For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

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

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

All events

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

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

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

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

Public Forum

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

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

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

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

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

Lincoln-Douglas

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

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

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

Policy

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

Counterplans/theory:

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

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

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

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

Kritiks:

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

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

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

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

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

Pre-Districts Update 2015

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

November 2013

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

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

THINGS I WOULD LIKE:

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

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

CURRENT PET PEEVES:

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

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

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

THE SPECIFICS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28.0-28.9: Nice job. Particularly solid work.

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

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

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

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

Neil Butt -- Vanderbilt University

District: 6

CEDA Region: Southeast

I have judged ADA/CEDA/NDT since: 1992

I have judged policy debate since: 1988

Background:

I debated for George Mason University 1988-1992.

I coached for George Mason University 1992-2000.

I coached for John Carroll University 2000-2005.

I coached for Wayne State University 2005-2008.

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

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

***Updates for October 2018***

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

Framework (Modified again)

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

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

Short Version: Be Nice. Be Clear.

Basic Stuff

Judging time

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

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

Prep time

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

Arguments

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

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

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

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

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

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

The Rest

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

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

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

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

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

ADA Rules

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

More Detail

Judging time

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

Prep time

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

Frameworks, Projects, Performance, etc.

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

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

Clarity/Flow/Responsiveness

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

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

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

So…

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

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

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

Hello!

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

I'm fun!

Sometimes I even have snacks.

<*Judging Quirks*>

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

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

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

<*My Debate History*>

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

High School

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

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

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

College

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

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

Coaching

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former grad assistant at Vanderbilt (2012-2013)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brandon Evans

Assistant Coach at Vanderbilt University 2014-present

Debated at Binghamton University 2011-2014

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ryan Galloway

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stylistic issues:

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

I'm originally from Texas and debated the Dallas circuit in policy for Grapevine High School.  I debated some for Trinity University in undergrad, and am now working on a dual masters in envirometnal science and public affairs at IU Bloomington.  I mostly went for policy arguments, but did some K work as welll.  I'll listen to just about anything as long as everything is clear, well explained, and not obviously morally repugnant.

I do have some biases.  As a scientist interested in policy, I really like for K alternatives to be clear and contectualized.  I want to see how the alternative will make thigns better, although that can be at different scales.  You will also have an uphill battle convincing me that science isn't good and that climate change isn't real.  I really like clear impact framing, and frequently look to this to decide rounds.

Andrew.j.hart@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

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.

Enslen Lamberth Crowe

Former University of Alabama Debater, Former Debate Coach at Isidore Newman

Disclaimer: I have not judged a college debate round in about 9 years. However, I debated for 4 years at Alabama under Dr. Carrie Crenshaw. Ed Lee was my teammate and graduate assistant. I was also a high school policy debater and later a coach. I was very active in the debate community up until I went back to law school about 9 years ago.

So, I am very familiar with policy debate but you might be well advised to go a bit slower with me in the beginning.

1.       I am comfortable with both “traditional” policy arguments as well as critical/Kritik arguments. I ran and coached both. However, a “spew fest” of critical evidence would be my least favorite round. Be able to explain your critique as well as provide the “evidence.” If I don’t understand it, I am probably not going to vote on it.

2.       I will vote on Topicality-HOWEVER, remember I have not judged on this topic, so do not make assumptions about what is “clearly” topical or “clearly” not topical.

3.       I will deduct speaker points for rudeness.

4.       I will reward good cross-x with speaker point bonuses.

5.       Dropped argument does not mean you win. You must explain the significance/impact of the dropped argument to the round and why it is reason to vote for you/against the other team.

6.       Telling me how to interpret your evidence versus their evidence is what speaker points are made of and greatly help me decide the round.

7.       Again, I haven’t been out for too terribly long (although I am probably a dinousaur to most of y’all) but please explain any topic unique jargon/acronyms the first time you use them if you can.

8.       If you have any specific questions, please ask.

Thanks, and have fun!
Enslen

Open to all styles of policy debate. 20+ Years coaching college policy, 20+ years teaching policy at high school camps. Detailed philosophy removed due to lack of site security. email to lundeensb at gmail with any questions

College nuclear weapons topic - I have not been actively coaching/researching this season so keep that in mind in assuming my depth of topic knowledge or "where the community is" on any issue.

