Tabroom.com

Western Novice JV Championship Tournament

2015 — CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Jared Anderson Sacramento State University 6 rounds

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

Logistics…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slammy Binley San Francisco State University 6 rounds

Sara Beth Brooks Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Mon January 22, 2024 at 4:45 AM PDT

Officially dragged back into the activity by the pandemic. I'm doing some administrative work for the Sacramento Urban Debate League. Don't expect to find me on your pref sheet but feel free to contact me at sarabeth@sudl.org if you have research questions.

Officially retired. Feel free to contact me with research questions but I'm no longer actively involved in the activity. - May 2019

I debated policy for 5 years in college and qualified twice to the NDT for UNLV. I coached policy for College Prep (Oakland) for 3 years, and policy for Wake Forest for a year.

I also have several years of high school public forum experience and occasionally judge and coach those debates, but I am not actively coaching the 2018-2019 topics.

A little more about me: white, crip[pled], queer, femme, she/her or they/them pronouns.

Three Important Things

a. If you need to communicate an access issue to me before the debate, please send me an email before the round. This is a private way for you to give me information that you do not want to share with the entire room (for example, if nonverbal communication isn't accessible to you).

b. I have an auditory processing disorder. I can flow fast, technical debate but please do not sacrifice clarity for speed. If I have to call clear repeatedly, I will just stop flowing. If music is a part of your arguments please turn the volume down a bit so that I can hear you (I understand that music/audio are important and vital to certain argumentation; you do not have to turn it off -- just adjust the volume in front of me).

c. I will listen to almost anything, with a couple of caveats; I am not interested in hearing arguments like racism good or rape good, etc, or in hearing arguments or jokes about suicide. Also if appropriating culture or literature that doesn't belong to you is the strat, please don't pref me.

Everything Else

Debate is a communicative activity. Pick an argument and defend it, and answer the other team's arguments. Be persuasive. Make claims, back them up with warrants, and please compare impacts. Make jokes. Speaker points will go up. Cards are good, contextual analysis using cards is better, comparative claims contextualized to the evidence in the round is best. I don't read much evidence so don't count on me to read the 16 cards you shadow extend in the rebuttal; it is your job to tell me why a few of them tip the debate in your direction.

As a competitor I read everything from elections to Baudrillard, but had the most competitive success with structural criticisms about ableism and disability. I valued fast, technical debate and I appreciate and understand those debates. I also did performance debate for a year and have read a lot of critical race theory, critical disability studies/crip studies, gender/queer theory, and colonialism literature. Yes I will vote on in-round rhetoric arguments, so do not use racist/cissexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic language. I will be very persuaded by a well-constructed argument about it from the other side.

I like all different styles of debate, so read arguments you are comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the debate in front of me. Speaker points are almost always between 28 and 29, adjusted for division; above or below indicates a unique round. Please remember that I am an imperfect being in the service of the imperfect god of debate, but I do promise to be attentive, work hard to understand your arguments, and try to give an RFD focused on education and how to improve for the future. One last thing: I give long RFDs, #sorrynotsorry.

Max Bugrov Fresno State 3 rounds

Ma Caliolio Sacramento State University 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri February 24, 2017 at 4:11 AM PDT

I did two years of CEDA/NDT Debate at Sacramento State University. I will be in the back asking every single time you argue a point with the question “So what?” You should have that question in your mind every time you make a point because it will help YOU elaborate it.

Show me don’t tell me. I like descriptive, persuasive story-telling. I like technology but I don’t want to hear a robot make a case. Do your best to be concise, coherent, and organized. It’s your job to elaborate your point. Don’t leave it up to me to assume you are extending evidence just because you mentioned it subtly. I will not play fill in the blanks. I’ll just leave it blank and unacknowledged.

I do my best to vote on what is run in the round and on the arguments. I appreciate overview and signposting. Tell me where you are otherwise I will spend my time having to figure out which argument you’re talking about and that means I’ll have to tune out what you’re saying at that moment. Do your best to answer ALL arguments.

I like Kritik but if you’re going to run a K, do it well. Don’t assume just because you read a bunch of cards defining that philosophical concept it means everyone understands it. Explain and elaborate, otherwise it just pisses me off.

Please be your own time keeper. I will not time ‘flashing’ but don’t take much time. I’ll just think you’re stalling.

If for any reason you are going too fast and I didn’t catch it, well--it won’t be on my flow and that’s problematic for you.

Make your case why I should vote for you. Tell me why. Do comparative analysis. Do impact calculus. Weigh your cases. Point it out and make it clear.

I have a tendency to be expressive but don’t let it distract you. It should give you an indication of what I’m thinking during the round especially if I’m doing it during your speech.

Most novices are prone to this: I don’t like sass as response to arguments. Do your best and have fun but be respectful. I give speaker points on who most articulate their points and their case. I start at 27 and go from there unless there’s a reason why I should give you below 25. If you are an experienced novice debater and your opponent is clearly very new, be nice.

And remember, in the words of Oscar Wilde, “Preparation precedes perfection”.

Nick Fletcher Sacramento State University 6 rounds

Brandon Garcia Sacramento State University 6 rounds

Stephen Goldberg Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sun January 7, 2024 at 4:20 AM PDT

I am a coach at Nevada Union, C.K. McClatchy and West Campus high schools. My general philosophy is run whatever you want, do it as fast as you want, just be clear. I will vote on just about anything except racist, sexist, homophobic etc arguments. I see my job as a judge as evaluating the evidence in the round and deciding the debate based on what is said without my intervention to the greatest degree possible.

That said, I do have a few notions about how I evaluate arguments:

Topicality -- I vote on it. I do not have any "threshold" for topicality -- either the aff is topical or it is not. That said, for me in evaluating topicality, the key is the interpretation. The first level of analysis is whether the aff meets the neg interpretation. If the aff meets the neg interpretation, then the aff is topical. I have judged far too many debates where the negative argues that their interpretation is better for education, ground etc, but does not address why the aff meets the negative interpretation and then is angry when I vote affirmative. For me if the aff meets the neg interpretation that is the end of the topicality debate.

If the aff does not meet, then I need to decide which interpretation is better. The arguments about standards should relate 1) which standards are more important to evaluate and 2) why either the negative or affirmative interpretation is better in terms of those standards (for example, not just why ground is a better standard but why the affirmative or negative interpretation is better for ground). Based on that, I can evaluate which standards to use, and which interpretation is better in terms of those standards. I admit the fact that I am a lawyer who has done several cases about statutory interpretation influences me here. I see the resolution as a statement that can have many meanings, and the goal of a topicality debate is to determine what meaning is best and whether the affirmative meets that meaning.

