there isn't card clipping, however if you bring it up I in round I will also listen. You probably ought to record the part with clipping if I don't bring it up myself. Also, if I catch clipping (and if I catch it, it's blatant) then that's it, round over, other team doesn't have to bring it up if I noticed it. If its obviously unintentional then I'll warn you about it. (like you're a novice or you skipped a non-strategic line by mistake).

James Herndon Emory University 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 28, 2024 at 2:01 PM EDT

James H. Herndon - FORMER Director of Debate - Barkley Forum @ Emory University

[prefer to be called Herndon - pronouns are he/him/his. Email is jamesherndon3]

2020 update:

I left the game because I wanted to spend more time with my family. Wow, did I get that #ThanksCovid My relationship with debate was not conducive to being the father, husband, and member of my community I wanted to be. But, virtual judging is easy enough. So, why not.

What else is different - I don’t do debate research anymore, I do a lot of economic/financial research now, I do a lot of tech/zoom/Webex presentations.

In my experience I find it easier to listen/follow along when I can see people’s faces (that’s not possible for everyone, so it’s not a judgement thing) but if it can be when speaking it may aid my comprehension.

————————

everything from Jan 2019
If I am judging you and you are freaking out about it, believe there is no way I would ever vote for you, or are just generally making assumptions about my world view, then I ask you to keep in mind that the following list are things I think I think. I have been wrong more often than I have been right. I will do my best to evaluate the debate neutrally. I view myself as an adjudicator first, and do my best to neutrally evaluate the arguments as defended in front of me. I will vote for anything

Though, like all educators I have biases, those follow.

These statements are things I believe to be true about my judging. They aren't rules. But, it is better to disclose:

1. Debate is a game. I view all theory arguments through this lens.
2. If I don’t understand it at the end of the round then I am not going to vote on it.
3. The Aff should have to defend a plan or advocacy statement that they can defend is topical.
4. Topic related critical literature should be debated.
5. I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.
6. I will reward good cross-x with speaker points.
7.. I tend to evaluate the strength of the link in tandem with uniqueness – neither exists in a vacuum.
8. Counterplans always switch presumption to the aff.
9. I will NOT kick counterplans for the negative. The 2nr is allowed to present me with a reason to vote for them, that is where the debating ended. If the neg says to kick the cp and the aff doesn’t answer it I will kick it. Absent that, I am not kicking arguments for one team. This applies to all speeches.
10. Dropped doesn’t mean you win. Dropped means that the other team has conceded that the premise of that argument is true. Your job is to explain the significance of that premise for the rest of the debate. This applys to everything.
11. literature shapes the topic. and what you get to do with it.
14. Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of.
15. There is value to life.

16. I am not qualified to evaluate people in the round for or about things that happen outside of the round. Intentions are important & I give people the benefit of the doubt too often for my own good.

17. I feel like fiating the states + federal government might be a step too far. I haven't heard a great debate on this, but since this is for my biases, thought I'd include it. That being said, state fiat is probably okay if there are solvency cards for what you are doing.

18. limited condo is good. the neg's job is to disprove the aff or win a competitive policy option. That being said, if the aff can prove that conditionality was used in a way that undermined the value or competitive fairness of the debate, it is a voting issue.

19. topicality is under-utilized against policy teams and over-utilized vs K teams.

20. future fiat illegit.

Good luck.

David Hingstman University of Iowa 3 rounds

David B. Hingstman, University of Iowa, 28 years coaching

HOW I EVALUATE DEBATES:

I am UNLIKELY to do the following things that other judges sometimes do to decide close rounds, with the exception of particularly egregious situations: (A) completely accept or ignore one side's story on judge role, links, link turns, uniqueness, and risk assessment; (B) discount one side's story on these issues on the grounds that I didn't understand it sufficiently; (C) assume that each side wins "some" link or "some" link turn to their arguments in spite of very strong uniqueness or argument thesis challenges and then weigh the personal importance of a priori considerations or the size of the impacts for empirical arguments or the in a rough fashion; (D) apply strict standards of "newness" to discount arguments in rebuttal speeches other than 2AR; or (E) vote on an argument with an underdeveloped warrant (“one line cheap shot”) because the other team may have undercovered it, especially if an argument elsewhere in the debate takes it into account.

I am LIKELY to resolve close debates by using two steps: (I) devising an overarching story on major issues or on subsidiary parts of major issues that gives some credence to both sides' final positions on that issue but shows why one side's position ultimately becomes more relevant to drawing a particular conclusion on that issue; (II) if necessary, checking the relationship between particular claims and the evidential and argumentative support for those claims when that relationship is contested. You can increase your chance of winning my ballot if you make a special effort to: (a) understand the other side's arguments [ALL OF THEM]; (b) use labels that explain your arguments or give one sentence of explanation between label and card; (c) figure out what both sides agree on for any issue or argument you want to extend and use that agreement to coopt the other side's position; (d) assess issues in the last rebuttal under the worst-case assumption that I will give the other side's position on each issue some consideration and be willing to concede those arguments that are not critical to a favorable assessment for you; and (e) explain why an argument made in 1NR, 1AR, or 2NR is illegitimately new and then answer the argument anyway. If you do not provide me with explanations on subissues that subsume and reconcile the opposing arguments, I will look for that explanation by thinking about the arguments or by looking at the evidence.

TOPICALITY: I treat it like other issues in the debate, by synthesizing the competing stories. I am a little less likely than the average judge who vote negative on topicality to vote on debatability problems alone. I prefer topicality standards that focus on grammatical or jurisdictional arguments. I think affirmatives can do themselves a favor by having a counterinterpretation of the terms at issue or a critique of topicality. To me, this is offense, and offense is good.

COUNTERPLANS AND KRITIKS: I try to avoid voting on predispositions about the legitimacy of counterplan strategies (agents, PICs, international fiat, conditionality, etc.) and critique strategies (performance, epistemological objections, actional alternatives, forum arguments, etc.). Be sure to make the arguments about why I should abandon the default decision-making paradigm below if it is necessary to make your strategies work (that is, what is my revised role as a judge under your worldview). In the last four years, I have voted quite often for well-developed critiques and critical affirmatives.

DECISION-MAKING PARADIGM: The default paradigm is traditional policy-making, unless you ask for and ultimately better defend theoretical justification for some other paradigm in the debate. I am familiar and comfortable with functioning in different paradigms, however, including critical paradigms. Both teams can increase their chances of winning debates considerably by emphasizing “offense” in their responses whenever possible.

NEW ARGUMENTS: I am not as strict as some judges about possibly “new” arguments in the 1AR or 2NR, given that the other side has a chance to respond. 2AR is a different story. I am unlikely to accept a 2AR concession or cross-application not forecasted in the 1AR unless there is NO reasonably conceivable response the negative could have made to undercut the shift. The same standard applies to new arguments in 2AR.

STYLE AND CROSS-EX: I penalize stylistic excesses and rudeness in speaker points, not in the decision. Evidence misuse penalties vary according to the seriousness of the distortion. The significance of cross-x answers should be developed in the speeches, although I listen to and flow cross-ex to check for possible concessions.

Kevin Hirn University of Michigan 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 13, 2024 at 5:09 AM EDT

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

Alex Holguin Liberty University 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue April 2, 2024 at 1:00 PM PDT

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

Sierra Holley Fresno State 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu October 8, 2015 at 1:00 AM PDT

I’m a second year out judge.

I’ve debated for 3 years at Fresno State, my first year as a traditional policy debater and the last two years as a performance/k debater.

I’m not against spreading, but I flow differently from most debaters so if you believe something is important in round and want to increase the chances of it being properly evaluated, then please slow down.

I do not have a favorite argument. I do not have a preference for seeing one argument over the other. Run whatever you like to run. Say what ever you want to say, just realize that with every action there is a consequence. What you say may not necessarily affect my decision, but if you say something that the other team finds offensive just be prepared to deal with their reactions. For me what is important in my decision making is if your arguments are properly articulated. Meaning that I am not filling in holes for you. Explain your case like you would so that a three year old can understand it. Do not assume I know what you are talking about because you feel I may be sympathetic to your argument or because you think I'm familiar with your argument.

What I tend to favor in my decisions are impact calculations. Basically explain why your impact matters, who/what it affects, and why I should think it’s the most important thing to consider in the round. Give me a reason to care. I need a reason to care. Make sure you explain that reason to me and tell me why it is more important than what the other team is running.

Be respectful to your partner, do not berate them in front of me.

If you're new and you're nervous it's okay. Debate perfomance(traditional standards of what makes a debater a good speaker) can be overrated at times. Just take a breath and do your best. Do not forfeit your time, use it all. Say anything. Just don't give up because if you don't believe you should win or are winning your case ...why should I?

Debate to me is all about learning and expanding our knowledge. So do your best, be respectful to your partner and opponents and try to have fun.

Jacob Justice University of Kansas 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:26 AM CDT

I am the Director of Forensics and an Assistant Professor of Speech Communication in the Department of Writing & Rhetoric at the University of Mississippi. I have a PhD and MA in Communication Studies from the University of Kansas.

I currently coach British Parliamentary debate but my background is in policy debate.

From 2014 to 2021 I was an assistant coach at the University of Kansas.

I competed at Wayne State University from 2009 to 2014.

I debated in high school for Dexter High School in Michigan.

Put me on the email chain, please. jacob.justice.debate at gmail.

Regardless of format (policy, PF, LD, BP, etc.) or style (policy, critique, etc.) I want to see complete and supported arguments, engagement with the arguments of your opponent, and judge instruction about how to prioritize and weigh various arguments.

The following stuff still applies.

*October 2020 Update*

This past Spring I finished up my PhD at the University of Kansas. I am now a public speaking instructor at Northeastern University in Boston, MA. I will be judging sporadically for Kansas during the 2020-2021 season.

What does this mean?

Don't assume I have high familiarity with the nitty-gritty of the current topic. I coached/judged on the high school military presence topic (2010-2011) and coached/judged extensively on the college military presence topic (2015-2016), so I am familiar with the broad strokes of the current college topic, but the latest and spiciest arguments and acronyms might be unfamiliar to me.

The Wayne State tournament will also be my first time judging an online tournament; although I did judge many online debates at the 2020 Jayhawk Debate Institute and have taught online many times as well. I just wanted to provide a fair warning that you can't rule out a "boomer technology moment" with me in the back of the room as I learn the ropes of this strange new world of online debating.

With these updates out of the way, I think everything below applies.

I always do my best to judge the debate in front of me without letting my own biases creep in. But I (or any other judge) would be lying if I told you I don't have certain preferences: these preferences are spelled out pretty well below.

One additional comment: I find that the most difficult rounds to resolve often involve debates that are occurring on two different registers. A 1AC with massive extinction impacts versus K links about knowledge production or ontology. Or a 1AC about anti-blackness or psychic violence versus a T argument about fairness/education. When debaters' impacts operate on such different levels, it can be difficult to resolve the debate without debaters explicitly telling me what types of impacts to prioritize.

*Previous Philosophy*

First things first:

1) Do what you're best at. As a judge, I should adapt to you and not the other way around.

2) Arguments should have a claim, warrant, and implication. Any argument that contains a claim, data (this doesn't mean carded), warrant and implication is fair game for my ballot.

3) A dropped argument is almost always a true argument. The most common exception is if the original argument did not include the requirements in #2, in which case I might give the team that dropped the arg some leeway in hedging against an entirely new warrant or implication. Tech creates "truth". What is "truth" is contingent on arguments made (and won). I often find myself voting for arguments that I disagree with or find silly when one side executes better.

4) This is a communication activity, so clarity is important to me. I like being able to hear the text of evidence as it is being read. Enunciate! Don't talk into your laptop or read like a robot.

General Notes:

Context always matters. Controlling the contextual framing almost always requires hard pre-round work, and usually wins the round. I value teams that demonstrate robust knowledge of their arguments and the topic.

Clash matters a lot to me. I'm not a good judge for teams whose strategy is built around avoiding a debate. This is true regardless of which side of the K/policy spectrum any given argument falls on.

Impact comparisons are critical, no matter what flavor of debate you engage in. Does negative flexibility outweigh 2AC strategy skew? Are the 1AC’s methodological assumptions a prior question to its pragmatic implications? Does a long term warming impact outweigh a quick nuclear war scenario? In a close round, the team that provides the clearest and most well-explained answer to questions like those usually wins my ballot.

In general, it is better to a develop a small number of arguments in an in-depth manner than to develop a large number of arguments in a shallow manner, although there are certainly exceptions to this rule. Selective rebuttals are typically the most effective. That being said, I recognize the strategic benefit of the 1AR pursuing a handful of lines of argument to give the 2AR flexibility to pick-and-choose.

After judging a year of college debates, I think my biggest pet peeve is vagueness -- be that a vague plan, vague CP, or vague alt. Being clear and detailed is helpful to me as a judge.

Framework:

See: my previous thoughts about clash.

Teams should defend an example of the resolution. I don't think being topical is an unreasonable expectation when the resolution does not force you to take a conservative or repugnant action (i.e., when legalizing pot or closing military bases is topical). I think fairness is an impact and will vote on it if articulated and debated well.

When answering T with a "K Aff," I think it is important for the AFF team to advance a limiting counter-interpretation of some kind. I am more likely to be persuaded by "we don't make the topic unworkably large" than "destroying debate good."

It is important for affirmatives to demonstrate that their advocacy is germane to the controversy of the resolution and contestable. Affirmatives should explain what type of ground they make available to the negative, and not just by referring to random author names. In other words, it's much more helpful when the affirmative frames the ground debate in terms of: "our affirmative relies on *X* assumption, which *Y* literature base writes evidence refuting" rather than just saying "you can read Baudrillard, Bataille, etc."

Teams should articulate a clear vision of what debate would look like under their interpretation. Ideally, teams should present a clear answer to questions like: "what is the purpose of debate?" Is it a game? A site for activism? Somewhere in between?

I don't think reading topicality is a means to evade clash with the substance of an affirmative -- in many instances it calls core assumptions of the affirmative into question.

Interacting with your opponents' argument is critical. It's important to isolate a clear impact to your argument and explain how it accesses/turns your opponents. Often times I find these debates to be irreconcilable because the arguments advanced by either side have disparate premises. It can be helpful to not conflate procedural justifications for topicality with normative ones, though the internal links to these things often become messy.

I am disinclined to view debate as a role-playing exercise.

Topicality:

I will definitely vote on it, and I have done so often. I am not a good judge for "should = past tense of shall", "reduce =/= eliminate" and other contrived interpretations negatives read against obviously topical affs. For instance, it will be difficult to convince me that an affirmative which removes the Cuban embargo is untopical, absent a massive technical error. That being said I am willing to vote on T, given that an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters are well articulated. Affirmatives should always make and extend a counter-interpretation.

Theory –

It will be tough to persuade me that two conditional advocacies is egregious and unmanageable for the 2AC. Beyond two conditional advocacies is pushing your luck if you are the negative team, especially with multiple "kickable" planks involved.

Basically every other theoretical objection is a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

I haven't formed a solid opinion on "judge kicking" CPs, but since the aff has the burden of proof in most theory debates, I think I am comfortable putting the burden on the aff to prove why the 2NR can't simultaneously go for a CP and the SQ.

-Consult/Condition/Delay CPs – I tend to consider these types of CPs uncompetitive, and am thus receptive to perm arguments. That being said, there is a big difference in my mind between “Consult Japan on the plan” and well-evidenced CP’s that are comparative between doing the plan unconditionally, and using the plan as leverage. The latter brand of condition CP’s are few and far between.

Critiques:

Given my disposition to view things within a cost-benefit paradigm, I am likely to frame the critique as a disad / counterplan. This basic calculus will be different based upon the framework arguments advanced by the negative regarding ontology, epistemology, method, etc.

When indicting an affirmative's knowledge production or epistemology is imperative that you reference quotes or phrases from the 1AC which you think are flawed. It is also imperative that affirmatives defend the truth value of their 1AC's claims from these types of epistemological attacks.

I feel most comfortable in K rounds that involve a lot of interaction with the plan, the advantages, or explicit 1AC claims. There should be a coherent link, impact, and alternative. Don't assume I know what you are talking about.

Affs are best answering the K at the alt and impact level as the neg will almost certainly win a link. Articulating why the alt doesn't solve the case and why the case outweighs the K impacts is usually the best strategy. I am also a fan of the impact turn.

K links should ideally establish that the 1AC/plan is undesirable, not merely that it doesn't account for every foreseeable harm. I.E. links that say: "the plan makes racism worse" are more persuasive than "the plan does not address other instances of racism."

Aaron Kall University of Michigan 1 rounds

Director of Debate at The University of Michigan

General Judging Paradigm- I think debate is an educational game. Someone once told me
that there are three types of judges: big truth, middle truth, and little truth judges. I would
definitely fall into the latter category. I don’t think a two hour debate round is a search for
the truth, but rather a time period for debaters to persuade judges with the help of
evidence and analytical arguments. I have many personal biases and preferences, but I try
to compartmentalize them and allow the debate to be decided by the debaters. I abhor
judge intervention, but do realize it becomes inevitable when debaters fail to adequately
resolve the debate. I am a very technical and flow-oriented judge. I will not evaluate
arguments that were in the 2AR and 2AC, but not the 1AR. This is also true for
arguments that were in the 2NR and 1NC, but not in the negative block.

Counterplans/Theory- I would consider myself liberal on theory, especially regarding
plan-inclusive counterplans. Usually, the negative block will make ten arguments
theoretically defending their counterplan and the 1AR will only answer eight of them- the
2NR will extend the two arguments that were dropped, etc. and that’s usually good
enough for me. I have often voted on conditionality because the Aff. was technically
superior. If you’re Aff. and going for theory, make sure to answer each and every
negative argument. I am troubled by the recent emergence of theory and procedural
debates focusing on offense and defense. I don’t necessarily think the negative has to win
an offensive reason why their counterplan is theoretically legitimate- they just have to
win that their counterplan is legitimate. For the Aff., I believe that permutations must
include all of the plan and all or part of the counterplan. I think the do the counterplan
permutation is silly and don’t think it’s justified because the negative is conditional, etc. I
do realize this permutation wins rounds because it’s short and Neg. teams sometimes fail
to answer it. On the issue of presumption, a counterplan must provide a reason to reject
the Aff. Finally, I think it’s illegitimate when the Aff. refuses to commit to their agent for
the explicit purpose of ducking counterplans, especially when they read solvency
evidence that advocates a particular agent. This strategy relies on defending the theory of
textual competition, which I think is a bad way of determining whether counterplans
compete.

Topicality- When I debated, I commonly ran Affirmatives that were on the fringe of what
was considered topical. This was probably the reason I was not a great topicality judge
for the negative my first few years of judging college debate. Beginning this year, I have
noticed myself voting negative on topicality with greater frequency. In the abstract, I
would prefer a more limited topic as opposed to one where hundreds of cases could be
considered topical. That being said, I think topicality often seems like a strategy of
desperation for the negative, so if it’s not, make sure the violation is well developed in
the negative block. I resolve topicality debates in a very technical manner. Often it
seems like the best Affirmative answers are not made until the 2AR, which is probably
too late for me to consider them.

Kritiks- If I got to choose my ideal debate to judge, it would probably involve a politics
or other disadvantage and a case or counterplan debate. But, I do realize that debaters get
to run whatever arguments they want and strategy plays a large role in argument
selection. I have probably voted for a kritik about a half of dozen times this year. I never
ran kritiks when I debated and I do not read any philosophy in my free time. Kritik
rhetoric often involves long words, so please reduce your rate of speed slightly so I can
understand what you are saying. Kritiks as net-benefits to counterplans or alternatives
that have little or no solvency deficit are especially difficult for Affirmatives to handle.
Evidence Reading- I read a lot of evidence, unless I think the debate was so clear that it’s
not necessary. I won’t look at the un-underlined parts of cards- only what was read into
the round. I am pretty liberal about evidence and arguments in the 1AR. If a one card
argument in the 1NC gets extended and ten more pieces of evidence are read by the
negative block, the 1AR obviously gets to read cards. I think the quality of evidence is
important and feel that evidence that can only be found on the web is usually not credible
because it is not permanent nor subject to peer review. I wish there would be more time
spent in debates on the competing quality of evidence.

Cheap Shots/Voting Issues- These are usually bad arguments, but receive attention
because they are commonly dropped. For me to vote on these arguments, they must be
clearly articulated and have a competent warrant behind them. Just because the phrase
voting issue was made in the 1AR, not answered by the 2NR, and extended by the 2AR
doesn’t make it so. There has to be an articulated link/reason it’s a voting issue for it to
be considered.

Pet Peeves- Inefficiency, being asked to flow overviews on separate pieces of paper, 2NRs that go for too much, etc.

Seasonal voting record:

Paul Kanellopoulos Harvard 2 rounds

I used to have a really long philosophy that listed most of my feelings towards certain arguments. After a year, I’ve found that what I believe has become increasingly irrelevant when I evaluate debates. I’ve decided instead to list a couple of general principles that are important to me and that I like to see in debates.

(1) The debate is for the debaters – My overall philosophy is pretty simple: You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. I really don’t care what arguments you make as long as they are good. I would much rather see you debate your best going for an argument you like and feel comfortable with than try to adapt to my argumentative proclivities.

(2) Framing is important – Tell me how you would like me to evaluate arguments. Make comparisons and distinctions. Framing the debate controls how I go about making my decision. The more you do it and the better you are at it, the better place you will be in. Engaging the other team’s arguments and guiding how I should evaluate them in comparison to yours makes my decision really easy. Making a debate messy, on the other hand, makes it less likely my decision will make any sense.

(3) Debate is a speaking activity

(a) Speed and clarity – Speed is fine, blippiness is not. Clarity is your friend. I like to think that I am able to keep up with even the fastest debaters. But distinguishing between arguments and fully explaining them is a must if you expect me to keep a fair record of what happened in the debate.

(b) Evidence – I will read your evidence, but you need to do more than simply reference that you HAVE evidence in the rebuttals. Don’t expect me to extract warrants from your cards that are not highlighted in rebuttals. If you think it’s important enough for me to base my decision off of it, then it should probably be in the speech.

(4) Kritiks/arguments that don’t involve plans – most relevant things I have to say are covered in sections (1) and (2). However, I will say that if you are making an argument that doesn’t involve or rely on a pure, reductive USFG-centric approach to fiat then it would be in your best interest to very clearly articulate what the role of the ballot is and why that should be the role of the ballot. What is my decision supposed to accomplish and what should I evaluate in making that decision.

(5) Speaker points – I will follow any guidelines that tournaments provide me. Beyond that, I will assign speaker points based on a holistic evaluation on how I think the debaters in the debate did. I don’t think that I can really mechanistically list all of the factors that I will use beyond this: if you sound good and do smart things in debates you will be rewarded.

Amber Kelsie Towson University -2 rounds

Patrick Kennedy Harvard 2 rounds

Sean Kennedy University of Kansas 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 1:26 AM PDT

Sean Kennedy - Debated at: University of Kansas

Director of Debate at USC

In general I would prefer to judge based upon the perspective presented by the debaters in the debate. Framing issues are very important to me, and I think debaters should make it clear what they believe those issues are through tone, organization, or explicit labeling (ie "this is a framing issue for the debate" or some similar phrase). Embedded clash is fine, but I think that concept carries some limitations - there is only so far that I am willing to stretch my reading of a (negative/affirmative) argument on X page/part of the flow, that does not reference Y (affirmative/negative) argument on another page/part of the flow. Some of my more difficult decisions have revolved around this point, so to avoid any ambiguity debaters should be explicit about how they want arguments to be read within the debate, especially if they intend a particular argument to be direct refutation to a specific opponent argument.

Beyond that I will try to keep as open a mind about arguments as possible - I have enjoyed initiating and responding to a diverse set of arguments during my time as a debater, and I have had both good and bad experiences everywhere across the spectrum, so I think as a judge I am unlikely to decide debates based on my personal feelings about content/style of argument than the quality of execution and in-round performance.

As a caveat to that - I do think that the affirmative has an obligation to respond to the resolution, though I think whether that means/requires a plan, no plan, resolution as a metaphor, etc is up for debate. However, I am generally, although certainly not always, persuaded by arguments that the affirmative should have a plan.

I am also willing to believe that there is zero risk or close enough to zero risk of link/impact arguments to vote on defense, should the debate appear to resolve the issue that strongly.