**standard operating procedure: 1) yes, if you are using an e-mail chain for speech docs, I would like to be on it: mikaela.malsin@gmail.com. The degree to which I look at them varies wildly depending on the round; I will often check a couple of cards for my own comprehension (because y'all need to slow down) during prep or sometimes during a heated cross-ex, but equally often I don't look at them at all. 2) After the debate, please compile all evidence that *you believe* to be relevant to the decision and e-mail them to me. I will sort through to decide which ones I need to read. A card is relevant if it was read and extended on an issue that was debated in the final rebuttals.

updated pre-Shirley, 2013 

Background: I debated for four years at Emory, completed my M.A. in Communication and coached at Wake Forest, and am now in my 2nd year of the Ph.D. program at Georgia.

global thoughts: I take judging very seriously and try very hard to evaluate only the arguments in a given debate, in isolation from my own beliefs. I'm not sure that I'm always successful. I'm not sure that the reverse is true either.  In the limited number of "clash" debates that I've judged, my decisions have been based on the arguments and not on predispositions based on my training, how I debated, or how my teams debate. 

speaker points: I will use the following scale, which (while obviously arbitrary to some degree)  I think is pretty consistent with how I've assigned points in the past and what I believe to represent the role of speaker points in debate. I have never assigned points based on whether I think a team "should clear" or "deserves a speaker award" because I don't judge the rest of the field in order to make that determination, I judge this particular debate. EDIT: I think the scale published for the Shirley is very close to what I was thinking here.

Below 27.5: The speaker has demonstrated a lack of  basic communication. 

27.5-27.9: The speaker demonstrates basic debate competency and argumentation skills. Some areas need substantial improvement.

28.0-28.4: The speaker demonstrates basic argumentation skills and a good grasp on the issues of importance in the debate. Usually shows 1-2 moments of strong strategic insight or macro-level debate vision, but not consistently. 

28.5-28.9: Very solid argumentative skills, grasps the important issues in the debate, demonstrates consistent strategic insight.

29-29.5: Remarkable argumentative skills, understands and synthesizes the key issues in the debate, outstanding use of cross-ex and/or humor.

29.6-29.9: The speaker stands out as exceptionally skilled in all of the above areas.

30: Perfection.

Critical arguments: My familiarity is greater than it used to be but by no means exhaustive.  I think  that the "checklist" probably matters on both sides.

Topicality: I believe in "competing interpretations" with the caveat that I think if the aff can win sufficient defense and a fair vision of the topic (whether or not it is couched in an explicit C/I of every word), they can still win. In other words: the neg should win not only a big link, but also a big impact. 

CP’s: Yes. The status quo is always a logical option, which means the CP can still go away after the round. (Edit: I am willing to stick the negative with the CP if the aff articulates, and the neg fails to overcome, a reason why.) Presumption is toward less change from the status quo. 

DA’s: Big fan. At the moment, I probably find myself slightly more in the “link first” camp, but uniqueness is certainly still important. There CAN be zero risk of an argument, but it is rare. More often, the risk is reduced to something negligible that fails to outweigh the other team's offense (edit: this last sentence probably belongs in the all-time "most obvious statements" Judge Philosophy Hall of Fame). 

Theory: RANT is the default. Probably neg-leaning on most issues, but I do think that we as a community may be letting the situation get a little out of control in terms of the numbers and certain types of CP’s. I think literature should guide what we find to be legitimate to the extent that that is both possible and beneficial. 

Good for speaker points: Strategic use of cross-examination, evidence of hard work, jokes about Kirk Gibson (edit: these must be funny) 

Bad for speaker points: Rudeness, lack of clarity, egregious facial hair.

Jadon Marianetti - Assistant Coach @ UFlorida. Debated @ Univ. West Georgia for 5 Years 05-10 (4 NDTs). Debated at Leland HS San Jose, CA

For me debate is generally a game whose rules and contents are to be decided by the debaters.I don’t have particular argument preferences but put a large emphasis on warrants, quality of evidence and strategic deployment.I default to the offense-defense policy maker paradigm, unless told otherwise.

T - I think affirmatives should be resolutionally grounded.T is a debate over competing interpretations

DA’s - This is classic negative strategy and it’s pleasant to watch if executed properly.I’m sympathetic to affirmatives who debate dumb disads and point out obvious internal link problems analytically and in CX.

Case – A good case debate demonstrates that both teams have done a lot of in-depth research on the topic resulting in clash and education which pleases me.

CP’s – I think the neg should have a decent amount of cp ground and use it.I don’t particularly like cp theory debates but understand their necessary.I think affirmatives should use CP abuse stories to justify a perm.

K’s – Kritik debates are fine except when an inexperienced and poorly read debater tries to read advanced philosophy as fast as he/she can without explaining it.Don’t expect that I have read the literature or have prior knowledge to arguments you are making.

Theory – I think of theory as a game of competing interpretations.I would prefer not to watch a theory debate but I understand that it’s part of the game.An actual in round abuse story and a nuanced explanation of theory at its fundamental impact level would help make decisions easier.