That said, I will reject topicality on generic affirmative arguments such as no ground loss if they are not answered. However, I see reasonability as a way of evaluating the interpretation (aff says their interpretation is reasonable, so I should defer to that) as opposed to a general statement without grounding in an interpretation (aff is reasonably to--pical so don't vote on T).

I will listen to critiques of the notion of topicality and I will evaluate those with no particular bias either way.

Theory -- Its fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument.

Disadvantages and counterplans are fine. Although people may not believe it, I am just as happy judging a good counterplan and disad debate as I am judging a K debate. I have no particular views about either of those types of arguments. I note however that I think defensive arguments can win positions. If the aff wins there is no link to the disad, I will not vote on it. If the neg wins a risk of a link, that risk needs to be evaluated against the risk of any impacts the aff wins. Case debates are good too.

Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less pursuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments.

Non-traditional affs: I am open to them but will also evaluate arguments that they are illegitimate. I think this is a debate to have (although I prefer juding substantive debates in these types of rounds). I tend to think that affs should say the topic is true in some way (not necessarily a plan of action) but I have and will vote otherwise depending on how it is debated. I do remain flow-centric in these debates unless there are arguments otherwise in the debate.

Olivia Gover Hire 6 rounds None

Will Hampton-Bruce Sacramento State University 6 rounds None

Mark A. Hernandez Sr. Hire 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 3, 2024 at 5:59 AM PDT

Overview:

Y'all know me, still the same O.G. but I been low-key
Hated on by most these nigg@s with no cheese, no deals and no G's
No wheels and no keys, no boats, no snowmobiles, and no skis
Mad at me cause I can finally afford to provide my family with groceries
Got a crib with a studio and it's all full of tracks to add to the wall
Full of plaques, hanging up in the office in back of my house like trophies
Did y'all think I'mma let my dough freeze, ho please
You better bow down on both knees, who you think taught you to smoke trees
Who you think brought you the oldies
Eazy-E's, Ice Cubes, and D.O.C's
The Snoop D-O-double-G's
And the group that said motherduck the police
Gave you a tape full of dope beats
To bump when you stroll through in your hood
And when your album sales wasn't doing too good
Who's the Doctor they told you to go see
Y'all better listen up closely, all you nigg@s that said that I turned pop
Or The Firm flopped, y'all are the reason that Dre ain't been getting no sleep
So duck y'all, all of y'all, if y'all don't like me, blow me
Y'all are gonna keep ducking around with me and turn me back to the old me

Nowadays everybody wanna talk like they got something to say
But nothing comes out when they move their lips
Just a bunch of gibberish
And motherduckers act like they forgot about Dre

Line-by-line

Semi-retired from the policy debate world few years back, but I am around for 4 years during my daughter’s high school policy debate career. Maybe another 4 after that for my son’s. Maybe even longer if they decide to debate in college. “Just when I thought I was out… they pull me back in!”

Experienced former circuit debater from the Bay Area. Previous coach in Sacramento for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. Also coached several Bay Area programs. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I spent the better part of a decade running SUDL while personally coaching several schools. I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be as clear and loud as possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email. markcorp2004@msn.com

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot for me in your 2NR/2AR.

John Kephart III CSU Northridge 3 rounds

Last changed on Sat September 3, 2016 at 8:08 AM PDT

DOF - Cal State Northridge

Competed: 8 years. Critic: 14 years

Last updated: 9-2-16 (Most recent update: General topic discussion)

I had originally said that my judging philosophy is “tabula rasa.” However, judging over the years has caused me to rethink that position somewhat. I don't think anyone can actually be a blank slate. So, instead, I have included some ways that I approach debate/debating that may be helpful for your style.

I have noticed I have a hard time hearing debaters in rounds the last couple years, so you may want to go slightly slower than top speed or speak louder if possible during analytic arguments/long K tags if you want to make sure I get all of them.

I tried to be thorough in this judging philosophy (so it is kinda long), but while I competed on the national circuit in college, I am mostly regional these days, so if I missed a question of current significance, please feel free to ask. I haven't judged a ton the last two years (2014-2016), and almost exclusively on the regional circuit, so I am probably less-versed than usual on trends in the activity. What this means for you is that if there is general agreement on the meaning/use/significance of a piece of evidence or a particular theory argument, I may not be familiar. This doesn't mean you shouldn't make/use it, but that you should probably warrant all of your claims and not rely on general community agreement as that warrant.

Role of the Judge/My Preferences

I am an educator outside of debates and view myself as such within debates. I will do my best to comment on how to use our experiences together in debate as a learning experience. As such, don't work to change your style because you are debating in front of me. I will still listen to any type of argument. I am as comfortable with politics/CP/case disadvantages as I am with philosophical discussions in critical and performance literature.

I will do my best to decide the debate how the debaters ask that I decide the debate. What I list below are my default positions, so absent any argumentation on the question, this is where I lean. This does NOT mean you will automatically pick up my ballot if your argument is in line with my default. If contested, you still need to win that your argument is true/relevant in the debate you are in, regardless of what I say here. I often vote against my own preferences.

While I will vote against my own preferences, I have found that I have the most difficulty removing myself from the debate with arguments that say people should be excluded from debates versus debating about the utility/agency/ability of perspectives that people speak from, within, or toward.

I agree that race, class, gender, ability, sexual identity, nation of origin, faith, and a host of other markers of identity have profound effects on our capacity to deliberate, discuss, engage in activism, or recognize, challenge, or otherwise engage our privilege. I see that as a starting point for discussion, not as a warrant to exclude someone from the debate. We participate in a communicative activity. I am happy (or at least willing) to listen to arguments about perspectives that should or should not be included. I will not tolerate arguments that suggest people themselves should be removed from the activity.

Framework/Performance/The Res:

I think that critical, philosophical, and performance based arguments are a valuable component to forensics - which means that I think that both the affirmative and the negative should be able to use critical arguments to generate offense.

Does that mean that I value critical arguments OVER more policy-oriented arguments? No. But what it does mean is that I default to believing that affs should get to use critical advantages to weigh against disads, and that negatives should get to run criticisms against the affirmative.

That being said, you can still have your realism good/PoMo bad debates versus the K. I have voted for “realism is inevitable – your K is idealistic and ineffective” about as often as I have voted for “your war impact claims are inevitable unless we criticize.”

