Joseph Autry

Affiliation: Liberty University

Debated from 2008-2011

Preferred Type of Debate: Clash of Civilizations

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

Kritiks:

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

Language Kritiks:

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

DA:

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

Framework/No Plan Affs:

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

CP:

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

Theory/T:

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

Updated 3-7-24

Congrats on attending Nationals. Being at a university with the resources to send you cross-country to represent them is an immense privilege Thank those responsble including partners, teammates, coaches, parents & especially your opponents. People matter. Celebrate, respect and appreciate them while you can.

(NEW) TLDR: K Affs, FW, DA/CP strats, K strats, Procedurals - Fine. You do you. Condo- Ok w Limits (read CP stuff below) Base points - 28.7 If you care about pts a) look at who got 29.4+ from me to see what I like. b) 2NRs that don't spend time on case do so at their own risk. When I'm online, a) get verbal/visual confirmation before you speak b) slow down 10%. Won't litigate past debates, social media beefs etc on my ballot. PRE-EMPT- Read no further at your own risk.

General Approach: Add me to the chain if you have my email already. Start the rd when your opponent has the doc up once you confirm all parties are ready. I don't follow along with your speech docs. Flowing on paper. Pen time good. Be organized, Be considerate. Be ready. Recuts of opponents' ev need to be read in round not just inserted into the doc to be assessed on my flow. Good debaters work extremely hard so I will make every effort to be very thoughtful and conscientious as your judge. Whatever decision allows me to inject myself the least into the interpretations of issues in the round is the one I will attempt to make. Compare positions, ev and tell a story in your last rebuttal that frames the round the way you wish me to decide it. I’ll vote where you tell me if it's coherent. If you have multiple stories, prioritize them. Don't rely on my post-round reconstruction. If you only spend 10 seconds on a key point in your last rebuttal, don't expect me to spend much more than that evaluating it. Most rounds come down to impact assessment and warrant comparisons. An author’s name is not an argument. Provide warrants for why your ev is better than theirs.

Tech vs. TruthTech over truth is an inflection point not a value system. My voting record reflects a tech leaning apparently but that's more reflective of how truth is framed in the 2AR vs. my role to protect the neg. My ballot really comes down to the skills and execution of the particular debaters.

The Aff: Do what you want in terms of policy, K or performance. Explain advantages to your model over theirs. Tell me how to evaluate your affirmation prior to the 2AR if you are performing. Make sure that the role of the ballot is articulated and extended and not a 2AR surprise. My evaluation will come down to offense on the FWK flow based on impacts identified by the debaters unless it's one of those rare rounds where the neg has a viable, specific strat.

The Neg: Well-developed, evidence-based strategies are awesome and will be rewarded. 90% of affs, both kritikal and policy have lit that goes the other way. Cut cards and forward options along with T/FW. If you want to defend your right to a Deterrence DA link or a certain interp, go for it. Presumption matters and is underutilized.

TOPICALITY/FWK: I’ll vote either way on T/FW if you win the relevant impacts to your model of debate e.g. EXTERNAL (why is it or is it not productive?) or INTERNAL (what does it communicate or provide you with in the debate space of importance?). You're more likely to have faith in the credibility of your definition and implicit approaches to the topic than I am so be prepared to defend them. Not a fan of: violations that morph in the block unprovoked, crummy counter-interps or generic TVAs that disregard this 1AC. T against policy affs is underutilized. Elevate your answers from the crap you read in HS. It's disingenuous for experienced debaters to say K-affs about AB, Set Col. or Trans Life were unpredictable or that FW is the ultimate form of violence in the world.

DISADS Fine obviously. Providing reasons why the DA turns case is always a good idea. CAVEAT - Including this since it's come up 2x this year. If there is an Existence question relating your DA or aff story (e.g. a rumored "secret" weapon system, Aliens are coming, etc), try or die only kicks in if you win the Existence question as a precursor.

CPs Smart CPs with solvency advocates improve your strat. If you regularly read CPs with conditional planks leading to 10 different versions or more than 3 conditional advocacies in a rd, I'm not the right judge for you. New or undisclosed 1ACs lend credence to more condo options. Feel free to take advantage of teams that read & react without studying your CP text carefully. Sympathetic to "1AR gets new answers" vs CPs with no 1NC solvency ev. or process CPs with no relqtion to how the US government works. I welcome solvency deficits if the AFF is correct on function indicts. I don't judge kick without specific instruction.

K: For teams that generate links from messed-up, in-round behaviors or focus on the debate space-all good. If teams defend external claims and impacts, winning anti-blackness is a superstructure or capitalist gov't solutions have failed on-balance is necessary but not sufficient. Quality examples are essential and readily available whether you're discussing micro-political movements, capitalism, racial injustice, colonialism, sabotage, disability and/or militarism. Your arsenal needs solid answers to scalability, empirical solvency, and why gov't action will not inevitably be needed. Include good reasons why the K turns case. 3 page long cards don't equal explanations.

Topic Specifics Spent 4 years working with Rev Vernon Nichols at the UU-UNO when he chaired the NGO Committee on Disarmament learning about prolif, movements and miscalc. As far as the 2023-24 topic, I read lots of topic lit from both traditional and nontraditional sources and have judged too much.

Pet Peeves that lower points: 1-STEALING PREP TIME -It's a nasty habit. You are taking time from my life that I will never get back. 2-POOR TECH PREP- I have sympathy for unexpected tech issues not poor preparation that delays the tournament. If you're debating online: a) Check your tech between rds for charge etc. b) Have a back-up (phone, tablet, etc.) in case of lmid-speech malfunctions c) Get verbal/visual confirmation everyone is back before starting speeches d) don't record people without permission e) slow down 10-20% because it's hard to hear/decipher stuff online 3--OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE in your speeches. Don't have a bright line but if you need to ask, you're probably excessive. 4--SLOPPY SOURCING. You say “Read the Jones 10 ev after the rd!” I read it and it sucks. In the post-round, it becomes “I meant to say Roberts, not Jones,” or “There were 3 pieces of Jones ev I meant the 1AR card.” That's a "you" problem. Effective communication good.

Cole Bender

Debate Experience:

Assistant Debate Coach, Liberty University (2011-Present)

Years Judging: 2008-present

Former varsity debater at Liberty University

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

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

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

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

CHANGES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addition for Decrim and Subsequent Topics:

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

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

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

3 rants, and then some explanation:

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

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

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

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

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

Email: berchnorto@msn.com

I debated with Binghamton University and previously helped coach Vanderbilt University.

I'm going to try and keep this short and simple. Here are some general thoughts:

Cross-Ex: I love a good cross-ex. I will flow it sometimes if something sticks out to me or if someone tells me to flow it. It's probably binding.

Theory/Topicality/Framework: Go for your theory args if you think you have a legitimate claim. You need to prove substantial in round abuse. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise. Topicality is definitely not my area of expertise but I'll vote for it. If you're going for it in your last speech make sure to spend most of your time on it to convince me that it's so important that I should decide the round on it. I'll vote for framework if you win it; however, if the aff can show that they are reasonably related to the topic then I think you should be able to engage them in some way.

Kritiks/Critical Affs: Kritiks are what I am most experienced in, although I did not run many 'high theory' kritiks. My familiarity does not mean however than I will just autovote for you because you're running a k. I will hold you to a high standard when running these arguments. Also, don't just assume I know your kritik; you still have to explain and warrant it out. Try to get specific links from their 1AC/2AC rather than just using generic links.

Counterplans: The best counterplans are usually case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates. I'm not a huge fan of consult counterplans but I will vote for them if you win them.

Disads: Uniqueness is key with disads. Impact framing and a clear, defined link are generally necessary to win your disad.

Case: Case arguments are a great tool that usually go underutilized. Make sure that if your strategy is to go for a specific case argument that it's not a two second blip in most of the debate and then the 2AR spends six minutes on it.

Most importantly of all, have fun and do what you do best!

Email: mary.bobbitt1076@gmail.com  Please include me on your email chains

People I wish to judge like: Sarah Lundeen, Jarrod Atchison, and Matt Struth.

2016-2017 update:

I have recently left the debate community to work full-time. This means I know very little about the literature on the topic and you should explain acronyms etc. 

I. Overview:  Don't over adapt to me. I am a flow centric judge. I flow on paper thus you need to slow down on cp texts, theory, fw etc. I do not think of debate as a classroom but rather a seperate competitive activity.  I default to the offense/defense paradigm. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I focus on analysis over evidence. I am most interested in the radical of the left and right.  I am a very expressive judge; if you need different signals than traditional nonverbals please feel free to tell me and we will work something out. 

                A. Timing the debate and paperless:  CX and prep starts as soon as your speech ends. The time ends when the jump drive is pulled out the computer.  You should time yourselves; however, I will be enforcing efficiency.   I am very strict about time. 

Additionally - I will stop flowing as soon as the timer goes off.  

                B. Clarity:  If I cannot understand the full text of your evidence clearly I will not flow your cards and will treat the tags as analytics.  Slurring so badly that you are not reading the text of the evidence is akin to clipping.  I will say clear one time before I stop flowing you.  I will give more leeway in JV and novice.

                C. Speaker points:  While I love snark and jokes and hilarity, there is a line where that passes into just being mean. Snark/Jokes/Puns internal to the debate and arguments you are presenting are better than those just randomly put in.   I think having respect for your opponents is fundamentally a good thing. 

II. The K: The alternative is generally the weakest point of these arguments. I prefer debaters to demonstrate that they know the literature they are speaking from and not simply the cards that have been cut. 

                A. Flowing nontraditional debate: If you would like me to take notes or evaluate rounds beyond the traditional method of flowing, you must outline for me how to do so. 

                B. Perms - Counterperms are a difficult sell.  I don't understand how                        they work. 

                C. Opacity:  If you ask me to leave the debate because I am white you must tell me to do so and tell me what to do with my ballot.  I will not leave you my ballot if I am the only judge – I will take it with me and flip a coin.  I will only leave if both teams would like me to.

                D. Social death theory: This argument is generally asserted rather than explained. Please give warrants for why it is true

                E. Do not try to steal my ballot. They’re now mostly online anyway so I’m not sure how this would work..

III. Framework: I default to counter interpretations.  I prefer traditional debate impacts as opposed to agonism impacts. 

IV. Counterplans: Advantage CPs > Process CPs.  This is probably my weakest point as a judge; if you are reading a techy counterplan you need to spend time explaining to me the mechanism of the cp. I have difficulty with internal net benefits vis-a-vis the permutation.  I love a good theory debate.

                A. Condo: All my predispositions are debatable but I think condo is generally good. I think perf con (CP + K) is good.  However, reading two contradicting k's is probably not legit. I will not kick the CP for you unless you ask me to. Slow down on theory.  

                B. Other CP theory: International fiat seems suspect. The more I judge the less I like 50 state fiat. 

V. DA – uniqueness determines the direction of the link.  The words “Fiat solves the link” is not an argument.  Explain what your interpretation of fiat is and why that doesn’t matter. 

VI. Topicality – Enjoyable.  Specification arguments are fun.  Please provide me a case list for your interpretation.  I think the most interesting part of this debate is competing interps versus reasonability.  How do they function in the debate in terms of abuse and what interpreteations are?  This is rarely developed in these debates. 

VII. Case – I think analytics can take out an entire advantage. Let's have some fun impact turn debates because #reasons. 

VIII. Theory - I

IX. Other comments

                A.  Card clipping: It’s an auto lose.

                B. Marking Cards:  If you do not physically mark a card during your speech I will not evaluate it if you ask me to call for it.  I write down every card that is marked. If is your responsibility to jump a marked document to your opponents at their request. 

                C. If you are reading or showing pornography, I would ask that you explain the theory/method/story/video without actually showing or reading explicitly sexual content for the purposes of arousal.  I will assume you have performed it in some manner to answer solvancy questions.   

                D. I do not enjoy debates where gendered/ableist/racist/exclusionary language is used. 

                E. CX: I flow it. Its binding but open to clarification.

IV. Topic Specific Notes:

 See above. 

 For your enjoyment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWM2joNb9NE

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

My judging philosophy is pretty straightforward. I don’t have a preference for any specific type of argument and you can potentially win any argument in front of me as long as it is explained clearly and impacted well.  I believe debaters should pursue the arguments they feel the most strongly about without feeling restricted by a particular judge’s preference for one argument vs. another.  That being said, here are some things to keep in mind

(1)   Please explain your arguments in a clear and cohesive manner.  I hate judge intervention and prefer to adjudicate a round based solely on the flow without interjecting my own thoughts, morals, feelings, etc...  If I start reading cards after the round, it probably means something wasn’t explained well enough and that I will have to intervene in some manner.