Debate should be fun... Don't be unpleasant... Make me laugh please!

Assistant Director of Debate -- UTD... YOU SHOULD COME DEBATE FOR US BECAUSE WE HAVE SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE

So I really dont want to judge but if you must pref me here's some things you should know.

Arguments I wont vote on ever

Pref Sheets args

Things outside the debate round

Death is good

General thoughts

Tl:Dr- do you just dont violate the things i'll never vote on and do not pref me that'd be great.

Line by Line is important.

I generally give quick RFDs this isnt a insult to anyone but I've spent the entire debate thinking about the round and generally have a good idea where its going by the end.

Clarity over speed (ESP IN THIS ONLINE ENVIRONMENT) if I dont understand you it isnt a argument.

****NEW THOUGHTS FOR THE NDT**** I generally dont think process CPs that result in the aff are competitive -- I'm more likely to vote on perm do both or the PDCP if push comes to shove... could I vote on it sure but I generally lean aff on these cps.

Online edit -- go slower speed and most of your audio setups arent great. (See what I did there)

Only the debaters debating can give speeches.

I catch you clipping I will drop you. So suggest you dont and be clear mumbling after i've said clear risk me pulling the trigger.

ecmathis AT gmail for email chains... but PLEASE DONT PREF ME

Longer thoughts

Can you beat T-USFG in front of me if your not a traditional team.... yes... can you lose it also yes. Procedural fairness is a impact for me. K teams need to give me a reason why I should ignore T if they want to win it. Saying warrantless claims impacted by the 1AC probably isnt good enough.

Aff's that say "Affirm me because it makes me feel better or it helps me" probably not the best in front of me. I just kinda dont believe it.

Reading cards-

I dislike reading cards because I do not fell like reconstructing the debate for one side over another. I will read cards dont get me wrong but rarely will I read cards on args that were not explained or extended well.

K-There fine I like em except the death good ones.

In round behavior- Aggressive is great being a jerk is not. This can and will kill your speaks. Treat your opponents with respect and if they dont you can win a ballot off me saying what they've done in round is problematic. That said if someone says you're arg is (sexist, racist, etc) that isnt the same as (a debater cursing you out because you ran FW or T or a debater telling you to get out of my activity) instant 0 and a loss. i'm not about that life.

Len Neighbors                       Judging Philosophy
Wake Forest University                   

Technical Information You Should Know.

+My flow leaves something to be desired, but it always did and I have come to believe that this is not necessarily a liability.  I can hear and understand rapid debates, but slowing a bit when you need to be sure I get something written down is a good idea.

+Citations are not arguments. Ideally, the last few rebuttals should focus on warrants.

+I am probably not going to read a lot of evidence.  I will read evidence to resolve questions of fact, to determine the level of support for a claim, or to check for problems in reasoning pointed out during the debate, but if your ideal debate is one where large piles of evidence are sifted through by the judge, then I am not your ideal judge.

+Generic bad, specific good. This goes for links, counterplan solvency, critical arguments and their answers, cross examination questions, and plan texts.

+Choose early and choose often. Nothing in this judge philosophy should lead you to believe having more arguments in the late rebuttals is better.

Proclivities.

These are not rules in the sense that I enforce them regardless of what happens in the debate. You should be aware, however, that the other direction on these questions is often an uphill battle.

+I would like to think that I am open-minded about debate arguments, but in practice this is sticky. Whenever people have to decide what is more likely, more important, or more persuasive, those decisions are informed by how they view themselves. I’m about as politically, socially, and economically conservative as a person in mainstream America can be. I, of course, think of this entirely pragmatic, reasonable, and morally sound. 

+I think of the activity as a sport whose purpose is competition.  To that end, the ability for each team to compete fairly is the deciding factor in debates about theory.  To me, conditionality and multi-actor fiat are good examples of theory arguments that make a debate unfair to one side or the other.

+If I have to choose between competitive equity and education, I will choose competitive equity. While education does play a role in debate, proving that something is important to talk about is only useful if talking about that thing preserves the fairness of a predictable topic. I prefer to see debates about the topic. This doesn’t mean I don’t vote for the K, but it does mean I will be more persuaded by the K if it is intrinsic to the topic. And “You use the state” doesn’t count as the topic, in my book. In the same vein, the Affirmative should present a topical plan.

+If you go for the K, have a realistic alternative. “Rethinking” sounds to me very much like doing nothing. Many judges self-identify as academics, but I self-identify as a businessman, a pragmatist, and a teacher. Over the years, I have discovered that this has a noteworthy impact on what I consider to be a “solution”.