I think a primary problem in a lot of these debates is that there is either no in-depth discussion of method (despite using the words "our/their method"), which leads to (a) no clear articulation by the aff as to what an aff vote accomplishes if we aren't passing a policy - just because you say the words "role of the ballot" doesn't mean you have explained what that role is and/or (b) how the neg arguments turn the aff if they aren't tied to political action outside of the debate as an end goal. Often, this results in a lack of clash where the aff says they don't need fiat, but don't say what they do need, and the neg says the activism the aff never really advocated will be bad activism. Some clear discussion of method and function of the advocacy in the round will not only generate clash, but make the resolution of the debate far easier.

It seems to be relevant to let folks know whether or not I read/have read critical theory for fun and/or profit. I have done both. My doctorate is in rhetoric, cultural studies, and gender studies, so I have read a fair amount of that literature. That does not mean that I default towards this lit, or that I am any more likely to value it over other forms of argumentation, just that I am fairly well versed in it. I actually don't hear as many disads as I would like.

My default position is that affirmatives have to defend the resolution. I do believe that topic specific education is good and finding creative ways to be topical stimulates critical thinking. I think it is entirely possible for affirmatives to be critical/perform and defend the resolution. This year, we should be talking about whether it would be a good idea for the USFG to establish a climate policy to reduce emissions to some degree in the debate. Again, I have voted for aff teams that don't defend the resolution - this is just my default.

Thus, framework arguments on both sides of the debate need to be well articulated and warranted with specific impacts for how I situate myself as a judge/critic/spectator/educator/policymaker.

Topicality: Interpretations must be well articulated, and voters well explained. Potential for abuse is potentially a voter – debate it out. I enjoy well articulated T debates, but am often frustrated with the lack of comparison of impacts, or how standards/internal links relate to one another (i.e.: predictability v education). If you would like to win my ballot on T, explain these types of things.

Theory: I don’t lean one way or the other on theory (Dispo/PICS/etc). I do have a pretty low threshold for conceded theory arguments that are well articulated, and will vote on them if they are there. I will not vote on them JUST because they are there – that is the “well articulated” part. If you are going for theory, you should not be going top speed. For contested theory I would say I have a medium threshold - not particularly high or low.

Disads: I don't tend to think there is 100% defense, but I also can be persuaded to substantially mitigate that risk through both evidence and analytics. I often lament that there is no discussion of how the disad impacts relate to the case advantages. Generic links and turns can be made specific by analytics/discussion if well articulated - they can also be made irrelevant the same way. Which is really just my way of saying you should actually debate the link instead of competing over who can read more 2 line cards that are plan-adjacent.

Counterplans: See disads and theory. I think artificial competition is an argument that has more utility than is currently being used. I also think that permutations should be accompanied with a text and more nuanced than "do both", but if the neg let's the aff get away with it, so be it.

General in-round/deciding issues:

Paperless/Prep: While a great idea, paperless debate tends to annoy me. Consider this the "get off my lawn" section of my philosophy.

I think debaters rely too much on the document jumped to them, and not enough on the debate as it is occurring. I won't be following along on the viewing computer or e-mail chain - I still think it is the debaters' responsibility to speak to me as a critic.

I also run your prep time until the document is prepared, and we are only waiting for the other team to be able to access your speech - so if that is e-mail/Dropbox link sent, or jump drive is out of your computer, your prep time is running until you have finished preparing and are able to speak.

As a general rule, I don’t read very much evidence. I tend to read more evidence in out rounds, though not by much I flow parts of the evidence, and listen for warrants. I think it is the debaters’ job to explain what their evidence says. Merely extending a cite will be ineffective. If you demand that I read all of your evidence after the debate, I almost certainly won’t. I usually call for cards when (a) there is a dispute about what the evidence says (b) I don’t believe the debaters are explaining the evidence/interpretation/plan text correctly (c) there is evidence on both sides of a question that is explained by both teams and I need to resolve it or (d) I want cites.

Similarly, evidence is good, but so are well articulated analytics. I think we rely too much on having cards for arguments instead of making smart, well reasoned arguments for why something is or is not true.

Interactions between debaters, and between debaters and their arguments:

I can’t stand people being rude or overly obnoxious in debates. If you are too rude or combative, dismissive of the other team, their argument, or their attempts to engage your argument, or generally discriminatory in approach or intent (racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, ablist, etc) I will adjust your speaker points accordingly.

Tech v truth:I am not totally flow centric - if an argument is answered in the debate, but not necessarily on the particular line that the original argument was made, I will tend to give it to you. However, that presumes that you have articulated such a response. While I don't keep a strict hi-tech flow, I will also not connect the dots for you. If your evidence/analytic answers an argument elsewhere on the flow, or responds to a class of argument (e.g.: Perception links), say so.

Speaker Points:

UPDATED: 12/30/14: After reading other people's philosophies doing prefs for the swing, it appears I have a view of speaker points that is quite out of step with the average. I have adjusted the following section accordingly.

I view speaker points similar to how I view grading. Doing what you are supposed to do on an assignment is a B/B- depending on quality. Doing what you are supposed to in order to win a debate is in the 28 range. Doing work above and beyond what is needed to win is in the 28.5 range, and truly superior work is in the 29 range. Arguments that win, but do so as a result of the other team's failings, or ignoring a reasonable request for accommodation or inclusion may not result in "reject the team", but may result in a 27 or lower.

arielle kovacs San Francisco State University 6 rounds

Dan Leahy Hire 6 rounds

Alexis Litzky San Francisco State University 3 rounds

Ben Menzies Whitman College 6 rounds

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

[Updated paradigm for Berkeley 2020 below]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Patten Monmouth University 6 rounds

Brandon Pricert San Francisco State University 6 rounds

Romin Rajan Cal State Fullerton 4 rounds

Bethany Renfree Sacramento State University 2 rounds

Michael Souders University of Washington 6 rounds

Last changed on Thu January 12, 2023 at 9:28 AM EDT

Mick Souders

Director, James Madison University

20th year judging NDT/CEDA debate

micksouders@gmail.com

Updated 11/2/2022

CNTRL F "Short Version" for a summary version.

CNTRL F "Long Version" for rambling long version.

CNTRL F "Critical Identity Team" for full views on that.
CNTRL F "Ethics Challenge" for full views on that.
CNTRL F "Speaker Point Scale" for full views on that

CNTRL F "Procedure Notes" for info about card procedures and humbugs about CX.

*SHORT VERSION*

Debate is game with a very serious purpose: teaching critical thinking, argument and research skills, subject knowledge, and tactical and strategic perspectives. I will take your debate seriously.