(2)   I prefer voting on substantive as opposed to procedural/theory arguments.  Procedural debates often turn into the clash of the pre-prepared blocks without any real explanation.  If that happens, I will generally move beyond the procedural stuff and look to the substantive issues in order to render a decision.  Not saying you can’t win a procedural argument in front of me, but you have to really devote a lot of time to it throughout the round and step away from your block long enough to give me a good explanation as to why the issue warrants my ballot.

(3)   I expect lots of impact analysis. I will not just assume that a particular impact outweighs everything else or that it should win you the ballot without some explanation of how it functions in the context of everything else in the round.

(4)   I enjoy CP debates and have no particular inclinations regarding CP theory. I will be open minded to whatever arguments you wish to make, but you must explain them well and not get caught up in the pre-prepared theory block manner of debating (See #2 above).

(5)   I think debaters should be held accountable for everything they do and say in a round.  Therefore, it should go without saying that I dislike offensive/ morally bankrupt arguments. I also think offensive behavior can be viewed as justification to vote for the other team.  Don’t be hostile and don’t be insulting.  I generally give higher speaker points to debaters who show respect for each other during the round.

(6)   If you have any questions prior to the round, feel free to ask.  

Having judged and watched rounds at multiple tournaments, I've developed some opinions that will help you be successful in front of me.  I've read the topic paper and have seen a wide range of rounds from traditional policy to performance debates on the topic.   I do have a good working knowledge and will weigh the overall pros and cons of your arguments to determine the winner. I am a Grad student, specializing in Computer Science from NYU. I've received an UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE in Engineering in Computer Science from India. This means that I have preference for well-reasoned arguments based in cogent logic that are tied to the topic. I am willing to listen to performance arguments but it will be to your advantage to explicitly justify

a) the benefits of your particular approach to affirmation

b) how it ties to the resolution if you feel it does and

c) how I should compare poetry, music, personal narratives or other elements of your scholarship to traditional academic research.  

Given my lack of exposure to rapid-fire speeches prior to this year, this burden should not be insurmountable.  But if you stand up and read a poem or a narrative for seven minutes without explanation or justification, there is substantial risk I won't get it. Since I did not participate in formal debate in high school or college, please do not rely on me to be that familiar with debate terminology or its in-round functions (although I have received multiple judge orientations). 

The most important element is that to be successful if you are fast, well-organized team, you will need to cut down your speed by about 20% when I judge you if you want me to be able to favorably process your arguments.  More explanation with detailed analysis is generally preferable to fewer cards.

Ever play the one sentence story game? You know, the game where two people attempt to tell a story together but with each person only able to add a single sentence? Its an exercise in collaborative storytelling, and that's what I think debate is. Sure, each side tries to shape the story into the direction where they want it to go. But the story will really suck if the players don't acknowledge the previous sentence since the story will just jump from one short scene to the next. The best stories are the ones in which each player uses the previous sentence to turn these sentences into a narrative. There's conflict in how the story goes, but its still a collaboration between the two storytellers.

I view debaters as storytellers, and the judge as the audience. I think debates follow the dramatic structure, there's the exposition in the 1AC, the inciting incident in the 1NC, the rising action in the 2AC, the dramatic climax at the 2NC/1NR and 1AR, and the falling action in the 2NR and 2AR. No matter what the argument is, there's a story that needs to be told behind it. As an audience member, I expect certain things from my stories. I disliked it when Bane incoherently mumbled his way through the Dark Knight rises. I hated that Prometheus expected me to do external research after the movie to grasp its meaning; made especially bad when I found out that it wasn't as deep as it claimed it was after having it read long explanations that weren't in the movie itself. And contrary to most, I didn't like The Usual Suspects when it intentionally fed me wrong clues just to keep the police guessing as well. I like stories that try to change my view at the end, ambiguous stories with vague messages have to be pretty thought provoking for me to like them.

I like stories with heroes that face large moral problems and say "I get that I'm not flawless" but still press on with renewed vigor because they met those challenges and explain to the audience why they are still right. When I buy a ticket to an action movie, I expect to see an action movie; my ticket says action movie so that's what I want. But maybe if I've accidentally wandered into a sob story, I could be convinced to stay, but only if their tears are more powerful than explosions. If I've wandered into a scifi story, I will shut my brain down if I hear too much techno-babble without explanation. Scifi action stories are like, The Best of Both Worlds, both Part 1 and Part 2.

Some audience members really like the technical details behind movies, the sound, the lighting, the blocking; all that stuff is good, but I'm really much more of a plot guy myself. I really liked Dredd, which had a very simple plot that said a lot with only a little dialogue. Sometimes, I like movies like Zoolander despite its lack of plot just because its charming and hilarious. Plots that get dropped and brought up again get an eyeroll from me. No matter what the plot point is, there should be a motive explaining the action. Plotlines that are crucial turning points for a character, say in theory: a defendant explaining why she's not guilty because the system is unfair and she's never been taught better, should be slowed down and emphasized.

I really enjoy stories, stories of all kinds. I know I'm not the best storyteller myself so I appreciate it when storytellers foreshadow where they are going. Stories are ultimately ephemeral and mostly fiction. I've learned so much from stories, but its really how we apply them to the real world that matters. Remember, these stories are a collaborative process, it wouldn't be possible without the other person.

Hi debaters!

First things first, have fun with debate. A judge once said to me "make debate work for you, not the other way around." That has stuck with me throughout my years of being a part of the debate community and it made my time debating incredibly rewarding.

A little about me as a debater - I mostly ran policy with some sort of feminist spin on it. So what does that mean for you? NOTHING. Run what you want, but be passionate about it. I enter a debate round as a blank slate and will not make arguments for you. You get the chance to teach me about a subject you love, so take advantage of it.

A few things I look for...

- Please be polite to your opponents and your partner. There is a difference between being assertive and aggressive.

- I have no problem with spreading as long as you are clear enough for me to flow. If I cannot understand you, I won't flow the cards.

- IMPACT CALC! This is one of the most important parts of the round and too often people gloss over it... Don't do that! You have to opportunity to tell me why you win, so take that opportunity!

- Most of all, have fun and learn something in the round!

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

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

Below are some few thoughts:

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

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

DISADVANTAGES:

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

CRITICISMS:

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

FRAMEWORK:

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

Welcome aboard and Good luck.

I will prefer judging novice rounds now

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

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

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

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

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

Argumentative Preferences: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Speaker Points

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

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

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

Some other things: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2015 Judging Statement 

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

So here are a few things I want to outline:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi All!

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

Things that are good:

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

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

Things that are bad:

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

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

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

marie.eszenyi@gmail.com

(919) 323-1353

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.

Add me to the email chain, but don't expect me to read along! I believe, according to a communication paradigm for competitive debate, that your job as debaters is to interpret and convey the evidence to me. If I don't understand something in your evidence, that's your problem, not mine! If there is specific evidence you want me to understand and lean on as the basis for my decision, you better adequately quote it/paraphrase it and direct me to specific parts of it to read. Just referencing an author and year doesn't mean you've "won" that piece of evidence. Do the work of explaining it!

I don't think anything below is very provocative or counter-intuitive, but here it is:

I am open to any argument you want to make in the debate round. You need to thoroughly explain, justify, and impact the argument for me to seriously consider it. I can't stress this enough! If you've been articulate and you've provided strong analysis that contextualizes your arguments in the debate (and CLASHES with your opponents), you have probably won me over. It's your job to do the better job of debating, and to me that means real explanation and analysis - not just buzzwords and/or jargon. Slow down and thoughtfully explain arguments to me when it matters to the result of the debate.

I don't have that much to say about specific NEG arguments, other than this: as I said above, I like thorough impact analysis, and this goes especially for T and procedural arguments. If it's a voter, my pen doesn't touch paper until I know why it matters, specifically to the debate in question. The same goes for Kritiks: "no value to life" has little value to me. Concretize and contextualize your K link stories and impacts. Alternatives also need to be thoroughly defined and explained. If a DA/CP doesn't make sense to me, well, that's your problem! (I probably dislike shallow explanations of T/procedurals and DAs/CPs most of all).

I'm open to experimentation on the AFF. I need to know why you've made the choices you've made, and why they matter. I'm inclined to cut you slack on prodcedural/framework "violations" if you clearly justify the discussion you're trying to have, the relation to debate you're trying to articulate, etc. (You should be responsive to the procedural/framework claims too). I'm not going to do any of this work for you, at all, ever. That's your job!

Please feel free to approach me with questions any time. I'm always happy to clarify/specify/elaborate!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional Things to know:

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

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

Affiliation: University of Houston

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nukes thoughts:

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

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Online Debate Thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Samantha Godbey, PhD

Director of Debate

West Virginia University

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

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

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

How I feel about arguments

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

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

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

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

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

Hi! I am a junior at James Madison University. My freshman year of college, I debated as a novice and sophomore year, debated in JV. I never debated in Open. I just mostly in the northern Virginia area for Broad Run High School and for JMU. 

I generally ran policy arguments as a debater (I was the 2A), but my partners went for the K for the most part. 

HOW I JUDGE DEBATES: I flow the entire debate. I put down my pen and listen to cx (sometimes I will make notes), and then I vote based on the flow.

Here is generally how I view these off case positions generally, but almost anything can go. If the other team doesn't bring it up as an issue, and/or doesn't answer it, its yours. 

Politics- yes please. In order to win Politics as the neg, answer all theory, and extend your impacts. Also, make sure you have the correct link. I am generally a little more lenient on the uniqueness level.

K- Please have an alt to your K. In order to win on the K, answer all theory, extend your alt, win the link level. Most importantly, TELL ME WHY I SHOULD CARE. I lean more towards the right. I mostly disregard "ethical obligations" as a reason to vote either way. 

CP- Please have a net benefit to your cp. Again, in order to win the CP, answer all theory, extend you solvency, articulate your net benefit and tell me how you solve better for the aff. 

DA- Please have an impact. see above. 

Topicality- I am not as well versed in topicality as I should be, so I will generally go with what I understand. Should be 6 minutes of the 2nr. Ways to win T: great definition, external as well as internal impacts, topical version of the aff, extending all of this in every speech. 

Framework: I am also not as well versed in framework so again, I will generally try to understand to the best of my ability and follow along, but I need to be persuaded. Ways to win Framework: internal and external impacts, extending, ect. 

AFF

I always read a policy aff but I will listen to any aff. I am not very well read on K authors such as Wilderson. 

condo- should be 6 minutes in the 1ar/2ar. If you are going to go for it, really go for it. 

Speaker points

30-life changed immediately and forever

29-life changed immediately and temporarily

28-Good work! you did all the things. 

27-Good work! you did most of the things

26-Almost! you tried to make arguments. Also, I saw u stealing prep. 

25 and below-you have insulted me, everyone in the room, and should never return. 

General notes:

Keep you own speech time, prep time, cx time, ect. I will also attempt to keep up with it. I stop prep when the flash drive leaves the computer or the email is sent. Don't steal prep. 

If anyone begins to cry, I will wait for the given time slot to finish, (cx, speech, whatever), and will stop the debate. Ask if everyone is ok, give person crying the chance to go to the bathroom to compose his/her self and will then continue. If you make someone cry, apologize. 

Please be clear, I will yell clearer if I cannot understand. I will not flow what I cannot understand. 

HAVE FUN!

(hadiem@dukes.jmu.edu for questions/concerns)

Heather Holter Hall

Hallheather8@gmail.com

Salem and Tallwood High School Debater 1990-93

Liberty University Debater 1993-96

Liberty University Assistant Debate Coach 20+ years

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

For novices:

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

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

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

For everyone else:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Michael Hall - Updated 9/15/22

Liberty University

28 Years coaching

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

For the email chain: mprestonhall@gmail.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

a- US should decriminalize x

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

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

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

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

Topicality

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

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

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

Theory

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

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

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

Kritiks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Counterplans

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

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

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

Permutations

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

Performance

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

CX

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

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

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

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

Disadvantages

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

1-  Disads are generally stupid because...

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

'

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's a little bit about my debate history.  I debated for the University of Rochester for about three years.  I ran a little bit of every type of argument, disads, topicality, critiques, etc.  Since debating, I've been working in direct, social services dealing with issues of homelessness, veterans, food stamps, and GED in New York City. 