+I also haven’t read a lot of modern philosophy because I don’t enjoy it. And by “modern”, I mean “unavailable to George Washington”. If you need me to understand an important philosophical concept for your argument to make sense, you’ll want to explain.

+I am willing to say that there is zero link of a disad.  I am also willing to say there is zero solvency for an advantage. I think something missing from the more recent debates I have judged is a healthy sense of incredulity. Both teams will say a couple of reasonable things, and both teams will also say a series of preposterous things, and then the teams will conspire to make them indistinguishable.  Perhaps this is because the preposterous things have larger terminal impacts, but that doesn’t interest me nearly as much as probability, subjection of internal links to reason, and the application of evidentiary standards to solvency and link evidence.

+I am probably not the best judge for your politics disad. I often think the evidence read doesn’t meet any reasonable standard of evidence, and many of the common internal link arguments (horsetrading, political capital, etc.) don’t actually work in the real world the way they must be described in debate in order for the politics disad to be a force in being.

I've been the Director of Debate at the US Naval Academy since 2005. I debated at Catholic University in the late 90s/early 2000s.

Put me on the doc thread: danielle.verney@gmail.com. Please use the wiki as much as possible!

Four things I hate--this number has gone up:

1. WASTING TIME IN DEBATES--what is prep time? This isn't an existential question. Prep time is anything you do to prepare for a debate. That means when it's start time for the debate, everyone should be READY TO START--restrooms visited, water gathered, stand assembled, doc thread started, timer in hand, snacks ready for your judge (jk). Any of these things that need to happen during a debate are technically prep time and thus should probably happen either during your prep or the other team's prep. The 2:15 decision deadline is an unequivocal good because it makes me 100% more likely to get a reasonable amount of sleep at night which makes me a better judge/coach/administrator/human, but y'all need to get better at managing your time to make it work.

2. Elusiveness (especially in Cross-Ex but during speeches too): “I don’t know” is an acceptable answer. Taking your questioner on a goose-chase for the answer to a simple question is not. Pretending you don't know how the plan works or what it does or that there are a whole bunch of ways it MIGHT happen is not persuasive to me, it just makes it look like you don't know what's going on. Answer the counterplan; tell me it's cheating--I'm one of the like 5 judges in the community who believe you.

3. Debaters who get mad that I didn’t read their one piece of really sweet evidence. If you want me to understand the warrants of the evidence and how they compare to the warrants of the other team’s evidence, maybe you should talk about them in one of your speeches. Read less bad cards and talk about the good ones more--tell me how your one good card is better than their 12 bad ones.

4. Rudeness. Don’t be rude to your partner, don’t be rude to the other team, and DEFINITELY don’t be rude to me. Excessive cursing is frowned upon (louder for the people in the back). Conversely, if you are nice, you will probably be rewarded with points. Entertain me. I enjoy pop culture references, random yelling of "D7", humorous cross-x exchanges, and just about any kind of joke. I spend a LOT of time judging debates, please make it enjoyable, or at least not uncomfortable.

Performance/Ks of Debate:

I’m going to be painfully honest here and say that I don’t like performance debate or critiques of current debate practices. I’m also going to state the obvious and say that I really like policy debate. Why? Well, I guess it’s the same reason that some people root for the Yankees over the Red Sox—I’m evil. Actually, it’s because I think there are a lot of specific educational benefits to traditional policy debate that you can’t get anywhere else. There might be a lot of educational benefits to performances, but I think that you can get those benefits from doing other activities too, which isn’t necessarily true of policy-style debate. If this makes you want to strike me, I heartily encourage you to do so.

HOWEVER--the opposing team would need to advance those arguments to win the debate. Do I think status quo debate is good? Yes. Will I vote on "debate is good" without that argument having been made? No. If the opposing team concedes the framework debate or doesn't advance "status quo debate good" as their framework arg, I'm not going to vote on it, obviously; the debate would proceed as agreed to by both teams. I have judged these debates before and have voted on the arguments in the round.

Kritiks:

Whatevs, if it’s your thing, you can do it in front of me. I’m pretty smart, which means I attempt to avoid reading post-modern philosophy as much as possible, and the only languages I currently speak with any level of fluency are English and Pig Latin. This means you should probably SLOW DOWN and find a convenient time to define any words that are Greek/German/made up by an aging beatnik. The problem I have with most Ks is that they have totally sweet, awesome impacts but there’s little link to the aff (or no harder link to the aff than to the status quo), so maybe that’s something that both the aff and neg should work on in the round. I really prefer Kritiks with alternatives, and I prefer the alternative not be “reject the plan”.

