Debated 4 years HS policy, NDT 3 years and 1 year college LD

Coached NDT/CEDA, LD, Parli, and even IPDA +15 years & HS Policy, LD, & PF

The quick overview to my judging is really simple. I judge things on what happens in the context of the round and it is up to those in the round to write that ballot for me. If you do not write it for me then you leave it up to me and I do not really want to intervene in the round, so write the ballot for me. So use the rebuttals to write my ballot. Asking me what arguments I like is silly, run what you want and if you are winning it then I vote on it. If you run things I happen to not like that just might mean you may have a higher threshold needed to win it, but if you are winning it then I vote for it. I typically default into a policy maker, but I am happy to vote where the round takes me. Finally, I will openly admit I do not give the highest of speaker points when compared to many other judges (26-28 is a pretty typical range and I think I have averaged about 1-3 30s a year) but good debate warrants higher speaks when it occurs. Any specific issues you want to know about continue reading or just ask me since I am happy to tell you.

However, note I taught and published in political communication (campaigning) and gender (masculinties, in particular). Those issues are difficult, at times, for me to step away from and while you are not debating against me as the judge, it can make it more difficult for me to evaluate the argument because those issues are ingrained in my head and I see them in different ways that you may be arguing those issues (especially in Parli since we do not have access to evidence, but in evidence based forms that is different). That does not mean that you cannot run those certain positions, but they get a differnet listen than other arguments due to my work in the area.

Framework: If you have a framework be sure you explain how it functions for me in the round. Remember, I tend to default to policy maker so without a clear explanation of it I will use that lens in the framework. So you have to tell me how the AFF/NEG views compete with each other. I like the comparison since if you leave it up to me my view may not be "correct" in the way(s) you want but then again you should have done that for me.

Critical Stuff: Never have had any problem with it other than I do not like them run poorly and I am not a fan of running them in the 1NC with other contradictory positions so that you can pick which arguments are your winners. It does need to be well developed and explained, especially in forms of debate where there is no evidence that I get to read after the round. Otherwise, feel free to run whatever critical arguments you want but be sure you explain how it compares to the AFF or NEG so I see how it operates in the world. Doing those things make critical arguments always great to hear.

Traditional Policy Arguments: All are fair game. Be sure that you give me some way to evaluate the impact and show me how it relates to the AFF/NEG.

Theory: Things like "RVI" or "T is a voter for fairness and education" do need some form of explanation. You do not just get to make those statements and then move on. I have no idea what you mean in those words. I know what I think those words mean, but my interp of them and yours may not be anywhere near the same so unless you like judge intervention, give it an explanation. Your unsubstantiated claims are not going to work so well against one that is supported and explained.

Parli specific notes

Points of order: You are welcome to call them, but just know that they are all under consideration and that is how I will answer to all of them. I tend to feel that me ruling on them has to potential to provide some unfair advantage for the team and it feels like a form of intervention since now you know how I "feel" about an argument so I just default to the under consideration answer to avoid that perception/advantage one side might get from the argument.

Any specific questions you have please feel free to ask and I am more than happy to answer.

As a critic, I believe my task is to weigh the issues presented in the round. I don't enjoy intervening, and try not to do so. To prevent my intervention, debaters need to use rebuttals to provide a clear explanation of the issues. Otherwise, if left on my own, I will pick the issues I think are important. All of that said, I am not an information processor. I am a human being and so are you. If you want me to consider an issue in the round, make sure you emphasize it and explain its importance.

When weighing issues, I always look to jurisdictional issues first. I will give the affirmative some leeway on topicality, but if they can't explain why their case is topical, they will lose. Although some arguments are more easily defeated than others, I am willing to listen to most positions. In reality I probably have a somewhat high threshold for topicality, but if you want to win, you need to spend some time on it and not give the aff any way out of it. In-round abuse is not necessary, but if that argument is made against you, then you need to explain why topicality is important (jurisdiction, aff always wins, etc.) I don’t require competing interpretations.

I am fine with critical arguments, but you need to explain how they impact the round. I have found few students can explain how I should evaluate real-world impacts in a debate world, or how I should evaluate and compare real world and debate world impacts. I’m fine with critical affs, but you better have some good justification for it. “We don’t like the resolution” doesn’t cut it with me. If your critical arguments conflict with your disad, you better have some “contradictory arguments good” answers.