I haven't been in the debate world for a few years, but I'm open to hearing any type of argument.  I'm not the best flower, so please be clear.  I'm going to vote for arguments that are well-explained, carried throughout the round, and make sense.  Feel free to ask me any questions.  Good luck! 

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

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

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

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

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

Strategy, in no particular order:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Captain America was right in Civil War.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

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

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

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

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

Keep your own time.

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

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

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

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

God bless~

Updated March 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Affiliation: Liberty University

Email: KTJordan07@gmail.com

I began debate as a novice at Liberty University in the fall of 2007 and continued to debate on both the JV and Varsity levels until I graduated in the spring of 2011. I graduated from Liberty University School of Law in May 2014. In my day job I work full time as an Assistant City Attorney for the city of Lynchburg, VA practicing local government law with a focus on social services/child dependency matters. I am currently judging for Liberty University.

While I have been judging debates for nine years, I have not judged many debates on this topic so please be clear with topic specific information/acronyms.

My first two years of debate I ran strictly policy arguments with only an occasional kritik. My third and fourth years I ran a mix of arguments on both the aff and neg, primarily reading critical affirmatives. I have been both the 2A and the 2N so I know the challenges of each.

In general debate well and you will be fine. You would be better to debate what you know well, than trying to change what you do to adapt to any presuppositions you may think I may have. I am open to most arguments. I say most because if you are arguing racism good or gravity doesn’t exist, then you will be fighting an uphill battle that is impossible to win absent an equally absurd argument from the other team. If you are clear and thoroughly explained, then the debate will be better for everyone. Make sure to tell me what it is I am voting for at the end of the round, otherwise I revert to a logical policymaker.

Specifics:

Stylistically:

Clarity over speed. If you are clear then there is no problem with speed.

I will generally flow line by line unless I am asked to do otherwise. Dropped arguments are important unless you tell me why they aren't.

Don't "cut the card" at the end of a significant number of cards. It makes it look like you don't know how to highlight the key parts of evidence.

T/Framework:
Can be good for both strategy and clarity. I do not mind teams that chose to approach T in a creative manner, just have an explanation of why you do what you do. Limits can be good, but make sure to tell me why YOUR limits are good. Debate should be both fun and educational, show me why your way is best! Framework against non-traditional affirmatives may be a strategic option but is not always the best strategy as these teams often garner offense against you reading a traditional framework. Think strategically, and don't just whine to me that what the other team is doing is unfair. You must show me how it is so unfair/anti-educational that they need to lose the debate round if you want to get my ballot on this argument.

Theory:
Conditionality is not always bad, but have a reason to why you need to be conditional. Conditionality can easily become abusive, especially when it is in the form of Multiple Contradictory Conditional Advocacies. If you object manner in which a team is running an argument (Condo, Dispo, Contradictory, Agent, Pics, etc.) then tell me. I will not reject a team if you do not tell me why to reject them. For theory it is most often reject the argument not the team, but if that argument is all you have winning you the debate you may lose anyways.

DA:
Can be the best part of debate if they have a good internal link story but often they do not get the explanation they deserve. My novice year, my partner and I did not read a single CP but always ran DA’s that solved case. This strategy is often under utilized for its strategic advantages. Most often the DA’s don’t even have coherent link stories. If it is a stretch, then it is most likely not going to be your winning argument. I see this most often with politics DA’s. I often say the more internal links that you need to get to your impact, the less likely the impact will happen.
Impact = Time-frame X Probability X Magnitude.

CP:
See my note on theory above. A good CP can be devastating to teams that aren't ready for the specificity that might exist within that strategy. As well mastering a general CP can be good as long as you can apply it to the specific Aff.

Non-traditional Affirmatives:
Be prepared to tell me why you do what you do. You need more than just a defense of your position but also an offense. You should also read what I have written to the policy teams because it also applies to you. Just because you don’t label an argument as a DA or CP doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have to have an internal link or a clear picture of the impact and why it matters.

The "K":
Some of the literature is a bit out there but if you can explain it I will follow. Make sure to explain why I should vote for you and why the other team should lose.

Overall:
If you feel like you have extra time… then explain more. You can always answer the question “WHY”? You say you should win, why? Condo Good, Why? Utopian Alt bad, why? Your impact it is the biggest, why? The more “whys” you answer, the less that are left in my head, and the more likely I will buy your argument.

Have fun!!

John Katsulas, Director of Debate, Boston College
30 years coaching

Here are the rules for debate:
1) The affirmative side must advocate a plan of action by the United States Federal Government. If you merely read poetry, dance, or play music, you will lose.
2) The negative side must defend a consistent policy position in the debate. The negative may choose to defend the status quo, or the negative may advocate an unconditional counterplan.
3) Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.
4) Conditionality is prohibited.
5) The resolution is worded as a policy proposition, which means that policy making is the focus of debate.
6) Kritiques are not welcome.
7) Performance-style debate belongs in theatre productions.
.
Here are suggestions for debating in front of me:
1) The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical.
2) Agent counterplans are fine. Don’t waste your time arguing PICS bad arguments against them. The legitimacy of international fiat is debatable, but I definitely believe there are far stronger arguments favoring limiting fiat to U.S. governmental actors.
3) Politics disadvantages are welcome. I like to hear them. Affirmatives should attack the internal link stories on many of these disadvantages. This is frequently a more viable strategy than just going for impact turns.
4) Both sides should argue solvency against affirmative plans and negative counterplans. Both sides should attack the links and internal links of impacts.
5) If you are incomprehensible, I won’t re-read all of your evidence after the debate to figure out your arguments.
6) Negative can win my ballot on zero risk of affirmative case solvency. Many affirmatives cases are so tragically flawed that they can be beaten by an effective cross-examination and/or analytical case presses.
7) I am very strict on 1ARs making new answers to fully developed disadvantages which don’t change from the 1NC.
8) Cross-examination answers are binding.
9) ASPEC: I won’t vote on it UNLESS you ask in cross-ex and they refuse to specify an agent.
10) Too late to add new links and impacts to your disadvantages during the first negative rebuttal.

I have a low threshold for dismissing non-real world arguments like nuclear war good and wipe-out.

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if I’m given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I don’t like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I don’t like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

Debated at James Madison University for 5 years
Currently- policy analyst on the Hill (DC), and assistant coach for JMU Debate fall 2010-spring 2015
Judging at the college level since: 2010-2011

Short Version:

As a debater, I ran a wide variety of args mostly based on their strategic value and, to a slightly lesser degree, based on my personal interests. Just remember that in front of me, you should try to a) win a link, b) win an impact to that link, and c) argue why that impact is important. If you don’t do that, then you will probably require me to do a lot of work to figure out how to evaluate the round. Also, claims need warrants- otherwise you're just wasting your breath (even if the other team drops this "arg").

I usually evaluate my decision based on the flow and typically do not to call for much ev for review purposes. Usually if I do it's because a) I'm personally interested in the arg/ev cited or b) scouting. If you are already doing a good job comparing the claims, warrants, assumptions, etc. of your ev versus the other team then that is likely to deter me from intervening with an ev review. It's largely up to YOU to tell me why your ev is good/better than your opponents'. 

Longer Version:

Here are a few other biases and assumptions that I will bring to the debate, but these are obviously open to revision based on the arguments in the round and my ongoing experience as a judge.

Topicality/Procedurals- You need to flesh out why your interpretation is best for debate *and* prove why the abuse committed by the opposite team justifies a ballot in your favor (i.e., you need more than just a link). For T, I will try to evaluate based on competing interpretations. Affs can and should still make the actual reasonability argument (hint: this does NOT mean the blindly subjective, “heyyyy, come on judge…”) as an answer to an arbitrarily limiting neg interpretation. Theory args need a clear link, and should be impacted on why they have skewed the debate to the point that it has created an irreversible strategic disadvantage. Lastly, if you're one of those fast-talkers and you start off with T in the 1NC/2AC, please take the first 10-15 secs at about 75% speed so I can adjust and catch how the other team is cheating/how you aren't.

Framework- If you are setting up a non-traditional framework for the debate space and role of the ballot, then just make sure that it is explicit and consistently mentioned throughout the round. When it comes to clashes of framework style, I generally think that races to the middle are probably easier to defend, compared to absolute assertations such as "the state is always/never good" - particularly given the wording of this year's legalization topic. In any case, I'll hold FW to the same standards as T/Procedurals: if the other team is running an abusive arg/FW, then you need a clear link, a significant impact, and a explain why your impact matters more.

Performance- I am fine with these as they meet the impact burden I listed at the top. This does not mean you have to win an orthodox impact, per se, but I should know what I am voting for. If you have an unusual interpretation for the role of the ballot, you better drive that point in and why that’s important too. Performance affs should meet the framework note that I mentioned above (i.e. performance affs shouldn't just ignore the resolution).

Disads- I hope yours have internal links. If not, then they might fail to pass my main criteria for evaluation, above. The risk of a DA can be reduced to practically zero, such as, but not limited to, the case that the Neg drops a major argument (ex. a no link).

Kritiks- The more specific the links the better. A lack of a specific link could hurt your analysis later. Don’t forget about impact comparison. If it helps, I usually view most Ks like a CP and a DA debate. The alt is like a CP and the impact to the K is the DA that the alt claims as a net benefit. Alternative solvency should be highly interrogated by the affirmative (you wouldn’t allow a counterplan to solve the aff without a fight would you?).

Counterplans- Counterplans should compete, if not then they go away. If none of the neg counterplans compete, then the neg, as my default, reverts to defending the status quo. Conditionality is debatable, but probably okay in most situations.

Permutations- I generally defer to the belief that they are just tests of competition, absent any specific discussion in the round. Two times when advocating the perm *might* be okay: a) if a 2NC kicks a flow, says the perm is “just a test of competition” and that gets debated out for the rest of the round b) if there is some sort of reps/rhetoric key argument flowing around it is used strategically. A time when it is not okay: new advocacy in the 2AR.

Other preferences:
1. Very important: be civil towards the other people in the room.

2. If you are speaking, do so clearly. I will yell out a “louder” or “clearer” only once. I try to keep a good flow, but if I don't hear something you say then I'll probably not take it into consideration when I review my flow. PAPERLESS TIP: It really helps if you angle your laptop away from the line of sight between me and you. It is so much easier to hear your speech if the computer is tilted 45 degrees or so away from your face. Plus, looking straight at the cute stickers on the back of your laptop screen for 15 minutes is not exactly charming.

3. Don’t steal prep. If you are stealing prep, then don’t be surprised if my timer is ahead of yours.
PAPERLESS PREP: I’ll stop your normal, 10-minute prep timer when your files are transferred to a viewing/opponent’s laptop.

4. An argument has a claim and a warrant. If you make/extend something that lacks one of those components, then that is not an argument. An author citation is neither a claim nor a warrant (although it is very helpful in flagging an arg).

5. I generally think debate is good, in the grandest sense as an advocacy and critical-thinking based activity. It will be hard to convince me that “debating is bad.” However, this is not an endorsement of the norms and procedures of policy debate, specifically. Those norms are always up for, well…debate.

6. One last thing about "dropped args." Speaking from judging experience, crucial dropped args on both sides (ex. FW) in some rounds make it difficult to have a non-interventionist decision one way or another. I originally evaluated this dilemmas by punishing the team that make the first drop, but now I think it's most proper to just weigh the better arg that IS extended. 

7. Don't assume that I am familiar with the literature base that you are reading from. I believe this is consistent with my previous recommendations on "explaining your arg." Even though I have been actively involved as a coach, I am not cutting cards like I did as a debater. Thus, I may or may not be as familiar with the topical literature base, critical literature, etc. 

8. On speaker points: Here is the guide that I try to reference each round. FYI: this is the scale I have already been using. So this is mostly for transparency purposes rather than to signify a change in my judging practices.

I obviously reserve to right for some subjectivity, based on a number of other performance measures in the round (e.g., cross-x, humor, civility [or lack thereof], clarity, etc.). H/T to Shree Awsare, who I copied and pasted this scale from:

• < 25 (< 50): You really got on my nerves and you deserve an equally obnoxious number on the 0-25 part of the scale.
• 25 (50): You showed up but didn't really make an argument past the 1AC/1NC, and didn't ever acknowledge the fact that there were opponents making arguments in your speech.
• 26 (60): You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents.
• 27 (70): You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims
• 28 (80): You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers.
• 28.5 (85): You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish.
• 29-29.9 (90-99): You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, you were hilarious (or if you aren't funny, you somehow connected with me as a judge and made me want to care), and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.
• 30: Life changed.