Counterplans:

I think lots of counterplans (consult, international actor, conditions, etc) are probably cheating. As a director of a small school, I don't have a huge problem with cheating if you can defend it and do it well. I wouldn't make this the "A strat" for me if you've got other options, but I appreciate that there sometimes aren't any and I promise not to throw things or set the ballot on fire if you've gotta roll with it.

Not to sound like a grumpy old person (though I am) but I think conditionality run amok is hurting debate. I'm probably okay with 1 CP, 1 K, and the status quo as an option until the 2nr (test the rez from a variety of standpoints, etc). Any more than that and you're pushing my buttons. I'm about as likely to "judge kick" a CP for you as I am to kick a winning field goal for the Steelers (not gonna happen).

Disads:
There’s nothing better than a good disad. What do I mean by a good disad? Well, it should have a pretty clear, and ideally pretty specific, link to the affirmative. It should also (and here’s the part lots of debaters forget about) have some form of internal link that goes from the link to the impact. Aff—if the neg doesn’t have one of those things, you might want to point it out to me.

If your disad makes my internal BS-ometer go off I'm gonna tank your points.


Topicality/Other Procedurals:
I don’t evaluate T like it’s a disad, which I think is the current fashionable thing to say, because unlike lots of people, I don’t think your aff advantages can outweigh T in the way that the aff could outweigh a disad. So I don’t focus as much on the “best” interpretation—if the aff interp is good but not as good as the neg’s, the aff will probably win in front of me. This means I think the neg really needs to focus on the ground and limits debate—here is where you can persuade me that something is really bad.

I think topics are becoming more broad and vague, and understand negative frustration at attempting to engage in a debate about the plan's mechanism or what the plan actually does (often the very best parts of a debate in my opinion). I feel like I can be fairly easily persuaded to vote against a team that just uses resolutional language without a description of what that means in a piece of solvency evidence or a cross-examination clarification. I think neg teams will need to win significant ground loss claims to be successful in front of me (can't just roll with agent cps key) but I think I am more easily persuaded on these arguments than I have been in the past.

My default position:
I will judge the debate how you tell me. If I’m supposed to believe that I’m every citizen in America then I will. I really don’t care. Please be clear.


Counterplans:
All cp’s are legit until the aff prove otherwise. Cheat how you feel and the aff should be making as many theory arguments as they can.

Kritiks:
I ran the K for the majority of my college time. Explain your link story, how it turns the aff, how your alt functions and how it interacts with the aff. If not, I’ll have to vote on “case outweighs, perm solves residual links”. For the aff answering the k, be smart please. Don’t just say framework and the perm double bind. Diversify your arguments and cross apply your aff scenarios to mess with the k story.

Non-traditional debate/performance:
Do what you gotta do. I’m in no position to tell you how or how not to debate. However, you probably should explain why your performance is important and how it relates to debate, the rez, the other team, me, etc. Don’t just dance or play a song and expect me to vote for you.

DA/Case:
Nothing wrong with that. If your DA is tricky then explain it. If not, keep it simple and make sure to do the proper impact analysis. In fact, start that asap.

Theory:
Conditionality is probably good. T is probably a voter. However, this and every other theory question is up for debate. Chances are I won’t flow the 6th subpoint on your theory blocks because you’re probably just speeding through it. Slow down and make your arguments as needed.

Speaker points:
Be funny, be smart, and don’t be arrogant. Debates happen too early in the morning for me to have to deal with people’s ego.

Jonathan Shane

Head coach at Florida State University

Debated at Georgia State and South Florida

Updated September 2014

 I don't have many biases that should affect your debate choices. I've heard, read, cut, voted for and voted against just about every style of argument and don't reject anything on-face.

That said, I do tend to be most impressed by clever and nuanced strategies more so than metaphorical (or literal) podium pounding.

I also tend to strongly prefer specificity over generics.

I can keep up with any speed and I'm a pretty good flower. But if you're disorganized (jumping between flows, not sign posting, reading random cards without any clear purpose) you might lose me.

Focus on warrants and explaining things in a comprehensive manner. Tag line extensions are a waste of time.

I understand that 2ACs use condo and the like as strategic devices so I can appreciate them from that respect. But I'm not super likely to vote on the tacky theory violations unless you're willing to do more than just read off some camp theory file from 2003.

I am not biased one way or another on the CP-specific theory arguments (agent, int'l, condition, etc.)

Just like a disad/case debate, I expect theory to be framed in the context of impacts (i.e. standards).

As far as the "clash of civilization" debates, please, for god's sake, don't focus solely on your own offense. Spend some time directly responding to your opponent--without actual clash, these debates are the pinnacle of repetitive rubbish.