-I try to be objective, not neutral. I see job my as evaluating the disagreement in debate using my critical thinking abilities and, if necessary, my prior knowledge and experience.

-Disclosure is a courtesy, not a rule. I will not vote on an argument about a team not disclosing. I will only vote on a mis-disclosure argument if you can show its (a) factual and (b) intentionial.

-The topic is important to promote clash. However, I often vote for non-topical teams because topicality is debate-able and teams arguing for the topic must be able to win the topicality argument.

-I am not likely to be persuaded debate is a bad activity. Criticism of how we debate is different than saying debate is bad.

-I flow on paper. Iexpect debaters to flow/note take and do not think opponents are required to provide pristine speech docs or analytics.

-I do not usually read speech docs during the speech. I read lots of cards after debates/in prep time.

-I believe I am a good judge for a variety of K teams but most K teams disagree. This is probably due to my views on topicality. I think that establishing a negative framework for impact evaluation and alternative solvency are the two most important aspects of winning a criticism.

-I am burden of proof oriented. I expect claims to be supported, not presumed. That means I vote on no risk of a link or no solvency more often than other judges.

-I am not a good judge for self-referential/circular arguments (i.e., 'Vote for what's best for me and I'm the judge of what's best for me').

-CX is not prep time. Prep time is not CX time. I will end CX if you aren't using it. I will not listen to prep time CX. Blow off your CX and see the results in your points.

-I have of views on counterplans and counterplan theory. If that matters to you, see below.

-I often look and sound upset, annoyed or angry but I am actually rarely these things in any meaningful sense. My thinking face looks like an angry scowl. My slightly confused face looks like I'm seriously enraged. My 'slightly annoyed for 2 sec' face looks like I'm about to toss over a desk. Sorry about this. I was born with this face.

*END SHORT VERSION*

LONG VERSION

Mea culpa

I believe that I’m out of step with contemporary debate. I feel it almost every time I judge. It’s not about the type of arguments that are made, it’s about how I judge them. I try to be even-handed and fair to both sides, but compared to most debaters’ expectations: I’m too opinionated about what constitutes adequate support, I’m too willing to dismiss badly supported arguments, I have too high of standards of engagement between two teams, I expect extra-ordinary claims to have at least decent proof, I don’t think repeating a prior block is a respectable extension of an argument even if the other team didn’t respond, I don’t think 2-3 sentences is usually enough to win a major argument. I do think you need to explain the claim, warrant, data for arguments in rebuttals, even when dropped. I don’t think a dropped assertion is necessarily true for the purposes of debate. I will ignore arguments I cannot understand and I have a coherence standards for positions and arguments. I think lots of ‘defensive’ arguments end up being terminal for positions.

Which is all to say that I am probably far too opinionated and interventionist for most debaters’ tastes. I like to think of it as being a principled critic of argumentation, but call it what you will. Does that make me a bad judge? Well, I certainly don’t think I’m what debaters want. I don’t know. But I am this way because I feel like these principles matter and I find them impossible to ignore.

Philosophy

Debate is the kiln in which minds are strengthened into ever better forms. The goal of each debate is not necessarily to find the right answer to a question, but an exploration of ideas and an experiment with concepts, enabled by the unique forum of debate that protects us from the full consequences of the ideas we advocate. It is the freedom of debate which enables it to be so effective. Hence, debate is a political project as well as an educational one. It is a democratic experiment. In it, we exercise our freedom to advocate for ideas—and to oppose them—in the spirit of putting our minds to work on a wide set of problems.

As a judge, I try to evaluate the quality of ideas and argumentation that debaters present. I do not have a preference for policy debate, critique debate, non-traditional debate or whatever any wishes to call their format. I do ask that ideas are presented coherently, cogently, and be well-supported by epistemologically-appropriate evidence.

I do have some argument biases (charted, per others):

Killing/letting die on purpose good--------------------------X--Killing/letting die on purpose bad.
Children are good-X--------------------------------Children are bad.
Ha funny debate only stupidity good!------------------------X-Ha funny debate only stupidity bad!
Topic ------X------------------No Topic.
Conditionality Good--X------------------Bad
ESR good for debate--------------------X---ESR is nonsense.
Offense/defense paradigm yes----------------X----no.
Alt-less Ks yes-----------------------X---no.
Stupid contrived fiat on CPs yes!-----------------------X--no.
Asserting another person has no role in debate: YES good strat-------------------------X---no.
Fairness It's an objective truth--------X--------------------It doesn't exist & we shouldn't consider it.

Here's that in another form.

I tend to dislike misanthropic arguments that ask me to kill people or increase suffering. If you read any argument says people dying is irrelevant, mass suffering is good for people or that children should not exist or be killed, you simply do not want me as a judge.

I tend to dislike arguments that rely on ideas almost everyone knows are wrong or originate out of dubious sources.

I tend to dislike arguments that attempt to stop rather than promote the development of ideas.

I tend to think the concept of a resolution is good and affirmatives should be topical, although I vote for non-topical affirmatives when it seems warranted by the debate (see note).

I tend to err negative on many theory questions, except when it comes to fiat. In that, I believe that international fiat, state fiat, and object fiat are unfair to affirmatives but to be honest these don't seem like voting issues, just reasons the counterplan should be ruled out.

I do not believe your assertion alone constitutes an argument that I am required to respect.

I tend to place great weight on cross-examination.

I tend to dislike arguments or positions that indicate that the other team has no place in the conversation.

I’ll limit how much I inject my own ideas into decisions but I will not prohibit my evaluative skills from the debate. I demand greater argumentative power from what appear to me to be counterintuitive arguments. I try to be reflective about my biases but I will not defer to other persons to make decisions for me.

I fundamentally believe in standards of decency and respectful treatment of colleagues and a sporting attitude toward competition. I understand that debate is serious. I realize that civility is sometimes a policing standard and there are limits to its application. But I persist in believing debaters should be free to make their arguments free from undue personal insults, discriminatory remarks, interruption, intimidation, or slurs regarding their race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, sex, sexual behavior, religion or socioeconomic standing. I am quite willing to step in and object or refuse to continue to participate in debates in which such activity continues.

Speaker Point Scale (novice doesn't follow this scale):

2021-Present Averages:
Open: 28.49; JV: 28.05; Novice: 28.31

29.5-29.9 Very to extremely high quality speeches that I would consider very good even for Copeland/Top 5 plaque competitors.

29-29.4 Excellent speeches that significantly advanced your team's chances of winning. Good to very good speeches for First Round-level competitors.

28.6-28.9 Above average speeches that I would expect to see out of clearing teams. Good to very good speeches for competitors at the NDT qualifier level.