I debated for 4 years at Vanderbilt University and have now been judging and coaching there for the last 7 years. 

By default, I evaluate the debate within a policy paradigm. If you want me to evaluate it the debate in a different way you need to tell me that. I prefer CPs and a good case debate---impact analysis being key. I will listen to critical arguments, but do not assume I have read the literature. To win on a critical argument, you probably need to be making specific arguments as to why you solve the affirmative or how the affirmative plan will aggravate the circumstances that the critique indicts.

Topicality: I have been known to vote on topicality, but you probably need either actual abuse or a well-warranted argument of potential abuse to win it. 

Theory: I hate theory debates, but having said that I realize that theoretical objections are a necessary tool to fight against many CPs and strategies, and will take that into account. Slow it down a little on the blippy theory arguments because I need to get them all down. For theory, I usually default to drop the argument and not the team for the “transgression”, so keep that in mind when making decisions at the end of the round. Make sure you go for uniqueness on the theory debate or else I really don't know where the brightline is or why I care. My threshold for voting on a theory or "rules" argument is fairly high, you could say.

I have a very expressive face. Look at it during the debate and you will get a plethora of indications of what I am and am not feeling and/or understanding. 

Be nice.

Finally, I would rather not have to read evidence at the end of the debate. I probably will not unless a. everyone does a bad job on impact and/or warrant analysis, or b. one team alleges the other team is lying about what is in their evidence. Think about that when you are deciding how much warranted analysis you want to give me at the end of the debate.

I debated for NYU for two years in the early 2000s and have been coaching since the fall 2012 season. My recent background has been graduate and fieldwork in international relations and international security, so the policy side of issues has been pivotal to my day-to-day life. I have done much of this work focusing on the South Asian & Middle Eastern regions. While I lean towards policy & enjoy these rounds more, I am open to listening to whatever args emerge in a round. Ultimately, I won't vote down a critical arg or performance aff just because of my personal preferences.

I weigh clarity heavily when calculating speaker points. So please clearly identify the titles of your args (Disad, K, Topicality, etc) when switching between them on the various flows. Signposting & reading tags clearly are an absolute must!

Impact analysis is extremely important to me. I like smart debaters that can analyze & articulate the reasons their args matter or what it means for them to win/lose.

I’m usually up for anything and I am reasonable. All I ask is you do your best to speak clearly, promote education (the reason we are all here), and don’t get too fancy with spreading or be purposefully confusing.

Speak clearly. If I don't understand what your argument is I will not be able to flow it.

If you decide to run T it should be thorough. Critical stuff is good, I'm open to all types of cases even if they do not strictly adhere to the resolution.

Again: speak clearly, it will be a better educational experience for everyone.

Background:

Although I am a fairly new judge, I am very invested in this activity and community and thus work very hard to make thoughtful decisions and provide productive feedback after rounds. I debated for four years with James Madison University and have experience in all three divisions.

Philosophy:

The way that I frame both my understanding of the debater’s roles and my role as a judge is that I think debate is for the debaters. I believe that debate should grow and adapt in order to accommodate changes in the debaters who make up the community. Debaters should be allowed to engage in debate in the way that fits both their educational and competitive goals (and that debate has to find some sort of balance between the two). That means that debaters who want to debate politics should have at least some debates that focus on those issues and debaters who want to focus on issues of debate pedagogy should have some debates that focus on that. I want students to feel as if they are empowered to make arguments that they are excited by and moved by and are not dictated by some myopic closed minded judge in the back of the room. I will do my best to be open-minded and evaluate the debate in front of me to the best of my ability.

What does this mean for you as a debater? Here are some guidelines:

1. Aff Framing: You should be able to state how your framework relates to the topic. I don’t mean to imply that you have to read a plan, or evidence, or defend fiat only that you should be able to explain how your plan engages with and relates to what we as a community are using as our starting point for the year. Second you should address how your framework is fair for both sides. Do both sides have the ability to engage meaningful issues under your framework? What does debate look like if your view of debate wins out?

2. Neg Framing: A negative framework that is not closely related to the resolution is probably more acceptable than a similar framework on the affirmative. Clashing with the affirmative generally provides a more interesting and fun debate as far as judging purposes go but is not necessarily a requirement for the neg.  


3. Negative Kritiks – I generally like Ks. The best Ks directly engage the affirmative and contextualize specific examples of how the K interacts with the affirmative argument. That being said I have a fairly broad understanding of what it means to “engage the affirmative”. I think that state bad Ks, language Ks and kritiks of the system can be argued to engage the affirmative (I could also probably be persuaded that they do not). I have run or hit a large variety of Ks but please don’t expect me to be an expert on the arcane terminology of specific authors.

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

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

6. Topicality/Procedurals – I will vote on T and procedurals. The number one reasons why I do not vote on T is that there is no clear extension of impacts. It is not enough to say “that’s a voter for fairness and education” rather these arguments are significantly better when you explain how T implicates your impacts and why I should care about these impacts versus other impacts in the round. While evidence is not required, it does tend to enrich the debate. Additionally, I think the negative normally needs to commit significant time to these arguments if they want to win them. A 20 second T argument in the 2NR is unlikely to get my ballot. 

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

8. Disads – I like disads especially smart disads that engage a unique aspect of the affirmative. In general, debaters rely too much on evidence, especially in politics debates, and do not spend enough time exploiting holes in the evidence or even applying the evidence they previously read. Try combining evidence with some smart analytics, and explaining how your evidence compares to the other sides and your speaker points will be rewarded accordingly. 

9. Cplans –I don’t really have a stance about pics, agent cplans or the like. I have voted for each of them and against each of them. I generally like Cplans although Cplans supported by specific evidence make me much happier than your super generic cplan strategy. Additionally, I think that Cplans that have a solvency advocate generally produce more interesting debates; however, they are not a requirement and I am equally likely to vote for either. 

Some other things: 

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

2. Be nice – I dislike people who are jerks in debates and this will be reflected in your speaker points. 

3. Every argument requires a claim, warrant and data. Which means arguments like “Perm: Do Both” mean little to me until they have some explanation attached to them. Also shadow extending will likely not get you very far.

4. Don’t steal prep – Try to be cognizant of the round, if I catch you stealing prep I will call you out on it and adjust your prep time accordingly. I am fairly lenient about paperless debate, but don’t be ridiculous about it. I am only human and thus I only have so much patience.

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

Speaker Points

I believe that speaker points are a community norm and that I cannot pretend that my point exist in a vacuum. So I will do my best to figure out what the community average at a given tournament might be and adjust my points accordingly. I am likely to deviate further from the average. Which means if the community average is a 29 you are still likely to see a few people in the 27s (teams that are going to be in the bottom quarter of the tournament) and probably quite a few points near 30.

I coached and judged CEDA, NDT, BP, IPDA in my 20 year coaching career. Aside from some online coaching during the pandemic, it has been 8 years since my day to day involvement with a debate topic. I have judged CARD for the last few years and enjoy the format immensely. I really have no argument or style preference anymore. I want to hear well constructed arguments about the topic. I will be clear when I see them and will not hesitate to explain why I didn't feel they were well constructed or about the topic. I will take good notes about the debate but I will not transcribe the debate. If it is not in my notes it is usually because I didn't feel you made it seem important or relevant. Please ask me any questions before or after the debate .

natemilton@gmail.com

Background

I debated for four years in high school and three years at Liberty. I mostly debated a “CP and politics” type strategy on the neg and also enjoyed going for T and theory when it was strategic. I did read the K sometimes though. My favorite debates are large case debates with a DA or two.

General Philosophy:

I try my best to let the arguments in the debate determine how I evaluate the round although I will admit that I have biases that can influence how I view certain arguments. I have included some opinions that I hope you will find useful in specifically tailoring your arguments to me. I am flow centric. I enjoy clash. I believe that both sides should have an equal opportunity to win the round, so while not defending a “policy action” (ie not having a plan text) doesn’t mean you will automatically lose in front of me, I believe that if pressed, you should have some sort of a division of “ground” that enables the opposing side an equal chance to win (I believe in “fairness”). I believe that having to argue in favor of something you don’t believe is beneficial (“switch side debate is good”). I have a minimal threshold for arguments for me to evaluate them, they must have a warrant that makes sense. It is important for you to talk about impacts and compare them to the other side’s impacts on all arguments. I do not evaluate arguments that aren’t in the last two rebuttals. I don’t think debates should get personal, it should be about the arguments, not the people. I try not to have to read evidence, I prefer it to be explained and impacted in the debate, “call for this card after the round” is not an argument, explaining the warrants of the evidence in question is a more productive use of your time. Don't try to talk too fast (speed is overrated) and you probably shouldn't use profanity.

T + Theory

I will vote on T/Theory. I lean towards competing interpretations on T and that Condo is usually ok (1 CP and 1 K). I ere Aff on T, Neg on Theory. Please remember to impact these arguments, it’s not a “Voter” just because you say it is. T is not a reverse voter. Please be aware of argument interaction between different theory arguments.

Cross-Examination:

CX starts (my timer starts) promptly after the end of the constructive speech. Open CX is fine, however I feel that it is best to not engage in it whenever possible. I think the CX is an underutilized speech, and good questions are often not turned into arguments, it is important to turn CX questions and answers into arguments during a speech. I don’t flow CX but I do pay attention. CX greatly influences how I award my speaker points.

CP’s

I like clever PIC’s (not word PIC’s). I ran SC CP and politics a lot. However, I’ve been doing some thinking about agent CP’s, and the more I think about them the more I think they aren’t competitive (if the agent is within the USFG). Obviously this is a debate to be had and I can be persuaded either way. I am not a fan of delay or multiple CP’s (the exception to the multiple CP’s is if you are reading advantage CP’s and/or unconditional CP’s). In the 1NC, please SLOW DOWN when reading your CP text so I know what the CP is, thank you in advance. For conditional CP’s, unless the 2NR explicitly says that the SQ is still an option, if you go for the CP I transition into Plan vs CP framework in which the CP must be net beneficial to warrant a neg ballot.

K’s

I am not the biggest fan of the K. That being said, I will and have vote/d for/on the K, I would say that I just have a high threshold for the level of explanation that needs to occur for these kinds of arguments to be persuasive and make sense. I do not appreciate a bunch of post modern jargon; the simpler you can explain your K the better. Please explain what your alternative is and what voting for you means/does, what the role of the ballot is, and why all of that is more important than an endorsement of the Aff. I find that when I don't vote for a K it is usually because the explanation of what the alternative is/does is lacking. While I do not find some K's to be very persuasive, just because the debate makes me grumpy(ier) doesn't mean I won't vote for you, I'll probably just complain about it afterwards (although I will happily provide you with a list of my least favorite K's upon request). I will say that I very much dislikes K's based on a link of omission. If in doubt, read what you are best at and most comfortable with and tell me not to be so grumpy.

Paperless

Please be as prompt and courteous as possible. DO NOT: intentionally include 9 million cards that you aren’t going to read into your speech document (please feel free to ask for a new speech document with just the marked cards that are read, no charge), intentionally disorganize your speech document, or steal prep-time (no one should be doing anything during “tech” time). I am rather trusting on this issue so feel free to police yourselves, I won’t hold it against you if you call your opponents out (even if they are behaving).

MISC

I do not prompt for clarity, if I can’t understand you, I will stop flowing and make a face at you. I believe that judge adaptation is an important part of debate and so if you have a question about anything I have not covered here, please feel free to ask, but I will get angry if it’s clear you haven’t read this.

When in doubt: "Make with the good debating, not the bad debating."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

About me:

Update January 2024.
Whew. Been a long ride since I last updated. If I'm in the back of the room for you, it's because someone drafted me into judging a tournament as a fill-in for somebody else. My work has gotten increasingly busy, and now I work close to 12 hours a day. I also have a baby on the way (due April 2024!) so there may be some elements of sleep deprivation. I have stopped actively coaching debate, and probably will not pick it back up until the aforementioned child is in middle/high school and has decided to join the debate team.

As a result, a few things to think about.

My ability to hear speed hasn't gone away - I listen to debate rounds online from time to time, and fast spreading still sounds like conversational speech to me. What has gone away is my ability for my flow to keep up with speed. I can pretty much guarantee that if you spread anything except the text of evidence itself I will miss arguments on my flow. It's a sad state of affairs, but that's what happens when I don't judge regularly.