Kritiks should portray the alternative as a solvency mechanism and explain it as such. Explain exactly how your alternative works and what the ROB/a priori value of the debate is.

I don’t give a shit about cursing or decorum. Just be respectful.

***Assuming there are no more non-paperless teams out there: Prep time ends when the usb drive leaves your computer. None of this 20  minutes to save the file bullshit. I suggest having your speech doc already on the drive so you can just hit save and be done.

Feel free to ask questions before  the round or email me

jshane@fsu.edu

Background: I debated at UGA for four years and debated at the NDT three times. Was a 2A for most of my time in debate, except my senior year.

Currently affiliations – UGA & Pace Academy.

Quick Notes –

1) Tech outweighs truth but that doesn’t mean truth isn’t important. Debate is a game and can often be decided by truth/evidence quality but if you are ahead technically in a debate, you will typically be in a good position in front of me.

This does not mean that spewing bad arguments with little or no explanation, hoping that the other team drops them, is a winning strategy. It will frustrate me, give you lower speaker points, and probably won’t win you the debate.

2) Impact calculus. It’s very important and can easily decide the debate in your favor. I will read evidence after the round but how that evidence is explained and impacted can change how I evaluate it in my decision. This is true whether the argument being discussed is T, theory, a DA, etc.

3) I consider myself as someone who enjoys and is more knowledgeable about “policy” debate. If you don’t defend something in the direction of the topic, I am more easily persuaded by negative topicality arguments. I also tend to be persuaded by arguments about institution engagement, especially on legal topics like this year’s topic.

While these are my predispositions, that doesn’t mean they are hard rules. You will be best suited doing what you do best in front of me. If you want me to use a different standard for impact comparison or want to defend a non-topical affirmative, you can still win my ballot. I’ll do my best to not intervene and let you all hash it out, but those are my biases.

Specific thoughts –

Counterplans – The more case-specific, the better. I lean aff against many counterplans such as those that compete off of normal means, certainty/immediacy, or other shenanigans: consult CP’s, agent CP’s, Intl Actor CP’s, Process CP’s. I lean neg when it comes to counterplans that directly test the mechanism of the plan or are specific, such as PICS. That being said, I can persuaded otherwise because of #1 above (tech o/w truth). Aff teams have to make the smart permutation and theory arguments against cheating counterplans and if they drop the ball, it can be an easy neg ballot.

Disads – 0% risk of a DA is possible. Just because it was in the 1NC and block does not mean the DA makes sense. When compelling aff arguments are coupled with statements on why I should grant zero risk, it’s possible I do.

Kritik – It was never my strong suit as a debater but I dabbled. If you want to go for the K, pull out all the tricks, explain how the alt functions, what framework I should use and what the implication of that are (i.e. is alt solvency irrelevant, should I privilege your impact over the 1AC, etc.), and how the impact interacts with the affirmative. I like a link that is well explained in the context of the aff. I think the best place for affirmatives to attack the K is the alternative. For the most part, my knowledge base is lower so explanation on your part will be more important to win these arguments.

T – I default to competing interpretations but can easily be persuaded by reasonability. T is a voter and never a reverse voting issue. Make sure you explain which standard is the most important when I evaluate these debates.

Theory – Theory is mostly just a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Tech over truth does not mean spewing bad theory arguments and hoping the other team drops it so you can win the ballot. Saying “not intrinsic” is not an argument and if the neg drops such a statement with no explanation, I’m not voting aff.  If it was well explained in the 2AC, and you dropped it, then that’s a different story even if I think it is a bad argument.

I lean negative when it comes to conditionality, to a point. 1 CP and 1 K is probably fine. Beyond that, you are doing so at your own risk. Maybe it is just me, but as a former 2A (admittedly faster than most), sometimes this comes off more as complaining too much instead of answering arguments you could have. Proving abuse in round can sway me the other way on this (such as how the 2AC was dramatically affected in a way that helped the neg).

Speaker Points –

Good things: Funny Jokes, evidence of hard work, good cross-x, and clarity

Bad things: Being rude and not being clear

Sean Slattery
Samford University
Fourth Year Judging
GSU 2013

Though I am more experienced with the "policy" form of debate, I do my best to evaluate what I have written down in front of me regardless of content. I prefer to judge rounds that are related to the topic in some capacity; the more esoteric the argument, the less competent my judging becomes.

Given the legal depth of this topic, there is an additional burden on you to explain the nuances of whatever process or policy you are discussing. Simply put, I haven't researched or memorized every Supreme Court case related to the resolution, so please do your best to unpack these details in a flowable manner. 