Whether or not I kick a counterplan/alt for the 2nr (what some people call "judge conditionality" or "judge kick") depends on what happens in the debate. I will always favor an explicit argument made by either team on that score over some presumption on my part. I have similar feelings about presumption when there is a counterplan/alt. The reason for this is that although there may be logical reasons for kicking advocacies or evaluating presumption in a certain light, I think that debate as a pedagogical activity is best when it forces debaters to make their choices explicit, rather than forcing the judge to read into a choice that was NOT made or requiring that both teams and the judge have an unspoken agreement about what the logical terms for the debate were (this is probably more obvious and necessary in some cases, ie not being able to answer your own arguments, than I think it is in the case of advocacies).

Please be kind to your competitors and treat their arguments with respect - you don't know where they come from or what their arguments mean to them, and I think this community can only work if we value basic decency towards others as much as much as we do argumentative prowess. In that vein, jokes are good, but I'm certainly much less amused by personal attacks and derision than I am by dry humor or cheekiness.

Michael Leap Baylor University 2 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 30, 2016 at 5:57 AM EDT

I debated for Wayne State Univesity for 4 years. I have coached for Baylor and Gonzaga Universities. I broke as the 9th seed at the ndt, was a four-time ndt debater, and was top speaker of the Ada varsity championship tournament.

I am open to lots of types of arguments; make offense and defense (hopefully highlight and weigh it for me). An argument is something with a claim, warrant and impact. Do impact calc and evidence comparison. I won't call for evidence unless I have to or unless a debater wins an argument why I should call for the piece of evidence. Better rebuttals will help me not have to reconstruct the round. Unless instructed otherwise, I will assume that a dropped argument is a true argument if the opposing team extends it. The same goes for strategic concessions. Clash is a good thing.

In college I was mostly a high theory and/or identity performance debater, but I also was trained in policy debate and defended my fair share of plans (yes, implemented instrumentally through the usfg). Thus, I am fairly comfortable with policy rounds -- you just have to help me through it a bit more than you would have to in a critical debate. I will default to uniqueness controlling the link unless instructed otherwise.

I am a first-year-out judge (for college debate at least), so my paradigm or feelings about judging may be subject to change over time.

Ethics chalenges stop the round; don't make one unless you are certain.

Aggressiveness is fine, being sassy and/or fierce is strongly encouraged; flat out rudeness or personal rhetorical violence and the such is heavily discouraged and may be subject to me responding in ways that are unpleasant for the offending team.

I like to be entertained: make good use of ethos, argumentative style and quality analysis (jokes optimal, but only if you actually have a good sense of humor...).

It will be hard to get me to vote for "no K's" framework when you are aff.

I like it when debaters take the time to make connection moments with me.

Extra speaker points for anyone who reads a good 2nc CP in front of me.

I am a moderately visual-feedback-giving judge: I wont just stare blankly at you the whole time but I also am not going to emphatically nod for every argument that I think is good or shake my head when you did something wrong.

I will call "clear!" a few times if I can't understand you. If I've called clear a few times and finally just put my pen down and stop flowing this should be your clue that I have stopped flowing because I can't understand you. At that point it's usually dramatically in your interst to slow down and be waaaaaaaay more clear. Perhaps even go back if I couldnt make out and were down some of your key arguments.

I don't take prep time for flashing or emailing speech docs unless it gets egregious. In general, I would massively prefer if you don't flash your opponents a jacked-up speech doc that is in the wrong order or that has way more cards than you actually intend on reading your speech. Again, if this gets obnoxious I will start taking prep time from the offending team while they do speech doc reconstruction and re-sending/re-flashing.

For me, presumption defaults neg until they read a counter advocacy (counterplan, alternative, method, etc.); thereafter I default to presumption flipping aff unless instructed otherwise.

It will be difficult to convince me that judge choice is a good framework argument, but I am willing to judge kick advocacies for the 2nr if they are condo and the aff hasn't won a theory argument that judge kicks are bad.

If anyone has questions or things that they would like more info on for my judge philosophy then just email me at michaelleap@me.com and I will get back to your question and/or add necessary info as soon as possible.

George Lee University of California, Berkeley 3 rounds

Joe Leeson-Schatz Binghamton University 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 8, 2024 at 10:26 AM EDT

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.

Alexis Litzky San Francisco State University 3 rounds

Alex Martel University of Rochester 3 rounds

Finally, halfway through the year, copying my philosophy over from last year. I will say, there are a few big additions are up at the top. Those of you that pref me regularly probably know about them already.

1. I'm flowing on paper again. This means you have to spend time on the arguments you want ink on. This was a deliberate choice. It's meant to make you exlain things. Teams that think they can say a word (statistics, scholarly consensus, winners win, bioptix good are frequent ones I hear) and think it's a full argument will suffer. Sorry, life ain't kind.

This also means I'll, more than likely, show up to the round looking for a pen and paper. Sorry.

2. Lately, if you remind me, I'll give you a movie to make references to for extra speaker points. More often than not, it will be Good Will Hunting.

3. paperless debating -- I don't know why anyone would make you kids use prep to flash. paperless debate seems to be one of the few things our community has managed to get right about practicing what we preach, so I'm willing to put up with the extra few minutes of waiting. I'll more than likely use the time you folks are flashing things and make bad jokes, and silly puns like "all the cards they're jumping you are so stupid, they might as well call that thing a 'JUNK drive!'" and then dock your speaks when you don't laugh.

4. I've been thinking more and more about deleting all of this crap and just posting one line as my paradigm: I'm a banana.

I dream of the debates I would see. I envision young, smart, indifferent people all preffing me highly -- like at every D8 tournament there's a secret room somewhere where intensely smart performance debates are happening, but they only allow the craziest, snarkiest, least socially adjusted in the pool to judge it.

Then I think about the other possibility -- I don't get preffed at all. That idea doesn't bother me either, really. The only thing that really deters me from doing it is not being able to say "just look up my paradigm" to people when I walk into a room and debaters, frustrated that another judge pulled the trigger on limits in their last round and wanting to know if I care that they're not topical, ask my "do you have any preferences?"

I mean, I would prefer not to, I guess. I'm not sure I can tell them that though. I prefer that debates happen where there is significant impact analysis, a point of stasis about the issues being discussed (srsly, in these deleuze v zizek debates, it'd be helpful if you could help me resolve what capitalism even is) and depth on a few key issues.

*****

So, I debated at Vermont from the ag topic to immigration. I didn’t really run a plan my last few years debating, so those of you who are looking just to see if I'll listen to your business even though you don't have one, I will -- but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to vote on framework , either. make sure you’ve got a legitimate answer to it that’s a little more nuanced than an impact turn -- some topic specific defense is generally clutch in a situation like that.

Everyone who's rolling their eyes now because you think I'm a k hack, hold up before you take out your heg impact and substitute in some security k advantage you

a) aren't familiar with or
b) don't really feel like running.

I’d rather hear you do what you feel comfortable with.

It occurs to me I should begin by telling you what types of debates I enjoy watching. I’d say I probably enjoy watching what more and more people are calling “non-traditional” debates best -- no offense to those running the EU counterplan, it’s just slightly boring to me. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think a beautifully run terror disadvantage isn’t fun to watch -- but when it’s not done really well, it can be agonizing.

So, because I ran more critical args, I’m more familiar with them. I also think knowing your bias and admitting it is better than pretending I don’t have one and then not really understanding a teams arguments when you’re in round because you expect me to be deep into the realism lit -- so, you may have to slow down and be a little more explanatory. On the flip side, don’t expect me to know what’s going on with your k just because I ran a couple of them.

Now we’re hitting the part of the judging philosophy where people list types of arguments and people say “I like them!” or “ehh, I’ll listen to it, but whatevs” -- since I’m assuming as a coach my first year out I’ll be hearing a lot of novice debate, I’m going to do you one better and tell you what to do with each of these args to get my ballot, or at least higher speaks than you’d have gotten. I’m operating under the (maybe faulty) assumption you’re a novice reading this, and not just a coach trying to decide to pref me or not.

topicality -- think of T as a disad. just because you can prove their business doesn’t fit your definition of substantial doesn’t mean you get my ballot. your interpretation is an example of how the resolution should be interpreted in not just this particular debate round, but every debate round. People lose sight of this I think, and because of that, impact analysis can fall to the wayside. Admittedly, this is what would happen with me, at least. If you’re going to go for T, make sure you outline what args are permissible and impermissible under your interpretation, and what this means for the negative. It helps to have contextual examples specific to this topic, and as the year goes on, it becomes more important.

Theory -- I probably have an abnormally low threshold for voting on theory, to be honest. If you are going for it in front of me, make the same impact analysis I’m calling for in a T debate, please. Lay out the worlds of debate, which is better, which is worse, and why.

Case -- Not sure what to say here. Put something on. It’s easier to pull the trigger on a k or d/a if there’s a solvency deficit arg that’s persuasive on case.

Kritiks --zero point of the holocaust is not an impact. It’s cool if you want to go conceptual, I’m down, but you want to

a) have specific examples of the way your impacts play out that have some bearing on the topic, and what that means for people, and

b) a clear idea of what the alt is, and how to explain it in simple terms. Be careful about assigning a role of the ballot, because that can get confusing fast.

Other than that, this year it’s going to be easy for k debates to get stale, because the topic seems to lend itself to stale/generic links. Points for creativity.

When answering a K with a straight up aff, the link turn is key -- use your 1ac please -- I won't be persuaded by a block of cards and then a brand new 2ar that articulates the link turn. It also helps your partner out when he/she is giving the 1ar, and helping your partner out is a good thing.

D/A’s, CP’s -- These are way less conceptual, just make the smart argument and justify your business. Aff people who are answering these, remember to isolate the parts of case the cp can’t possibly solve for, and make that the most important thing in round, be it an ethic, an ontology, or a gw advantage. If you’re going for the d/a in the 2nr, make sure you’re weighing the impacts, and probability and magnitude are probably most important in the end. that doesn’t mean drop timeframe though.

performance -- I don’t think I really have separate advise for this because I don’t think of it as a different category of argument from the above per se. Make sure you’re making those basic arguments about what your performance does to disrupt x problem. Do me one favor though, don’t use your performance as a reason why you don’t answer obviously important business because of your speed is exclusionary, going multiple off is bad, or whatever other generic arg you’re making is. Plenty of good teams are slow and don’t brush off important arguments. That also doesn’t mean I’m not persuaded by speed is exclusionary, it just means you’re going to have to be smart with your time.

That being said, there are things people will tank your speaks for doing but in good humor, I think you should totally do them in front of me as long as you’re not being serious -- I’ll give you an extra speaker point or two, just because. They include, but are not limited to:

1. using the phrase “jack taco.”
2. saying “don’t do the work for them”
3. stating “this was cold conceded” -- bonus points if it was not conceded.
4. calling a piece of evidence “on fire.”
5. saying “I don’t get a 3nr”

But, in all seriousness, you should be respectful to those you are debating, and your partner as well. And have fun! Debate is hard, might as well enjoy yourself while you’re doing it.

Jillian Marty University of Vermont 3 rounds

Brian McBride University of Southern California 2 rounds

Patrick McCleary George Mason University 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 4:03 AM EDT

patrick.g.mccleary@gmail.com

I think this is my one old man pet peeve: please don't call it "cross."

I debated from 2006-2010 at Loyola Blakefield HS, then from 2010-2013 at the University of Mary Washington. Coached at George Mason University from 2014-2017. I've been mostly out of debate since then aside from a handful of debates each year. The place where this probably impacts you most is in T debates (if you're shotgunning a case list at me, especially one full of topic acronyms, I may not know what you're talking about).

Short version - do what you do. I’m not here to tell you what debate is supposed to be about or what arguments are best, so I won’t judge in a fashion that assumes I know the answers to those questions. Do whatever you were going to do before you saw my name on the pairing. Treat the following as proclivities that break ties. In other words, if two sides debate an argument as perfectly (or as poorly?) as humanly possible, this is how I would probably err in a given situation.

Top level stuff:
I enjoy fast, clash-heavy, policy debate. I think there are benefits to all three of those descriptors (though I am open to well-argued critiques of “policy” – see below). That necessitates certain things about the way I judge:
- I like to flow. I will evaluate arguments that tell me not to flow in order to determine if not flowing is a better model for debate, but I need to flow the arguments to make that determination in the first place
- Line by line is important in my decision-making. I have a tendency to reward direct clash over embedded/holistic argumentation. That doesn't mean I adhere strictly to the line by line, but keep in mind that it can be a tiebreaker, and that good line by line debating can only help your points.
- Clarity is crucial. A lot of “bad judging decisions” are the result of miscommunications between judges and debaters
- An argument is a claim and a warrant. A good argument is a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Phrases such as “fiat solves the link” or “infinite regression” are not arguments. Teams are only responsible for responding to arguments.

Paperless prep - I took a decent amount, so I'm pretty lenient about it. I also think that the whole "when the email is sent/when the jump drive is out" standard reduces the quality of debates by forcing debaters to take prep when they aren't actually prepping. I think prep time stops when you are no longer prepping your speech. But you should know that the more prep you take means the less time I have to decide the debate. There's also a limit to the dead time I can allow because I do like having time to decide.

Speaker Points:
I give speaker points based on how effectively students articulate their arguments, regardless of the type of argument. Above a 29.5 deserves to contend for top speaker, 29.3-29.5 is a speaker award, 29-29.2 is good/should be clearing, 28.5-28.9 is on the cusp of clearing, 28-28.4 is average, 27.5-27.9 is below average, 27 and up needs work or might be in the wrong division. Any lower and you probably did something unethical or offensive. I try to roughly keep up with community norms here.

One more note on speaks - borrowed from Hester's philosophy:

"Debaters who have used the opportunity afforded by annual resolutions to learn about the topic and are able to apply that knowledge in the round will be in position to receive higher points than debaters whose speeches are lacking in this category. Debaters whose speeches reflect little to no effort at having learned about this season's topic may win the debate, but will not receive good points.

This does not mean the AFF must read a plan text...nor that the NEG can only debate the case (rarely a wise strategy). It simply means i am listening for proof that debaters are taking advantage of the opportunity to learn about a different topic area each season."

Topicality
I think it’s one of the most underutilized tools in the neg arsenal. I also think 1ARs don’t give it enough credibility. It’s a voter and never a reverse voter. Limits determines everything. I view topicality as a battle between functional limits for the aff and predictable limits for the neg. That’s also what determines whether or not an aff is “reasonable” or not. I frequently find myself caring very little about what government definitions or topic framers think, especially compared to arguments about debatability (for either side).

ASpec is a nonstarter unless you ask in c/x, and even then it’s probably an uphill battle. As a 2A, I respect the aff’s choice to refuse to give PIC ground in 1AC c/x, but affs need to understand that a mishandled vagueness argument can lead to an outcome, however unlikely, that they don’t want. Effects and extra T could just be reasons to reject the nontopical parts of the aff (I could be persuaded otherwise), but negative teams would be wise to point out the ways that the aff fails to solve/function logically without those parts.

DA
I’m most familiar with these kinds of debates. Here’s a laundry list of random advice and thoughts.

- I think DAs can have a tendency to be a series of strung together cards – it’s important to articulate a story to the DA that makes sense. Note - this is also an opportunity for you politics 1NRs out there to prove to me that you have some topic/current events knowledge and to get a nice boost in speaker points.

- I think there can be zero risk of a link, especially if your DA is one of the ones described above. That being said, going for a link turn can still be more strategic than terminal defense because controlling the direction arrow of the link/internal link chain necessarily zeroes the link.

- Link precedes uniqueness.

- Start impact calculus as early as possible.

- Cards should never be tagged “more ev.”

- Just respond to arguments instead of saying “uniqueness (or link) debate – group it.”

- In many instances (especially picking apart opponents’ cards), smart analytics are just as effective, if not more so, than cards.

CP
The absolute best thing the last rebuttals can do in a CP debate (and pretty much all debates) is to assume that the other side is going to win some part of their argument - whether that be case defense or a solvency deficit. That means you need to quantify the risk of the solvency deficit versus the risk of the DA/case. Affs should be smart and creative with permutations and explanations of the perm. Negs should lock down what the perm is early to avoid aff shiftiness.

If nobody says anything about it, I’m willing to kick the CP for the neg because of implicit assumptions of it being conditional. But I could definitely be persuaded that presumption flips aff/the neg should get one world in the 2NR. Caveat - if the block says "2NR choice checks" when answering conditionality in the block, I will almost definitely hold the neg to one world in the 2NR. Another caveat - if the 1NC response to the status question is "status quo is always a logical option" (or some functional equivalent) AND the block rearticulates that the judge can kick the CP for the neg, it would be too late for the 2AR to make an argument about sticking the neg with the CP.

***ADA/NDT 2015 Edit***

I think I'm more in the 1%/any risk camp than I initially thought I was. This is especially true with a 2NR that includes a CP that solves the case. A tiny net benefit lowers the bar for a perm/solvency deficit, but it seems logical to me that there needs to be a perm/solvency deficit to beat a CP.

Theory
Again – these are inclinations. Nothing is set in stone and I can be persuaded either way.

Conditionality – fine within reason. I personally believe more strongly in the justifications for 1 CP, 1 K as opposed to 2 CPs or 2 Ks. Neg debaters would be well-served making arguments that reflect that distinction.
Dispositionality – I would be surprised if I voted against a team on it
CPs that do the whole aff (consult, condition, etc) – probably not reasons to reject the team. Perm do the CP is probably a winner though.
PICs – probably good, especially the more aff specific and germane they are.

As a rule of thumb, smarter arguments like “conditional PICs bad” are generally better than reading your “conditionality bad” and “PICs bad" blocks.

K
Not the most familiar with all of the lit here, but probably not the least familiar either. Persuasive aff arguments revolve around justifying that you get the aff, then using the aff as a way to defend your scholarship, method, and way of understanding the world. The best neg arguments make the case irrelevant, either through framework arguments, root cause/terminal solvency takeout-type args, or establishing a different paradigm through which I assess impacts.

I’m more familiar with the standard –ism Ks: capitalism, feminism, imperialism, etc., but I’m willing to hear whatever K you’ve got if you do it well. But if you think there’s a chance that your K might be over my head, please label and describe it by the argument as opposed to just the random author.

Planless Affs/Framework Debates
I’m open to hearing types of affirmatives that criticize the topic or norms/structures/discrimination within the community. I have voted for these in the past, though more often than not this is due to poor execution by the neg. Some things about me that I think can influence my decisions in a “clash of civilizations” style debate:

- Debate is a game. It is highly unlikely that you will change my mind on this point.

- The more related the aff is to the topic, the less uphill the framework battle is for the aff - see above. For certain affs, I definitely understand that it's more strategic to run from the topic and/or be about debate. I'm not bad for these affs. It just raises the bar for both teams to make sure you're clashing in a framework debate rooted in impact turns
- Nebulous terms like fairness, education, and x-ology are not impacts in and of themselves
- I am more likely to reward teams who do line by line analysis than those who operate more holistically. This is both because I believe in the value of direct clash (see above) and because it seems to disincentivize that sort of clash if I reward embedding clash when the other team is doing the work to create clash directly.

[Post Coast 2015]

- I'm starting to realize that I think I'm better for the neg on theoretical framework than substantive framework, but I think this is a divergence from most judges who see clash debates as often as I do. I think aff teams in clash debates have way better answers to a 2NR that focuses on substantive framework args, whereas it is less likely I will be compelled by their answers to theoretical framework args. Neg teams would probably be best served using substantive args to limit aff offense, but get most of their offense from theoretical args.

This is obviously the most controversial area when it comes to preffing judges. So if you read a planless aff or are facing one with me in the back and you have questions, please ask them.

Case
Almost every single 2NR should address the case. Case debates are awesome. Please do them and do them well.

Jake Meany Cornell 3 rounds

Ben Menzies Whitman College 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 28, 2020 at 5:00 AM PDT

[Updated paradigm for Berkeley 2020 below]

New paradigm given my new circumstances. After 11 years coaching and debating at the high school and NDT-CEDA levels, I'm no longer actively coaching or competing in policy. I’m an experienced judge and have competed and coached at a very wide range of levels over the years, including the NDT and TOC, but I have pretty much tuned out debate since the end of last season. I'm looking forward to hearing my first debates on this year's topic as international topics were some of my favorites, but you should know that Berkeley will be my first tournament judging this topic. I am currently in my second and final year of a masters program in public policy here at UC Berkeley.

I’d like to be on the email chain if applicable: Menzies.benjamin530@gmail.com. If using flash drives or paper, I’ll ask for cards at the end of the round.

I debated at Nevada Union (2007-2010) and Whitman College (2010-2014), then coached at Whitman (2014-15) and C.K. McClatchy (2015-18). I coached NDT and TOC qualifying teams and attended the NDT myself (as well as participating in some pretty locally-focused lay debate and working at a very regionally-focused debate camp in the northwest – so from the most fast and technical kind of debate to the opposite of that).

Stylistically, I believe debate is up to the debaters and will judge whatever kind of debate you want me to. As both a coach and a competitor, I’ve been all over the framework spectrum and find that I am pretty flexible when it comes to issues of engaging the resolution, alternative approaches to impact debates, or whether debate is a good vehicle for various kinds of political commitments. Just do whatever you do as well as you can, and I promise I will give you the fairest opportunity possible to win my ballot. Absent some other story about how I should decide my ballot, I’m generally just going to weigh the benefits and costs of voting affirmative versus negative, as articulated to me in the last rebuttals. I’m pretty partial to offense-defense analysis since it makes sense to me and is what I was mainly trained in, but I’ve voted for plenty of other methods of weighing arguments on the flow.

Having spent most of my competitive career working on the affirmative side of the resolution, I find that I am generally sympathetic to many aff claims about the problems with some generic strategies that have cropped up over the years. In particular, I just don’t like process counterplans that are lazily executed as a way to steal the whole aff. But I have voted for plenty over the years, and I generally think the best answers to bad arguments are good analytical arguments or clever applications of thin evidence (not theoretical challenges). I have also cut a lot of politics/elections cards over the years, although I feel like these arguments are somewhat on the decline these days. I’m totally fine with critical arguments as well, although I will admit I have never been a huge fan of the psychoanalytic variety of Ks (but, again, have voted for them). I’m also now a graduate student in public policy and have worked on policy the past few years at the state level, so I’m naturally pretty interested in the “real” policy analysis that sometimes doesn’t show up in policy debate (but can be quite effective – it mostly takes place on the case!).

I don’t really have any strong opinions about conditionality and don’t really find the number of off-case positions read by the negative to be a salient point in many of those debates (i.e. “they read six off case positions, so we couldn’t answer their arguments” doesn’t really read to me as a complete argument or reason to vote affirmative).

I always really enjoyed cross examination and find it sometimes weighs pretty heavily in my speaker point allocation. It is some of your most precious time in the debate and can often prove decisive, so I recommend preparing for it like it is a speech and trying to make the most of yours. Also it’s sometimes not particularly relevant to the question of who won the debate, I do like to see quality evidence read. Most debate evidence is really not very good, so it’s always nice to see evidence of good research and preparation. And it’s easier to weigh persuasively than bad evidence!

Happy to answer any other questions you have. Remember that this activity is intended to be fun and educational, so do your best to create an inclusive community conducive to making that available for all people. In a communicative activity, rhetoric is certainly material, and you should pay attention to making yours constructive, thoughtful, and non-exclusionary toward groups underrepresented in debate.

Gordie Miller University of Rochester 1 rounds

Leah Moczulski Harvard 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 5, 2024 at 5:14 AM EDT

GSU 2019 UPDATE:

I'm walking into this tournament pretty cold on topic knowledge (read: I had Eric Lanning tell me what the topic was over the phone one time - so who knows if he even got it right) so please govern yourself accordingly. Everything below about how I judge or how I've judged in the past, I would suspect, still applies.

xoxo Leah

*************************************

Background:

Debated at Gonzaga University 2007-2012, Assistant Coach at Wake Forest 2012-2014, Assistant Coach at Harvard 2014-2015, Assistant Coach for Gonzaga 2015-2017, Assistant Coach Kentucky 2018-Present. I'm a commercial disputes attorney in Atlanta.

Meta-Level:

1. I’m not as involved in deep topic research as I have been on past topics. Be careful with jargon. Please define an acronym before you use it for the rest of the debate. I may not be up on the hip abbreviations for all things emissions. Please don’t assume that I am. It makes the debate even harder for me to judge and I could end up making a silly error because of a gap in understanding. You have to do some of the work here.