I will not be familiar with the topic beyond what I follow in the news (though admittedly, I read a lot). It might be beneficial to think of me as a well informed person, but someone whose knowledge is much wider than it is deep. As I've stated in past updates, it's to your advantage to read deeper piece of evidence that you can explain well. Keep in mind that any narrative you build based on that evidence is vulnerable to disruption by the other team, and so be prepared for that.

If you want to read T, theory, or framework, that's still fine. It's my general perspective that framework debates have changed as the community has started embracing a lot more Ks, and given my unfamiliarity with that literature base, I'd spend some time explaining it if I was in your shoes.

I'm a lot more flexible, however, on what I'm willing to judge. I used to have a strong preference for reading a plan text. Judging so much PF and LD, where plan texts are less common (especially in PF, where it's usually a bad idea to read one), pulled me away from that preference. I'm more concerned with the central thesis of the debate more so than I'm concerned about plan action. That's not to say I don't enjoy the whole plan text + advantages structure which dominated my time as a debater, because I do. It's just that I recognize that affirmative solvency isn't necessarily dependent on the implementation of a plan. Most plan-less debates still have the concept that you need to present an alternative to the status quo and solvency for it, but that doesn't need to a plan implemented by a government entity.

Finally, a general thought. I do make a point of trying to keep up with developments in the debate community, especially in the policy and progressive LD domains. There is a lot of public pushback against both activities as exclusionary because of the various Ks that get read, and it creates an image that debaters are trying to push out people who don't agree with them. There are people outside of debate who will cherry-pick judging paradigms, or streamed debates which are K-heavy, and then present that as evidence that debate is broken. As someone who has been around debate for a long time, and as someone who has a lot of friends still coaching and judging who have informed me otherwise, I really don't think that's the case. Unless I see something which really leads me to believe otherwise, I will defend and advocate for debate as much as I possibly can. I only ask that you help me in this goal by being the best version of yourself - do deep research, constantly refine your speaking skills, practice flowing, and always do redos after your tournaments. Just like you need evidence to win your debates, I need it too.

Thanks for letting me be your judge.

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

Update for Harvard 2022

I am super tired at this point in time, largely because I started a demanding new job in the middle of a pandemic while remote coaching a 10-person LD/PF team by myself (though my older debaters are finally cutting their own evidence, so that helps.) Please consider slowing down. I'm fine with all your tech, but maybe focus on reading deeper pieces of evidence and explaining them to me instead of going fast. I just wanna hear a good debate at this point, but not a fast one.

Rest of my philosophy is below, nothing has changed in the macro sense except the speed stuff.

My email is zoheb.nensey@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me any questions post round or put me on the email chain.

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

I debated for four years at Miami (FL), took a year off to coach for the Chief at KCKCC, and then returned to school to coach at Florida State. I then spent 5 years in DC, where I worked with Oakton HS for like a year or two, and then with the Washingtion UDL for 3 years. I've since moved back to Florida and work with Jesuit (Tampa) on the side. We do a little bit of policy, and a lot of PF/LD (good locally, mostly a bunch of pretty bad 1-5s, 2-4s on the circuit).

Short version:

1) Speed's fine - I'll let you know if you're going too fast. Sorry if I miss it on my flow, but my local circuit is not very fast.

2) I have an ongoing love affair for T. You can turn it with your K if you want, but know that I'll evaluate the T flow before I evaluate anything else (including any turns.) Please slow slow slow down on these debates as I rarely judge T (or theory, for that matter) anymore. For 2018-9, I am not as familiar with the topic and what is normally considered topical as I would like. So keep that in mind when you're arguing about what the core of the topic is.

3) Arguments I consider outlandish but will still vote for (but warning - high threshold here):

a) Must define all terms - only if the aff somehow drops it.

b) nuclear malthus, spark, wipeout - only if the neg goes all in on it during the block and the aff doesn't win any offense against it. Feel free to bust out your turns, affirmatives.

c) ASPEC - only if the neg asks who the actor is in the 1AC cross-x, and the negative can justify loss of ground based on that actor choice.

4) K debates - go for it. Please provide real world examples of the kind of logic that the affirmative is using and why that logic is a bad idea.

5) Framework debates - go for it. But please let me know you're reading framework in your roadmap - I flow these separately, and much like a T debate.

6) Disads - have fun. Read them. I'm still skeptical of political capital being zero sum after having lived in DC for 5 years, but read it anyway if you think you have a good argument. All other disads are fair game, but don't make your internal link chains too contrived.

7) Counterplans - these are cool too. I'm skeptical of consult CPs from a theoretical perspective, but handle the perm debate and you'll be good. Also - if you're the aff, don't go too fast through your perms, and make sure you explain them in detail. If you're the negative, slow down on your counterplan text - I need to write it down.

8) Theory - I only really vote on super egregious violations (except as outlined above, like on consult CPs), but please avoid reading conflicting worlds.

Longer version:
Theory
I always read theory in debates as an answer if I didn't have anything else. My past experience has been, though, unless its a really egregious violation, I'm not likely to vote on theory. If you're reading more than one counterplan or alternative, AND they conflict, that's a pretty sure way to get me to pull the trigger on theory. If you’re saying “condo”, and then read conflicting positions which can function as offense against each other – you have another thing coming if you think I won’t let the affirmative make you defend both. If, however, they don't conflict then I see no real problem with multiple conditional positions.

T
I like T. I've won debates on T. I think that affs should have a clear link to the topic. For me, its always been a question of competing interpretations. I do think a lot of critical affs can still be run with a topical plan. That's not to say I won't vote for an affirmative that doesn't have a plan text - I've done it before - but you have to have a really good reason why doing your plan through a personal advocacy rather is a better idea then having the USFG doing the plan.

CPs
I think that counterplans are a necessary part of any debate. I'm fine with most counterplans, with the one major exception being consult counterplans. I don't like consult counterplans because it seems that most of the time the net benefit is pretty artificial and stems entirely off of the counterplan's action, rather than any direct link to the plan.
These debates always seem to be pretty heavy on theory, so when you're debating the theory part of these debates slow it down a little and explain things out, because if you're blippy on the line by line I won't be able to catch everything you write down.

DAs
Nothing's better than a good disad. I'm pretty fair game with almost any disad. Though I have a higher threshold for politics.

Ks
I like the K, but I'm not especially familiar with it. My background is such that I’ve spent a lot of time looking at political science things, communication things, statistics things, and computer things, but I have not had the chance to dig into philosophical literature much beyond the basics. I have judged a number of K debates over the years, so my basic feeling is that if you run into a K Aff, you should try and read a K against it.

If you’re an affirmative and you get a K run against you, try and engage it. I am not averse to the idea that the affirmative can be a step in the right direction. That being said, the negative should spend time highlighting the logic and assumptions of the affirmative – I tend to view the link in these terms, and I am persuadable by arguments along the line that even if the aff is a step in the right direction, its’ underlying logic means that it won’t achieve any sort of long term solvency for the harms that the K expresses. But it’s on the negative to prove that the bias of the affirmative is strong enough to preclude any risk of affirmative solvency or perm solvency at all, and on top of that I need to understand why the K’s alternative will eventually resolve the problems presented by the aff. A change in logic can lead to changes in how we formulate policy, but you need to explain that.

One other thing – on framework. I am not averse to it. I will judge it much like a T debate for the K – it comes first if it’s get read. But my threshold for rejecting frameworks that simply say that we should only do policy analysis is low. Policy considerations are always based on assumptions and ways of looking at the world, and your framework argument should tell me what your view of the world is and why that’s better than whatever the negative is proposing. Make it specific. Also let me know if you’re reading framework (in the form of – you’ll need an extra sheet) during your roadmap. I flow framework separately.

Offense/Defense
Offense is good --> having lots of it at the end of a debate makes me happy. In the case that the other team has lots of offense too, I need a clear explanation why your offense is more important than theirs, because otherwise you're opening the door for a lot of judge interventionism. I don't like intervening, but if I have to intervene I will.
Defense is good too --> I think you can win on an argument purely on defense. If you have some really good evidence that takes out their link or takes out the uniqueness to their disad, by all means, read it and use it to its fullest extent. I need there to be more than just a risk of a link to vote an argument. If you're negative, make sure your link is as concrete as you can possibly make it.

Miscellaneous
Be nice to the other team and to your partner. I once had a partner who was blatantly rude, and it cost us debates and caused a lot of bad feelings. Rudeness will hurt your speaks.
If you don't know the answer to a question in CX, it's far better to say I don't know or look to your partner to answer it than to stand there blankly or try and dodge the question.
I'm fine with tag-team CX.
Jokes about the Florida State Seminoles (even though I went there), the Florida Gators, and the Ohio State Buckeyes will be rewarded with a laugh and a slight increase in speaker points.
Humor in general will be rewarded with increases in speaker points.

Speaker Points Scale
30 - you're the best debater I've ever seen, and your execution was flawless. I don't think I've ever given a 30, but if someone were to get it they would probably also be in late outrounds at the NDT.
29 - 29.9 - You're one of the best debaters at the tournament (in your division.)
28 - 28.9 - You're good, You'll probably clear.
27 - 27.9 - You're an okay debater, you need some work, you didn't drop anything major.
26 - 26.9 - You dropped at least one or more important arguments that lost you the round.
25 - 25.9 - This is reserved for people who were either so atrocious that they answered nothing (an unlikely scenario, no matter the division), or were exceptionally rude to one or more people in the debate.


At the end of the day, do what you do best. If you can run and explain a K really well, then run it. If your pleasure is politics disads, go for it. I've voted against my personal preferences before, and I'll do it again. I'll work hard in deciding the round for you because I know you work hard to prepare. So do your best, keep it civil, and have fun.

Joe Patrice

USMA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Patten - I make it a point to judge the round based on the evidence provided by both teams, and do not make arguments for teams - in other words, I will vote for teams even if I don't personally agree with their arguments.  I can judge speed, but tend to give higher speaks for debaters who speak clearly.

Anna Pinchuk
3rd year policy debater at Binghamton University

I will support and evaluate any form of debate that you find educational and useful for yourself. That means that I am comfortable watching and evaluating "standard debate", flowing line-by-line and listening to the case and T-debate. I would also enjoy and support other forms of engagement with the topic and debate community whatever they might be. 
I would be flexible in flowing the way you want me to and evaluating the "performative" arguments that aren't necessarily theoretical. 
I find myself rewarding debaters who are passionate and care about their specific form of debating ( "traditional" or otherwise), and the debate community in general with high speaker points. Below are a few things you could find useful, BUT how the specific debate develops might change them; I'm also open to be persuaded otherwise. 

"Traditional" way of engaging the topic - 
- if you're going for T, extend your interpretation in every speech and very clearly/specifically. Assume I'm not very familiar with the topic's limits & ground
- if you run framework, be very specific in terms of the topic-education that you did not gain in this specific debate round. I do find most aff's that kritik the political and social institutions and/or have a relation (even if it's not very direct) to the topic to be topical. You've got to be more specific than "they did not talk about USFG, therefore we lose education." Arguments that it is unfair and/or you lose ground are harder to persuade me to vote for. 
- if the argument in any flow is conceded but not explained, do not assume that I will automatically vote for you. Explain how it relates to the rest of the debate. 

Other forms of engaging the topic - 
- I really enjoy those debates and find performance, personal narratives, music, pictures, cultural artifacts etc. to be arguments. I will be fine with evaluating them against theoretical arguments that the other teams makes if you ask me to do so. 
- I'm find myself looking at a bigger picture and evaluating the entirety of the debate in those rounds. Meaning that it is very important for you to control the framing/role of the judge and ballot. If you win the framing of the round, I'm more likely to vote on that vs. a small dropped argument that does not challenge that framing. 

Being respectful to the other team in forms of listening, speaking and argumentative engagement will positively impact your speaker points. 

Good luck!

About me:

Director of Debate at George Mason University.

Please add me to chain: japoapst@gmail.com

11/26/2023 Speaker Point Update:

I will be utilizing the Regnier speaker point scale

5+ Random Things that Annoy me:

1. Hostility - I am too old, too cranky, and too tired to hear undergraduate students treating opponents, partners, or me like trash. I literally can't handle the levels of aggression some rounds have anymore. Please just stop. Be community minded. You are debating another person with feelings, remember that. Opponents are friends on the intellectual journey you are having in debate, not enemy combatants. Give people the benefit of the doubt and try to practice grace in rounds.