When it comes to "critical" and "non-traditional" arguments, I am what some call a "checklist" judge. I vote on these arguments not because I am exceptionally familiar with the literature base of the K / non-traditional genre, but because debaters frequently mishandle "a priori" and "inevitabillity" claims.

Counterplans that compete off the word "should" or "resolved" are dubiously competitive. 

Stating an argument is not the same as making an argument. I communicate just as much as you do during round - it's just a question of whether or not you notice. In an ideal world, you would consider what's on my flow during your speech just as often as you'd consider what's on yours. 

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.

I debated for 3 years in local Arkansas high school debate and 4 years at Vanderbilt University. I am an assistant coach with the Vanderbilt debate team while I am in medical school there.

My judging philosophy is dependent on the philosophies of those who helped teach me how to debate (Cameron Norris and Neil Butt are two examples), so reading theirs if mine seems lacking is a good idea.

Most importantly, I don't want to have to lean on my predilections too much -- for (almost) any argument, I will simply vote for the side who did the better debating in the round. I'm a big fan of evidence, so you can gain some ground back if you're getting "out teched" by another team, but your evidence is way better. With that being said, I will not reconstruct debates after the round and will look to my flow for which arguments to evaluate.

An argument is a claim and a warrant. Decent argument + warrant > great argument without warrant - as long as you point out that they are talking out of their ass.

Below you'll find some of my predispositions for certain types of arguments:

Topicality/framework/plans: Having debated in a traditional style for 7 years and being influenced by those around me, I will default to the assumption that the affirmative is defending a policy option that represents real-world implementation of actions that affirm the resolution.

Given the lack of "federal government" in this topic stem, I am much more open to interpretations of what a "policy option" is than I would have been otherwise, but my personal knowledge base is centered around governmental action. Keep that in mind. 

Ultimately, I find affirmatives that perform a K of debate without addressing the topic myopic and self-serving. Sometimes they can be very educational, but I often find that the affirmative is constructed in a way to obfuscate the topic and defend a self-serving, one-sided issue. The world can be quite discriminatory and these are important problems to talk about, but I feel that they should framed within the context of the topic.

How to win T/FW debates in front of me on the aff/neg: Be specific and focus on the impacts (standards) of your position. Negative: realize that my personal bias is that the round should be topic-focused, but I will try my hardest to not do you any favors if you defend this position poorly. Affirmative: realize that I enjoy the detail-oriented educational debate that traditional policy options promote and convince me that this sort of discussion is impossible for certain groups of people (or inherently flawed) on this topic and you can get my ballot. Admittedly, these debates will be the hardest for me to keep my personal predilections out of, but I will try my hardest.

Kritiks: I think they are incredibly strategic, if run properly. Here is what properly means: you have a clearly articulated specific link to the affirmative, you can explain to me what the impacts for that link are, and you have a proposed solution to fix it or a reason why that link makes voting aff impossible. Notice that the word specific was underlined. Notice again that it was bolded. My threshold for "you use the state" type links is incredibly high and will be willing to vote aff on a defensive no-link argument. With that being said, I think I am more leinent for alternatives than other people, as long as you can explain it in plain english. *Disclaimer*: I was a philosophy major in college and can understand most critical theory literature, but often found myself befuddled by explanations of alternatives by other teams in rounds. As a judge, I will not let this slide. If you are as confused about your alternative as the other team is, that is not a reason to vote negative. I am not a fan of the "dance around answers so that the K seems mysterious" strategy. I will be looking for clear explanations of the alt early in the debate -- not for them to magically appear in the 2NR.

For "reps" Ks or reasons that it should be impossible for me to vote aff: I think I have a soft spot for these arguments. I believe that the affirmative should be ready to defend the assumptions of their authors and if the negative can explain to me why that assumption complicates your arguments, I will reject the aff. The impact needs to be clearly articulated, though. I find it hard to vote negative on these arguments without a clear explanation for why the assumptions complicate affirmative solvency.

Theory: I come into theory debates with very few preconceptions. I will be looking for well-warranted (read: not tag line extensions) arguments on both sides and will evaluate them in the same offense-defense paradigm that I do other arguments. Conditionality: The negative probably gets one CP and one K as long as the aff doesn't point out serious loss of argument they suffered becuase they had to answer both. Anything more is up for debate. Politics theory: Intrinsicness makes very little since, so my threshold is higher for this argument, but I will vote on it if well-articulated. Bottom of the docket, vote no, etc. -- These make more sense to me and I have no idea why aff teams don't use them more. CP Theory: Really neutral here. Negative - be creative; Affirmative - tell me why their creativity was abusive. Reject the argument not the team is my default unless persuaded otherwise.