2. I flow on paper. This is to make sure that I’m giving you my full attention. I understand the debate better this way. However, it comes with some drawbacks. I need more pen time, especially on case and theory arguments. I am not writing down everything you say verbatim. If you have an important point, emphasize it.

3. I also flow cross-x. You should make sure that cross-x translates into arguments used in your speech. I tend to reward debaters with good speaker points for using cross-x wisely.

4. I do not have a poker face. You should use that to your advantage. I am very expressive. I do yell things like clear if I can’t understand you. Try to be clear before we get to that point.

5. I only read the evidence that I think is absolutely essential to my decision. Do with this what you will.

6. I reward hard work and smart thinking.

Case Debate:

1. I think overall, affs have gotten very cavalier about how they debate the case. I think affs should be wary of too much embedded clash in the 2AC and 1AR at the expense of answering the nuances in the neg arguments. If the neg invests a lot of block time with good developed case arguments the aff should be equally technical in the 1AR defending the case.

2. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.

Topicality:

1. I’m very techy when it comes to judging T debates. If your argument is more “truth” then “tech” you better have very good evidence to back up that your interpretation is correct. Otherwise, make sure you are hedging your bets by taking the negative up on the standards.

2. Again, I am not incredibly familiar with the emissions literature so I’m not sure (as of Georgia State) if I have any predisposed idea of what “reasonable” or “heart of the topic” affs are. This is really up for debate, at least early in the season.

Disads:

1. I always think the neg can use more impact calculus when they are going for DAs.

2. I will vote on low risk of DA high risk of aff. I think having offense is a better path to victory for the aff but if the negs DA has a number of logical leaps if the aff explains those well I will vote on it.

Critical Arguments:

1. I’ll be the first to admit that critical arguments are not my area of expertise just because I have less experience judging these debates. I will do my best and try my hardest to judge whatever debate is in front of me. I stole this from Adrienne Brovero but I think this is really helpful “if you want to go for a critical or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are critiquing/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments.” With that being said, you do you. If you’re neg and your argument has a link and an impact – I’m game. If you’re aff and your argument has an impact and you can articulate why winning the debate is enough to “solve” your impact – I’m game.

2. My academic background is in the following: political science, history, feminism and gender scholarship, and rhetorical theory. I’m also a law student. I do find myself presuming that the law is good at achieving positive outcomes. That is a presumption that can be rebutted.

3. My default assumption is that the role of ballot is to vote for who does the better debating. If you say the role of the ballot is something else, be clear about it and prove that you meet that role of the ballot.

Counterplans:

1. I generally think the neg gets to be conditional. You can try to persuade me otherwise. It is an uphill battle.

2. I will vote on other counterplan theory though based around the mechanism or the type of fiat that the CP uses.

3. I think advantage counterplans are under-utilized. Affs put a premium on being able to solve big impacts but often the internal links are very weak. You can either make this a case argument or counterplan out of it.

Have fun!

Andy Montee University of Nevada Las Vegas 3 rounds

Ashley Moore Cal State Fullerton 6 rounds

The 2013-14 season is my first season out, so my paradigm is still evolving. I competed for four years for CSU Fullerton, and was a CEDA double octa finalist and competed at the NDT.

Generally speaking, I enjoy watching all debate. I prefer a more critical oriented approach, but if you want to be straight up policy or the deepest left performance, I enjoy watching pretty much everything. As long as you can justify the argument you're making and explain its importance, I'll evaluate it in the round. And above all HAVE FUN! Run what you want to run, whatever that might be, and I'll do my best to evaluate it.

A nonspecific note, I LOVE explanation. I enjoy teams that make smart analyticals where appropriate, instead of spending their constructives saying 'more cards' and saying hardly anything else. This doesn't mean I won't vote for tons of cards, it's a style thing. You've got a great brain, let it shine!

If you're spreading, you should strive to be very clear. In particular, your tag, author, and card should be easily identifiable. Don't let them blur together, that just makes things harder on me, you, and your opponents.

K's: Love em. I primarily went for the K, and read transgender theory, cap, Baudrillard, Cuomo, Deleuze, Spanos and Nietzsche over the course of my career. I love hearing a good K debate, whether that's clash of civs or K on K violence. Make sure the 'story' and thesis of the K clear, and as long as I understand that story/thesis I'll be willing to vote on it. It will be easier to win the perm as the aff if you explain what the world of the permutation looks like. If you just say 'perm do both' and move on, I'm going to be heavily erring in the neg's favor.

CP/DA: Read whatever you want. I like a good CP/DA debate, especially with clever, creative, and competetive CP's, rather than generics.

Framework/Topicality: With regards to framework and T, while I will vote on it I generally lean more towards the K aff in this clash. If you do decide to read a straight up framework, you'll be in a much better position in front of me if you're applying your framework arguments to the aff and explaining what your framework means in relation to the affirmative, not just extending arguments. If the aff is 'debate about debate' this is doubly true. I will generally default to a competing interpretations view, unless y'all tell me to think differently in the round. Reasonability doesn't make sense to me unless you're giving me an explanation of what is/is not reasonable. Finally, in-round abuse is usually more persuasive than hypothetical abuse.

Performance: I did a lot of performance debate when I was competing, if you want to perform, go for it. Just make sure I understand why your performance is/was good.

Closing thoughts: Be creative, smart, and funny, and above all, do you.

Zachary Moss University of Wyoming 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun March 10, 2024 at 12:27 AM PDT

Current: Bishop O'Dowd HS

Questions left unanswered by this document should be addressed to zmoss@bishopodowd.org

Short Paradigm:

tl;dr: Don't read conditional advocacies, do impact calculus, compare arguments, read warrants, try to be nice

It is highly unlikely you will ever convince me to vote for NET-Spec, Util-spec, basically any theory argument which claims it's unfair for the aff to read a weighing method. Just read a counter weighing method and offense against their weighing method.

I think the most important thing for competitors to remember is that while debate is a competitive exercise it is supposed to be an educational activity and everyone involved should act with the same respect they desire from others in a classroom.

Speaks: You start the debate at 27.5 and go up or down from there. If you do not take a question in the first constructive on your side after the other team requests a question I will top your speaks at 26 or the equivalent. Yes, I include taking questions at the end of your speech as "not taking a question after the other team requests it."

Don't call points of order, I protect teams from new arguments in the rebuttals. If you call a point of order I will expect you to know the protocol for adjudicating a POO.

I don't vote on unwarranted claims, if you want me to vote for your arguments make sure to read warrants for them in the first speech you have the opportunity to do so.

Long Paradigm:

I try to keep my judging paradigm as neutral as possible, but I do believe debate is still supposed to be an educational activity; you should assume I am not a debate argument evaluation machine and instead remember I am a teacher/argumentation coach. I think the debaters should identify what they think the important issues are within the resolution and the affirmative will offer a way to address these issues while the negative should attempt to show why what the aff did was a bad idea. This means link warranting & explanation are crucial components of constructive speeches, and impact analysis and warrant comparison are critical in the rebuttals. Your claims should be examined in comparison with the opposing teams, not merely in the vacuum of your own argumentation. Explaining why your argument is true based on the warrants you have provided, comparing those arguments with what your opponents are saying and then explaining why your argument is more important than your opponents' is the simplest way to win my ballot.

Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)?
My baseline is 27.5, if you show up and make arguments you'll get at least that many points. I save scores below 27 for debaters who are irresponsible with their rhetorical choices or treat their opponents poorly. Debaters can improve their speaker points through humor, strategic decision-making, rhetorical flourish, SSSGs, smart overviewing and impact calculus.

How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I approach critically framed arguments in the same way I approach other arguments, is there a link, what is the impact, and how do the teams resolve the impact? Functionally all framework arguments do is provide impact calculus ahead of time, so as a result, your framework should have a role of the ballot explanation either in the 1NC or the block. Beyond that, my preference is for kritiks which interrogate the material conditions which surround the debaters/debate round/topic/etc. as opposed to kritiks which attempt to view the round from a purely theoretical stance since their link is usually of stronger substance, the alternative solvency is easier to explain and the impact framing applies at the in-round level. Ultimately though you should do what you know; I would like to believe I am pretty well read in the literature which debaters have been reading for kritiks, but as a result I'm less willing to do the work for debaters who blip over the important concepts they're describing in round. There are probably words you'll use in a way only the philosopher you're drawing from uses them, so it's a good idea to explain those concepts and how they interact in the round at some point.
Affirmative kritiks are still required to be resolutional, though the process by which they do that is up for debate. T & framework often intersect as a result, so both teams should be precise in any delineations or differences between those.

Negative arguments can be contradictory of one another but teams should be prepared to resolve the question of whether they should be contradictory on the conditionality flow. Also affirmative teams can and should link negative arguments to one another in order to generate offense.

Performance based arguments
Teams that want to have performance debates: Yes, please. Make some arguments on how I should evaluate your performance, why your performance is different from the other team's performance and how that performance resolves the impacts you identify.
Teams that don't want to have performance debates: Go for it? I think you have a lot of options for how to answer performance debates and while plenty of those are theoretical and frameworky arguments it behooves you to at least address the substance of their argument at some point either through a discussion of the other team's performance or an explanation of your own performance.

Topicality

To vote on topicality I need an interpretation, a reason to prefer (standard/s) and a voting issue (impact). In round abuse can be leveraged as a reason why your standards are preferable to your opponents, but it is not a requirement. I don't think that time skew is a reverse voting issue but I'm open to hearing reasons why topicality is bad for debate or replicates things which link to the kritik you read on the aff/read in the 2AC. At the same time, I think that specific justifications for why topicality is necessary for the negative can be quite responsive on the question, these debates are usually resolved with impact calculus of the standards.
FX-T & X-T: For me these are most strategically leveraged as standards for a T interp on a specific word but there are situations where these arguments would have to be read on their own, I think in those situations it's very important to have a tight interpretation which doesn't give the aff a lot of lateral movement within your interpretation. These theory arguments are still a search for the best definition/interpretation so make sure you have all the pieces to justify that at the end of the debate.

Counterplans
Functional competition is necessary, textual competition is debatable, but I don't really think text comp is relevant unless the negative attempts to pic out of something which isn't intrinsic to the text. If you don't want to lose text comp debates while negative in front of me on the negative you should have normal means arguments prepared for the block to show how the CP is different from how the plan would normally be resolved. I think severence/intrinsic perm debates are only a reason to reject the perm absent a round level voter warrant, and are not automatically a neg leaning argument. Delay and study counterplans are pretty abusive, please don't read them in front of me if you can avoid it. If you have a good explanation for why consultation is not normal means then you can consider reading consult, but I err pretty strongly aff on consult is normal means. Conditions counterplans are on the border of being theoretically illegitimate as well, so a good normal means explanation is pretty much necessary.
Condo debates: On the continuum of judges I am probably closer to the conditionality bad pole than 99% of the rest of pool. If you're aff I think "contradictory condo bad" is a much better option than generic "condo bad". Basically if you can win that two (or more) neg advocacies are contradictory and extend it through your speeches I will vote aff.

In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering)?
Given absolutely no impact calculus I will err towards the argument with the most warrants and details. For example if a team says T is a priori with no warrants or explanation for why that is true or why it is necessary an aff could still outweigh through the number of people it effects (T only effects the two people in the round, arguments about T spillover are the impact calc which is missing in the above explanation). What I'm really saying here is do impact calculus.

How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I err towards systemic impacts absent impact calculus by the debaters. But seriously, do your impact calculus. I don't care if you use the words probability, magnitude, timeframe and reversability, just make arguments as to why your impact is more important.

Cross-X: Please don't shout at each other if it can be avoided, I know that sometimes you have to push your opponents to actually answer the question you are asking but I think it can be done at a moderate volume. Other than that, do whatever you want in cross ex, I'll listen (since it's binding).

Avi Munoz Minnesota 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:26 PM CDT

Last updated: September 2022

Background:

4 years policy debate in high school (Churchill HS, San Antonio, TX, 2005-2009)
4 years policy debate in college (USC, 2009-2013)
3 years coaching at Highland Park HS (St. Paul, MN, 2013-2016)
3 years coaching at University of Minnesota (2013-2016)

TL;DR: Do what you want, I'll flow the debate and do my best to render a decision without allowing any biases to affect it.

I'm not an active debate coach any more, and I haven't judged very much over the last few years, so: 1) my flowing ability has probably deteriorated; and 2) I haven't thought about how I lean on particular types of arguments in a long time (my old thoughts are below, if you're interested).

I tend to make decisions based on what I've flowed rather than what I think the logical extension of an argument is, or what a card says absent in-round explanation. So, make sure you actually explain what you think is important–and why–and don't assume I'll give you credit just because your evidence is really good or because it's a logical leap from what you did say in-round.

I've got a PhD in political science and research/teach about race & representation in Congress and Latinx politics for a living, if that matters.

Specific arguments

Performance, Identity, similar arguments: I am not opposed to these arguments and think that including them in debate is beneficial. When debating these arguments, teams will be better off in front of me if they attempt to engage the aff/neg substantively, rather than reading their entire framework file. That doesn't mean I won't vote on framework - my preferences for how teams answer these arguments will not influence my willingness to vote on the arguments teams choose to make.

Topicality: I tend to think of topicality as a question of competing interpretations. I'm typically most persuaded by limits type impacts. RVIs are silly. I can be persuaded by a k of topicality, but the argument should be more nuanced than "t is genocidal".

Disads: Uniqueness doesn't determine the direction of the link or vice versa. I prefer links to be as specific to the aff as possible. Quality of evidence > quantity of evidence - one really good card is better than five terrible one-line cards. There can be zero risk of the disad.

CPs: Counterplans are best when they have good solvency advocates and are functionally competitive with the aff. I really only lean aff on the theoretical legitimacy of consult and conditions CPs. Other than those, i don't have strong predispositions and think that the legitimacy of the CP is up for debate. I will NOT kick the counterplan for the 2NR unless this option is explicitly explained in the 2nr.

Theory: I probably lean neg on conditionality, even if there are contradictory positions (I was a 2n, so yeah). But I'll vote on conditionality if the aff out-debates the neg on it, my own predispositions be damned. I don't really have strong predispositions on other theory arguments.

Ks: These are the arguments and the literature that I'm most familiar with, but don't assume that i've read all of the stuff you're talking about - the burden is on the debaters to explain their argument. Specific links are always better than generic ones; specific links that allow for specific "turns case" analysis are even better. The aff needs to make sure to answer the stock k tricks - if they don't and the neg is able to execute, then I'm fairly likely to vote neg. I don't think that the k necessarily needs to have an alternative, but there needs to be some other way of generating uniqueness for your arguments.

Gabe Murillo Oklahoma 1 rounds

Steven Murray Baylor University 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed August 9, 2023 at 6:55 AM CDT

15 years coaching and judging debate in many forms.

Policy Debate:

Overview: I vote for framework as often as I vote against it. I think the best debates occur when the 1NC answers the 1AC and the worst debates happen when theoretical abstraction substitutes link arguments. Here theoretical abstraction can equally be read as "should means immediate" and/or "competing methods." I think the best theoretical abstraction occurs when it assists the examination of objects instead of denying an object's uniqueness.

I take scholarship seriously, I often make comments in the middle of a round, and I have been told I give high speaker points but I don't believe that.

The best rebuttals occur when both teams identify the nexus points of the debate and engage in the other teams arguments while advancing their own. I tend to reward framing arguments and meta claims. When extending arguments, I think debaters should start with a claim, then a warrant, then comparison to their opponent's counter-arguments. I strongly dislike the trend (greatly assisted by paperless debate) to jump right into the comparison. Numbering 1NC and 2AC arguments is an underappreciated artform.

Minor proclivities: "Reject the arg" is sufficient in most cases (T and conditionality excluded), the word "permutation" is not a complete argument (nor is "permutation do both"), "do the counterplan" is not a permutation it's a concession unless otherwise explained, and "squo or a competitive policy option" is the dumbest meme left in debate. "Plan focus", however, can often be compelling if adequately developed.

Obligatory: PICs good, neg fiat good, DAs good, case debate good, sometimes topicality IS the strategy.

British Parliamentary:

Arguments matter more than form. I first decide which side of the motion has won the debate and then privilege teams based on total contribution to the winning strategy. As a critic of argument I try my best to be a blank slate and not bring my own knowledge into the round. A few suggestions to get first in the round:

Speakers should spend more time on probability and causality than examples
Make more impact calculus
Countermodels win debates when they have clear competition and a net benefit that serves as a disadvantage to the gov model. Countermodels lose when they rely on definitional/cosmetic differences.
Spending arguments are non-starters.
Rights claims are rarely impacted out well, but can be devastating when they are. How do I compare "restricts bodily autonomy" to "100,000 people get removed from poverty"?

Taylor Pasquence Western Connecticut State University 4 rounds

Israel Pastrana University of Southern California 6 rounds None

Amy Pauli University of Wyoming 6 rounds

Dallas Perkins Harvard 1 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 10:55 AM EDT

By far the most important thing you need to understand in order to successfully debate for me is that I am not going to follow along with your speech document in order to try to understand what you are saying. If you cannot deliver your arguments and read your evidence in a fashion that is comprehensible, I am not a good judge for you. I read a very limited amount of evidence after debates, always and only to decide arguments where the two sides have advanced detailed disagreements about what the evidence in question actually says. I only hold teams responsible for answering arguments after I have understood them: calling 1AR answers to a kritik new will not avail if I only understood the basics of your argument after the block. I am not saying this is an oratory contest, but it is oral advocacy.

When I do read evidence, I am increasingly suspicious of cards that consist of a few words highlighted here and there over several pages of text. If you can't find a single sentence from you author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.

My "paradigm:" I try to judge as if I were at a town meeting or other public forum where the audience would listen to a discussion and then each person would vote their opinion. I deviate from the real world as little as possible, mostly to exclude my own predispositions and decide based on what is said by the contestants. If weighty matters are at stake, I would hope that I would not be persuaded to vote for bad ideas because the advocates of better ideas had committed some argumentative indiscretion. (This is a fancy way of saying that I am a tough sell for "discourse kritiks"--you'll do much better to attack your opponents' thinking than their language.) I generally do not accept arguments that urge me to "punish" a team for advancing an ill-considered position in the debate.

I do believe that both sides should stick to one policy system to defend. This requires that they eschew "conditional" advocacy, whether that is vague plans or multiple counterplans. I see both of these strategies as needlessly diluting the advocacy in what is already a short time to discuss even one policy comparison. I see the attempt to discuss multiple comparisons in a single debate as far more motivated by nefarious strategy than any sort of truth seeking.

My voting record on kritikal arguments is far better than my reputation suggests. Solid, topic-specific attacks on the logic and worldview of the opposition, with specific links and impacts I can understand, frequently succeed om winning my ballot.

Donny Peters Cal State Fullerton 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 6, 2024 at 1:39 PM EDT

Donny Peters

20 years coaching. I have coached at Damien High School, Cal State Fullerton, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University. Most of my experience is in policy but I have also coached successful LD and PF teams.

After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

Short paradigm. I am familiar with most arguments in debate. I am willing to listen to your argument. If it an argument that challenges the parameters and scope of debate, I am open to the argument. Just be sure to justify it. Other than that, try to be friendly and don't cheat.

Policy

For Water Protection: I am no longer coaching policy full time so I haven't done the type of topic research that I have in the past. I have worked on a few files and have judges a few debates but I do not have the kind of topic knowledge something engaged in coaching typically does.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

For LD

Loyola: I have done significant research on the topic and I have judged a number of rounds for camps.

Debate how your choose. I have judged plenty of LD debates over the years and I am familiar with contemporary practices. I am open to the version of debate you choose to engage, but you should justify it, especially if your opponent provides a competing view of debate. For argument specifics please read the Policy info. anything else, I am happy to answer before your debate.

Jackie Poapst George Mason University 4 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 12:33 PM EDT

About me:

Director of Debate at George Mason University.

Please add me to chain: japoapst@gmail.com

11/26/2023 Speaker Point Update:

I will be utilizing the Regnier speaker point scale

May be an image of ‎text that says '‎Fabulous Percentile 100 100 99 98 97 96 Excellent Good Median Point 30 29.9 29.8 29.7 29.6 29.5 29.4 29.3 29.2 29.1 29 28.9 28.8 28.7 28.6 28.5 28.4 28.3 28.2 28.1 28 27.9 27.8 27.7 27.6 27.5 Below Average 93 89 84 77 69 60 50 39 28 20 13 Ùˆ 6 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 Poor Very Poor‎'‎

5+ Random Things that Annoy me:

1. Hostility - I am too old, too cranky, and too tired to hear undergraduate students treating opponents, partners, or me like trash. I literally can't handle the levels of aggression some rounds have anymore. Please just stop. Be community minded. You are debating another person with feelings, remember that. Opponents are friends on the intellectual journey you are having in debate, not enemy combatants. Give people the benefit of the doubt and try to practice grace in rounds.

2. Debaters who act like they don't care in debates. If being a troll or giving some performance of apathy about debate is your shtick I am absolutely not the judge for you. Debate is a privilege that many individuals do not have the ability to participate in due to lack of collegiate access or financial well being, and I think we should treat the opportunity we have to be in this activity with respect.

3. Multiple cards in the body of the email.

4. Yelling over each other in cx - everyone will lose speaks.

5. Interrupting your partner in cx - I am seriously close to saying I want closed cx, I am so annoyed at how egregious this is becoming. I will deduct speaks from both partners.

6. Extending Cross ex past 3 minutes. I will actively stop listening in protest/leave the room. Anything past the 3 minutes should be for clarification purposes only.

7. Wipeout, Baudrillard, Malthus, Con Con CPs, Strike 'x' country CPs, trivializing the holocaust, reading re-prints of books from 1995 but citing it as the reprint date, fiating mindset shifts.

Topicality:

The nukes topic is great for the negative and I do not think I will be persuaded on sub-sets arguments against NFU. This topic is too small give the aff a break.

If cross ex actually checked for specification questions (i.e. "who is the actor" - and they tell you "Congress") - that is the only argument the 2ac needs to make against a 1NC spec argument.

NOVICE NOTE: I think it is ridiculous when novices read no plan affs - do whatever you want in other divisions, but these kids are just learning how to debate, so providing some structure and predictability is something I think is necessary. I err heavily on framework in those debates for the negative in the first semester.

Theory:

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. I genuinely do not know how I lean in condo debates. Some rounds I feel like the amount of conditional positions we are encouraging in debates is ridiculous, others I wish there were more. Open to being convinced in either direction.

Counterplans:

Are awesome. The trickier, the better. I’m okay with most of them, but believe that the action of the CP must be clearly explained at least in the 2NC. I don’t vote on something if I don’t know what my ballot would be advocating. I shouldn’t have to pull the CP text at the end of the round to determine what it does. I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff (if you can defend theory though, this doesn’t mean don’t read them). Also, I think that perm do the cp on CPs that result in the plan can be rather persuasive, and a more robust textual/functional cp debate is probably necessary on the negative's part.

**Delay and consultation cp’s are illegit unless you have a specific solvency advocate for them. Agenda DA Uniqueness cp’s are too – I’m sorry that the political climate means you can’t read your politics strat on the negative, but that doesn’t mean you should be able to screw the aff’s strategy like that. Have other options.

Important CP Judge Kick Note: I always judge kick if the negative would win the debate on the net benefit alone. However, I will not judge kick to vote on presumption. Going for a CP forfeits the negative's right to presumption.

Disadvantages:

Wonderful. Disadvantages versus case debates are probably my favorite debates (pretty much every 2NR my partner and I had). I love politics disads, however, I can be very persuaded by no backlash/spillover answers on the internal link – in so many situations the internal link just makes NO sense. I think there is such a thing as 100% no link and love thumper strategies. Like elections DA's - not a huge fan of impact scenarios relying on a certain party/candidate doing something once they get in office. Think shorter term impact scenarios are necessary.

Kritiks:

2023 update: For the past several years my work with Mason Debate has primarily focused on research and coaching of our varsity policy teams and novices. I am not keeping up with the K lit as I was a few years ago. Please keep this in mind. Everything below is from a few years ago.

I wrote my thesis on queer rage and my research now focuses on a Derridian/Althusserian analysis of Supreme Court rhetoric - but that does not mean I will automatically get whatever random critical theory you are using. Due to who I coach and what I research for academics, I am most familiar with identity theories, biopower, Marxism, any other cultural studies scholarship, Baudrillard, Derrida, and Deleuze. If your K isn't one of those - hold my hand. I think the most persuasive kritik debaters are those who read less cards and make more analysis. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line/tied into the case debate. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it structured. Unless your kritik concerns form/content - be organized.