2. Debaters who act like they don't care in debates. If being a troll or giving some performance of apathy about debate is your shtick I am absolutely not the judge for you. Debate is a privilege that many individuals do not have the ability to participate in due to lack of collegiate access or financial well being, and I think we should treat the opportunity we have to be in this activity with respect.

3. Multiple cards in the body of the email.

4. Yelling over each other in cx - everyone will lose speaks.

5. Interrupting your partner in cx - I am seriously close to saying I want closed cx, I am so annoyed at how egregious this is becoming. I will deduct speaks from both partners.

6. Extending Cross ex past 3 minutes. I will actively stop listening in protest/leave the room. Anything past the 3 minutes should be for clarification purposes only.

7. Wipeout, Baudrillard, Malthus, Con Con CPs, Strike 'x' country CPs, trivializing the holocaust, reading re-prints of books from 1995 but citing it as the reprint date, fiating mindset shifts.

Topicality:

The nukes topic is great for the negative and I do not think I will be persuaded on sub-sets arguments against NFU. This topic is too small give the aff a break.

If cross ex actually checked for specification questions (i.e. "who is the actor" - and they tell you "Congress") - that is the only argument the 2ac needs to make against a 1NC spec argument.

NOVICE NOTE: I think it is ridiculous when novices read no plan affs - do whatever you want in other divisions, but these kids are just learning how to debate, so providing some structure and predictability is something I think is necessary. I err heavily on framework in those debates for the negative in the first semester.

Theory:

Besides conditionality, theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Anything else is an unwinnable position for me. I genuinely do not know how I lean in condo debates. Some rounds I feel like the amount of conditional positions we are encouraging in debates is ridiculous, others I wish there were more. Open to being convinced in either direction.

Counterplans:

Are awesome. The trickier, the better. I’m okay with most of them, but believe that the action of the CP must be clearly explained at least in the 2NC. I don’t vote on something if I don’t know what my ballot would be advocating. I shouldn’t have to pull the CP text at the end of the round to determine what it does. I err to process/agent/consult cp’s being unfair for the aff (if you can defend theory though, this doesn’t mean don’t read them). Also, I think that perm do the cp on CPs that result in the plan can be rather persuasive, and a more robust textual/functional cp debate is probably necessary on the negative's part.

**Delay and consultation cp’s are illegit unless you have a specific solvency advocate for them. Agenda DA Uniqueness cp’s are too – I’m sorry that the political climate means you can’t read your politics strat on the negative, but that doesn’t mean you should be able to screw the aff’s strategy like that. Have other options.

Important CP Judge Kick Note: I always judge kick if the negative would win the debate on the net benefit alone. However, I will not judge kick to vote on presumption. Going for a CP forfeits the negative's right to presumption.

Disadvantages:

Wonderful. Disadvantages versus case debates are probably my favorite debates (pretty much every 2NR my partner and I had). I love politics disads, however, I can be very persuaded by no backlash/spillover answers on the internal link – in so many situations the internal link just makes NO sense. I think there is such a thing as 100% no link and love thumper strategies. Like elections DA's - not a huge fan of impact scenarios relying on a certain party/candidate doing something once they get in office. Think shorter term impact scenarios are necessary.

Kritiks:

2023 update: For the past several years my work with Mason Debate has primarily focused on research and coaching of our varsity policy teams and novices. I am not keeping up with the K lit as I was a few years ago. Please keep this in mind. Everything below is from a few years ago.

I wrote my thesis on queer rage and my research now focuses on a Derridian/Althusserian analysis of Supreme Court rhetoric - but that does not mean I will automatically get whatever random critical theory you are using. Due to who I coach and what I research for academics, I am most familiar with identity theories, biopower, Marxism, any other cultural studies scholarship, Baudrillard, Derrida, and Deleuze. If your K isn't one of those - hold my hand. I think the most persuasive kritik debaters are those who read less cards and make more analysis. The best way to debate a kritik in front of me is to read slower and shorter tags in the 1NC and to shorten the overviews. I find most overviews too long and complicated. Most of that work should be done on the line-by-line/tied into the case debate. Also, debating a kritik like you would a disad with an alternative is pretty effective in front of me. Keep it structured. Unless your kritik concerns form/content - be organized.

Note for policy v K regarding the "weigh the affirmative or nah" framework question - basically no matter how much debating occurs on this question, unless the affirmative or negative completely drops the oppositions' arguments, I find myself normally deciding that the affirmative gets to weigh their aff but is responsible for defending their rhetoric/epistemology. I think that is a happy middle ground.

Critical Affirmatives:

Nukes note: I think the affirmative should *at least* defend that the US' reliance on nuclear weapons for military policy is bad. Some type of critique in the direction of the resolution. Inserting the word "nuclear" or "weapons" into your aff is not enough of a topic relevant claim imo. In general, I believe affirmatives should defend some universalized praxis/method and that deferral is not a debatable strategy.

Overall Framework update: Procedural fairness IS an impact, but I prefer clash key to education. I find it difficult to vote for impacts that preserve the game when the affirmative is going for an impact turn of how that game operates.

Generic Case Update: I find myself voting neg on presumption often when this is a large portion of the 2nr strategy. I recommend affirmatives take this into account to ensure they are explaining the mechanism of the aff.

I find judging non-black teams reading afro-pessimism affirmatives against black debaters an uncomfortable debate to decide, and my threshold for a ballot commodification style argument low.

Individual survival strategies are not predictable or necessarily debatable in my opinion (i.e. "This 1AC is good for the affirmative team, but not necessarily a method that is generalizable). I enjoy critical methods debates that attempt to develop a praxis for a certain theory that can be broadly operationalized. For example, if you are debating "fem rage" - you should have to defend writ large adoption of that process to give the negative something to debate. It is pretty difficult for a negative to engage in a debate over what is "good for you" without sounding incredibly paternalistic.

Overall Sound:

I am partially deaf in my left ear. It makes it difficult to decipher multiple sounds happening at the same time (i.e. people talking at the same time/music being played loudly in the background when you are speaking). I would recommend reducing the sound level of background music to make sure I can still hear you. Also means you just have to be a smidge louder. I'll let you know if sound level is an issue in the debate, so unless I say something don't let it worry you.

Flowing:

I love flowing. I do my best to transcribe verbatim what you say in your speech so I can quote portions in my RFD. I do NOT flow straight down, I match arguments. I most definitely WILL be grumpy if speeches are disorganized/don't follow order of prior speeches. If you ask me not to flow, the amount I pay attention in the debate probably goes down to 20% and I will have mild anxiety during the round.

Your Decorum:

Debate should be fun - don't be jerks or rhetorically violent. This includes anything from ad homs like calling your opponent stupid to super aggressive behavior to your opponents or partner. Speaker points are a thing, and I love using them to punish jerks.

My Decorum:

I am extremely expressive during round and you should use this to your advantage. I nod my head when I agree and I get a weird/confused/annoyed face when I disagree.

<3 Jackie

Hi Y’all,

Here's my jumbled judging philosophy:

I was a critical debater at WVU so I love Ks, but  I am open to listen to all types of arguments.  I love to learn.

First thing, I’ll never vote on something that is offensive or morally repugnant - so be sensitive of the words you use, too. 

Flashing: Do it fast – I won’t take prep for it unless I see someone stealing prep time.

Email chain: add me please – so that I won’t have to ask at the end.

I would love a clear road map (that you actually follow), but I understand when inspiration hits - just tell me where to flow your arguments and I will flow there.

Please do not rely on your blocks very much, but engage in the arguments and cards. The cards are the tools for you arguments.

Please use a lot of offense! – Defense is good too, but don’t get bogged down by it.

Please be respectful of each other before, during, and after rounds.

Please give all of the evidence to the other team – I think it’s extremely rude if you give a team a huge file that they have to decipher through and also rude if you don’t give them all your cards.

Please don’t get lost in all your cards. I don’t need more than one card telling me the same thing. Your argument is worth more than your card – so explain it. 

***Please slow down and be clear at the tags or indicate when you read another card by saying “next”. If you don’t slow down after I say clear, then I probably won’t flow you.***

At the end of the round, I am looking to see who extends their arguments and made the most compelling argument. If you drop something huge, then that will be a huge problem for you.

For Ks, I love them. I ran them. Feel free to use them. BUT, be mindful of explicitly explaining the (strong) link and the impacts in direct correlation to their Aff.

For Theory, I don’t like theory, but if you must, again specifically tell me WHY this certain thing is so bad– don’t just read blocks or I won’t weigh it very high.

On Framework, please again say specifically WHY your team should win versus the other team.

ROB, at the end of the round, you will have explain to me why I should vote a certain way – so remind me (also never drop this).  

I hate T, but if you have a compelling enough reason to run it, then go for it.

CPs, you need to explain how there is a net benefit and how it competes with the Aff. You will need to explain how this CP specifically links out of your DA (if you run a DA). 

DAs, I don’t like them, but I will vote on them if the uniqueness and link is thoroughly explained enough (and it’s not dropped)

Basically, you can run any argument but you have to engage and explain it well enough to convince me to vote on it. Just tell me how I should evaluate the round and why I should vote for your team. 

If I am missing anything, just ask!

Please no topicality, speak clearly, and have fun. 

Kathryn Rubino
USMA
Put me on the chain: kathrynrubino@gmail.com

I dislike intervening in debate rounds. I would much rather apply the criteria the debaters supply and work things out that way. As a result the final rebuttals should provide me with a clean story and a weighing mechanism. If only one side provides this I will default to their standards. If neither side does this, I’ll use my own opinions and evaluations of the round.

Simply put the debate is about impacts- weigh them, their likelihood and magnitude and we’re doing fine.

I think it is the debater’s responsibility to explain the analysis of their cards, particularly on complex positions. However, I recognize the time constraints in a round and will read cards that receive a prominent place in rebuttals. But I do not like to read piles of cards and being forced to apply my analysis to them. As a side note, I rarely flow author names so don’t just extend the author’s name- also be clear to which argument the card applies to.

I’ll listen to whatever people want to say- but you should probably know my dispositions ahead of time. Be warned however, I have voted against my preferences many times and anticipate doing it again in the future.

I like kritik/advocacy debate. That being said, I do not have a knee-jerk reaction when I hear them. Part of what makes kritiks interesting is the variety and depth of responses available. To get my vote here I generally need a clear story on the link and implication levels.

I enjoy framework debates- debating about debate is fun- and as a bonus I don’t think there are any right or wrong answers- just arguments that can be made.

I rejoice the return of topicality! And I have no problem voting on topicality, even if I don’t agree with a particular interpretation, but I do think a T story needs to be clear and technically proficient.

DAs are great, and the more case specific the better. Make sure you have a clear story and try to create distinctions between multiple end of the world scenarios if that's your thing.

I don’t mind listening to PICs or other interesting CPs, and I often feel they’re good way to test the validity of a plan. However, I am open to theoretical debate here and I’m willing to vote on it.

I will vote on the easy way out of a round- I don’t try to divine the ultimate truth of what the debaters are saying. I’m just adjudicating a game- a fun game that can teach stuff and be pretty sweet- but still a game. So enjoy your round, do your job and I will too.

Being revised.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

K/Performance teams

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

Neg

FW

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

DAs

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

CPs.

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

PTX

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

T/SPEC

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

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

Other notes:

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

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

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

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

any questions, email me

danieljspiker@gmail.com

Update (2/12/2019): I am in the novice/JV judging pool for the upcoming D6/SECEDA tournament. Except for the Miami Dade Urban Debate League, I have not judged a policy debate this year, and only a handful last year, so please take it easy on me! Be slow, clear and organized. The rest of this judging statement reflects my thoughts when I was judging policy tournaments regularly and is fairly accurate.

I will vote for the team that in my opinion wins the debate, even if inconsistent with my predispositions. But if you adapt your arguments and presentation to me, you have a much better chance of winning. Keep in mind that I do not hear many policy debates and I am not researching the topic as you are. I still enjoy debate, and I believe in it. There are as many ways to do debate as their are debaters, and I appreciate creativity.

I believe that the focus of the debate is the proposition. And if (as with the current CEDA Resolution) that is a policy proposition, it is impingent upon the affirmative to offer and defend a topical plan. Affirmative advantages and negative arguments should have unique links to the affirmative plan, and policy comparison is my default decision framework. I also believe in the burden of rejoinder, the expectation that you offer on-point answers to your opponent’s arguments, and so, the flow matters. But, my flow is not great, especially in a very fast debate, so you should work to keep a clear and clean flow with references to the specific arguments to which you are responding and which you are extending. Computer debating has diminished the direct clash in debate. Debate is defined by clash. You should reference and respond to each other's arguments and track the linear progression of arguments as they evolve horizontally across my flow. Debate requires reading (of evidence), but reading is not debating. I believe that debate is an oral communication activity requiring some reading, but at its best, also offering spontaneity, wit, and creativity.