28.1-28.5 Average to somewhat above average speeches that contributed to your team's chances of winning. Slightly above to somewhat below average speeches for the NDT qualifier level.

27.6-28 Mediocre to average speeches that only moderately advanced your team's position toward winning the debate.

27.1-27.5 Fairly poor speeches that did not significantly advance your teams position in the debate and likely did not sound good.

26.5-27 Poor speeches that had a negative impact on your team's chances of winning.

< 26.4 You did something very insulting and/or turned a near-certain win into a certain loss via your speech

**I am moderately hearing impaired. This should not affect you except that it helps if you enunciate clearly and project your voice. Rooms with echoes or ambient noise pose particular problems for me. If you see me moving around the room to hear, it's not necessarily you, it may be me trying to get a better angle to hear you.

Critical Identity Teams

Originally written in 2014 so maybe out of date. I haven't revised it in quite a while. Most of it still accurate to me even if the language and named arguments are a bit out of date.

I find it a nearly undeniable fact that the growth of critical identity arguments has dramatically increased the inclusiveness of our community in the past ten years. This is meaningful change. So I’m taking the time to write this extensive addendum to my judging philosophy because I think it’s important to recognize that there are terminological differences and stylistic differences in debate right now and I want to help the teams that are helping make our community more inclusive feel more comfortable in front of me.

Teams that make critical identity arguments are widely varied and so I’m reluctant to comment on them (or define them), except that I have noticed that those I think of *provisionally as critical identity teams are sometimes surprised by my decisions (for and against them). After some thought, I think it is because of a certain divergence in the judging pool. Critical identity teams, roughly speaking, share a common judging pool that emphasizes certain things, takes others for granted and has certain expectations. My background in traditional critique and policy debating has emphases and vocabularies different from this pool. In a few decisions that a few teams have not liked, I’ve explained my perspective and it’s sometimes been rejected or received push back and even dismissal. That’s regrettable. I want these teams (you, if you’re reading this) to see me as pointing them to the path to victory with me as the judge and I encourage these teams to see me as an opportunity rather than as a barrier.

So, rather than wait until a post-round to translate my views—which is too late—I’m going to post them here. It’s long, yes, but I put some effort and thought into this.

Overview over, here are my notes:

NEG:

It’s probably true that it’s easier for you to win on the negative because there’s no topical barrier for you. There’s a huge exception to this, noted in the affirmative section. Here’s my hints:

-Argue the alternative. This is the number one point of difference between myself (and judges like me) and the pool of judges I’ve noted above. Winning a link and impact isn’t enough. You’re going to need to focus on extending, arguing, and explaining how your alternative solves your link arguments, how it solves the case and/or how it is the ‘better’ choice in the face of affirmative case arguments. If your alt solves the case, explain how. If it doesn’t solve the case, explain why that doesn’t matter. Your alternative needs to solve the link to the case, because if not, there’s simply no uniqueness to your arguments against the affirmative—they are true whether I vote affirmative or negative. That doesn’t mean that you need to solve the WHOLE link. For example, if the law is fundamentally anti-black, then even if the alternative doesn’t solve the law being anti-black it might provide us with a path to a non-law based perspective or something of that sort. When I’ve voted AFF against critical identity teams, there’s often been a post-round attempt at a gotcha question: “So, you just voted for a law you agree is anti-black/queer/ableist?” And I’ve answered: “No. Voting for an anti-black/queer/ableism law was inevitable because the alternative didn’t solve any bit of anti-blackness/queerness/ableism.” I will say that 90% of the time I’ve come to the conclusion NOT because I evaluated a contested debate about the alternative but because the negative barely extended the alternative or did not do so at all. I'm generally unpersuaded by "reject" arguments without some value to the rejection.

-Argue the case. Affirmatives often solve impacts—and those impacts can outweigh. If you don’t just let that slide, the fact that they CAUSE another impact cannot be easily dismissed. I watched a debate at the NDT where the critical race team just slayed the policy affirmative by reading phenomenal cards that indicating the structural, racist roots of climate change and consumption patterns. It was excellent. However, that doesn’t happen very often. Being anti-queer is bad…but so is climate change that kills millions, particularly vulnerable populations. It’s easier to pick which one I must address first if the chances of the cases chances of solving climate change are either mitigated or critiqued in a fashion that undermines its solvency.

-Frame the impact. A certain group of judges might think that if you win “social death now” that means basically all the impacts of the case are irrelevant. I don’t think it’s nearly that easy. Think of it this way—you, the debater, are often in the population that your argument says is socially dead. Yet I think that your life matters. And I want to stop bad things from happening to you despite your state of partial or total social death. So, you must say MORE than social death. You may explain, for example, that social death perpetually PERMITS radical violence at a constant or increasing rate; that massive real violence is a terminal and immutable consequence of social death. This does not, by the way, mute the entirety of offense gained by an opponent’s policy action, but in combination with a won alternative provides a nice pairing of a systemic impact with strong empirical grounding and very high future risk with a method of addressing that risk. Some framing evidence helps here.

-Fiat is illusory isn’t a real argument (nor is the affirmative argument that the “The plan REALLY happens!”). I get the plan doesn’t happen but it’s a worthwhile thought experiment that enables us to discuss the merits of the plan. I don’t AUTOMATICALLY assume this, but if the affirmative team frames their case as an representative anecdote of how we can learn to engage in politics, or how this kind of debate informs politics, either in general or in specific, I tend to agree that’s reasonable since that is the whole reason I think debate is educational. THUS! The KEY is is not to argue, “Fiat is illusory, they lose on presumption”—which is a bad argument—but to argue that given that they are teaching a BAD politics and that you present a better one. Your better framework may include arguing for the abandonment of plan-based politics.

-Frame the meaning of winning a key premise. To some extent, I find that to be true of anti-blackness or anti-queerness or anti-intersex, etc. If you win that blackness is an ontology and anti-blackness is a political ontology (although, to be honest, I’m not sure I understand what a political ontology is) you’ve won a premise that gets you a long way in the debate. However, you haven’t WON the debate, per se (nor does losing this premise necessarily lose you the debate). If society is anti-black, does that means politics is irrelevant? My presumption is NO. If you are black and live in anti-black civil society, I still presume that it would be better to do things that blunt the force of anti-blackness with ‘liberal’ policies. Now, you have a huge advantage if you win your premise because in a larger sense you’re winning that liberalism is doomed—but you need to make that clear. Finally, you should work at backstopping this argument. I’ve seen teams go all-in on winning queer is ontological without looking at how they could win if they did not win this premise. I saw a team at the NDT nicely win a debate where they lost that blackness is ontological by arguing that even if its socially constructed, its so deeply embedded that it can’t be extracted and that the alternative resolved it best. Well done.