Note for policy v K regarding the "weigh the affirmative or nah" framework question - basically no matter how much debating occurs on this question, unless the affirmative or negative completely drops the oppositions' arguments, I find myself normally deciding that the affirmative gets to weigh their aff but is responsible for defending their rhetoric/epistemology. I think that is a happy middle ground.

Critical Affirmatives:

Nukes note: I think the affirmative should *at least* defend that the US' reliance on nuclear weapons for military policy is bad. Some type of critique in the direction of the resolution. Inserting the word "nuclear" or "weapons" into your aff is not enough of a topic relevant claim imo. In general, I believe affirmatives should defend some universalized praxis/method and that deferral is not a debatable strategy.

Overall Framework update: Procedural fairness IS an impact, but I prefer clash key to education. I find it difficult to vote for impacts that preserve the game when the affirmative is going for an impact turn of how that game operates.

Generic Case Update: I find myself voting neg on presumption often when this is a large portion of the 2nr strategy. I recommend affirmatives take this into account to ensure they are explaining the mechanism of the aff.

I find judging non-black teams reading afro-pessimism affirmatives against black debaters an uncomfortable debate to decide, and my threshold for a ballot commodification style argument low.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable). I enjoy critical methods debates that attempt to develop a praxis for a certain theory that can be broadly operationalized. For example, if you are debating "fem rage" - you should have to defend writ large adoption of that process to give the negative something to debate. It is pretty difficult for a negative to engage in a debate over what is "good for you" without sounding incredibly paternalistic.

Overall Sound:

I am partially deaf in my left ear. It makes it difficult to decipher multiple sounds happening at the same time (i.e. people talking at the same time/music being played loudly in the background when you are speaking). I would recommend reducing the sound level of background music to make sure I can still hear you. Also means you just have to be a smidge louder. I'll let you know if sound level is an issue in the debate, so unless I say something don't let it worry you.

Flowing:

I love flowing. I do my best to transcribe verbatim what you say in your speech so I can quote portions in my RFD. I do NOT flow straight down, I match arguments. I most definitely WILL be grumpy if speeches are disorganized/don't follow order of prior speeches. If you ask me not to flow, the amount I pay attention in the debate probably goes down to 20% and I will have mild anxiety during the round.

Your Decorum:

Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent. This includes anything from ad homs like calling your opponent stupid to super aggressive behavior to your opponents or partner. Speaker points are a thing, and I love using them to punish jerks.

My Decorum:

I am extremely expressive during round and you should use this to your advantage. I nod my head when I agree and I get a weird/confused/annoyed face when I disagree.

<3 Jackie

Clara Purk University of Southern California 1 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 30, 2015 at 1:54 PM PDT

Updated for the 2015 NDT

Debate is an incredibly valuable activity and it should be a safe space for everyone. I will do my best to make sure that happens.

I don't have any strong preferences regarding debate strategies or styles. In general, I appreciate innovation, creativity, being challenged to think differently, and learning something new. I think my views on debate are more applicable to how you say something not what you say:

-Rarely are things always true 100% of the time. However, defining why something being true a larger percentage of the time matters is important, and vice versa.

-There's not always a risk of a link. The probability of a scenario occuring should be an important consideration in a decision making process.

-Death is not the only impact that matters. Quality of life is an important impact. Quality of life impacts aren't only found when reading Ks.

-Good arguments can beat bad cards (and sometimes good cards)

-Arguments are only as good as their warrants. If I'm left asking "but why" at the end of the debate you're in a bad position. I most often find myself asking this question about alternatives, poor disad links, turns case/DA/K arguments, and K/CP solves the case. Extending previous explanations into rebuttals can be sufficient.

-Debaters should read their opponents' cards more. Often times evidence is either A- not saying what the team says it is saying or B- will say something that helps you out. Pointing out either of these is an easy way to up speaker points.

-You should take time to explain why your impact matters and in what context. Don't let me ask "so what" at the end of the debate.

Other argument specific views/suggestions if I'm in the back:

-Topicality is not a disad. In my mind, there is no such thing as "a risk they don't meet."

-On the aff, please be clear which permutation you are going for in the 1ar and 2ar.

-Affs should go for CP theory more often against unrealistic or klepto CPs. It will help you to make arguments specific to the type of CP that was read versus what CPs they could read.

-If the CP/K/DA solves or turns the case, tell me which parts and how (all of it, one of the advantages, etc). Same goes for case solves the DA/K. You don't always need a card to win these arguments.

-I like Ks that are explained in the context of the aff. This usually excludes high theory Ks, but I think generally this is the result of lack of effort than potential applicability to the aff.

-I default that negs should be able to debate your aff without an unreasonable burden. I also believe that excluding certain ways of thinking/being can be bad for debaters. Impacting these arguments matters- see above.

Dylan Quigley Harvard 2 rounds

Last changed on Tue September 19, 2023 at 8:37 AM EDT

Dylan Quigley

Currently an attorney for foster youth, coached at Dartmouth ('11-'13) and Harvard ('13-'16), debated at Kansas ('06-'11)

Updated: 9/2023

Note for 2023:

I've been out of the activity for a bit now so do with that what you will. I did debate on the last nukes topic and have continued to follow nuclear policy some so I should be ok with topic jargon, but probably not more recent K authors or generics.

Some distance from debate also makes me feel that my original paradigm below is a little too serious. It's a game; please have fun.

Note for 2019:

Being out of debate has not substantially changed my views except maybe to deepen my belief in empathy for others. I think the stereotype is that people leave debate and become more skeptical of K alts which is probably true, but I think I have become equally more skeptical of the "pragmatism" of most plans as well.

Original Philosophy:

I like nerdy, wonky, academic debate.

I don't flow that well, slow down.

I like and reward people who take on big debates, rather than avoid them with fancy footwork.

I think I am most impressed by debaters who can use small concessions or the given facts in the debate to create a complex vision of how the world operates.

I try to try hard to resolve debates because it's what I valued most in a judge when I debated and because its what I value most from those judging my kids.

If you are doing your prefs, I may not be a good judge for you if:

I am turned off by highly abstract arguments or things that rely heavily on an anything goes, game playing model of debate. If your jam is irony, conspiracy theory, word pics, OOO, death good and Ashtar, I may not be a very good judge for you. If "trolling" is a word you use to describe your arguments or debating style, I may not be a good judge for you. If your argument is against making the world better in any way, I may not be a good judge for you. [2023 edit: I still sort of believe this but would also tell my past self to chill out a little.]

But since you are mostly likely a policy team about to debate a K team or vice vera, I have pulled the following sections to the top.

Topicality versus non-traditional affirmatives:

As a debater, I both read non-topical affirmatives and also went for topicality against teams that did not defend the resolution. I have found myself very turned off by affirmatives that defend exceptionally minor revisions to the sqo or an unwillingness to defend a large vision for social change and have been voting on T with much more regularity.

I think that the question of the value of debating the particular Aff at hand is very important. For the Aff, I think that explaining clearly what the core controversy of the affirmative is and why the negative should be reasonably expected to negate that claim is key. (Put differently, what is productive about asking the negative team to negate the 1AC you’ve presented?). I want to hear about why and how either teams interpretation facilitates debates over particular mechanisms for social change.

Competition in non-traditional debates:

I do not enter the debate with the presumption that competition functions in the same way in plan focused and non-plan focused debates. I think that one possible way the debate community can facilitate debates that do not necessarily require the affirmative to defend the resolution while ensuring relative side equity and quality debates is to demystify permutations and develop new ways of thinking about competition. I look forward to judging debates about this issue.

Now the rest...

The quick stuff:

-I believe strongly that intentionally conceding the claim of another team means that that argument is true regardless of evidence quality etc.

-I don't believe that the Aff has an absolute right to define the scope/meaning of the plan.

-For some reason, it really bothers me when people look at each other and not me during CX.

-My default facial expression is often a scowl – it’s not you, it’s me.

-I believe zero risk is possible (and often likely) for the purposes of deciding a debate.

-I reserve the right to not vote on a sufficiently stupid theory argument.

-An all-case 2NC will likely receive extra speaker points.

CP Theory:

I find myself leaning aff on some competition questions especially for CPs that could result in the entire Aff. I'm fairly skeptical of states/international cp's - I’m especially interested in the way CP's like states constrains the affirmative research process at a very early point and how it affects the common sense of the debate community as to what counts as a “good aff.” My default is that presumption shifts aff when vs. a CP/K alt.

Critiques:

I have an academic basis in critical theory and debated mostly critical arguments at the end of my debate career. I think many critiques I see are vulnerable to being impact turned and I'm surprised and disappointed I don't see Aff teams doing it more.

In the context of a traditional aff versus a critique, I think the vast majority of debates that center around the question of "should I evaluate the plan or ontology/epistemology/scholarship/whatever first" are a waste of time for both sides. Frameworks that ask me to ignore large portions of the 1AC rarely make any more sense to me than frameworks that ask me to ignore portions of the 1NC. Both sides time is likely better invested in other parts of the debate.

Dig it especially when placing an emphasis on evidence and normative/literature based argument rather than abstract limits based arguments. I think we are almost always served best by drawing our lines from the literature, not imposing them ourselves.

Conditionality/judge choice:

I don’t have any strong feelings about conditionality, though I find myself moderately uncomfortable with judge choice. My default assumption is that if you extend a CP/Alternative in the 2NR, you are giving up the possibility of advocating the status quo. I do not feel comfortable kicking anything for you unless this framework has been well developed earlier in the debate.

Side bias/case debate:

Though I said above that I lean aff on many competition questions, I am disturbed about much Aff teams seem to get away with on extending their case in the 2AC and 1AR. I think just as strong of a burden of rejoinder should apply to the case debate for the Aff as would apply to the Neg on a DA.

Speaker points:

-I care deeply about cross-examination, presence, persuasiveness, eloquence, cross-examination and clarity. By “eloquence” I mean speaking at a rate and style that I can flow and that allows you to talk continually with out stumbling, stopping or repeating yourself unnecessarily. Mentioning cross-examination twice was not an accident.

Romin Rajan Cal State Fullerton 6 rounds

Trevor Reddick Binghamton University 6 rounds None

Andrea Reed Northwestern University 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri April 12, 2024 at 7:35 PM CDT

Kentucky 2017 update: This is the first year since the Europe topic where I didn't attend the season opener. So whatever T/competition things the community "collectively figured out" during the first tourney, do not assume that I am in the know re: that info. I have been reading about healthcare and doing some topic research, so don't over-apply this advice. I know what single payer means, I know what happened to Graham-Cassidy, I know Price resigned, etc. My point is more about the *competitive* direction the topic is heading.

Updated Fall 2013: I added a new section on evidence, clarity, and clipping at the end, given its length, but I wanted to mention it up here (in case of TL;DR)

Crotchety old person complaints: You should flow. You should go line-by-line unless having a purposeful reason not to. You should talk about the other team’s evidence. You should talk about your own evidence. You should have warrants to back up claims, and examples to contextualize your arguments. Historical references are great. Smart analysis > more cards. I will not read cards after the debate to reconstruct arguments that you failed to communicate yourself during your speech. I will read cards that are intelligently contested by both teams. Wiki golden rule- put as much intel up as you expect from other people.

Cross-x: is my favorite part of the debate. I flow it. Being smart in CX can win or lose you the debate.

T debates… things that will help you out: explaining which affs we should be debating and why, which arguments we should be debating and why your interpretation best facilitates that discussion, ect. If the neg’s interpretation is more limiting, but the aff can clearly explain why that definition is not predictable, or the affs that the neg allows are not good affs or exclude critical parts of the literature, ect, the aff will be in a good place. Limits are not the end all, be all. Discussion of sources of definitions also important for the aff to win if their counter-interpretation is not going to be more limiting.

Theory debates- happen at a speed where its impossible to get all of the 2ac/2nc/1ar args... if this describes you (and it almost certainly does) and the aff wants theory to be a real potential option for the 2ar, know that you should slow down to around 75% speed. I lean neg on most counterplan theory questions by default, but its all up for debate.... assuming I can understand what you are saying.

Ks- I am not a judge that you cannot go for the K in front of. Judges get siloed in some weird ways based on presuppositions about how they think, and philosophies are meant to clear that up. SO! I evaluate kritik debates like any other strategy- superior analysis and refutation in the final rebuttals over the key questions will win you the debate. Negs should focus on why the alternative remedies their link arguments (and solves the aff's 1AC impacts, if you are trying to do so). If there is no alternative or you posit that your framework is your "alt," you do need to explain why this instance of rejecting the aff/their representiations is alone/taking an ethical standpoint in this debate is sufficient action to avoid the impact that is identified by the K. The one thing I will say for the neg is that there is some tension in my mind between the common neg claim that "the aff doesn't leave the room, there is no "spill up," the state never hears them, so they can't access their impact turns" with the neg's alternative solvency claim that "rejecting this aff solves our terminal impact which is global extinction from neolib/militarism/antiblackness," etc. Is there "spill up" to one debate judge's choice or not, and if not for the aff, why is it assumed for the neg? I think this is best remedied by the neg narrowing your impact framing to the types of things that ARE clearly within the judge's purview-- epistemological choices behind scholarship presentations matter, single ethical choices made by individuals matter, representations even within academia matter, and so on.

Affs will do well by reading as much specific evidence about the neg’s argument as possible... not impressed with the aff that recycles the same 4 cards against every kritik. Same for the neg- if you mix it up every year with kritiks that are tailored to the topic, I will be a good judge for you. If you've been doin more or less the same thing for the better part of a decade.. meh, there are better judges for you. The aff should say what their permutation actually means in the 2ar. I've found most framework debates in policy aff v. neg K debate to be vacuous. Everyone wants to meet in the middle. The neg rarely seems to go as far as to say "no aff," and the aff is too afraid to say "no alt," and we all can never get those 120 minutes of our lives back.

In terms of K affs, though my default is that the aff should discuss the benefits of hypothetical topical action by the USFG, affs should at a minimum demonstrate topic-relevance. If you are reading an aff that very explicitly ignores the topic, I'm not the best judge for you, though if you do find me in the back of the room, you should be sure to explain fully why departing from the topic is essential to whatever your thang is. Bottom line, my default is the topic, but you should always do what you think will maximize your chance of winning, rather than comporting to what you think my own leanings are. Debate is hard and you should do what you are best at. All arguments have a chance of winning if they are well reasoned, and if its clear why I should prefer them compared to your opponents arguments.

Paperless stuff- your prep time ends when you are ready to send the email or give the jump drive to the other team. The more time you waste, the less decision time I have, so be mindful of that.

My only request to you when you debate in front of me is to please be civil to your opponents. In CX's, post rounds... coaches getting in post rounds. Yuck. Having your judge cringe at you is never a good thing. I dislike debaters who visibly or audibly react negatively to the other team's final rebuttal. You get your last speech and thats it. I dont need the 2N to be a one-person peanut gallery during the 2AR. Its distracting to me and rude to the other team. You have now been warned re: your speaker points. You should be able to tell how I’m feeling if you look up once and a while.

**New section on evidence and card clipping:

Evidence- this is getting out of control. First, the ethically problematic and academically lazy practices:

--highlighting to the point of creating new content- if you are making new arrangements that the original author did not intend, that is a problem. Let’s call “creative highlighting” what it actually is: fabricating evidence. If your highlighting of evidence is making stuff up and then wrongly attributing it to the author to give it false credibility, that is fabricating evidence.

--ending cards before the end of the author’s original paragraph- I thought this was a universal norm but apparently not.

Second, these practices are not unethical per se, they just make you worse at debate:

--removing warrants from the tag- its hard to flow evidence where the tag is 2-3 words long. I do my best to flow the warrants in each card, but its impossible to get everything said at 300 wpm for 9 mins straight. Debaters should be highlighting the critical parts of evidence in your tags and then deliver them clearly.

--cutting strawperson evidence- lazy research, period. This wouldn’t fly for academic work, so it shouldn’t for debate research either.

--having things that hurt you in the 2-point font of your card. Lets be honest, blowing that stuff up is the first thing I do when I see that in a card. You can expect to find good stuff here usually. This makes it pretty easy on your opponents.

--"abbrev"s make you sound dumb. Why are you highlighting "targeted killing" as just T....K...? "Nuclear weapons" as "nuc.........s"? You are being the characture of policy debate that everyone ridicules.

Clarity- If I cannot understand you, I won’t read your cards after the debate to reconstruct your arguments for you. Debate is a communication activity, love it or leave it. Delivery is a big issue here obviously, but so is form. If your speech is a string of debate “abbrevs”, its pretty hard to flow. Clarity in content is important. If you aren’t contextualizing your arguments and giving examples in your final rebuttal, you leave the judge no choice but to have to input their own analysis to resolve the debate.

Cross reading, “clipping cards”, stopping short on evidence or not marking cards and then misrepresenting what you have read in a debate are unethical practices. If a team suspects another team of doing this, they should stop the debate and present their evidence. I would be willing to listen to any video or audio recording in the room that is available to me. For me, the important thing is the actual result (did the audio of the speech as presented include all of the text submitted into the “record” of the debate?), since intentionality is impossible to prove either way. And I will say this: if a debater’s performance is SO unclear as to look exactly like what cheating looks like, that is still a huge problem.

J.V. Reed Texas 2 rounds

J.V. Reed- Judge Philosophy
Texas

To me, the best debates center around the case. One of the most important things to remember when debating in front of me is that I like specificity, an interest in history, and debates that are committed to (and end up being decided through) the search for context. This is no less important for “kritik” debates than it is for “policy” debates.

Many Aff advantages and many more Neg disadvantages and kritiks are so poorly constructed, with so many missing internal links that they hardly warrant a response by the opposing team. This requires an attention to internal links, source quality, and also the depth of the warrant cited by a given piece of evidence. This brings up an additional important piece of information: debaters are highlighting their cards WAY too much. Debaters tend to want to be rewarded for their research, and I tend to want to do the same. However, if you only read two sentences of a two-paragraph card and the warrants are in the un-underlined part of the card and that card is mentioned in the 2NR/2AR as an important piece of evidence, I will be seriously under whelmed come decision time. I want to be clear about the preferences I have: I do not have a preference for K over policy or vice-versa. I do have a preference for debates where the debaters are working hard to make the most of their evidence. The teams I enjoy judging the most, whether K or Policy, will demonstrate in debates that their knowledge of the region is substantial, and will make “cutting to the chase” their primary argument resolution tactic.

As far as theory goes:
Framework:
The aff is unlikely to ever win a wrong forum argument against a neg K with me. It is possible, but don't butter your bread with it. Aff's often win however that the real contest occurring is between differing approaches to debate and that their approach is more advantageous than the neg. This is not my preferred Aff strategy vs a K, but it has at times been effective. The neg, though, has better/decent chances of winning a framework argument against a K aff, esp if the aff is really ignoring the topic altogether. Still, I will listen to the Aff’s reasoning and don’t think I’m particularly a “hack” for either side of this question. Although I would prefer to never resolve a debate over the question of framework (because they are painfully boring and tedious debates to decide) I understand the need for the discussion. Creative framework arguments will work better for the negative than the standard schlock.

CPs:
On conditionality, international fiat, etc.: I’ll evaluate the debate on the basis of the arguments. I tend to favor the Neg on the legitimacy of all of these sorts of questions. However, I can be persuaded by Aff’s who argue that a conditional PIC is particularly bad, or that a conditional international fiat CP is particularly bad, or that fiating the object of the aff advantage is bad. This is not true in every case, but the important thing to glean from these examples is that the more specific your theory argument is, the more likely I will be to want to hear it. As far as PICS, international fiat etc, if you are able to demonstrate that the debate of the aff vs. the CP exists in the literature, you’re also probably in good shape. "3 is better than 4" type arguments on conditionality seem pretty arbitrary to me.

T:
competing interpretations is good to a point. i can be persuaded by reasonability. examples of what cases are included/excluded by an interpretation are needed.

K's
K's need a specific link. K's need examples. K's usually need better application/explanation of evidence more than they need more evidence. I prefer Ks that include a link to the plan. That does not mean that I don't think that reps Ks are illegit, but I do think that reps k's are more persuasive when the impact is explained in relation to the goals of the aff. and the intended projected consequences of the plan. Think "turns solvency" arguments here. To be more specific, I understand how reps could be at odds with the goals of a given plan action and have the effect of undermining the intent of the plan.
I am more interested in how a given mode of understanding/ideology implicates implementation of the plan, than I am in simplistic root cause (and therefore "turns case") allegations. If the neg can show me how democracy assistance is seeped in neoliberal goals,vocabularies,practices - and then- can show me how those practices will undermine stability, create resentment, sew seeds for disruptive inequalities and the like, I will be happier. In these kinds of case specific K debates the neg will win by making sure the alternative functions to provide some kind of uniqueness to the case turn questions (even if that uniqueness is "gotta have a fresh perspective"). This way of winning a cap debate, for instance, looks a lot different than winning on the basis of "root cause", "never compromise our ethics with cap actions"/total rejection type K's.
--
Other things you might want to know:

I like to understand your arguments as they are being made. I don't like to, but often have to, reconstruct parts of the debate after the fact.

permutations need a text. intrinsicness permutations might be justifiable in some circumstances. agent specified cps are unlikely to be competitive against an aff that simply has usfg as the agent.

word pics are not a favorite. a permutation answering a word pic doesn't have to have a net benefit. i am not persuaded by the "any risk of the net benefit" argument when evaluating a word pic. word pics in some rare instances can be good arguments if there is an actual link, but not often.

Framework - is boring. I am unlikely to be persuaded that Neg's don't get K's. I can be persuaded at times that an aff needs an advocacy statement, a plan, or a defense of how their aff relates to the topic. I will evaluate these debates on the basis of the flow and don't feel that I am particularly ideological. I am more likely to vote neg on framework when the argument has been specifically crafted for the team being debated. Laundry lists of Joyner, Shively etc don't float my boat, but I understand the utility. I don't like it when aff's run from clash or are deceptive about their advocacy. I also wonder about the narcissism involved in not considering the controversies the topic asks us to consider. I generally think that there are important ethical questions to consider about a variety of the topics that we debate that won't get considered if we continually make debates about ourselves rather than thinking about what's going on with the people affected by the issues of the topic. This means that I more interested in k affs that bridge standpoint issues with important ethical questions raised by the topic than in affs that don't do that.

DA's
it is possible for there to be no risk of a disad. it is possible for you to win uniqueness decisively and there still be no risk of a link. link debates are very important to me. quality of link evidence, qualification of link authors etc is something to be considered.

impacts are best evaluated in a way that takes into consideration magnitude, t/f, probability, but not in a way that treats these as obligatory "key words" that somehow mean something in and of themselves. disads are little machines with lots of moving parts that all need to be considered in isolation, but also in concert. it is therefore better for you to talk to me in terms of the relationship between the risk of the link and the risk of the impact rather than treating these issues as completely discrete. I don't really believe that aff's have to solve their advantages to win, the aff has to present a persuasive case that their advantage is likely to be solved. Ditto for DAs. The question is of probable effects and their relative importance.

saying "extinction" or "no value to life" is not impact comparison. i don't want magic word invocation to stand in for final rebuttal work weighing and comparing potential outcomes.

a single smart argument with some good old fashioned rightness backing it up can be enough to dismiss a high number of blippy, tech-y half thoughts.

don't underestimate the importance of cross ex. use cross ex scores in your speeches. you would be wise to incorporate those moments into your flow of the debate so you don't forget them by in your 2nr/2ar.

Jason Regnier Concordia College 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 6:32 PM EDT

Gonzaga University
Judging Experience: 19 years
Email: jregnier@gmail.com (yes, include me on the email thread)

Big Picture: There is no one right way to debate. We all have our biases and preconceptions, but I try to approach each round as a critic of argumentation and persuasion. Some people will define themselves as being more influenced by either “truth” or “tech.” For me, this is a false binary. Tech matters, but it doesn’t mean that I will focus on the ink on the flow to the detriment of argument interconnections or ignore the big picture of the debate. Truth matters, but pretty much every debate I will decide that both teams win arguments that I don’t necessarily believe to be true. In my view, “argument” falls into a third category that overlaps with tech and truth but is distinct from them. Make your argument more effectively than your opponent and you’ll be in good shape. For me, that means making clear claims, developing warrants for those claims, and explicitly identifying what’s important in the debate, how it’s important, and why. Use logos, ethos, and pathos. Look like you’re winning. Your adaptation to the stylistic/technical comments below is far more important than your adaptation to any particular type of argument.