I believe that debaters should adapt to their audience (i.e., the judge, ME), NOT the other way around. So I am pleased to offer my thoughts about debate in hopes that you will respect them. And feel free to ask me for more detail. Also, I will at times offer some nonverbal feedback during the debate. Pay attention.

Moral, ethical and critical considerations are not only relevant in debate; they are essential components of policy analysis. But the link to the proposition and the plan advocacy do matter to me. I focus on the topic or the topical plan. So negatives, run counterplans, disads, case turns, solvency arguments, and relevant Kritics that link. Run topicality not as a technical violation based on the game, but as a genuine difference in interpretation or definition based in the world. Don’t assume that I know what you know. Please start with clear explanations and definitions. It is your job to identify points of clash or decision criteria for me.

I have no problem admitting that I didn't get it or understand it if I didn’t. It is your responsibility to help me understand the evidence and position during the debate, not after.

I enjoy style and creativity in debate and I support the effort to expand what is considered acceptable proof. But your time is better spent making arguments than playing music during the round, and profanity does not belong in debate. I appreciate style, humor and wit in debate. On the other hand, I am somewhat uncomfortable with excessive self-disclosure and emotion in debate (and, probably, in most contexts outside debate as well).

For years, I have identified myself in the role of debate judge as an educator and evaluator of argument. I am not a referee. Debate is a subjective activity and there is generally not an absolute winner. Rather, it is my job to express my inherently biased perception of which side did the better job of defending or opposing the proposition based on the content of their arguments. I try to minimize my intervention, but to suggest that I can operate outside of my own perceptual screens and personal history is unrealistic.

I look forward to hearing debates, and I enjoy and believe in the process. I hope I will be able to promote a learning environment and a comfortable experience.

Please enjoy the experience and don’t take it too seriously! It is a game in which we are priviledged to participate. It should be enjoyable. And treat your opponents and me with respect and courtesy.

Have fun and be your best you!

2 Years Graduate Assistant @ Pitt.

2 Year Coaching MA @ Wake.

Debated Four Years at Clarion University.

Quick notes

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

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

3. Author qualification matters.

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

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

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

Rest of it.

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

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

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

Biases I can think of:

-Multiple conditional Cp’s or alternatives are ok.

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

-International Fiat – no opinion

-Agent Cp’s – No opinion

-Consult – Dirty/Cheating

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

-States Cp: No Opinion

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

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

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

Much Love,

Swan.

Judging Philosophy of AJ Warne

I debated 3 years at WVU, I was a critical debater, but I think that I am much more moderate when evaluating rounds. I enjoy the execution of arguments more than their substance most times. Any team can get up and read blocks; good debaters interact with each other and make the activity about having fun and engaging the judge and your opponents.

Do whatever gives you the best chance of winning. With that being said if being morally repugnant is part of your best chance of winning, I’m probably not a good judge for you 

When I evaluate a round I have a default for evaluating the round that you should be aware of. In my mind ever debate has four levels, and I’m not saying I can’t evaluate it in a different order, but you’re going to have to sell me on it because I strongly believe that this is the best order for debate.

1.      You have to be a decent human being. If you’re being sexist, racist, homophobic, or ableist, and the other team makes a compelling case for this as a reason you should lose the round, you’re probably going to lose. With that being said, if they don’t call you on it, you’ll still lose credibility and speaker points. This does not mean that unwarranted instances of the before mentioned -isms should be brought up because you think I’ll vote for them. If you aren’t comfortable with these debates its really easy to avoid them,… don’t do or say anything offensive, if you do it by accident, and explain and apologize for this, you’re going to be in a lot better shape than trying to impact turn racism or lie about what you said.

2.      The second level is framework. My default is to be a utilitarian policymaker, but I am happy to give up that default at the drop of a hat because frankly it’s a bad place to start. More likely though, is that one team or the other will win the way that the round is framed. If you want me to evaluate the round a certain way, tell me, the sooner the better. If both teams are decent human beings, I will then decide the framework debate and evaluate the round from there. It is also important to note that I think framework is seldom a place you can win or lose a round, unless you can win that the other teams interpretation of the framing of the round is bad for you, a group of people, or debate in general, otherwise, its just the forum for making the rest of the decisions in the round.

3.      The third level is theoretical objections. Here is where I’ll weigh theory violations and topicality. It’s important to understand that T comes after Framework in my mind, and you’ll have to convince me otherwise if you want to win that debate. Also keep in mind that the winning framework may preclude theoretical violations. If you have any questions about this, feel free to ask. Theory wise, condo is normally good, but often a reason that the negative’s arguments are going to come up short. A conditional revolution isn’t very convincing in my mind. Perm theory is almost never a reason to reject the team, save your breath and tell me why it means the perm doesn’t work.

4.      The fourth level is the substance of the debate. This is where you talk about the issues, and ultimately where the majority of the debate should take place. Substantive impact analysis will steal my heart and ballot on this flow. Spend time extending and explaining your impacts, I won’t do much work for you here.

A couple quick notes about argumentative styles that should help you out:

Affirmatives don’t have to have a plan text but they should have some sort of advocacy and a reason that I should vote for them. Teams should have some relation to the subject matter of the topic, but I’m very open to interpretations that limit them to USFG action per the resolution and affirmatives that are less so engaged with the resolution as long as you can justify their presence in the debate space and the negative has some way to negate you without saying something that is definitely false (like racism good).

CPs and DAs are very interesting and the best way to win them is to explain the nuances of your link and uniqueness evidence better than the other team. Competition is very important to me in a CP debate.

Ks should have a very strong link. I’m rarely persuaded by a generic state bad link. There should be firm link analysis in the block that explains it more than just a 1NC card extension. I like Ks a lot, but bad Ks are worse than no Ks.

Speed is fine, but you MUST be clear. I will only say clear once pre debater, after that I will make it clear that I am not flowing you.

Be nice, debate is a competitive activity but you don’t get to be rude or inconsiderate to your opponents.

Don’t be a shady debater, give your opponents your evidence in the order you read it in. You shouldn’t need to confuse your opponents in order to win, that isn’t cool.

Paperless debaters should understand how a jump drive works, how to load them onto a viewing computer, and how to get on with life. A paperless debate shouldn’t take any longer than a paper debate. I will stop prep time when the jump drive comes out of your computer, but you should still let me know when you're ending for the most accurate reflection of you prep time usage. 

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

Email for round evidence chains: fairshasta@outlook.com

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

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

Topicality:

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

Theory:

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

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

Disads:

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

Counterplans:

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

Performance:

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

Years judging college: 12

Topicality: My default is that topicality is about competing interpretations of the resolution. Prove that yours is more net beneficial and provide an impact and you win the debate. I think of this as an evaluative tool for T debates and it applies to non-traditional aff's as well, unless the debaters provide me with an alternate framework. Spec args are fine also.

Theory: Love good technically proficient theory debates. Sentences like "Dispo solves the Neg's offense" are good but warranting them is even better. When I am judging a debate I always feel like it is more important to evaluate the arguments made as opposed to inserting my own personal opinion in the mix. However, when I say that to debaters they still seem to what to know what my general feeling is regarding things like Dispo and Agent CP's... So here you all go. I tend to think that Dispo is OK, Conditionality is rather shady and PICS can go either way depending on the nature of CP. Just to let you know... not a huge fan of the "Our K is a gateway arg". I think that it is often advantageous to have the groundwork for weighing the impacts to CP theory, perm theory, and alternative theory debates explicated and framed by the 1AR. This means reasons why this comes before T and warrants as to why it is a reason the reject the team and not just the arg should probably be made by that point in the debate.

Kritiks: For me, most times good critical debates that center around a position that has an alternative come down to offense (disads) to the permutation vs. in roads against the "solvability" of that alternative. I'd prefer not to feel as though I have to read a ton of your cards at the end of a round to synthesize your argument. My preference when I have to read evidence is to only read cards that is the focus of the finals rebuttals.

CP/DA: I heart a really involved DA/CP debate. I often think some of the best deployment of the DA involves interacting the disad impact with the case. Please take the time to kick them cleanly.

Framework- I really enjoy these debates. Framework debates necessitate that both teams do extremely effective impact work. My biggest suggestion when debating framework in front of me is to make sure to keep the rest of the debate in mind. How can your Aff be offensive even in a world that you are loosing a portion of the framework debate? Competitiveness- Are portions of the Neg’s framework not competitive with Aff's? How does that circumvent the Neg’s ability to garner offense off of the impacts to the framework debate?

Engaging the Resolution/Performance-  If you are a performance team with a coherent arg that in some way engages with the topic area of the resolution you are good to go. I don't need you to advocate state action, endorse fiat... but I do think the Aff should in some way engage the topic area (legalization and one of the subtopics). I really enjoy these debates when they are done well and when, at the end of the round, there is an argument that is being made. I am not the best judge for you if your strategy is to say nothing in an effort to bait the other side into being the only one who actually makes an argument. I feel as though this leads to debate that are woefully underdeveloped, frustrating, and debate only actually occurs when the final rebutalists decide to finally illuminate why they think they should win. 

Run what you want and what you feel you are good at. Speed is fine. Speed and clarity are even better :) Please remember to be polite and considerate. I know many of us tend to turn into a cracked out version of Perry Mason when the timer starts but please forgo this urge and remain civil. Answer questions in CX. Being evasive/sketchy looks bad and makes you seem unsure/insecure about your args. Make me laugh. Don't steal prep. I hate it. No, I really hate it. I feel a certain burden to protect the 2NR from new and unpredictable 2AR extrapolations and cross applications. Finally, debate is for the debaters. Take what I have said above as a guide and not the end all. If you have any questions feel free to ask me! Good luck to all and have fun!

top level predispositions (Update 2024 Emory):

I'd truly prefer that you don't debate if you're sick. If you must debate, I travel to every tournament with headphones and a laptop sufficient to allow you to debate from a hotel room or space separate from other judges and debaters. If you are symptomatic (nausea, persistent cough, runny nose, etc.) I will stop the debate and politely ask your coach to see if we can set up a remote debate setup for the round.

I won't be reading along with you, and won't spot either team args from pieces of evidence that weren't made in speeches. I'll resolve comparative evidentiary claims, if necessary, after the round. If you feel so compelled my team's gmail is hrsdebatedocs.

Plan texts nowadays aren't really descriptive of what the aff will defend and I think negative teams don't take advantage of that enough. I will expect aff teams not to dodge simple questions about jobs they provide, how the plan is funded, etc. I will also tend to read the debate through answers to such questions in CX. Being forthcoming and orienting your strategy around what the aff does is a much better basis for a win in front of me than trying to hide your hand.

I don't like generic neg strategies, if you're going to do this don't pref me please - - this means nonspecific process counterplans, disads, CPs with only internal net benefits, etc.

No, CX can't be used for prep lol.

I'm not going to judge kick. You make a decision about the world you'll defend in the 2nr and I'll follow accordingly.

For many of you reading this, speaker point inflation is the probably norm. I think the standard for what makes a good speech is a. too low and b. disconnected from strategy. My average speaker point range is 28.3-28.7, average meaning you're not doing any work between flows, not making the debate smaller for the sake of comparative analysis, not reading especially responsive strategies, not punishing generic strategies with pointed responses. On the other hand, I reward teams that have ostensibly done the reading and research to give me concrete analysis.

Given the above (and oodles of macrohistorical reasons), we probably are already in the world that the PRL warned us about. I'm more persuaded by empirical analysis of models of debate than the abstract nowadays.

Longer meditations below:

I've found that the integrity in which some high school debaters are interacting with evidence is declining. Two things:

1. Critical affirmatives that misrepresent critical theory literature or misrepresent their affirmative in the 1ac. I'm very inclined to vote against a team that does this on either side of the debate, with the latter only being limited to the affirmative side. Especially in terms of the affirmative side, I believe that a floor level minimum prep for critical affs should be that the affirmative clearly has a statement of what they will defend in the 1ac and also that they stick to that stasis point throughout the debate. If a critical aff shifts drastically between speeches I will be *very* inclined toward to any procedural/case neg arguments.