Topicality: Competiting interpretations makes more sense than reasonability to me, but I will hear you out. I view topicality debates with links and impacts like any other debate, so give your me your definition/counter-definition (link) and standards (impacts) in great detail. I will let the flow dictate my ballot on topicality. It is always a voting issue.

Speaker points: I am still figuring out my speaker point scale. Things I will reward: humor, aggressiveness (without being rude), clarity, in-depth explanations of evidence, strategic decisions, author comparisons, good use of CX and prep time. Things I will detract points for: offensiveness toward other people (swearing is fine unless someone asks you to stop), vapid catch phrases like "cold conceded," lack of organization, tag-line extentions.

Stupid arguments: Luckily this has fallen out of favor recently, but I will not vote on arguments that don't pass the common-sense threshold unless the other team really shits the bed. This refers to spark, timecube, etc. For god's sake just tell me how they are logically inconsistent and that will suffice.

I was a performance debater so naturally I am drawn more to performance/critical debates, but this is not about me its about you. So, debate however makes you feel comfortable. 

Couple things: 

Traditional debaters: I have NEVER been a traditional debater so overviews are very helpful because I am not up to date on things like politics D/A's or how much political capital the president has etc., So flushing those things out will greatly help your chances in the debate. 

I am not a huge framework judge. That means it is up to you to prove to me that it is abusive, or that there is a topical version of their aff. 

Critical/performance: 

1. Do YOU! 

2. I understand that being negative you only have to prove that the aff is bad, however, in those scenarios you need to explain why that alone is enough, because I like ways to fix things or at least try. 

3. Don't make me vote on framework! Show me that your aff is reasonably topical/ or could never be topical, or why you being topical is bad. 

4. I LOVE OVERVIEWS 

EVERYONE: 

Who I vote for is largely going to come down to who tells the best cohesive story at the end of the debate. 

Also, in any debate I love historical or just examples in general of how things play out in the real world. 

Teach me something, express yourself,  have fun, make me laugh,  don't be mean. 

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. 

History:

I have 3 years of college debate experience and mostly debated traditional policy arguments.

General:

I really like college policy debate. I like being exposed to new arguments and points of view. I like the logical breakdown of arguments with great analysis as to how the arguments relate to each other.  I think an educational and fair debate with a lot of clash is the most important contribution of this community.

I’m about as tabula rasa as they come when judging. I’m very open to any style of debate so long as its explained very clearly to me what I am voting on.

I do enjoy humor and wit and will probably reward it. Don’t try too hard. Be nice. Not saying you have to hold hands, but whatever you do don’t yell at each other. I will reward great evidence comparison.

CPs:

It’s legitimate until the other team calls you out and outdebates you on it. Although, you should probably have some external NBs. Also consult CPs suck.

Ks:

I didn’t have as much time to go deep into as much literature as I would’ve liked, but I am more than happy to vote on these args. Just make sure I understand the thesis of the arg and how it interacts with the aff (impact, link, alt analysis). The more specificity the better, including aff responses. The aff calling you out on performative contradictions might be persuasive if they debate it well.

There’s a possibility that I won’t vote on the Cap K if you own a Mac.

DA:

Probably spend a little more time on the link. Make sure they are specific, but I will vote for a generic DA if the characterization is good. Impact calc is VERY important.

Case:

Favorite part of the debate. It’s (usually) where I learn the most if it’s done well.

Theory:

Everything is up for debate, just make sure you outline in round abuse. I’m probably not going to flow everything if you just shotgun a theory block.

Non-traditional debate/Performances:

Again, I’m very tabula rasa. My enjoyment and education will diminish significantly if you can’t relate what you’re saying to the topic. I need a good role of the ballot explanation for these debates. For framework responses, please be specific to the argument at hand.

Current Director of Debate at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, previously coached at Wake Forest (2 years), University of Central Florida (2 years)

(They/Them Pronouns)

I believe debate is for the debaters. Do your thing, and do it well.

I try to leave as many of my argumentative preferences at the door as possible, but I generally believe a few things:

1. Debate is both a game and a site of activism, and the best conversations about aff and neg ground take both those functions into account.

2. Debaters who tell a story and make strategic decisions about where to apply nuance are more persuasive than those who delve into intricacy but don't frame it as part of a cohesive narrative of the round.

3. Quality > Quantity (of arguments, neg positions, etc)

4. Process > Product

Some things I love

- Mechanistic analysis- how do things happen in your scenario?

- Cards that are highlighted to include full sentences and warrants.

- Innovation.

- Getting strategically aggro in CX.

- Caring about your opponents. Just don't be the worst pls.

Yes, include me on the email chain: CVVitolo at gmail

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.