Comment about debate ethics: By debate ethics, I mean both what has been conventionally called “ethics violations” – like clipping cards, evidence fabrication, etc – as well as the interpersonal dynamics of how we treat one another in debate. I group them together here because they are both areas where somebody has crossed a line and upset the conditions necessary for debate to occur. For me, neither of these things is “debatable” in the sense I used above (“making clear claims, developing warrants…,” looking like you’re winning, etc). If a team is suspected of clipping cards, the debate stops and we do our best to resolve the issue before either ending the debate or moving forward. Similarly, if there is a concern that a team made racist, sexist, or otherwise bigoted – or even just excessively mean-spirited or rude remarks – the debate should not continue as normal. I have zero interest in watching a competitive debate in this context about what was said, whether an apology was sincere, the terminal impact of discourse, whether the ballot is an appropriate punishment, etc. In this, I aggressively fall into the “truth over tech” crowd.

What this means for me is that I will try to be attentive to these things happening. I do not believe that a debater has to say something for me to vote on an ethics violation. At the same time, there is a lot of gray area in interpersonal relationships and we all draw our own boundaries.

What this means for you is if you believe one of your ethical lines has been crossed, I need you to point it out *outside of speech time* and not treat it like you would other debate arguments. As we all know, there are different ways of arguing that the other team has said offensive things. An argument that the Aff’s Economy advantage is based in colonial & white supremacist logic seems to fall squarely “within the game” as a debatable position. On the other hand, if a debater refers to another debater with an offensive racial epithet, this seems to pretty clearly transcend the game. There’s a million miles of microaggressions and not-so-micro aggressions in between. My working presumption is generally that if you are debating about it, then you consider it debatable and that I should evaluate it within the context of argumentation, persuasion, and competition. But if you feel that the other team has crossed a line and that I should not continue evaluating the round as I would a regular competitive debate, say something – again, *outside of speech time* – and we will work together to reach an understanding and figure out the best resolution to the situation.

Stylistic/Technical Issues: I am a medium flow. My ear for extremely fast speech is not particularly great, and my handwriting is not particularly fast. Extremely fast debates oriented around the techne of the flow are not my forte. There is a fairly clear inverse relationship between the speed at which you speak and the amount that I get written down on my flow. This greatly rewards debaters who give fewer – but more fully developed and explained – arguments. I will probably not read very many cards at the end of the debate, so don’t rely on your evidence to make your arguments for you. At the same time, I do generally try to attend to the quality of cards and bad cards can definitely undermine your arguments. I categorically do not want to be forced to reconstruct the debate by rereading all of the cards. This means that explanation and prioritization in the final rebuttals weighs more heavily for me than it might for other judges. Attend to the big picture, make direct comparisons showing why your arguments are better than your opponents’, and most important, find the hook that allows you to frame the debate in your favor.

Theory Debates: This is the area where my thinking has evolved the most as I’ve aged. There are many theory issues that I can be persuaded by. However, I will say that many theory debates that I have seen are vacuous. The key question for me is what kind of world is created by each side’s interpretation – is it good for debate or bad for debate. The impacts that I find most persuasive are the ones that are less about whether the other team made debate hard for you and more about what their interpretation does to argumentation and whether that’s an educational and constructive vision of what debate should be. Generally, impacts like “time skew” or “moots the 1AC” are pretty empty to me. But an argument that uniform 50 state fiat is an artificial debate construct that’s not rooted anywhere in the solvency literature and distorts the “fed key” debate so wildly as to make it meaningless is maybe something that I can get behind. A short list of a few of my current theory pet peeves: the States CP, object fiat, vaguely written – and downright misleading – plan texts, and nonsense permutations. While I wouldn’t necessarily call it a pet peeve, I may be growing increasingly persuaded that excessive conditionality is not good for debate.

Critical Stuff / Framework: I regularly vote both ways in framework debates. I evaluate these debates much like I would a debate over the "substance" of the case. Both sides need to play offense to amplify their own impacts while also playing defense against their opponent's impacts. In most cases where I have voted against critical affirmatives, it is because they have done a poor job answering the negative's debatability/fairness impact claims. In most cases where I have voted against traditional policy frameworks, it has been because they have done a poor job defending against the substantive critiques of their approach. My general set of biases on these issues would be as follows: critical (and even no-plan) affirmatives are legitimate, the aff needs to either have a defensible interpretation of how they affirm the topic or they need to full bore impact turn everything, a team must defend the assumptions of their arguments, critiques don't need (and are often better served without) alternatives (but they still need to be clear about what I am actually voting for), debate rounds do not make sense as a forum for social movements and “spill up” claims are vacuous, and most of the evidence used to defend a policy framework does not really apply to policy debate. However, to state the obvious, each of these biases can be overcome by making smart arguments.

Speaker Points: Since Tabroom stopped making speaker points accessible, I honestly don’t really even know what they mean anymore. I try to give them careful consideration, but I admit that often it becomes a gestalt thing. I intend somewhere around 28.7 or 28.8 to be my median. I will occasionally dip into the high 27s for debaters that need significant improvement. Good performances will be in the low 29s. Excellent performances will get into the mid 29s. This was generally close to how things broke down the last time I was actually able to run the numbers on speaker point data.

Here are the things I value in a good speaker. I love debaters that use ethos, logos AND pathos. Technique should be a means of enhancing your arguments, not obfuscating or protecting them. Look like you're winning. Show that you are in control of yourself and your environment. Develop a persona that you can be comfortable with and that shows confidence. Know what you're talking about. Answer your own cross-ex questions. Use an organizational system that works for you, but communicate it and live up to it (if you do the line-by-line, then *do* the line-by-line). Avoid long overviews with content that belongs on the line-by-line. Overviews should have a clear and concise purpose that adds something important to the debate. Be clear, which includes not just articulation & enunciation. It also includes the ability to understand the content of your evidence. If I can't follow what your evidence is saying, it will have as much weight in my decision as the tagline for that evidence would have had as an analytic. Debaters who make well thought out arguments with strong support will out-point debaters who just read a lot of cards every time.

William Repko Michigan State University 2 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 10:14 AM EDT

Updated - Pre-NU - 09.12.23.

On balance, J Philosophies should prob cut to the chase - but I'm gonna violate my own rule this time:

We exist in an era where being unfiltered gets glorified.. where the smartest person in the room is also encouraged to be the loudest.

Every now and again, someone arrives in our small pond - and they have all the characteristics of a great judge. They are quietly brilliant. They are thoughtful. They hold the community's respect for the simplest reason of all: they are undeniably good at what they do. It doesn't need to be broadcasted - it finds itself on display in each oral critique.

I won't be the guy that pretended to know Brian McBride on a deeply personal level. Our interactions were often limited to those panels that finish their task at 2am.

... but I know enough to say this with confidence. I learned a great deal by letting that guy go first in the post-round. He rarely called attention to himself. I am hopeful that our community finds ways to honor his contribution - even if he would've bashfully declined such praise.

I had a great deal of respect for who he was in this community.

Customary biz:

Yes - speech Doc.

Repko.Debate@gmail.com

Side note - I often miss non-speech doc correspondence sent to that address bc I only use it for judging.

** New - Topic Specific - Nuclear weapons, 2023-4

With all the asterisks that often accompany this, I'll say I'm not going to deeply break-down my thoughts on hyper-generics and the kind of K's that tend to get run on every Res. I do have thoughts on these matters - but I am much more apt to be placed in a Policy-Policy round... this is bc clash/K teams have (correctly) concluded that there are many judges in the pool where their win% would be higher.

I have sneaking suspicions that Topicality will arise more in Policy-Policy rds - what follows is designed to be helpful:

- As a general proposition, I am more Aff than most on T - but I do think the Framer's worded things in a manner that gives the Neg something to argue here. Enough will come down to execution that some of what follows could be overread.

- I do not enter into the T Debate presumptively assuming Negs are structurally hosed on *this* Res. This ain't the water or CJR Res - there's at least room to argue that this Res= atypically good for Negs. I often judge on panels where the lone conception of "ground" is Neg. Absolute kudos to the Neg if they can pull of that framing - you should (as ever) run with the premises your opponents concede. But - in an evenly matched debate - I do think there's space for the Aff to push back on the some of the classic Neg ground claims.

- While I can certainly imagine hypotheticals where one side's interp is noticeably imprecise (i.e. old school "substantial" defs about a Court case involving a kitchen measurement), I tend to think most prepared teams read a reasonably precise interp. Once the opponent's interp has exited the theater of the absurd, I am open to threads that argue that we should consider defaulting to other RTP various interps. Better put - if you're trying to win that an inch of precision >>> a mile of balanced ground/limits, I would recommend you have technical execution on your side.. bc I am going to need to read the opponent's interp and chuckle at how non-applicable it is. If your lead on precision is NOT an inch - I am very good for your side.

Deterrence and Assurance are a thing. If/when the Neg blends them together, they create Aff openings where "thumping one" can "thump both".

Revisionism has become the Policy equiv of ontology. The 2N uses the fact that "Russia has revisionist tendencies" to lower the threshold for the link, the impact, the "turns case" thread, etc.... OK - I suppose it's somewhat helpful to the cause - but let's not overdo this. No one would pretend that reading a card that "X nation is revisionist" is - by its lonesome - a link to the NFU Aff... The best K research takes the ontology claim and contextualizes it to the Aff in question. The best disad research takes the revisionism premise and applies it to the NFU Aff. I find no dissonance here - it feels logical (to me) to demand scholarly contextualization from both revisionism claims and ontology claims. And - to be candid - I suspect I have a higher bar for Neg contextualization than most.

*Older stuff starts here - I'd only read through it if you needed more than the basics

I'm somewhat correctly stereotyped as a "good judge to break a new aff in front of". And, certain broad strokes will not change between now and Monday:

- I am bad for some Neg generics that get run in these spots (process CP, many K's)

- I will do enough "reading" in the post-round to at least try and comprehend a novel Aff or Neg arg - and, as these things go, that can open room for a prepared new Aff to win on various appeals to specificity

- I get that Neg's adore the Cap K... but the way this is getting deployed in the modern era is just so far from what I feel is a complete reason to Negate. I could break down my creative Cap K 2.0 blueprint ..or go on some rant - but, unless your Cap K has some very unique twists, I'd say that I am the second worst judge in the pool for your Cap K (behind Katsulas). This is meant to be helpfully honest as you make pref decisions;

- I am one of the better judges in the pool for "the impact turn doesn't link". Let me unpack - as this might read as illogical. Just bc the Aff said "heg" doesn't mean that *the way* the Aff enhances Heg auto-links to your backfile... similarly, just bc the Neg read an impact module that loosely referenced "ag" or "econ" doesn't mean the camp backfile is simply greenlit. Often times the OG impact is about "preventing a future decline in Heg"... or helping a sector of the econ that may solely be a piece in the dedev puzzle. I'll obviously "play ball" if both teams opt to ignore this int link minutiae. But I do sometimes find myself on the bottom of a 4-1 bc I strongly consider analytic threads appealing to whether the impact turns applied in the first place. This is not intended to full-on dissuade. Teams seeking to impact turn should invest some time connecting the "top-level" dots between the opponent's impact claim and their impact turn. Impact turn strat can also wind-up defending a squo that's very messy (transitions, other Aff impacts). Think about more than the narrow impact turn itself - and the broader system being defended.

- I differ from many judges on "disad turns case". I was recently asked to recount an NDT elim I judged a few years back. In it, Aff slams on Adv... Neg slams on Disad... Aff is bad on "disad turns case"... neg is silent on "Aff solves case"... 8 out of 10 judge vote neg here: after all, Neg turns Aff. I regularly vote Aff on "aff solvency claim is every bit as dropped as the neg's claim to turn solvency". There are some exceptions where I would vote Neg - suppose the neg's "turns case" arg is couched as comparative to the 1AC solvency... OR maybe the neg claim simply makes more sense than the OG Aff solvency.. etc... but I tend to not punish the Aff for lacking large re-explanations of (dropped) swaths of their case. Negs would do well to make comparisons that bake-in the particulars of the Aff.

- there is a risk of overcorrection to all of this. I have voted on "PIKs bad" at the NDT - and it was the correct 2AR choice.. I voted on a "meh" human innovation disad earlier this season bc the Neg tailored it so well to the opponent's solvency claims. There have been other decisions that might surprise a third party coach - unless they watched the debate itself. I do understand that debate is a game. All of this advice assumes situations where both sides have the time to evenly execute on a position - but sometimes that hasn't taken place. Capitalize accordingly.

--- Everything below this is older stuff... all of it still applies - but may be more than you need ------

TLDR - general

More apt to be placed in Policy v. Policy rounds. A great deal of the research that I do is on critical/culture theory. And, a lot of outcomes are possible in a world of imbalanced coverage/attention to detail.

That said, I have a poor track record for planless Affs. I have enough "argumentation teacher" in me to give a range of oral critiques. But, I do think K of this Res/Topicality struggles vs. standard (policy) boilerplate responses.

If your pref decisions hinge on post-round academic convos, I will be an engaged critic. But if a big component of your pref decisions are about the grizzled bottom line of winning (which is 1000% understandable, IMO), I think much of the pool has a better track record on behalf of the K.

Seems like there's two sets of Policy judges on this particular Res:

Camp 1.0 - summer pleasure reading was about Bostrom, gray goo bloggers, and meta-physical q's posed by British scholars.

Camp 2.0 - not that.

I'm more in camp 2.0. I have cut policy cards on the topic. I am not dismissive existential risk. I think the Sci Fi impacts are fine - strategic even....

And, I am (quite fairly) accused of letting your ev do some work for you. But there's a wave of oral critique out there that's akin to: "the sub-text of the Aff entropy claim rests on Toby Ord's The Precipice - which is hardly viable without a deeper defense of hypercomputation".

... huh ?..

I can get there - but you'll need to at least start me down that journey.

TLDR - process CP, compete on "should"

Anything is poss in the land of wildly disparate in-rd execution/coverage - but I am quite Aff here

Where are you good for the neg ?

Disad, CP of non-process flavor... the 1AC itself = often pretty silly.

'Rona

For me, I am judging INP for the first time in a minute - mostly bc it would not be great if I brought COVID back to my household.

I am appreciative of the efforts the tournament and the participants are making to reduce the risk of COVID. I mean that quite genuinely

... this simple statement could be over-read or cause students to overreact when I am judging. I understand that sure-fire solutions are rare... and I do not need to 2A to debate outdoors or something. Just a friendly - not judgmental - reminder that I will be on the cautious side of this one.

--wrote this pre '21 NDT - I'll leave it up a bit longer, but it has little to do w. arg preferences ----

This strikes me as an audience where one can make a bold claim... and be granted an opportunity to back it up.

Here goes:

One of the strongest people I know is only 3 yrs old.

... I've watched her figure it out.

When the six yr old points and stares.

When the family switches lanes in swim class.

When they ask why her mask is the kind that ties in the back.

...and I've watched in amazement. Somehow, she channels her exasperation into thoughtfulness. Somehow, these aftermaths are productive.

A few years ago, I heard rumor that a student was thinking of foregoing her final NDT - ending her career after her Junior season. This student had challenged MSU Debate ...in the best ways possible. Judging policy rds as I do, I knew this debater. I decided to drop her a note. I thanked her for the hard work she'd put in.... for the indirect ways in which she'd made our program grow. One never knows what to expect once the send key is hit. I do think she was a little surprised to receive it. But I came to learn it made a small difference... that it landed with the right timing.

Later that season, I wrote a similar note - this time to a non-traditional debater. The same premises held. This student pushed our program and drove us to be more prepared. I extended an overdue "thanks". I imagine they were more than a little surprised to receive it. Judging policy rds as I do, I had even less of an idea how it may land. I was glad to learn it landed well.

The days leading up to the NDT are an especially good time to keep one's head down.

...But when the dust settles... when the inevitable frustrations grow distant... consider crafting a simple note. Consider sending it to a judge... a rival... a teammate.

Above all, consider sending to someone that may not expect it.

In doing so some will accuse you of being weak. Why extend energy to your rivals ?.. Why breathe life into the foe ?

But - in doing so - you will be anything but weak.

You will exit a challenging season... perched atop a most-challenging 12 months... and you will have done something genuine.. something unexpectedly thoughtful.

And - in doing so - you will show strength.

Strength similar to the strongest girl I know.

A girl who is Earless... and Fearless.

A girl named Robin Jane Repko.

#E&F

Thanks - and best of luck to each of you this weekend.

NDT 2021

---------old stuff here-------------------------

True non-starters:

A - Teams that joke-y or playful about death or trauma - esp as part of some high-theory attempt to illustrate a point. I was early to this train - but I think a lot of people in the community are ready to close this chapter.

B - Consult Cplan in almost any variety - it's quasi comeback is surprising.

Topicality:

I'm overwhelmingly Aff on "contrived" interps bad. In general, I think I am more Aff than most on T in policy rounds. If it helps, I did not happen to judge the elim between UGA AR + KU HM on the Exec Authority. Here - by all accounts - the neg did a dazzling job on a T thread that amounted to "you gotta be a big Aff".

I cannot know - but I suspect I would have been an above-average judge for UGA in that spot. It has nothing to do with the debaters - all four were/are magnificent. It's more that I find T interps of that ilk tend to break-down under strict scrutiny.

I don't mention this example out of nowhere. I am writing in 2021 bc I suspect it could be instructive for this yrs college topic. I would not be shocked if I voted Neg on T - hard work has dividends. By this is a game of inches - and this is me being transparent about an inch.

Just be honest, please:

In an evenly matched-debate where all the best args are on the table (two important caveats), rate yourself on the following items relative to the field of possible policy judges:

A - CPlan competition theory.... Aff (esp vs. "resolved", "should", etc).

B - Kritik - even the flex variety - Aff by a considerable margin.

C - Truth or tech.... truth by a decent amount..

D - Are you lying - lots of judges just lie in these philosophies ?..

Not really... I'm pretty ardent - but I will say that anything is possible in the land of wildly-disparate in-round execution. I did vote on PICs bad (dropped) last season.

-------------- old philosophies start here -------------

I wrote this a few years ago - it still holds:

Often, the K struggles on the alt... and can be a little over-reliant on the checklist for someone (like me) that's a bit of a truth-seeker and post-round ev reader.

To give a concrete example:

Suppose a (policy) Aff said "a Small Modular Rector will *solve* for a nuclear accident". Further suppose that the Neg did not engage this claim in any way.

Then suppose the Neg said "interrogate our relationship to neolib -- as it may *solve* neolib". Suppose the Aff was comparably inattentive to that alt.

I would start the post-round evaluating competing solvency claims. Both teams 100% won their original statement -- but the word *"solves"* in both sentences does not get at questions of magnitude/likelihood. "Solve" was not posited as a 100% affair in either the ev, the tag, or under any standard of logic.

So, yes, both teams "solve", but the degree to which an SMR could prevent an accident is miles ahead of the degree that individual interrogation might solve neolib. I acknowledge that not everyone judges these args in this manner -- in part because they fear being labelled "interventionist". I happen to feel it "intervenes" to impose magnitude onto either team's claim (as stated).

I can imagine a future time where the K more assertively attempts to have Alts that inform policy praxis or generates non-institutional collectives... And if you think your arg is novel in that regard, then I might be a better judge for you... But, the odds are that you've learned to run the K based on the prevalent community norms that have developed over the previous 15 years... Over that time, your predecessors did an exceptionally mediocre job of helping the K inform praxis and be PART (not all) of negating an Affirmative.

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

Rando:

- I rarely think "literature" alone makes a cplan competitive. I consider the two as wholly unrelated and I struggle to grasp this line of thinking. Some are aghast if the two options that are compared by a think tank article are somehow not auto-competitive. This borders on laughable - as there's lit that defends plan-plus cplans....Sometimes I have judged literature that demonstrated that the perm severs - that might be germane.

- I think "judge kick" needs to be flagged early and often - not merely implicitly as part of a conditionality answer in cx - for it to be a presumptively strong arg for the Neg. I consider "conditionality" to be a question of whether multiple strategies can/should be carried through the middle of the debate - and *not* whether the Neg should ultimately be afforded multiple choices at the end of the debate. I will assume that you went for the one damn strategy that you did extend in the 2NR unless you play your "multiple options" card earlier in the debate.

If you have specific questions about how I'd evaluate an item, feel free to ask. I'll strive to respond with candor.

Best,

Will

Armands Revelins Cornell 3 rounds

Last changed on Fri January 5, 2024 at 11:00 AM EDT

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.

Zach Richter Western Connecticut State University 6 rounds

Sean Ridley University of Florida 3 rounds

Nick Ryan Liberty University 1 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 4, 2024 at 12:49 PM EDT

Philosophy Updated 9-5-17

Nick Ryan – Liberty Debate – 10th year coaching/Judging

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

Ben Saunders Pepperdine 6 rounds

Last changed on Wed September 24, 2014 at 7:06 PM PDT

Hello, I'm a grad coach for Pepperdine, I used to debate for Mary Washington. I'm sorry if this philosophy doesn't communicate what you would like it to. Feel free to ask anything.

Respect to your self, opponents, partners, coaches and all those around you is paramount. We are all lucky that we have found this community. I know it is hard to find gratitude following loss, but I believe those trying moments are the moments that will make you a better person and a better debater. My decisions are far from perfect, but I'm trying hard.

Winning is less important than I thought it was yesterday. I take issue with the emphasis placed on competitive extracurricular activities within and among institutions that claim to be founded on the basis of education, but I've also recently come to appreciate a nice, arbitrary competition between honest folk. Read: the value of staged competition in debate is immense, but not impenetrable. Read further: debate how you will have the most fun. Read for theory: impact debate in terms of the educational institution that it is.

I have some preferences, here is what I know I know about them:

An argument consists of a claim, a warrant and an impact . An argument that is uncontested by the other team will be taken as truth. I will write down your arguments across the page, from right to left, in the order they appear in the earlier speeches, unless instructed to do otherwise.
I love case arguments. But that's because I also really value the unique project of debate: where we place something in affirmation, or not. Interaction with an affirmative is a sign that the negative team knows what's good for them. If you're aff, and you haven't told me what to do, then I hope we are dancing, because that's something. If you're neg, and you're not dancing with the aff, then you better give me a good reason why you're a wallflower.
I do not believe judges should read cards unless there is a dispute between competitors over what a piece of evidence says.
Under-highlighting evidence, lacking or absurd evidentiary qualifications, etc. are to be taken advantage of.
I am pretty expressive as a judge, nodding and whatnot, but these are just reactions. Physical gestures are likely. Verbal interruptions are much, much less likely to occur, though if I interrupt your speech time verbally I assure you it is because I believe it will be to your benefit.
Cross-ex should be treated by both teams as speech time for the team asking questions. I'll often flow it. I understand the strategic value of the cross-ex filibuster to be very little.
Card clipping or otherwise falsifying the record of a debate that I am judging will result in a loss for the team doing it.
Presumption goes to the least change, relative to the status quo.

Jim Schultz Wake Forest University 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 10, 2024 at 5:30 PM EDT

Current affiliation: director at Purdue & assistant at Head Royce.

Did you know Purdue is a public University with over 40,000 undergraduate students? Despite our excellent reputation for our engineering and computer science programs, as well as our success in the NCAA basketball tournament, we are in fact a public land-grant university in West Lafayette, IN. Tuition is less at Purdue than it is at Indiana University.

Past affiliations: Weber State, Wake Forest, Loyola Marymount, Idaho State, West Georgia, as well as College Prep, Georgetown Day, Bishop Guertin, Chattahoochee, and many other high school programs.

I love debate. I chose to return to debate after spending a few years working at a consulting firm. I make less money now, but enjoy the work much more. I appreciate your participation in the activity and will do my best to determine a winner, as well as help you improve in the time I spend judging your round.

I will default to flowing on paper. I appreciate efforts to be organized and go line-by-line; I will reward speakers that make flowing easier.

I will not read along with the speech doc. I believe debate should be a persuasive activity. I think following along with the speech doc is a poor practice, and I feel some type of way about it. I would like to be on the doc chain; everybodylovesjim@gmail.com& hrsdebatedocs@gmail.com

If the round has started and there is no timer going, please don’t prep. I’ll kindly ask you to stop prepping if I notice you prepping while no timer is running. I think remote debate may have contributed to lax prep time standards, and I feel some type of way about it.