2. Policy affs that have weak internal links. I understand that a nuclear war scenario is the most far fetched portion of any advantage, but I've been seeing a lot of international relations scenarios that don't really take into account the politics of really any other countries. If your international conflict, spillover, modeling, etc. scenario doesn't have a semblance of the inner workings of another party to the conflict, I'll be *very* inclined to solvency presses and presumption arguments by the negative in that scenario.

I don't want to be on the email chain. If I want to, I'll ask. You should debate as if I'm not reading a speech doc.

I almost exclusively view debate as an educational / democratic training activity. I think rules are important to that end, however. This is to say that I ground much of what I think is important in debate in terms of how skills critical thinking in debate rounds adds into a larger goal of pursuing knowledge and external decisionmaking.

i've been in debate since 2008. at this point i'm simultaneously more invested and less invested in the activity. i'm more invested in what students get out of debate, and how I can be more useful in my post-round criticism. I'm less invested in personalities/teams/rep/ideological battles in debate. it's entirely possible that I have never heard of you before, and that's fine.

you should run what will win you the round. you should run what makes you happy.

Impact scenarios are where I vote - Even if you win uniqueness/link questions, if I don't know who's going to initiate a war, how an instance of oppression would occur, etc. by the end of the round, I'll probably go looking elsewhere to decide the round. The same thing goes for the aff - if I can't say what the aff solves and why that's important, I am easily persuaded by marginal negative offense.

Prep time ends when you email the file to the other team. It's 2024, you've likely got years of experience using a computer for academic/personal work, my expectations of your email prowess are very high.

Competing methods debates don't mean no permutation, for me at least. probably means that we should rethink how permutations function. people/activists/organizers combine methods all the time.

I've found myself especially unwilling to vote on theory that's on face not true - for example: if you say floating PICs bad, and the alternative isn't articulated as a floating PIC in the debate, I won't vote on it. I don't care if it's conceded.

I think fairness is an independent impact, but also that non-topical affs can be fair. A concession doesn't mean an argument is made. your only job is to make arguments, i don't care if the other team has conceded anything, you still have to make the argument in the last speech.

Affs I don't like:

I've found myself increasingly frustrated with non-topical affs that run philosophically/critically negative stances on the aff side. The same is true for non-topical affs that just say that propose a framework for analysis without praxis. I'm super open to presumption/switch-side arguments against these kinds of affs.

Affs that simply restate a portion of the resolution as their plan text.

I'm frustrated by non-topical affs that do not have any sort of advocacy statement/plan text. If you're going to read a bunch of evidence and I have to wait until CX or the 2AC to know what I'm voting for, I'll have a lower threshold to vote on fw/t/the other team.

Finally, I have limited belief in the transformative power of speech/performance. Especially beyond the round. I tend to think that power/violence is materially structured and that the best advocacies can tell me how to change the status quo in those terms.

Negs I don't like:

Framework 2nr's that act as if the affirmative isn't dynamic and did not develop between the 2ac and the 1ar. Most affs that you're inclined to run framework against will prove "abuse" for you in the course of the debate.

Stale politics disadvantages. Change your shells between tournaments if necessary, please.

Theoretically inconsistent/conflicting K strats.

I don't believe in judge kicking. Your job is to make the strategic decisions as the debate continues, not mine.

if you have questions about me or my judge philosophy, ask them before the round!

he/him/his

Hi all

-----Paradigm Starts here-----

Background:

Current Head Coach/ADoD? at Binghamton University (2021 - Present)

Debated/Coached for George Mason University (2009-2019)

-----Super short version 10 min before round-----

I always want to be on the email chain - email to woodward@binghamton.edu

I have judged or have seen pretty much every argument in debate at least once.

As a debater I mostly read policy arguments, but ended my career doing critical arguments. I was also a 2A and 2N at different points.

I prefer you do what you're best at- don't over adapt to me

Am a sucker for judge instruction -> If you tell me to evaluate in a certain way and the other team doesn't rebut it then I'm going to.

I require explanation - my understanding of K lit is better because I've been at Bing for a while now, but I still not super great at it. Assume you know your lit more than I will. Examples from the 1AC or historical examples go a long way. This also applies to policy things. I cut policy cards but that's not my main focus most of the time so I'm not gonna be super up to date on the latest meta shifts/counterplan acronyms.

Good analysis and explanation beats a card the majority of the time in front of me

Be polite. (This is different from being nice, but there is a cutoff point)

Have fun!

Would prefer that people slow down/go to about 90% of top speed. I don't think this matters for most debates but it would be appreciative. I will yell slow/clear as applicable.

Harvard HS Tournament specifically - Two things to note.

1. I have read/judged/thought 0 about the HS topic- most of my time is focused on NDT/CEDA topic. I will need explanation and clarifications about jargon, arguments, etc.
2. My limits for "acceptable" behavior in terms of how people should treat each other is lower than in college rounds.

-----You have time to read/more specific things-----

---Novice/JV---

Is the most important division. We should be doing what we can to help the division grow and new debaters to improve and feel welcome- the community depends on it.

The packet at this point is not helpful outside of providing evidence to programs who need it to help start their programs. It needs healthy reforms to make it a better educational tool. That being said I will not enforce packet rules after the first two tournaments, or in any division above novice.

I'm fine with novices learning whatever arguments they wish. I would prefer if novices did defend the topic, or if they took alternate routes to the topic they still defended topic DAs and were in a topic direction.

I am also not a fan of misinformation type arguments in novice. This doesn't mean hiding DAs or case turns on case, or an extra definition on T (because those promote better flow practices) This means arguments that are obtuse to be obtuse for no reason.

---Topicality---

Is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.

I am not persuaded by "norms" or "it's 1st/last tournament etc." style arguments. I do not need abuse to vote on topicality.

Competing interpretations is what I default to.

After Fall Semester/Wake- I feel even more strongly we have overcorrected and have made the Nukes topic entirely too small. I still have some limits when it comes to subsets of topic areas, but I can be persuaded that allowing a few more affirmatives is a good thing.

Going into Districts/NDT/CEDA thoughts - Still think letting the aff have subsets makes this topic more interesting but after hearing 2-3 debates on it, I am still 50/50 on this debate but my default leans aff, if both sides debated perfectly. I'm still down to hear the argument because I do think there's some room to convince me.

---Disadvantages---

DAs are good, turns case arguments are good, I think there isn't a ton of nuance here. My only 2 caveats are as follows.

I wish more teams would attack DAs on the internal link level-

Politics and Elections DAs are decent educational discussions and are strategic. But the current political system is so flawed it is hard to take the arguments seriously. I am very persuaded by arguments about why radicalism in our government has doomed the ability for it to function. (or arguments that explain why congress is in a terrible spot for legislation currently)

Elections/Midterms DAs, the closer we get to November 2024, the better the DA sounds in front of me. Interpret this as you wish.

---Counterplans---

They're good - but I reward teams for more specific reasons why the CP solves the aff vs no federal/xyz process good key warrant. I'm not a fan of no solvency advocate + just the CP text in the 1NC, but generally i'm cool with most counterplan ideas.

I don't judge kick the counterplan, it promotes neg terrorism. I can be persuaded otherwise, but outside of strong neg defenses, and/or a lack of aff response I will not give the neg the status squo if a CP is in the 2NR.

I default to reject the argument on theory. I can be persuaded most things could be a reason to reject the team, or gives leeway on other arguments. My standards for voting on theory even with this are somewhat high.

Conditionality in limited instances are good. That being said my cutoff is lower than most judges. The max before I start to err affirmative is 2 conditional worlds. If there is a new aff, i'm fine with 3. I do think more than 3 conditional worlds isn't needed. I also think kicking planks compounds and makes any conditionality arguments even stronger

---Critiques (When you are neg) ---

Judge instruction + framework is your friend. I usually compare the aff vs the alt in a vacuum, but when one team is telling me what to do, and one is not with this information this goes a long way into deciding my ballot. Sometimes good judge instruction can overcome technical drops. "Weigh the aff" is not an aff interp on framework. I think it does you a disservice unless the neg's interp is legitimately you don't get the aff without jumping through multiple hoops. I would prefer interps based on something more specific, whether it's extinction/impact based, or even better education towards an issue, or even the self serving ROB = best at fighting nuke weapons.

I require a bit of explanation. My critical knowledge is better than it was in the past but you are more likely to know your argument more than me. Empiric examples, applications to the affirmative, etc are all useful and persuasive.

Go for tricks, if the aff messes them up then it's a valid strategy, I don't think you need the alt alone if you're winning a sizeable enough impact + link for a case turn type of argument

But do what you do best, I do genuinely like any presentation or idea for argument, as long as it's explained clearly and developed before the 2NR.

--- Critiques (When you are aff) ---

I prefer affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic and do something, or if they do neither have a good justification for doing otherwise.

Defend your arguments and be strategic. IF your 1AC is saying Heg + Prolif, it does not make sense to go for the link turns. This doesn't mean don't make the arguments if it's what you've prepped for but think about what your aff is designed to do and don't shy away from impact turns or alt offense.

Framework is viable and a decent strategy in front of me. I default to Limits > Fairness > Skills based arguments. Another thing from being at Bing is I am slowly leaning towards Fairness is more of an internal link vs an impact alone BUT I can be persuaded otherwise. I am also fine with impact turn debates but not having defense on neg framework standards (Or case defense to the aff) is pretty devastating and a problem for the team without said defense.

Something I have noticed as a pattern for lots of the framework rounds I judge is that not having defense, or at least references/cross applications that can be clear to answer terminal impacts on either side is usually something that can be a round ender. I find that I am somewhat persuaded by 2NR/2ARs that go for conceded impact scenarios on framework/affirmative answers to framework. Outside of heavy framing articulations this is usually hard to overcome.

When resolving a clash debate (most of my rounds) I think my preference is Case specific strat > Framework > Cap unless that is your specific thing you do.

Case should be in the 2NR in some way or fashion. I am willing to vote on presumption or case turns alone.

Critical teams should think hard about if they want to defend DAs or not. I'm not sold one way or the other, but i do get a bit concerned if the 2AC says they'll defend the deterrence DA, but the 1AR/2AR drastically doesn't apply (unless the neg doesn't read a link)

---Misc---

Speaker points are weird and rough at the moment. I don't want to keep people from breaking however. My speaks guidelines end up looking like this for varsity. This may adjust due to trends at all levels.

Nationals

Speaker award - 29.3

should/can clear - 28.7

Regional

Speaker Award -29

Should clear - 28.6

I adjust for division, but IF I give a student in JV or Novice a 29+ I believe they could debate a division up and succeed.

I don't like trolling - if you do not want to debate, simply forfeit, or have a discussion/pursue other methods of debating. IF you read an argument with the sole plan of being disruptive or trolling a debate you get a 15. IF you're funny you get a 25.

Don't cheat- I have fortunately only had to resolve this in 1 round. But if you accuse someone, round ends and will not restart. We don't have that many rules in debate, we should follow them, especially the rules about academic honesty/evidence.

Be polite- doesn't have to be "nice" but generally we shouldn't make rounds overly hostile for 0 reason. We will see each other multiple times over the next few years. There is a cutoff for being snarky and being a jerk.

---Other Events---

I am a policy coach. I have spent the vast majority of my time coaching and preparing things in policy formats. I will flow, I evaluate my decisions based on that flow. I believe the best debaters are ones who both prove their side of an issue is the most effective, and have combatted the opposing side effectively. I will never determine a round solely based on presentation, decorum or speaking style unless something problematic happened to where coaches/tab have to be involved.

LD - i've judged maybe 40 LD rounds in my life (if being generous). I still am shaky about value criterions, I will have done 0 topic research. If you do LD like it's mini policy I am prob very good for you. Disclosure is virtually mandatory. I have heard explanations from LD'ers about theory. My gut is if it's something like counterplan competition or conditionality it is fine. If it's something frivolous or ridiculous I am not great for your speaks or chances to win the ballot. But do what you do best. I don't believe in RVIs

PF - I did PF in 2007-2009 while in high school. I coached a team in PF in the spring of 2021. I generally vote on and will flow. I will heavily follow judge instruction. Disclosure theory is a very persuasive argument and I think evidence practices are egregiously awful for PF. Paraphrasing, and only sending links for evidence is not acceptable for evidence. It must be in a format that is easily accessible and reviewable by both teams AND should be provided before the speech. I'm very flexible on most things, Evidence and disclosure I am not.

Other formats- have 0 experience but will take notes and evaluate based on the rules given.