AFF

Most of this is about topicality because once you’re beyond that barrier you’re just in regular debateland and the above guidelines apply.

Topicality

First hint with me on this overall—persuade your opponent not to go for topicality. When negative teams don’t go for topicality against blatantly non-topical teams, I have a ridiculous affirmative voting record. The reasons are obvious: Links and competition are hard to generate when you’re not topical. That’s why topicality is vital for those teams. But let’s ignore that for a moment.

-Topicality: First hint: Be topical. I think it’s possible. I particularly think it’s possible to defend the topic from the outside—I think it’s possible for queer victims of police violence to argue police who harass queers should be arrested by the state without being or endorsing the state. I think you can be topical and argue that you shouldn’t need to answer process arguments. As the coach of repeated, successful topical K teams I don’t think topicality automatically means role-playing in the strong sense. I also think these debates are essential. Surely it can’t be the case that all critical identity positions of value require non-topicality and I’m very interested to hear the ways critical queer, race, gender, intersex values can be met with a topical plan. ***HOWEVER, if you have me as a judge and you’re NEVER topical, it’s probably a bad idea to just toss a plan in. It’s bad because you haven’t thought through how to defend yourself against arguments.

-Ok, so you’re not topical. Let’s talk about my presumptions on that. The main barrier for you here is that I don’t believe that any state action 100% pollutes any action. That doesn’t mean the state is good. Far from it. But considering the fact that many of the teams that refuse to ever agree with the topic attend STATE UNIVERSITIES with coaches receiving paychecks from THE STATE it’s hard for me to understand why talking about state action is impossible. That’s not a killer argument, but it does seem to hint that SOME state actions are not entirely poisonous. This is my own view and while it does color my T arguments, it’s not insurmountable. Here’s how you overcome that.

-Don’t be anti-topical. It’s a lot easier for me to vote for you if you’re not anti-topical. If you are anti-topical, say, your affirmative says (last year’s topic) that prostitution is bad (and implies shouldn’t be legal) then it’s going to be much harder for you to win in front of me. The reason is simply that you’ve staked out negative ground. You’ve admitted there’s a debate to be had on something and chosen NOT to take your assigned side. You refuse to take up the affirmative side yet you functionally attempt to force the other team to do just that.

- Being PRO-TOPICAL still requires you to be smart. The problem is that the other team will ask, “Why NOT be topical?” You need an answer to that question that isn’t just “State messed up, yo.” You CAN argue that. You CAN win that argument. But I’m going to want nuanced reasons that are specific to a particular to a place and time. Saying, “The US government is messed up and did bad things” seems to me to beg the question of what it SHOULD do to change. So, to overcome that you’ll need to explain why it’s better to debate about your adjacent discussion of topical things rather that government action AND you’ll need to explain why that’s an AFFIRMATIVE argument and not a negative argument.

-Answer their offensive arguments on T. Limits, ground, fairness, predictability, education—these are real things in debate and they matter. You will do well to answer these arguments with both offense and defense. I often see all offense (limits debate protect white folks) without any defense. PARTICULARLY answer their arguments about why topical/legal debating is good, in addition to the regular T argument set. These cards tend to be pretty good so your responses need to be good as well. “Fairness for who?” is a good question—but it needs to be answered rather than just leaving it open ended. On your education arguments you need to move beyond “All our arguments are educational” to explaining why you lead to good, predictable debates that are relatively fair and deeply educational. I am in agreement with the point that critical identity arguments are intrinsically educational (see my intro to this whole thing) but the bigger question is how do they create good debates where both sides explore issues in depth? There are really good reasons that this is the case—you need to make those arguments.

-Address topical version of the affirmative and understand that the legal debates good is a net benefit to this argument. A good team T will argue that you do not have a right to the perfect affirmative, just one that lets you discuss similar key issues. Also understand that “State bad” isn’t necessarily an answer. If can be, but even the anti-statist needs to understand the state. As a former anti-capitalist advocate, I still needed lawyers to get me out of jail and I still needed knowledge of the law to protect myself from the police as much as could be managed..

-Realize that “No Topical Version” is a trap. If you say no topical version, you are setting yourself up to link to the “this is anti-topical” argument, i.e., that your aff is wholly unpredictable and in the reverse direction of all of the regular topic negative arguments. The “no topical version of the aff” made by the 2AC sounds like, “Our whole affirmative advantage is illegitimate.” If you say “yes, topical version” then obviously you’ve also set yourself up. At the very least, so don't assert the 'no topical version' and set yourself up for this debate intentionally.

-Have an answer for the topical research burden argument. Critical identity teams are fond of arguing that there are many different versions of their arguments—TRUE! Which for teams going for T just shows how large the research burden becomes to prep for every single iteration—every different case is its own topic area. You need offensive and defense arguments. The argument that “You just don’t want to answer/research queer/black/feminist/trans/ableism arguments” is a good starting point but it’s not enough (and solved by topical version of the affirmative). “Case list” is also not answer to this argument, because research burden isn’t a question of predictability. Don’t fall into the trap of listing off a bunch of crappy positions you refuse to defend (state good, cap K) as neg ground.

-Find A CERTAIN TOPICALITY. Optimally, a strategic team will find a way to be topical, yet not defend the state. FYI, I absolutely do not think that having a plan that mentions what the US or USFG should do obligates you to defend “the State”. I think it obligates you to defend that particular state action. However, I think you can go beyond that. I think you can defend the plan as a critical intervention, as an imaginative starting point, as epistemological experiment etc. without defending state action in other ways. Now, you’ll have to defend your plan (or a topical advocacy statement—you need not have a PLAN, per se) in SOME ways but probably not a lot of different things.

-Impact turn topicality. If all else fails, impact turn and be extremely offensive against it. Disallow me from voting for T—you can complete this tactic by providing defense against their impact arguments while working on your own. Defense wins championships.

Hints not related to topicality

Once you’re past the topicality gate, you’re in the realm of normal non-procedural arguments and I have few suggestions in this area to avoid common errors (certainly not universal errors) I see in debates in front of me:

-Back up outrage with arguments. Excellent critical identity teams do this…but younger/lesser teams seem to struggle with this. Don’t get so wound up in your position that it stops you from making your argument.