I’m a fan of multiple flavors of debate. I’m somewhat of a dinosaur at this point, but I still appreciate attempts at innovation. I’ve voted for and against all sorts of arguments. I’ve coached teams on various flavors of arguments. I’m generally agnostic. My best piece of advice for debating in front of me, or any other judge; debate powerfully, make the judge adapt to you.

I love cross ex! It’s generally my favorite part of the round. I usually flow it. I always pay attention to it. If you make gains in cross ex, please leverage those gains in your speeches. I will reward speakers for a well executed cross ex. I prefer you don’t treat prep time as cross ex time, I frequently leave the room during prep time and appreciate these opportunities.

I will reward speakers that focus on clarity over speed. If I ask you to be clear, please make an effort to adjust.

I start the process of deciding who won by establishing the most important issue(s) in the debate and determining who won the core controversies. I ask myself who won the round if both teams win their package of arguments. I frequently write a rough draft of a ballot and then try to argue against that decision to check against overlooking something. I try to edit my many thoughts to keep things more brief in delivering my RFD, particularly when on a panel. Sometimes when I sit I ask to give my RFD last - sometimes this is so I can get a sense of where the other judges are at, sometimes it’s to circumvent judges from editing their decisions when I’m confident in my RFD.

Lindsey Shook James Madison University 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:43 AM CDT

EMAIL lindseyshook@gmail.com

Currently - Director at the University of Oklahoma

Previously – Director at James Madison and Univ. of Central Florida

Way previously – graduate student coach at Univ. of Kansas

Long long ago – debated for the Univ. of Central Oklahoma

BIG PICTURE

My default way of viewing a debate is as follows – I am deciding between hypothetical worlds. In general debates are either about the world at outside of our activity (fiated plans, CPs, and critical advocacies that are about what society at large should do or think or change). Or debates are about debate as an activity (topicality, theory, critical advocacies that are about endorsing or rejecting particular kinds scholarship or argument or forms of presentation).

In either case I assume I am being asked what is the preferrable world? The world where the aff plan is enacted into law? The status quo? The world of debate where everyone meets your version of the topic? The world of debate where no one reads conditional advocacies? Etc.

Arguments that directly challenge this are things like reject the team for reasons of fairness or because they did something problematic. I have and am certainly willing to vote on those reasons but they need to be clear and specific to what has gone wrong in the debate you are in. Ideally not a generic set of reasons (at least by the last rebuttals).

I can certainly be persuaded to understand debate in a different way or to evaluate your arguments from a different perspective but just so you know that is where I start.

OTHER IMPORTANT NOTES

- - A drop matters if you make it matter and if it actually implicates the round

- - I am not offense defense oriented. You can win on defense alone particularly against poorly written advantages and disadvantages.

- - It is hard but not impossible to win you link you lose style debates. You are better off with some version of an alt or a more specific framing argument in front of me.

- - I flow on paper. I can generally keep up with speed but the less you sound like a person reading fast and the more you sound like a robot spitting out random words with no rhythm or cadence the harder it is for my brain to process what you are saying. So if you know you are in the wordwordwordwordwordword spreading habit either slow down a bit or work on getting some normal speech patterns into the reading.

- - I’m old so I try to line arguments up on my flow. This makes me annoyed with overviews and people who don’t do the line by line. I will still flow it but I will try to line things up until I can’t keep up with you and line things up. Then I will flow straight down but it makes my decision take longer at the end so be warned.

SPECIFICS

Case – more case debate is good. Always. In every kind of debate. The more specific and in depth the better. I think that is coldest take in debate at this point.

T – I mostly judge clash debates and I don’t hate judging them or T. If the aff can be used as offense against your topicality argument you would do well to have specific arguments to neutralize that (not all TVAs or do it on the neg etc. are good and having a bad one is a waste of time). You can win fairness comes first. Again it helps to have some specificity about why this round or affs like this one are so bad. I am not convinced affs have to have a counter interpretation to win. Impact turning the neg. interpretation can be enough.

Kritiks – framework against the K from the side of a traditional policy aff is generally meh. You get to weigh your impacts if you win that those mechanisms are good. Util? policy making? Extinction? If those are good things to value when I make a decision win that. Fairness is useless as a standard. They get a K. Stop it. See above for alts are preferable. Floating PICs are generally useless. Most K tricks are tricks for a reason they don’t work in the face of answers. I still have no idea what no perms in a method debate is supposed to mean.

CPs – I love theory and think it is absolutely crucial for most 2As (including critical affs) to help fend off counter advocacies and counter plans. CPs are probably the easiest way to neutralize the aff – I probably care more about how they solve than most judges so more time on solvency deficits in both directions is a good idea.

Disads – great arguments with often terrible evidence and spin. If your ev is bad debate well enough that I don’t have to read it. You are better being honest about your evidence and making up for it with spin and common sense than pretending your cards are amazing only for me to figure out that’s not true.

Danesh Singh Binghamton University 6 rounds

William Smelko University of California, Berkeley 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu September 10, 2020 at 7:24 AM PDT

Please email me your speech documents. I have judged over a 1000 HS and College Debates over the last 18 years. I am a lawyer and lectured this past summer on this year's HS topic at Institutes for the NY UDL and the DC UDL Coaches Workshop and at Summer Institutes at the University of Michigan, Gonzaga, Georgetown and Harvard.

If you run a K, and actually have an ALT that can be proven to SOLVE a problem - - - any problem - - - it would be the first one I have heard that does solve a problem in 18 years of judging debates and then you might get my ballot, but probably not depending on how well the AFF does. If you are AFF and have a Plan that SOLVES a problem without creating more or larger problems - - - you might well get my ballot, depending on how well you debate during the round.

I listen to arguments, favor clash to determine who does the better job of debating, and no matter the chosen framing or style of either or both teams, I judge the debate based on what is said during the DEBATE by the Debaters.

I began high school judging in 1973.

I started judging college debate in 1976.

Between 1977 and 2002, I took a vacation from debate to practice law and raise a family.

Since 2002, I have judged between 40 and 80 Rounds a year in High School and had brief stints judging college and professional debate while "coaching" for the University of Redlands, my alma mater, in, I believe, 2010.

You can debate your own stuff, but I am not a theory fan.

I believe I have voted NEG on topicality four times in 18 years, twice in non-traditional AFF debates and once at the Kentucky RR when I thought the AFF made a mistake and I also thought the NEG made them pay, although a very competent and distinguished judge who was also judging the same round felt differently. So, even in the one traditional debate round where I voted NEG on T, I was probably wrong. I believe in AFF creativity, reasonability which guarantees predictability.

BUT (and and this is a CAPITAL BUT) I like/strongly prefer substantive debates ABOUT the topic area, so long as the Plan is a reasonable illustration of the Resolution.

People who listen and answer arguments well get great speaker points. People who are nice and friendly and not jerks also like their speaker points.

I have had teams run K's and all kinds, types and nature of CP's. The PERM Debate really makes a difference in a K and CP Round. I am not the most philosophically literate humyn being on the planet, so please explain your esoteric K and your even more esoteric K responses.

Cross-Examination is IMPORTANT, so please ask questions, get answers and ask more questions. When responding, please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. No need to fight or argue. Ask questions, Get Answers, move on.

For the clash of civilization people who want to know more about my feelings and leanings, perhaps the best information I can give you is that I listened to a recording of the final round of the 2013 NDT and would have voted for Northwestern had I been judging. The framework debate in my mind flowed Negative.

I enjoy DISADS and case debates. I am particularly fond of hidden Case Turns that become huge Disads.

I know how hard you work and will attempt to work just as hard to get things right.

Michael Souders University of Washington 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 12, 2023 at 9:28 AM EDT

Mick Souders

Director, James Madison University

20th year judging NDT/CEDA debate

micksouders@gmail.com

Updated 11/2/2022

CNTRL F "Short Version" for a summary version.

CNTRL F "Long Version" for rambling long version.

CNTRL F "Critical Identity Team" for full views on that.
CNTRL F "Ethics Challenge" for full views on that.
CNTRL F "Speaker Point Scale" for full views on that

CNTRL F "Procedure Notes" for info about card procedures and humbugs about CX.

*SHORT VERSION*

Debate is game with a very serious purpose: teaching critical thinking, argument and research skills, subject knowledge, and tactical and strategic perspectives. I will take your debate seriously.

-I try to be objective, not neutral. I see job my as evaluating the disagreement in debate using my critical thinking abilities and, if necessary, my prior knowledge and experience.

-Disclosure is a courtesy, not a rule. I will not vote on an argument about a team not disclosing. I will only vote on a mis-disclosure argument if you can show its (a) factual and (b) intentionial.

-The topic is important to promote clash. However, I often vote for non-topical teams because topicality is debate-able and teams arguing for the topic must be able to win the topicality argument.

-I am not likely to be persuaded debate is a bad activity. Criticism of how we debate is different than saying debate is bad.

-I flow on paper. Iexpect debaters to flow/note take and do not think opponents are required to provide pristine speech docs or analytics.

-I do not usually read speech docs during the speech. I read lots of cards after debates/in prep time.

-I believe I am a good judge for a variety of K teams but most K teams disagree. This is probably due to my views on topicality. I think that establishing a negative framework for impact evaluation and alternative solvency are the two most important aspects of winning a criticism.

-I am burden of proof oriented. I expect claims to be supported, not presumed. That means I vote on no risk of a link or no solvency more often than other judges.

-I am not a good judge for self-referential/circular arguments (i.e., 'Vote for what's best for me and I'm the judge of what's best for me').

-CX is not prep time. Prep time is not CX time. I will end CX if you aren't using it. I will not listen to prep time CX. Blow off your CX and see the results in your points.

-I have of views on counterplans and counterplan theory. If that matters to you, see below.

-I often look and sound upset, annoyed or angry but I am actually rarely these things in any meaningful sense. My thinking face looks like an angry scowl. My slightly confused face looks like I'm seriously enraged. My 'slightly annoyed for 2 sec' face looks like I'm about to toss over a desk. Sorry about this. I was born with this face.

*END SHORT VERSION*

LONG VERSION

Mea culpa

I believe that I’m out of step with contemporary debate. I feel it almost every time I judge. It’s not about the type of arguments that are made, it’s about how I judge them. I try to be even-handed and fair to both sides, but compared to most debaters’ expectations: I’m too opinionated about what constitutes adequate support, I’m too willing to dismiss badly supported arguments, I have too high of standards of engagement between two teams, I expect extra-ordinary claims to have at least decent proof, I don’t think repeating a prior block is a respectable extension of an argument even if the other team didn’t respond, I don’t think 2-3 sentences is usually enough to win a major argument. I do think you need to explain the claim, warrant, data for arguments in rebuttals, even when dropped. I don’t think a dropped assertion is necessarily true for the purposes of debate. I will ignore arguments I cannot understand and I have a coherence standards for positions and arguments. I think lots of ‘defensive’ arguments end up being terminal for positions.

Which is all to say that I am probably far too opinionated and interventionist for most debaters’ tastes. I like to think of it as being a principled critic of argumentation, but call it what you will. Does that make me a bad judge? Well, I certainly don’t think I’m what debaters want. I don’t know. But I am this way because I feel like these principles matter and I find them impossible to ignore.

Philosophy

Debate is the kiln in which minds are strengthened into ever better forms. The goal of each debate is not necessarily to find the right answer to a question, but an exploration of ideas and an experiment with concepts, enabled by the unique forum of debate that protects us from the full consequences of the ideas we advocate. It is the freedom of debate which enables it to be so effective. Hence, debate is a political project as well as an educational one. It is a democratic experiment. In it, we exercise our freedom to advocate for ideas—and to oppose them—in the spirit of putting our minds to work on a wide set of problems.

As a judge, I try to evaluate the quality of ideas and argumentation that debaters present. I do not have a preference for policy debate, critique debate, non-traditional debate or whatever any wishes to call their format. I do ask that ideas are presented coherently, cogently, and be well-supported by epistemologically-appropriate evidence.

I do have some argument biases (charted, per others):

Killing/letting die on purpose good--------------------------X--Killing/letting die on purpose bad.
Children are good-X--------------------------------Children are bad.
Ha funny debate only stupidity good!------------------------X-Ha funny debate only stupidity bad!
Topic ------X------------------No Topic.
Conditionality Good--X------------------Bad
ESR good for debate--------------------X---ESR is nonsense.
Offense/defense paradigm yes----------------X----no.
Alt-less Ks yes-----------------------X---no.
Stupid contrived fiat on CPs yes!-----------------------X--no.
Asserting another person has no role in debate: YES good strat-------------------------X---no.
Fairness It's an objective truth--------X--------------------It doesn't exist & we shouldn't consider it.

Here's that in another form.

I tend to dislike misanthropic arguments that ask me to kill people or increase suffering. If you read any argument says people dying is irrelevant, mass suffering is good for people or that children should not exist or be killed, you simply do not want me as a judge.

I tend to dislike arguments that rely on ideas almost everyone knows are wrong or originate out of dubious sources.

I tend to dislike arguments that attempt to stop rather than promote the development of ideas.

I tend to think the concept of a resolution is good and affirmatives should be topical, although I vote for non-topical affirmatives when it seems warranted by the debate (see note).

I tend to err negative on many theory questions, except when it comes to fiat. In that, I believe that international fiat, state fiat, and object fiat are unfair to affirmatives but to be honest these don't seem like voting issues, just reasons the counterplan should be ruled out.

I do not believe your assertion alone constitutes an argument that I am required to respect.

I tend to place great weight on cross-examination.

I tend to dislike arguments or positions that indicate that the other team has no place in the conversation.

I’ll limit how much I inject my own ideas into decisions but I will not prohibit my evaluative skills from the debate. I demand greater argumentative power from what appear to me to be counterintuitive arguments. I try to be reflective about my biases but I will not defer to other persons to make decisions for me.

I fundamentally believe in standards of decency and respectful treatment of colleagues and a sporting attitude toward competition. I understand that debate is serious. I realize that civility is sometimes a policing standard and there are limits to its application. But I persist in believing debaters should be free to make their arguments free from undue personal insults, discriminatory remarks, interruption, intimidation, or slurs regarding their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, sex, sexual behavior, religion or socioeconomic standing. I am quite willing to step in and object or refuse to continue to participate in debates in which such activity continues.

Speaker Point Scale (novice doesn't follow this scale):

2021-Present Averages:
Open: 28.49; JV: 28.05; Novice: 28.31

29.5-29.9 Very to extremely high quality speeches that I would consider very good even for Copeland/Top 5 plaque competitors.

29-29.4 Excellent speeches that significantly advanced your team's chances of winning. Good to very good speeches for First Round-level competitors.

28.6-28.9 Above average speeches that I would expect to see out of clearing teams. Good to very good speeches for competitors at the NDT qualifier level.

28.1-28.5 Average to somewhat above average speeches that contributed to your team's chances of winning. Slightly above to somewhat below average speeches for the NDT qualifier level.

27.6-28 Mediocre to average speeches that only moderately advanced your team's position toward winning the debate.

27.1-27.5 Fairly poor speeches that did not significantly advance your teams position in the debate and likely did not sound good.

26.5-27 Poor speeches that had a negative impact on your team's chances of winning.

< 26.4 You did something very insulting and/or turned a near-certain win into a certain loss via your speech

**I am moderately hearing impaired. This should not affect you except that it helps if you enunciate clearly and project your voice. Rooms with echoes or ambient noise pose particular problems for me. If you see me moving around the room to hear, it's not necessarily you, it may be me trying to get a better angle to hear you.

Critical Identity Teams

Originally written in 2014 so maybe out of date. I haven't revised it in quite a while. Most of it still accurate to me even if the language and named arguments are a bit out of date.

I find it a nearly undeniable fact that the growth of critical identity arguments has dramatically increased the inclusiveness of our community in the past ten years. This is meaningful change. So I’m taking the time to write this extensive addendum to my judging philosophy because I think it’s important to recognize that there are terminological differences and stylistic differences in debate right now and I want to help the teams that are helping make our community more inclusive feel more comfortable in front of me.

Teams that make critical identity arguments are widely varied and so I’m reluctant to comment on them (or define them), except that I have noticed that those I think of *provisionally as critical identity teams are sometimes surprised by my decisions (for and against them). After some thought, I think it is because of a certain divergence in the judging pool. Critical identity teams, roughly speaking, share a common judging pool that emphasizes certain things, takes others for granted and has certain expectations. My background in traditional critique and policy debating has emphases and vocabularies different from this pool. In a few decisions that a few teams have not liked, I’ve explained my perspective and it’s sometimes been rejected or received push back and even dismissal. That’s regrettable. I want these teams (you, if you’re reading this) to see me as pointing them to the path to victory with me as the judge and I encourage these teams to see me as an opportunity rather than as a barrier.

So, rather than wait until a post-round to translate my views—which is too late—I’m going to post them here. It’s long, yes, but I put some effort and thought into this.

Overview over, here are my notes:

NEG:

It’s probably true that it’s easier for you to win on the negative because there’s no topical barrier for you. There’s a huge exception to this, noted in the affirmative section. Here’s my hints:

-Argue the alternative. This is the number one point of difference between myself (and judges like me) and the pool of judges I’ve noted above. Winning a link and impact isn’t enough. You’re going to need to focus on extending, arguing, and explaining how your alternative solves your link arguments, how it solves the case and/or how it is the ‘better’ choice in the face of affirmative case arguments. If your alt solves the case, explain how. If it doesn’t solve the case, explain why that doesn’t matter. Your alternative needs to solve the link to the case, because if not, there’s simply no uniqueness to your arguments against the affirmative—they are true whether I vote affirmative or negative. That doesn’t mean that you need to solve the WHOLE link. For example, if the law is fundamentally anti-black, then even if the alternative doesn’t solve the law being anti-black it might provide us with a path to a non-law based perspective or something of that sort. When I’ve voted AFF against critical identity teams, there’s often been a post-round attempt at a gotcha question: “So, you just voted for a law you agree is anti-black/queer/ableist?” And I’ve answered: “No. Voting for an anti-black/queer/ableism law was inevitable because the alternative didn’t solve any bit of anti-blackness/queerness/ableism.” I will say that 90% of the time I’ve come to the conclusion NOT because I evaluated a contested debate about the alternative but because the negative barely extended the alternative or did not do so at all. I'm generally unpersuaded by "reject" arguments without some value to the rejection.

-Argue the case. Affirmatives often solve impacts—and those impacts can outweigh. If you don’t just let that slide, the fact that they CAUSE another impact cannot be easily dismissed. I watched a debate at the NDT where the critical race team just slayed the policy affirmative by reading phenomenal cards that indicating the structural, racist roots of climate change and consumption patterns. It was excellent. However, that doesn’t happen very often. Being anti-queer is bad…but so is climate change that kills millions, particularly vulnerable populations. It’s easier to pick which one I must address first if the chances of the cases chances of solving climate change are either mitigated or critiqued in a fashion that undermines its solvency.

-Frame the impact. A certain group of judges might think that if you win “social death now” that means basically all the impacts of the case are irrelevant. I don’t think it’s nearly that easy. Think of it this way—you, the debater, are often in the population that your argument says is socially dead. Yet I think that your life matters. And I want to stop bad things from happening to you despite your state of partial or total social death. So, you must say MORE than social death. You may explain, for example, that social death perpetually PERMITS radical violence at a constant or increasing rate; that massive real violence is a terminal and immutable consequence of social death. This does not, by the way, mute the entirety of offense gained by an opponent’s policy action, but in combination with a won alternative provides a nice pairing of a systemic impact with strong empirical grounding and very high future risk with a method of addressing that risk. Some framing evidence helps here.

-Fiat is illusory isn’t a real argument (nor is the affirmative argument that the “The plan REALLY happens!”). I get the plan doesn’t happen but it’s a worthwhile thought experiment that enables us to discuss the merits of the plan. I don’t AUTOMATICALLY assume this, but if the affirmative team frames their case as an representative anecdote of how we can learn to engage in politics, or how this kind of debate informs politics, either in general or in specific, I tend to agree that’s reasonable since that is the whole reason I think debate is educational. THUS! The KEY is is not to argue, “Fiat is illusory, they lose on presumption”—which is a bad argument—but to argue that given that they are teaching a BAD politics and that you present a better one. Your better framework may include arguing for the abandonment of plan-based politics.

-Frame the meaning of winning a key premise. To some extent, I find that to be true of anti-blackness or anti-queerness or anti-intersex, etc. If you win that blackness is an ontology and anti-blackness is a political ontology (although, to be honest, I’m not sure I understand what a political ontology is) you’ve won a premise that gets you a long way in the debate. However, you haven’t WON the debate, per se (nor does losing this premise necessarily lose you the debate). If society is anti-black, does that means politics is irrelevant? My presumption is NO. If you are black and live in anti-black civil society, I still presume that it would be better to do things that blunt the force of anti-blackness with ‘liberal’ policies. Now, you have a huge advantage if you win your premise because in a larger sense you’re winning that liberalism is doomed—but you need to make that clear. Finally, you should work at backstopping this argument. I’ve seen teams go all-in on winning queer is ontological without looking at how they could win if they did not win this premise. I saw a team at the NDT nicely win a debate where they lost that blackness is ontological by arguing that even if its socially constructed, its so deeply embedded that it can’t be extracted and that the alternative resolved it best. Well done.

AFF

Most of this is about topicality because once you’re beyond that barrier you’re just in regular debateland and the above guidelines apply.

Topicality

First hint with me on this overall—persuade your opponent not to go for topicality. When negative teams don’t go for topicality against blatantly non-topical teams, I have a ridiculous affirmative voting record. The reasons are obvious: Links and competition are hard to generate when you’re not topical. That’s why topicality is vital for those teams. But let’s ignore that for a moment.

-Topicality: First hint: Be topical. I think it’s possible. I particularly think it’s possible to defend the topic from the outside—I think it’s possible for queer victims of police violence to argue police who harass queers should be arrested by the state without being or endorsing the state. I think you can be topical and argue that you shouldn’t need to answer process arguments. As the coach of repeated, successful topical K teams I don’t think topicality automatically means role-playing in the strong sense. I also think these debates are essential. Surely it can’t be the case that all critical identity positions of value require non-topicality and I’m very interested to hear the ways critical queer, race, gender, intersex values can be met with a topical plan. ***HOWEVER, if you have me as a judge and you’re NEVER topical, it’s probably a bad idea to just toss a plan in. It’s bad because you haven’t thought through how to defend yourself against arguments.

-Ok, so you’re not topical. Let’s talk about my presumptions on that. The main barrier for you here is that I don’t believe that any state action 100% pollutes any action. That doesn’t mean the state is good. Far from it. But considering the fact that many of the teams that refuse to ever agree with the topic attend STATE UNIVERSITIES with coaches receiving paychecks from THE STATE it’s hard for me to understand why talking about state action is impossible. That’s not a killer argument, but it does seem to hint that SOME state actions are not entirely poisonous. This is my own view and while it does color my T arguments, it’s not insurmountable. Here’s how you overcome that.

-Don’t be anti-topical. It’s a lot easier for me to vote for you if you’re not anti-topical. If you are anti-topical, say, your affirmative says (last year’s topic) that prostitution is bad (and implies shouldn’t be legal) then it’s going to be much harder for you to win in front of me. The reason is simply that you’ve staked out negative ground. You’ve admitted there’s a debate to be had on something and chosen NOT to take your assigned side. You refuse to take up the affirmative side yet you functionally attempt to force the other team to do just that.

- Being PRO-TOPICAL still requires you to be smart. The problem is that the other team will ask, “Why NOT be topical?” You need an answer to that question that isn’t just “State messed up, yo.” You CAN argue that. You CAN win that argument. But I’m going to want nuanced reasons that are specific to a particular to a place and time. Saying, “The US government is messed up and did bad things” seems to me to beg the question of what it SHOULD do to change. So, to overcome that you’ll need to explain why it’s better to debate about your adjacent discussion of topical things rather that government action AND you’ll need to explain why that’s an AFFIRMATIVE argument and not a negative argument.

-Answer their offensive arguments on T. Limits, ground, fairness, predictability, education—these are real things in debate and they matter. You will do well to answer these arguments with both offense and defense. I often see all offense (limits debate protect white folks) without any defense. PARTICULARLY answer their arguments about why topical/legal debating is good, in addition to the regular T argument set. These cards tend to be pretty good so your responses need to be good as well. “Fairness for who?” is a good question—but it needs to be answered rather than just leaving it open ended. On your education arguments you need to move beyond “All our arguments are educational” to explaining why you lead to good, predictable debates that are relatively fair and deeply educational. I am in agreement with the point that critical identity arguments are intrinsically educational (see my intro to this whole thing) but the bigger question is how do they create good debates where both sides explore issues in depth? There are really good reasons that this is the case—you need to make those arguments.

-Address topical version of the affirmative and understand that the legal debates good is a net benefit to this argument. A good team T will argue that you do not have a right to the perfect affirmative, just one that lets you discuss similar key issues. Also understand that “State bad” isn’t necessarily an answer. If can be, but even the anti-statist needs to understand the state. As a former anti-capitalist advocate, I still needed lawyers to get me out of jail and I still needed knowledge of the law to protect myself from the police as much as could be managed..

-Realize that “No Topical Version” is a trap. If you say no topical version, you are setting yourself up to link to the “this is anti-topical” argument, i.e., that your aff is wholly unpredictable and in the reverse direction of all of the regular topic negative arguments. The “no topical version of the aff” made by the 2AC sounds like, “Our whole affirmative advantage is illegitimate.” If you say “yes, topical version” then obviously you’ve also set yourself up. At the very least, so don't assert the 'no topical version' and set yourself up for this debate intentionally.

-Have an answer for the topical research burden argument. Critical identity teams are fond of arguing that there are many different versions of their arguments—TRUE! Which for teams going for T just shows how large the research burden becomes to prep for every single iteration—every different case is its own topic area. You need offensive and defense arguments. The argument that “You just don’t want to answer/research queer/black/feminist/trans/ableism arguments” is a good starting point but it’s not enough (and solved by topical version of the affirmative). “Case list” is also not answer to this argument, because research burden isn’t a question of predictability. Don’t fall into the trap of listing off a bunch of crappy positions you refuse to defend (state good, cap K) as neg ground.

-Find A CERTAIN TOPICALITY. Optimally, a strategic team will find a way to be topical, yet not defend the state. FYI, I absolutely do not think that having a plan that mentions what the US or USFG should do obligates you to defend “the State”. I think it obligates you to defend that particular state action. However, I think you can go beyond that. I think you can defend the plan as a critical intervention, as an imaginative starting point, as epistemological experiment etc. without defending state action in other ways. Now, you’ll have to defend your plan (or a topical advocacy statement—you need not have a PLAN, per se) in SOME ways but probably not a lot of different things.

-Impact turn topicality. If all else fails, impact turn and be extremely offensive against it. Disallow me from voting for T—you can complete this tactic by providing defense against their impact arguments while working on your own. Defense wins championships.

Hints not related to topicality

Once you’re past the topicality gate, you’re in the realm of normal non-procedural arguments and I have few suggestions in this area to avoid common errors (certainly not universal errors) I see in debates in front of me:

-Back up outrage with arguments. Excellent critical identity teams do this…but younger/lesser teams seem to struggle with this. Don’t get so wound up in your position that it stops you from making your argument.

-Antagonizing your opponent won’t sway me. There are reasons that you may choose to antagonize your opponent, some of which may be strategic, some not, some both. But as for how I view the debate, it will not contribute to me voting for you. See note in original philosophy about respectful behavior toward colleagues.

-Make the history lesson pay. Sometimes these debates collapse into scattered historical anecdotes that are only lightly tied together—get full credit for your analysis of history by investing time in explaining its application in this case.

-Don’t rely too heavily on enthymeme (don’t rely on me filling in the blanks for you). Too often, I hear judges (on MANY sides) say, “I guess I just know what they’re talking about.” No. You have an explanatory burden to help me cognitively grasp the situation. I grasp the frustration that comes with my lack of cultural connection to your argument, but I’m doing my best. If you think, “I’m tired of explaining myself to straight people, white people, cis gender people, able-bodied people, etc” and then don’t explain, it becomes really hard for me to vote for you (as well as making a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be accurate, depending on your judge). I won’t vote on what I can’t explain.

FINAL NOTE: You might be thinking, after reading this, ‘WOW, we’re NEVER preferring him. Look all the things he wants us to do—his presumptions are just too high. What a T hack.’

Maybe. But what I’ve tried to do is review almost every argument I find persuasive on T and flag it for you and send you in the right direction in answering it. In REAL DEBATES, teams won’t make all these arguments and they won’t always make them well. I ALWAYS evaluate the debate in front of me. But I wanted to flag all these so you could think through your answers and win my ballot. I wanted to flag these because winning my ballot is possible, not impossible.

I also think this can serve as a primer for winning in front of judges that are like me. To succeed in the big picture, you need to expand your judging pool. At the NDT and in national circuit elimination debates, you can’t hide from all the judges who think topicality is a thing or who have a grounding in traditional critique or policy debate. In my ideal world, you’d see me (or someone like me) on a panel against a non-critical identity team and think, “Good. Mick is a fair judge who sees the value of our arguments. He cares about our role in debateland and the world and even though he might not be our wheelhouse judge, we know the route to win with him.”

And, in the ideal world, your opponent would think the exact same thing.

Ethics Challenge

I want to say that I am not a fan of ethics challenges but they may be the only resolution to certain circumstances. In most cases, I prefer lesser solution from a team with a ethics-related issue: i.e., rejection of the piece of evidence, rejection of a position, rejection of all evidence with demonstrated problems, etc.

I have a relatively standard procedure on ethics challenges. Ethics challenges are accusations of academic misconduct against the opposing team that are outside the bounds of what can be adjudicated by the debate. Justifications for an ethics challenge include, but are not limited to:

1) Mis-representing evidence, i.e., “cutting out of context”--This includes highlighting, reading, or constructing evidence in a way that allows the team to present the evidence as supporting a claim that directly contradicts the intention of the author.

2) Fabricating evidence– This includes altering evidence by adding or deleting parts of cited evidence or wholesale making up evidence and presenting it in a debate.

3) Mis-representing what evidence has been read in the round, i.e., “clipping” or “cross-reading” or falsely claiming a piece of evidence has been read when it has not, or, alternatively, claiming a piece of evidence has NOT been read by the team when it has.

4) Refusing to provide your cited/read evidence to your opponent in the debate or intentionally leaving evidence out of a speech document in order to gain a competitive advantage.

5) Intentionally mis-citing evidence in order to gain a competitive advantage, i.e., leaving out an author or source that might be a liability in a debate. Incidental mis-citation is not subject to an ethics challenge.

6) Using ellipsis or leaving out parts of evidence that are part of the context of the evidence because the part excluded by the ellipsis would be a significant liability in the debate.

7) Intentionally mis-disclosing to another team in pre-round pre-round preparation in order to gain a competitive advantage.

8) If you generally accuse the team ‘cheating’ on any non-debate argument issue and try to make it a ‘voting issue’ (disclosure, speech docs, cards, etc), I will ask if you intend this as an ethics challenge.

This is not a complete list. Please note that some of these include a factor of intention and others do not. If you read a card that’s out of context or fabricated, it doesn't matter if you or your partner didn’t cut the card. In other cases, there must be intention.

Process and burden of proof for ethics challenges:
1) An ethics challenge will stop the round. I may pause once and try to talk through the issue briefly, trying to find a negotiating solution short of the challenge. But once the challenge is confirmed, it’s round over for me. If the tournament or organization procedures turn it over to the tournament officials, I will do that. If it is left to me to decide, I will ask for proof and defense and make a decision. I may give time for teams to produce evidence. For example, to provide a full length version of a card, article, book to demonstrate a defense. Moreover, I am NOT simply relying on team arguments. This is no longer a debate where I rely solely on the arguments presented. I will use any resource I can to reach a conclusion. If I am on a panel and it is not in my sole power to stop the round, I will adjudicate the debate based on the initial charge and defense. I will not evaluate the rest of the debate, even if the rest of the debate proceeds.

(2) I have a fairly high bar for voting on them. I must see clear and convincing evidence of the conditions above. Suspicion or even simply me believing it’s likely is not sufficient for me to vote on an ethics challenge against a team.

(3) If an ethics challenge is proven with clear and convincing evidence it’s a loss for the team challenged. If it is not proven to a clear and convincing level, it’s a loss for the team conducting the challenge.

***PROCEDURE NOTES.

1. I am worn out of looking through 6 different speech documents for cards. I am implementing a policy of asking that cards on positions that have been gone for in the 2NR/2AR be consolidated and sent to me). You don't need to sort out WHICH cards you went for, it's easier if I pick through what matters. Just consolidate them, organized by SUBJECT and SPEECH and send them to me. If you are paper team, you're are a cruel person who wants trees to die, but, on the other hand you make judging much easier :).

2. Most CX answers that given outside the 3 minutes of designated CX are not relevant to my decision. You want to get your argumentative question in? Fit your question and the opportunity to answer it into the CX time. You don't get to use some prep time to cover the argument you dropped, so you don't get to used prep time to ask the questions you forgot. Exception A: Filibustering to run out the clock will cause me to ignore this rule. CXer, you'll know you are free to keep asking because I will keep paying attention instead of getting up or walking away. Exception B: While answers might be non-binding, deception is misconduct foul, auto-loss. If the Cx-ee answers a clarifying question in prep like, "What's the status of the counterplan?" and then CHANGES it and thinks that's a clever trick, I see that as misconduct. Exception C: I think clarifying questions are fine in CX. Examples: What was your third argument on the DA? What's the status of the CP? Which card did you read? Answering these questions are matters of courtesy and fair play. Of course, they might just answer: "We didn't take a position on CP rules in the 1NC." And you'll be out of luck in arguing with them.

Gordon Stables University of Southern California 2 rounds None

Rebecca Steiner Wake Forest University 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 4:39 PM EDT

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Matt Struth Minnesota 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 11:22 AM MST

Matt Liu

University of Wyoming

Last updated: 9-12-22

Email chain: mattliu929@gmail.com

Feb 2022 update: If your highlighting is incoherent gibberish, you will earn the speaker points of someone who said incoherent gibberish. The more of your highlighting that is incoherent, the more of your speech will be incoherent, and the less points you will earn. To earn speaker points, you must communicate coherent ideas.

If you want to read far more than necessary on my judging process: https://wyodebateroundup.weebly.com/blog/reflections-on-the-judging-process-inside-the-mind-of-a-judge

I put a pretty high premium on effective communication. Too many debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. I find many debaters over-estimate the amount of ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. Debaters who concentrate on persuading the judge, not just entering arguments into the record, will control the narrative of the round and win my ballot far more often than those who don’t. I have tended to draw a harder line on comprehensibility than the average judge. I won’t evaluate evidence I couldn’t understand. I also don’t call clear: if you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I won’t intervene and warn you, just like I wouldn't intervene and warn you that you are spending time on a bad argument. Am I flowing? You're clear.

Potential biases on theory: I will of course attempt to evaluate only the arguments in the round, however, I'll be up front about my otherwise hidden biases. Conditionality- I rarely find that debaters are able to articulate a credible and significant impact. International actor fiat seems suspect. Uniform 50 state fiat seems illogical. Various process counterplans are most often won as legitimate when the neg presents a depth of evidence that they are germane to the topic/plan. Reject the arg not the teams seems true of nearly all objections other than conditionality. I will default to evaluating the status quo even if there is a CP in the 2NR. Non-traditional affirmatives- I'll evaluate like any other argument. If you win it, you win it. I have yet to hear an explanation of procedural fairness as an impact that makes sense to me (as an internal link, yes). None of these biases are locked in; in-round debating will be the ultimate determinant of an argument’s legitimacy.

Clock management: In practice I have let teams end prep when they begin the emailing/jumping process. Your general goal should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no flow shuffling, etc.

Cross-x is a speech. You get to try to make arguments (which I will flow) and set traps (which I will flow). Once cross-x is over I will stop listening. If you continue to try to ask questions it will annoy me- your speech time is up.

Pet-peeves: leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal, talking over your opponents. I get really annoyed at teams that talk loudly (I have a low threshold for what counts as loudly) during other teams speeches- especially when it’s derisive or mocking comments about the other team’s speech.

Candis Tate Wake Forest University 6 rounds

Chris Thiele Texas 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 9:06 AM PDT

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.
When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.
Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).
I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.
Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.
I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).
Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.
I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.
You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.
By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.
Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).
Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.
For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).
If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.
“We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.
For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.
Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.
I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.
From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.
A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.
Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.
Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).
Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.
Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.
Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.
I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.
For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.
Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.
Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.
Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.
However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.
If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Austin Thoma Cornell 3 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:20 PM MDT

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.

John Turner Emory University 3 rounds

T—I prefer limits over ground arguments. Rather than right to particular ground I would like interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden/definition. Case lists are important. I consider T an argument that doesn't specify the relationship between the debaters and the resolutional actor (i.e. how the debate is evaluated and what the role of the judge for evaluating the debate is still in question). To me, framework is a category of arguments that establish a limit that restricts not just the resolution but the role for the judge. I find most framework arguments unnecessarily restrictive in their interpretation about how we impact/assess a debate whereas a T interpretation can maintain significant freedom for different ways of couching an affirmative while providing predictable limits. For this reason kritiks of T are difficult for me to accept, while criticisms of framework have frequently been successful.

DAs- I’m unlikely to assess uniqueness/link in absolute terms. It tends to be easier to get me to consider direction/quality of link & internal link over uniqueness. Evidence qualifications are important. I probably give analytic and defensive arguments more weight than many judges.

CPs--I've rarely voted against CPs for theory reasons. This probably has more to do with what affs are willing to do/commit time to more than it demonstrates any real appeal of certainty-based competition arguments.

K pickiness—I am more open to aff inclusion and textless alternatives than most. I am frustrated by debates where the alternative “vote negative” squares off against permute “do all the parts of the alternative that don’t compete with the plan.” Those are both just abstract descriptions of what any alternative or permutation entails. In depth debate on these issues might be helped by being less tied to a text and more to not being obnoxious in the c/x in describing an alternative. Pay attention to language/phrasing—pull quotes from evidence and speechs instead of debating author names (Yes, pot-kettle, but still). I prefer Ks that aren’t debated like disads—too much big impact/impact turn and not enough about the aff/alt from either side in most debates I judged. Neg link arguments should include reference to 1AC evidence/tags. Historical examples help a lot for either side.

Theory—I tend to dislike theory debates focused on narrow comparison of interpretations. For the most part, people would be better off discussing the logical implications of a practice rather than a potentially arbitrary implementation of that practice (i.e. conditionality rather than "neg gets 1 CP and 1K"). I am biased in favor of conditionality, though not that strongly. To me, "status quo is always a logical option" or other logic-oriented defenses of conditionality require a judge to evaluate the plan versus the status quo even if the negative goes for their CP. I say this for clarifying purposes -- this has very rarely changed the outcome of a debate that I have judged. I often judge debates that do not presume conventional plan-focused models for debate yet still contain theory arguments that presume a plan-focused terminology and its resulting constraints. I point this out only to suggest that I think debaters should devote some time to thinking about the consequences of strucutral changes in the form of debate that they advocate for the smaller theoretical practices that occur within those debates.

Evidence comparison. In most debates I’ve judged if I hear about the other side’s evidence it’s only in the 2NR/2AR or it’s about how the opponent’s evidence is “terrible.” Granted, many people read terrible evidence, nevertheless, sophisticated evidence comparison should begin early in the debate. I intensely dislike random unqualified internet evidence.

I prefer cross-ex strategies premised on listening to an opponent's answer and using it in a subsequent speech, not posturing/arguing as though c/x were another speech.

I'm a bit of grump, especially when it comes to my consistent facial expressions in debates. It's not often that is about you, the debaters. I often talk a great deal after debates.

I desperately wish I were funny so I will probably appreciate your humor even if I rarely laugh out-loud. My sense of humor is definitively geeky. My speaker point scale is lower than our current average. I've tried to get more in line with current norms so as not to punish people for speaker point inflation. That said, for high points (28.5+) I still need to be impressed.

Lindsay Van Luvanee Weber State University 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 14, 2024 at 11:10 AM CDT

I debated throughout high school and then at Idaho State University for 5 years. I then coached at Idaho State University for 2 years, Weber for 1, USC for 1, and am currently with Houston.

I am a firm believer that debate is for debaters. I've had my time to make others listen to whatever (and I mean absolutely whatever) I wanted to say, and it's my turn to listen to and evaluate your arguments, whatever they may be. While I'm sure I have my limitations, make me adapt to you instead of the other way around.

I try my damnedest to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards.

I prefer not to call for evidence (although I would like to be on your email chain... misslindsayv@gmail.com). This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics.

Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument.

Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of debate? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.

This means things like framework and T (fun little-known fact: I've always found topicality in general super interesting--I love the nit-picky semantics of language) can be viable options against K affs. However, you are better off if you have a substantive response to the aff included as well.

I'm still kind of deciding how I feel about how competition functions in method debates. I think the most accurate depiction of what I think about it now is this (and it all obviously depends on what's happening in the debate/on the flow, but in general): I'll probably err that the affirmative on-face gets a permutation to determine if the methods are mutually exclusive, and so that means the best strategy for the negative in this world is to generate their links to the aff's method itself to prove that mutual exclusivity.

I'd really appreciate it if you could warn me in advance if there will be graphic descriptions of sexual violence.

Scott Varda Baylor University 2 rounds

Last changed on Sun September 24, 2017 at 8:43 PM UTC

Updated for 2017

impact calc. impact calc. impact calc. and yes on email chain. scottvarda@gmail.com

TL/DR version: I'm from D3, I don't care how you debate. make it good.

speaker points: I am an argument critic. Points received from me reflect ONLY the debating done in front of me and are neither punished, nor rewarded, by particular ideology, style, or approach to debate. Argument selection, persuasion, clarity, wit, approach to opponents, specificity of examples, and explanation of argumentative import are just some of things that go into my speaker point scale.

I am generally open to ANY argument. I prefer well argued debates, humor, and an ability to think without your blocks. I think the activity revolves around the debaters, so do what you do best. In other words, don’t “over adapt” to me, do your thing. I prefer specific to generic in almost every context. What follows should be considered only a snapshot of some thoughts I have on relevant issues. These are not set in stone, and I’ve voted for just about every type of argument there is. I can't emphasize this enough: win it in the round and even my strong views (whatever those even are) can be defeated.

I generally believe an affirmative’s relationship with the resolution should require more than passing reference to it--but how that is actualized in debates is entirely up to the debaters to decide. At a minimum, a reinterpretation of the resolutional wording seems in order, or a critique of the negative’s interpretation of debate, or an explanation about why your performance is germane to the topic, or about how your role of the ballot is predictable or good for debate in some way. BUT, all of that is on the neg to make it happen. My ONLY care about who wins the debate is for the team making better arguments--broadly conceived.

K v. K debates: My decisions generally turn on the following questions: How does your theory of power and/or discourse relate to the other teams? How have you (re)theorized presumption? Why is your Role of the Ballot/Judge good? What do legitimate permutations entail? How do I determine the best methodology? How have your research practices impacted the claims you are advancing.

Evidence: I am open to any claim that is supported by at least a warrant and some measure of evidence. I conceive of evidence broadly--a well qualified academic, an industry expert, a citizen-activist, the discursive representations of a social location, a song, a poem, a speech, a visual image are all legitimate possibilities. This does not mean all evidence is equal and it is on the debaters to demonstrate/explain (early rather than later) why I should prefer some evidence over others.

Framework. Here are some key questions you might want to answer: ***education vs. fairness***; predictable ground vs. creativity; Is framework a guise for (insert what the aff says is bad)?; why is voting for or against this team in this round key; what is my role as a judge; what is the brightline to legitimate aff vs. what's the harm of allowing one more aff in; what is the impact to any of this? Also, framework should be extended like topicality in the 2NR if it is a reason to vote against the aff by itself. Also, "they didn't read a plan," "they didn't defend their plan," "their plan is not topical," "their advocacy is not germane to the resolution" and "they are shady and keep changing their answers" are all distinct arguments. They might be related, but they should not be conflated.

Debates general: does your truth claim beat their techne/flow claims, and vice versa? who is winning the inevitability claims? reasonable historical examples are very persuasive to me, massively overclaimed historical similarities are not only unpresuasive, but will likely cause me to make a very ugly face. root causes should be well impacted, specific scenarios need more adequate probability and timeframe assessments.

Topicality should be about competing interpretations and should have all relevant warrants and impacts extended in each relevant speech. It is generally an evidence intensive debate which should consider the overall literature in existence—conversely, evidence poor interpretations which get inadequately answered can become winners. Reasonability doesn't mean, "come on, Judge! we're kinda close." Also, why is the neg interp good for debate and/or how does the aff interp result in worse education on the topic?

Procedural arguments are approached presuming the team raising the objection is incorrect. In other words, my theory threshold is moderate to high, but by no means unapproachable. This means I think the negative gets lots of leeway but that the affirmative should be more aggressive with marginally legitimate permutations. Cheap shots should be considered “no shots” in front of me, but if you’re getting crushed, whaddyagonnado? Requiring specification of the plan is a legitimate argument INFREQUENTLY. It’s usually a complete waste of time. Here’s the test, is the shell a minute long, and are you going to read 3 cards in the block on the argument? Cool. Alternatively, is this argument intended to establish competition to your CP or alternative? If not, it is likely a difficult to win position.

Critical arguments (aff or neg) should include a notion of the current realities of the world—it can’t just be wished away. And, my preference for specific argumentation is especially true here—aff or neg. I prefer critical arguments which engage explicit choices by the opposition. Links of omission are almost always less persuasive than links of commission, but I can be sold that the act of omitting was a de facto commission. Do the aff without the reps seems legitimate to me if it is explicitly flagged as such in the 1NC. Shady 2NC alt's legit lots of 1AR leeway. What does the alt do? How does it function in the world? Why isn't there an explicit text for it? 1ARs should treat new 2NC explanations of the alt as if they were opportunities for new-ish answers.

Disads and Advantages. There is such a thing as zero risk, though I’ve rarely seen it. Much more likely is that I will assign some notion of risk to the link which may not be high enough to cause the terminal impact (e.g. the aff upsets country X a bit, but probably not enough to cause relations to tank). Similarly, the plan may be necessary, but not sufficient, to accrue the advantages. Impact assessment should be more than simply “it’s faster than the aff, it outweighs, and is more likely.”

Counterplans. They are good. Run them. Condo: Debate it. Judge kick: If the aff ignores this argument, you can mention as late as the 2NR, but I really am not a fan and want the negative to begin the debate over the legitimacy of this in the block. I think policy PICs need to be plan based, but a series of cards explaining what normal means is, and how the CP is distinct can be enough. Alternatively, a well done c-x admission can be enough. I think critical PICs need to explicitly engage the the competition question early in the debate. Condition and consult CPs should be held to higher evidence standards than negs often provide, but that is the affs job to check, not mine.

Debating on the side of truth is almost always easier than going for the lie, and will be rewarded with higher points (consider this my, “yes I’ll vote for the Gregorian Calendar, Wipeout, or fiat doublebind, but you ain’t getting a 29.5” claim). Having said that, tech can beat truth in front of me.

I have no problem reading cards for forty minutes after a debate, but your speaker points will almost always be higher if I don’t have to read many cards.

"Clock management." I am inclined to give a speech time out under the reasonable conditions if requested (asthma attack, coughing fit, speaking stand collapses, etc).

Cheating sucks. don't be a cheater. misdisclosure before debates. clipping. hidden cards. loading 40 extra cards into speech docs. these are things that should not be in debates.

Teja Vepa Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:44 PM EDT

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

Christopher Vincent University of Louisville 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:20 PM CDT

Director of Speech & Debate Isidore Newman School

Coach USA Debate

EMAIL: Add me to the chain:
newmanspeechdocs@gmail.com

Online Update:
Please slow down! It is much harder for me to hear online. Go at about 75% rather than 100% of your normal pace!!!

Relevant for Both Policy & LD:

This is my 20th year in debate. I debated in high school, and then went on to debate at the University of Louisville. In addition, I was the Director of Debate at both Fern Creek & Brown School in KY, a former graduate assistant for the University of Louisville, and the Director of Speech & Debate at LSU. I am also a doctoral candidate in Communication & Rhetorical studies.

I view my role as an educator and believe that it is my job to evaluate the debate in the best way I can and in the most educational way possible. Over the past several years have found myself moving more and more to the middle. So, my paradigm is pretty simple. I like smart arguments and believe that debates should tell a clear and succinct story of the ballot. Simply put: be concise, efficient, and intentional.