-Antagonizing your opponent won’t sway me. There are reasons that you may choose to antagonize your opponent, some of which may be strategic, some not, some both. But as for how I view the debate, it will not contribute to me voting for you. See note in original philosophy about respectful behavior toward colleagues.

-Make the history lesson pay. Sometimes these debates collapse into scattered historical anecdotes that are only lightly tied together—get full credit for your analysis of history by investing time in explaining its application in this case.

-Don’t rely too heavily on enthymeme (don’t rely on me filling in the blanks for you). Too often, I hear judges (on MANY sides) say, “I guess I just know what they’re talking about.” No. You have an explanatory burden to help me cognitively grasp the situation. I grasp the frustration that comes with my lack of cultural connection to your argument, but I’m doing my best. If you think, “I’m tired of explaining myself to straight people, white people, cis gender people, able-bodied people, etc” and then don’t explain, it becomes really hard for me to vote for you (as well as making a bunch of assumptions that may or may not be accurate, depending on your judge). I won’t vote on what I can’t explain.

FINAL NOTE: You might be thinking, after reading this, ‘WOW, we’re NEVER preferring him. Look all the things he wants us to do—his presumptions are just too high. What a T hack.’

Maybe. But what I’ve tried to do is review almost every argument I find persuasive on T and flag it for you and send you in the right direction in answering it. In REAL DEBATES, teams won’t make all these arguments and they won’t always make them well. I ALWAYS evaluate the debate in front of me. But I wanted to flag all these so you could think through your answers and win my ballot. I wanted to flag these because winning my ballot is possible, not impossible.

I also think this can serve as a primer for winning in front of judges that are like me. To succeed in the big picture, you need to expand your judging pool. At the NDT and in national circuit elimination debates, you can’t hide from all the judges who think topicality is a thing or who have a grounding in traditional critique or policy debate. In my ideal world, you’d see me (or someone like me) on a panel against a non-critical identity team and think, “Good. Mick is a fair judge who sees the value of our arguments. He cares about our role in debateland and the world and even though he might not be our wheelhouse judge, we know the route to win with him.”

And, in the ideal world, your opponent would think the exact same thing.

Ethics Challenge

I want to say that I am not a fan of ethics challenges but they may be the only resolution to certain circumstances. In most cases, I prefer lesser solution from a team with a ethics-related issue: i.e., rejection of the piece of evidence, rejection of a position, rejection of all evidence with demonstrated problems, etc.

I have a relatively standard procedure on ethics challenges. Ethics challenges are accusations of academic misconduct against the opposing team that are outside the bounds of what can be adjudicated by the debate. Justifications for an ethics challenge include, but are not limited to:

1) Mis-representing evidence, i.e., “cutting out of context”--This includes highlighting, reading, or constructing evidence in a way that allows the team to present the evidence as supporting a claim that directly contradicts the intention of the author.

2) Fabricating evidence– This includes altering evidence by adding or deleting parts of cited evidence or wholesale making up evidence and presenting it in a debate.

3) Mis-representing what evidence has been read in the round, i.e., “clipping” or “cross-reading” or falsely claiming a piece of evidence has been read when it has not, or, alternatively, claiming a piece of evidence has NOT been read by the team when it has.

4) Refusing to provide your cited/read evidence to your opponent in the debate or intentionally leaving evidence out of a speech document in order to gain a competitive advantage.

5) Intentionally mis-citing evidence in order to gain a competitive advantage, i.e., leaving out an author or source that might be a liability in a debate. Incidental mis-citation is not subject to an ethics challenge.

6) Using ellipsis or leaving out parts of evidence that are part of the context of the evidence because the part excluded by the ellipsis would be a significant liability in the debate.

7) Intentionally mis-disclosing to another team in pre-round pre-round preparation in order to gain a competitive advantage.

8) If you generally accuse the team ‘cheating’ on any non-debate argument issue and try to make it a ‘voting issue’ (disclosure, speech docs, cards, etc), I will ask if you intend this as an ethics challenge.

This is not a complete list. Please note that some of these include a factor of intention and others do not. If you read a card that’s out of context or fabricated, it doesn't matter if you or your partner didn’t cut the card. In other cases, there must be intention.

Process and burden of proof for ethics challenges:
1) An ethics challenge will stop the round. I may pause once and try to talk through the issue briefly, trying to find a negotiating solution short of the challenge. But once the challenge is confirmed, it’s round over for me. If the tournament or organization procedures turn it over to the tournament officials, I will do that. If it is left to me to decide, I will ask for proof and defense and make a decision. I may give time for teams to produce evidence. For example, to provide a full length version of a card, article, book to demonstrate a defense. Moreover, I am NOT simply relying on team arguments. This is no longer a debate where I rely solely on the arguments presented. I will use any resource I can to reach a conclusion. If I am on a panel and it is not in my sole power to stop the round, I will adjudicate the debate based on the initial charge and defense. I will not evaluate the rest of the debate, even if the rest of the debate proceeds.

(2) I have a fairly high bar for voting on them. I must see clear and convincing evidence of the conditions above. Suspicion or even simply me believing it’s likely is not sufficient for me to vote on an ethics challenge against a team.

(3) If an ethics challenge is proven with clear and convincing evidence it’s a loss for the team challenged. If it is not proven to a clear and convincing level, it’s a loss for the team conducting the challenge.

***PROCEDURE NOTES.

1. I am worn out of looking through 6 different speech documents for cards. I am implementing a policy of asking that cards on positions that have been gone for in the 2NR/2AR be consolidated and sent to me). You don't need to sort out WHICH cards you went for, it's easier if I pick through what matters. Just consolidate them, organized by SUBJECT and SPEECH and send them to me. If you are paper team, you're are a cruel person who wants trees to die, but, on the other hand you make judging much easier :).

2. Most CX answers that given outside the 3 minutes of designated CX are not relevant to my decision. You want to get your argumentative question in? Fit your question and the opportunity to answer it into the CX time. You don't get to use some prep time to cover the argument you dropped, so you don't get to used prep time to ask the questions you forgot. Exception A: Filibustering to run out the clock will cause me to ignore this rule. CXer, you'll know you are free to keep asking because I will keep paying attention instead of getting up or walking away. Exception B: While answers might be non-binding, deception is misconduct foul, auto-loss. If the Cx-ee answers a clarifying question in prep like, "What's the status of the counterplan?" and then CHANGES it and thinks that's a clever trick, I see that as misconduct. Exception C: I think clarifying questions are fine in CX. Examples: What was your third argument on the DA? What's the status of the CP? Which card did you read? Answering these questions are matters of courtesy and fair play. Of course, they might just answer: "We didn't take a position on CP rules in the 1NC." And you'll be out of luck in arguing with them.