Here are a few things you should know coming into the round:

1. I will flow the debate. But PLEASE slow down on the tag lines and the authors. I don’t write as fast as I used to. I will yell clear ONE TIME. After that, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. So, don't be mad at the end of the debate if I missed some arguments because you were unclear. I make lots of facial expressions, so you can use that as a guide for if I understand you

2. I value effective storytelling. I want debates to tell me a clear story about how arguments interact with one another, and as such see debates holistically. Accordingly, dropped arguments are not enough for me to vote against a team. You should both impact your arguments out and tell me why it matters.

3. Do what you do best. While I do not believe that affirmatives have to be topical, I also find myself more invested in finding new and innovative ways to engage with the topic. Do with that what you will. I am both well versed and have coached students in a wide range of literature.

4. Know what you’re talking about. The quickest way to lose a debate in front of me is to read something because it sounds and looks “shiny.” I enjoy debates where students are well read/versed on the things they are reading, care about them, and can actually explain them. Jargon is not appealing to me. If it doesn’t make sense or if I don’t understand it at the end of the debate I will have a hard time evaluating it.

5. I will listen to Theory, FW, and T debates, but I do not believe that it is necessarily a substantive response to certain arguments. Prove actual in-round abuse, actual ground loss, actual education lost (that must necessarily trade off with other forms of education). Actual abuse is not because you don't understand the literature, know how to deal with the argument, or that you didn't have time to read it.

6. Be respectful of one another and to me. I am a teacher and educator first. I don’t particularly care for foul language, or behavior that would be inappropriate in the classroom.

7. Finally, make smart arguments and have fun. I promise I will do my best to evaluate the debate you give me.

If you have any other questions, just ask.

Cameron Ward University of Southern California 4 rounds

Last changed on Sat January 27, 2024 at 5:26 PM UTC

2 quick caveats about how I time debates before I get to my paradigm.

1. I try to keep a running clock. The moment your speech ends cross ex begins. The moment cross ex ends, either your prep begins or the roadmap for the following speech begins.

2. If you are paperless, your prep times ends as soon as you send or share your speech doc.

With that said...

I believe that debate is an activity where the boundaries are defined its participants. This means that I am open to hear whatever kind of debate you want. If you wish to innovate new radical approaches to debate, I am open to hear them. If you wish to have a more traditional debate I am open to hear that as well. It is important for me that you situate my space in the debate. This means that if you want me to decide the debate by comparing the size of your impacts you should say it, and if you wish for me to take a different approach you should make that explicit. Despite my attempt to allow the debaters to control the direction of the debate no one is a truly blank slate, I do have some debate dogmas. I will try hard to make them obvious here, and if there is any confusion feel free to ask me.

You only get credit for arguments that I have on my flow. If you are difficult to understand because you are too fast or unclear, and as a result I miss something, that is YOUR fault. I will try to let you know (with both verbal and non-verbal cues) if I'm missing what you're saying, but its on you to adapt.

I prefer debates where there are a smaller number of well developed arguments as opposed to debates with 10 off. This does not mean that you have to read slowly, it just means develop your arguments, and in general the team with the better explained, better developed arguments will win the debate.

While I encourage debaters to find new, innovative ways to affirm the topic, this is not carte blanche to say anything you want. The topic is important, and as intellectuals, competitors, and activists we have an obligation to find something related to it to affirm. This does not mean that I am excited about hearing T debates. In general I lean aff on T and will let the Aff do their thing as long as it is germane to the topic, and debatable. In sum, feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to explain why it is relevant to the topic, and why it is a debatable issue.

Also related to this discussion- I believe that voting Aff is an affirmation of the resolution. You can affirm the resolution in any way that you choose (as long as you can defend it, and it is debateable), but in the end of the day, voting Aff means that I am saying yes to some version/interpretation of the resolution. While I am open to all sorts of Affs, the one kind of Aff that will make me lean Neg on Framework/T questions is an Aff that says that the resolution is bad, or totally eschews any semblance of a connection to the resolution. This doesn’t mean that you have to fiat anything, or pretend to be the federal government, but if you don’t want to defend those things you should explain what you think the resolution means, and defend it. Be prepared to debate the framework. I generally don’t like debates that are entirely about this, but in debates with countervailing approaches to form and content, framework is an unquestionably important element of a debate. It’s alright to kritik someone’s approach to the debate, but be prepared to describe what your alternative approach is and why it is better.

Slow down on theory. If I miss something because you are blazing through a block with reckless abandon, you won't get credit for it. I tend to lean negative on CP theory, and if a theory issue can be resolved by rejecting the argument instead of deciding the entire debate on it, I will generally try to do so.

Don’t just assume that I have read the critical theory that you are debating. YOU HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO EXPLAIN YOUR ARGUMENTS! This applies to kritiks as well as other policy based arguments. I won’t vote on an argument that you win but I don’t understand, and I won't be embarrassed or feel any regret about telling you that I don't understand your argument, as this is evidence of your failure to clearly explain your argument, and not evidence of my inability to comprehend sensible arguments.

I love a healthy dose of competition as much as the next person, but don’t be a jerk. Humor is good and will be rewarded, emotion and power are great as well, just don’t let the debate turn into a pissing contest over something not at all important to the debate.

With that said, Have fun, respect each other, and good luck!

Mike "Shooter" Weitz Oklahoma 3 rounds

Last changed on Sun August 31, 2014 at 5:26 AM CDT

Mike “Shooter” Weitz

***************************Updated 2014-15********************

A guy walks into the Buddha’s bar. Plopping on the stool, his dejected look was plain for all to see. “How can I help with what’s ailing you?” the Buddha asked, sliding the man a drink.

The man said, “I did everything I was supposed to, and nothing happened. I spend hours meditating under a tree every day, and I still haven’t reached enlightenment. I do my mantras, mandalas and sutras without forgetting a word. What am I doing wrong? I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I walk perfectly along the path.”

Giggling at the seriousness of the upset man, the Buddha exclaimed, “Well, there’s your problem right there! If your path is the trampled dirt of others’ footsteps, you’ve already lost your way.”

“But without that path, how will I know where I’m going?” the man asked earnestly.

“Exactly,” the Buddha smiled.

Not satisfied with the response, the man demanded, “If I don’t know where I am going, how will I know when I get there?”

“Exactly,” the Buddha quipped.

The man’s temper got the better of him, “That tells me nothing. Why don’t you just tell me what I need to know?”

“Exactly,” the Buddha chimed with glee.

“The Silent Flute”

I wish neither to posses,

Nor to be possessed.

I no longer covet paradise,

More important, I no longer fear hell.

The medicine for my suffering,

I had within me from the very beginning,

But I did not take it.

My ailment came from within myself,

But I did not observe it

Until this moment.

Now I see that I will never find the light

Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel,

Consuming myself.

-Bruce Lee

“Once More I Hold You In My Arms”

Once more I hold you in my arms;

And once more I lost myself in

A paradise of my own.

Right now you and I are in

A golden boat drifting freely on a sunny sea

Far, far away from the human world.

I am happy as the waves dancing around us.

Too much analysis kills spontaneity,

As too much light dazzles my eyes.

Too much truct astonishes me.

Despite all obstacles,

Love still exists between us.

It is useless to try and stir the dirt

Out of the muddy water,

As it will become murkier.

But leave it alone,

And if it should be cleared

It will become clear by itself.

-Bruce Lee

“Sharing a Mountain Hut with a Cloud”

A lonely hut on the mountain-peak towering above a thousand others;

One half is occupied by an old monk and the other by a cloud:

Last night it was stormy and the cloud was blown away;

After all a cloud could not equal the old man's quiet way.

-Kuei-tsung Chih-chih,

“Being as Is”

Food and clothes sustain

Body and life;

I advise you to learn

Being as is.

When it's time,

I move my hermitage and go,

And there's nothing

To be left behind.

-P'ang Yün

Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water.

The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken.

Although its light is wide and great,

The moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide.

The whole moon and the entire sky

Are reflected in one dewdrop on the grass.

-Dogen

Look for Buddha outside your own mind,

and Buddha becomes the devil.

-Dogen

“Suchness”

The wind traverses the vast sky,

clouds emerge from the mountains;

Feelings of enlightenment and things of the world

are of no concern at all.

-Keizan Jõkin

Where beauty is, then there is ugliness;

where right is, also there is wrong.

Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent;

delusion and enlightenment condition each other.

Since olden times it has been so.

How could it be otherwise now?

Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other

is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.

Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,

how do you deal with each thing changing?

-Ryokan

“In science we have finally come back to the pre-Socratic philosopher Hercalitus, who said that everything is flow, flux, process. We in the West think of nothingness as a void, an emptiness, a nonexistence. In Eastern philosophy and modern physical science, nothingness—no-thingness—is a form of process, ever moving. In science we try to find the ultimate matter, but the more we split up matter, the more we find other matter. We find movement, and movement equals energy: movement, impact, energy, but no things.”

–Bruce Lee

************************************************************

(2013-2014)

To be honest, I am not sure what it means to have a ‘philosophy of judging.’ I can tell you what I do: I evaluate arguments in relation to other arguments. I like good argument more than I like bad arguments. I like good cards more than I like bad cards. But, other than that, I’m not sure what I am supposed to tell you. Am I, through some unknown process of self-evaluation, to disclose how I decide which arguments that I’m yet to hear, and how they will win out versus other arguments? Should I provide you a list of the arguments I like and dislike, the things I have pre-determined to be true, as avenues of persuasion to receive my ballot? Such a list doesn’t exist. However, i can tell you some things:

If it is about my personal philosophy, then I’m not sure how telling you that I am a Buddhist and like to study Eastern Philosophy explains my approach to judging debate rounds, except to say that i evaluate arguments as i understand them at their moment of utterance, i evaluate them by the interdependent relationship to other arguments in the round, and i do my best to remain present and attentive during the course of the round. I think that truth tends to be a little grey (and technically ungraspable by language and set, intellectual patterns of thinking). I very much believe in paradoxes, which means that sometimes even 'incompatable' truth claims can both be true and untrue. This can be frustrating for debaters sometimes, because it puts a higher argumentative standard on you to make sure that you not only make arguments, but make sure that your arguments answer your oppenents arguments. Finally, it's not a requirement, but i do tend to prefer the nice and humble debater, even while debating with a passion. I will also do my best to judge with humility; we are all human and all make mistakes. I definately will.

I like arguments to be clear. I don't like to have to do a bunch of extra work to read your cards after the round because I should be able to hear them when you read them if you're clear. I only like to call for cards if their meaning is contested, and arguments are made against them. This is usually a sign of a good debate, but i don't want to have to call for cards because i don't know what they say because you weren't clear the first time.

An argument is a claim and a warrant. Missing one makes an incomplete argument, especially in the warrant department. And just because you made a claim and a warrant, does not necessarily make them persuasive, which is why the more warrants the better, usually. Always answer the "why" question. Why is what you say true?

The same standard applies to evidence, if your evidence does not contain warrants, then it is a bunch of warrantless assertions, and, hence, a waste of your time. You don't have to read seven-page-long cards, but the more warrants the better. Highlight your cards down to one sentence at your own risk and peril.

You would be surprised how often teams will win portion of an argument, and lose because of their failure to properly 'impact' it in the debate round. This is a critical part of the debate that should not be skimped on just because it happens in the latter speeches. Again, answer the "why" question.

Finally, while I'm not quite ready to go "full Dallas," I do attempt to generally communicate my thoughts, feelings, how I'm receiving stuff, and might even pipe in a "that don't make sense." My point is that I'm a source for information that you should use.

As always, have fun!

Natalie Yehezkel Hire 1 rounds

Last changed on Mon March 4, 2024 at 4:17 AM MDT

I did Policy in HS and College. I coached Middle/HS LD for six years, and am now coaching Policy for UWyo.

I am collecting anonymous feedback and data about my judging. If I've judged you and you'd like to contribute, please fill out the form!

Above any ideological loyalty or stylistic preference is my appreciation and need for clean, organized, structured debates.

natalieforensics@gmail.com

Mechanics of Evaluation

I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person. I vote on dropped arguments more than most people.

Major things that make me different from other judges:

I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments and in rooms with much echo. If you are unclear, I'll yell clear twice before I stop flowing. Don't slur your words together. Use complete sentences while avoiding filler words. If you've never recorded yourself giving a speech and tried to flow yourself, chances are you think you are far clearer than you really are.

Tech and Truth - it's not hard for me to see the connections between arguments. I vote on many conceded args with impacts, and heavily undercovered args. I guess that makes me more of a tech judge, but I also will be very grumpy about arguments that don't make sense, so I'll vote on them but I'll complain about having voted on them.

1ar/2nr/2ar dynamics - I like to protect the 2nr. If the arg wasn't in the 1ar or the 2ar pivot is outlandish, it can be a problem for me. That being said if the 2nr spin on the block strat is heavy, 2ars should be pointing that out as a reason to justify new 2ar args.

Speech docs- I hate having to follow along on the doc. I think debaters' flowing skills have rapidly deteriorated since judges were added to speech docs. But now, with mixed modalities, it's very much necessary. That being said, I'm not gonna base much of my decisions on your evidence unless there's a disagreement about what it says - the parts that are most relevant should be paraphrased and cited by author name and the speech they were introduced in the rebuttals.

It's also silly how often people spread through their analytics (especially on theory) as though they're highlighting within a card and expect the judge to follow along on the speech doc.

Try to be pleasant - It's not gonna swing my ballot unless it's turned into an argument, which usually has to do with critiques of how people talk.

Events that happened out of round -This is a gray area for me. I guess on some level I think you should be held accountable for things that happened that can be proven to have happened. On the other hand, how many times does someone have to lose on something for them to be free of their past? I guess that's for y'all to debate about and me to find out.

Ideologies and their Juxtapositions

K v K Debate

This is the format that the algorithm has determined I'm destined to judge the most...

Be organized. Distinguish between claim warrant and implications. Writing the story of the ballot can be crucial. Detailed perm theory about what the aff does or does not get to permute is essential for me.

Framework/T-Usfg

When I vote on Framework, there's usually an offensive answer to "you don't address the aff impacts" via a conversation about how affs that have no tie to the topic or completely foreclose upon state engagement to trade off with opportunities to learn about the values of state engagement or ways in which the topic hurts the people the aff is talking about. I do think that soft framework with interps such as "aff must defend a tangible strategy," "aff must have a connection to the resolution," "aff must be in the direction of the resolution," etc. with most of the same justifications as regular framework can be solid round winners in front of me. My neg ballots on this usually start with "the topical version of the affirmative resolves most of the aff's offense and has better inroads into dialogue/clash and advocacy/policymaking skills for the following reasons:" or because the aff undercovered switch-side debate.

Plan v K Debate

Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.

Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.

Discourse/rhetoric links: this is my jam. Neg teams answering these - perm and framework go a long way, but honestly people should sometimes just defend their rhetoric. You're not gonna have a defense of every word you use so offensive args about why the 1ac performance is net good even if it's messy or not ideologically pure. The defense of the performance of the 1ac is the key here, and what impacts it addresses. Labeling it as "the value of the performance of the 1ac outweighs the negative harms of their links" really goes a long way with me because it's a clearer contextualization of what "policymaking good" and "research on this topic is good" are actually doing for you besides getting you out of "roleplaying bad" debates. This isn't a theory arg either - you're just weighing the costs vs benefits of the 1ac speech act, in addition to a robust strategy about why my ballot should prioritize the outcomes of the plan over the performance of the speech.

Critiques based on consequences: winning the impact/root cause debate is key? Idk what else to say here.

Traditional

I did this style in High School, and while I coach a team that predominantly does traditional debate, I don't spend much time thinking about this side of the topic. My favorite traditional debates have been more technical than most. Since I'm more unfamiliar I tend to be a lot more tech over truth, given as I'm not exactly doing regular work on your politics disad or specific uniqueness claims. I am also not very knowledgeable about what many acronyms on the topic mean.

Edmund Zagorin University of Iowa 3 rounds

Last changed on Wed October 8, 2014 at 1:25 PM PDT

"There are some who believe that there is a "correct" way to debate just as there are some who believe that there is only one true religion. I am respectful of all of those who so believe but I do not think students should have those values imposed upon them."

-- Jim Gentile, legendary debate coach

I have judged a minor slew of the wild'n'crazy debates over the past few years. This has lead me to a strong appreciation of the fundamentals: line-by-line, "even if" statements and strong impact calculus. That said, I like to learn and experience new things. If you introduce me to a word or an author or a frame of thinking, I am more likely to reward you with whatever ballots mean.

My definition of a *good debate* is as follows: words are clear and discernible, arguments are distinct and comparative, speeches are well-organized and contain multiple historical and situational examples, debaters are cordial and crafty while always keeping a sense of humor, paperless wastetime is kept to a minimum and the final two speeches are spent writing my RFD.

Unless you are doing something wrong, I almost always flow cross-ex.

While not impossible, I don't typically vote for teams that solely extend defensive arguments.Since definitions of offense/defense differ among judges, mine are:

Offense = what they advocate is/leads to something that is bad/dangerous/catastrophic. Defense = something they said is incorrect/unlikely/false.

If you are using debate to fashion a new Total World-Image, you should realize that I might not care that hard. I leave you with the following kernel of empuzzling wisdom from the Haruki Murakami:

...there is nothing unusual about a dairy cow seeking a pair of pliers. A cow is bound to get her pliers sometime. It has nothing to do with me.

(Older Extra-Long Version, All Of Which Is Still True-ish)

My primary goal as a judge is to enjoyably resolve debates with a minimum quantity of my own intervention. While true tabula rasa is impossible, I think that attempting to constrain the influences on my decision to arguments in the debate is a necessary thought experiment in the interests of pedagogical competition. Therefore, I will attempt to prevent my prior knowledge of the topic, history, and certain authors or literatures from influencing my decision and will consign such interests to post-round suggestions and comments.

That being said, I have some presumptions which are generally reflected in the way I make decisions in really bad/unresolved or good/close debates, where key questions are left to the judge. If you want me to judge in a different way, then you should introduce a judgment calculus as an argument in the debate itself and tell me how you’d like things resolved. Below are a list of some of my considered presumptions.

STRUCTURE

Debate is a game — it is supposed to be fun and it is supposed to stimulate participants’ intellect. Rules and constraints on arguments are a vital element of motivating this stimulation, in the same way that constraints on poetic forms motivate novel plays of language. Debating the rules, the framework and the impact calculus within that framework has always been a component of winning debates. This is true whether the framework argument concerns a stipulation that the affirmative defend the minimum number of votes necessary for legislative passage, that the judge is a logical policy-maker, that the affirmative must defend a topical plan or that every debater must answer the cross-ex questions posed to them. Fiat and policy implementation are black boxes that can be uniquely unpacked in every debate for strategic gain, whether via an intrinsicness argument or an argument about one’s personal connection to the topic.

Line-by-line is pretty important — it’s how I flow and my flow typically dictates how I decide debates. If there is a compelling reason not to decide a debate on dropped arguments, tell me what it is during the debate and if the other team drops it I’ll make a good-faith effort to embrace your paradox. Conceded arguments may be treated as true, but the scope of that truth is limited by arguments which remain contested. I try to remain vigilant of new arguments in final speeches.

Scope matters — an argument that is thesis-level is more powerful and wide-ranging than a specific argument, but because there are more opportunities for counter-example, general arguments are logically easier to disprove. If you concede the truth of a thesis-level claim without taking the opportunity to find a counter-example, then you should not be surprised when the debate is decided at the level of generalities. See Karl Popper’s explanation of Occam’s Razor for an explanation of the logic behind this.

Warrant depth and diversity are key — it’s how I decide most contests between given claims. Counter-intuitive, improbable and morally repugnant claims are totally winnable with diverse and high-quality warrants.

Cheap shots aren’t a great idea — I’m a pretty good flow but I have a high threshold for clarity. If you mumbled out a voting issue or trick perm in pig latin that the other team missed there’s a decent chance I missed it too. I won’t vote on an argument that I didn’t record during a speech unless all four debaters agree that it was made or concede the same

Offense/defense is standard — with some obvious exceptions it seems like everyone wants to debate this way, so I’m happy to go along with it. I do think there are serious problems with the logic of offense/defense, most easily highlighted in debates over the link differential between a plan and counterplan. I am also susceptible to offense/defense bad arguments (“Arguments are sentences that are either true or false…the counterplan either links to the DA or doesn’t… therefore link differential as a concept is incoherent… you’re either pregnant or you’re not”), but I’m sure there are good responses to such objections

THEORY

Remedy is the most important question for theory debates. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise prior to the final rebuttals.

Conditionality is usually a good thing, but then again it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Nuanced theory is key — I’m more sympathetic to the aff if conditional advocacies contradict or steal the aff in some way, as opposed to the debate over whether or not conditionality in the abstract is good or bad.

Postround conditionality is sweet for the negative but terrible for the aff. I am very sympathetic theoretical objections against it. I won’t kick arguments for the negative unless explicitly told to, and then only if the aff doesn’t object.

Permutations are tests of a link unless explained otherwise. If there is a link argument extended by the negative, then it must be explained how the permutation resolves the link arguments.

DISADS

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link if decisively won by either team — otherwise I’ll evaluate all arguments probablistically via offense/defense

Diverse case turn arguments are a great way to persuade me that you’ve won the debate

I find that I begin most of my decisions by looking at impact uniqueness — the part of debate that determines whether or not either side truly controls “try-or-die”. If a team decisively controls impact uniqueness, then I may be inclined to vote for them even if they appear to be losing much of the rest of the debate.

Extreme-low-risk causal chains fall within the penumbra of statistical noise and in principle only dictate possibility rather than probability. In other words, if you lose a key defensive argument on a DA, you have proven that the link-chain suggested by the DA is possible, but not probable. Because lots of things are possible, the fact that the DA is possible may not be significant in my decision.

COUNTERPLANS

PICs done right are some of my favorite arguments. Case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates are awesome

Counterplans that steal the aff are probably unfair for the aff to have to debate — I’m more aff-leaning on condition/consult than most

Cross-ex is the best way to establish competition

Solvency advocates in general are preferable but not a must

KRITIKS

Specificity is key — if you aren’t pointing to specific 1AC cards to do link analysis then you are depriving yourself of both a speaker point opportunity and strategic advantage

Think through what the alt is — if you get embarrassed on the alt being vague and/or naive and/or dumb in cross-ex then I may feel hard-pressed to vote for you

Floating PIKs are silly but really strategic — if you make them too sneakily in the block and then claim that they were “dropped” I think the 2ar probably gets a few new-ish logical answers

CROSS-EX

I flow it sometimes, it’s binding and vital for speaker points

INTERNETS

Only use it for research questions during debates — fine for Wikipedia checks or to get the context of a full article, not cool to open an email with a bunch of new updates half-way through the debate. If you want to use time during a debate to cut a cards, that’s your own business

SPEAKER POINTS

I give speaker points for rhetorical and persuasive flourish, use of historical examples and creative analogies, humor and technical talent. I may lower points for debaters who fight with or interrupt their partner, are cruel or disrespectful to their opponents, who prompt excessively, who make poor use of cross-ex. I will also punish the speaker points of debaters who use prejudicial or discriminatory language in a debate, or violate ethical norms of conduct.

ETHICS

I don’t vote on ethics challenges. There are other remedies that solve better, and I don’t think that it is worth ruining an entire debate over one person’s opinion of what constitutes “community norms” or “ethical practices”. That being said, please don’t lie, cheat, steal, cross-read, fabricate evidence, text/chat with your coaches during a debate and so on — it fosters a weakness of spirit if you get away with it and makes you look pathetic and/or stupid if called out on it.

PERFORMANCE

Arguments are arguments, whether made by voice, image, song or body. That being said, sometimes it’s difficult for me to flow the warrants of the body, so make sure you explain your arguments in plain language. I appreciate rhetorical debating, and will give higher speaker points for performances that look like some effort was put into composition and rehearsal.

I find that reading evidence often distracts from / undermines the rhetorical force of a performance. I appreciate warranted argumentation — you don’t need to hand me a lot of evidence.

Your opponents influence the way that I judge your solvency. Make sure that the other team understands what you’re argument is, or at very least give them the opportunity to understand. Performance teams whose arguments are excessively complicated, vague or constantly morphing can undermine their own raison d’etre.

I am more sympathetic to performances that either justify the resolution or have advocacy statements that are germane to the topic. I think that topicality and framework are different arguments. Make sure you can defend your education in the context of the education facilitated by the resolution.

Alex Zendeh Whitman College 4 rounds

Login to Tabroom

2015 Kathryn Klassic Cal State Fullerton

2015 — CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (big picture):

Things someone could reasonably disagree with me about (small picture):

Logistics:

Judges