Erika Thomas Cal State Fullerton 5 rounds

Last changed on Tue February 6, 2024 at 6:01 AM PDT

co-Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2019

Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2010

3 years coaching/judging primarily policy debate during graduate school (Wayne State)

2 years coaching/judging primarily policy debate during graduate school (Miami University , Ohio - sadly, this program no longer exists)

4 years debate, Novice – Open (John Carroll University - sadly, this program no longer exists)

I'm an Associate Professor at CSUF in the Human Communication Department. My research interests include rhetorical theory and criticism, critical/cultural theory, in particular feminist and queer studies especially related to body rhetoric. As a critic, I put a great deal of time and effort into making my decision – I like to be thorough. As a result, you can make my job a lot easier if you are clear and specific in the last rebuttals. Frame the debates well by telling me where I should cast my ballot and why. Tell me what evidence I should read and why. Here’s what else you should know about me:

The topic: Since I started directing, I cut fewer cards on the topic and, as a result, do not necessarily know all the acronyms or jargon on the topic. Currently and moving forward, I expect to complete little topic-specific research so you will need to educate me on your affirmative and case-specific disadvantages. Explain your case or DA and its advantages/parts in the round. Provide clear standards and warrants for Topicality arguments that reference the resolution. While I may proceed cautiously with kritiks that seem dependent on "links of omission," I am open to cases that creatively connect to the topic and will often view cases that some would label untopical completely acceptable if they have a good defense. Additionally, anyone can make any argument on on why I should be compelled to listen to an argument, and I will do my best to weight such arguments objectively. (More on topicality below). Generally this understanding of my perspective of debate should help you convince me to vote for your position.

Flowing: Please note that when judging online debates I appreciate teams that slightly minimize their speed and work extra hard on clarity and articulation given the technical issues that can arise. Otherwise, I’m generally fine with speed and have a pretty decent flow, however please be clear on your tags and cites, it just makes my life a lot easier. It is possible to go too fast for me, especially on theory debates; if you plan on going for the argument or if you think the argument could threaten your success in the round, your time is best spent slowing down just a bit. This is really good advice for blippy theory, framework, or topicality debates.

Paradigm/Framework: I will vote on anything if it’s a good argument and impacted. My own experience as a debater has left me equipped to judge in a general policy paradigm, however, I am very much open to the idea of alternative debate paradigms, such as performance debate, and since coming to Cal State Fullerton, I primarily coach and watch these types of debates. I tend to err on the side of allowing alternative forms of argumentation as long as the other team has reasonable ground to debate. I will vote on anything, as long as the argument is clear and I understand what I am voting on. I primarily see debate arguments as either offensive or defensive claims and although I think it is much easier to win with offense in the debate, I am willing to vote for compelling defensive arguments. I avoid putting myself in debate rounds whenever possible, but if all the debaters fail to make their position clear, I am forced to intervene and weigh impacts from a strictly utilitarian perspective. I like to be included in the exchange of speech docs especially given that I will need to interpretation the weight and importance of some evidence if the work is not done for me by the debaters. If I read a lot cards after the round it’s probably because you failed to explain the timeframe, magnitude, or probability of the impact, or because you failed to explain the warrants in your evidence. It could also mean that it’s simply a close round, and that both teams did such a nice job explaining their arguments that I need to resort to cards to determine who provides the most persuasive story as supported by the evidence. In short, explain your frameworks and impacts throughout the debate and especially at the end of the round.

Kritiks/Framework: To be honest, I probably enjoy these debates the best, and I am probably most equipped to judge critical rounds. I have a strong working knowledge of post-structural theorists, including Butler, Derrida, and Foucault. I have a decent understanding of Wilderson/antiblackness and Lacanian/Zizek theory but please be clear to explain particular components of your K, especially if it is psychoanalysis. Debaters tend to bastardize the philosophy for all these theorists so don't expect that just because I read these authors I automatically understand the way you use them or that I understand all of a critical theorists’ jargon. The argument needs to be clear in its explanation and impact in the round. If I don’t know what it means to vote for a kritik, I probably won’t vote on it. Also, have a clear framework – if the framework is clear, I am more than willing to evaluate the kritik. The same goes for performance. I am wary of alternatives that do little but suggest they can solve the entirety of the aff plan. At the same time, I question alternatives that are too utopian. Over the years, I have changed my approach to "rules," such as the American Debate Association (ADA) rules; anything is debatable, especially "rules." Also, I take language kritiks and other impacts with in round implications seriously (although just because the team links to the argument that does not necessarily mean that the opponents win the debate; the team running the argument needs to impact). For example, if a teams fails to use gender-neutral language, and they fail to answer the kritik appropriately, I am certainly willing to pull the trigger here if the opposing team can provide compelling implications.

Disadvantages: Although I tend to watch critical debates, I can evaluate traditional, realist-framework debates. But, be sure to tell clear stories on Politics DAs and Economics scenarios – don’t assume I know the internal link stories – I’ve never taken a class in Economics and I was not a political science major. Don’t simply revert to referencing the claims of political theory on politics without explaining the warrants.

Counterplans/Theory/Topicality: I will consider and vote on theory debates, especially CP theory, however you should make sure you are clear with the warrants with your arguments, do not assume that I know that any one particular theory argument means, and do not expect me to vote on blip theory arguments/voters. Proving abuse/or explaining the impact is necessary; if the risk of the impact is legitimate, I will vote here. I am certainly willing to consider and vote on topicality and generally think affirmatives need an offensive approach to their claim's that their case is topical. Although I am lenient on what I consider topical, if the negative proves that the affirmative is not playing fair or if the activity is suffering as a result of these types of cases (or other in-round impacts), I will certainly pull the trigger. When a team goes for topicality, they should invest the majority of the 2NR on this flow. Regarding arguments like ASPEC and Vagueness, you have to work a lot harder when convincing me to vote on arguments.

When debating negative: Don’t undercover the case. If you do not go for case turns or take-outs, be sure your positions actually complete with the Aff’s solvency claims.

Finally, show respect to your opponents, your partner and myself. I really enjoy debates that are funny and/or passionate but also are friendly and collegial. Please do not steal prep time. I won’t count sending/receiving evidence as part of prep time, but don’t abuse the privilege. Some of us really need to pick up this process or you will not leave me sufficient time to adjudicate your decision. If you have any questions feel free to ask, and have fun!!!

Login to Tabroom

Western Novice JV Championship Tournament

2015 — CA/US

Policy Paradigm List

Judges