Performance based argument need to be sufficiently explained as to how they prove the resolution true or false. Or, I need to know how to evaluate it. If you don’t tell me, I will evaluate it as I would an interp round.

As with everything else, it depends on how the impacts are explained to me. If one team says “one million deaths” and the other says “dehume,” but doesn’t explain why dehume is worse than deaths, I’ll vote for death. If the other team says dehume is worse because it can be repeated and becomes a living death, etc., then I’ll vote for dehume. I think I’m telling you that abstract impacts need to be made concrete, but more importantly, explain what the issue is and why I should consider it to be important.

I don't mind speed, but sometimes I physically can't flow that fast. I will tell you if I can't understand you. Remember, it is YOUR responsibility to make sure I understand what you are saying. Above all, be professional. This activity is fun. That’s why I’m here, and I hope that is the reason you are here as well.

*Important note: Please be sensitive about the language you use in front of me. I do not want to hear violent analogies, ie. "pull the trigger" = automatically 25 speaks maximum. I also do not want to use rhetoric surrounding suicide in any context that is not a serious conversation about that topic, ie. "this blew my mind," fake gun to the head in response to an arg, etc. Ad homs, similarly not okay. Also, I don't like hearing "one shot kill," eg. when talking about T.

I really value kindness and ethics in debate. I think these should frame how you interact with your partner, the other team, and the critic(s).

General: The debating style that my partner and I had was, in my opinion, a mixed bag. We were just as likely to go for the K as the CP/DA as the DA alone as case turns and, as such, there is not a particular set of arguments that I greatly prefer or strongly dislike. While we very rarely went for T, I think it has its place and I am down for a good T debate. I think that you should choose the arguments that are most strategic for you based on the team that you’re debating and your understanding of the resolution and that my argumentative preferences should be a low priority in your game plan. If you think things that I explicitly disagree with below or that aren’t listed below, I am open to logical arguments about why your belief should be the case.

I think that my understanding of debate is pretty consistent with a lot of the current thoughts about the activity but I will list some specific thoughts below. The following is in no way a comprehensive explanation of how I understand debate or how I will evaluate a round, but keep in mind that you probably wouldn't read something that long and that it would contain so many absurdly specific analysis that it wouldn't be a helpful tool in your pre-round kit. If there is anything that you have a question about, don't hesitate to ask. My email is katiebergus@gmail.com. 

Big picture: I think that an enormous aspect of debate is education, which is compromised when teams are deliberately misleading with their explanations of their arguments during debates. Please do not aim to confuse your opponents into their loss. I strongly dislike cheap shots and I prefer not to decide debates on dropped arguments. I strongly prefer well-explained, substantive arguments and developed impact analysis and comparison during rebuttals. I do not want to be left to weigh and compare your impacts because I will probably do it pretty arbitrarily, to be honest, since I am a human. Be preemptive and/or explain causality and/or internal link control, etc.

Critically framed arguments: I am very open to critically framed arguments on both the aff and neg. I am not as deep in the literature as my debate partner was, but I have a reasonable debate understanding of most of the more common K type args. Cutting corners in your arg construction/explanation by name dropping doesn’t do it for me—just because your author isn’t Reuters 3-15 doesn’t mean that your author’s name becomes a warrant for your argument. I don’t believe that framework is a voting issue; I think that it is a lens through which you evaluate the rest of the debate. I think that you can win a K without winning the alt (as an impact turn to the aff) and that you can win K impacts in a net bens framework. 

Topicality: I think that you can win topicality on potential abuse but that these instances tend to require deeper, more analytic work. Topicality (or any of a number of other procedural debates) has to be an all-in strategy for me to think seriously about it. I am not persuaded by RVIs.

Counterplans: I think that you should identify the status of your CP. I believe in conditionality personally but am not closed to arguments in favor of other statuses. I think you should give your opponents a legible copy of the CP (or K or plan) text when you read it and then ask them if they have a question before continuing. I think that a permutation needs an explicit net benefit if you are going to advocate for it. 

Section 2: Specific Inquiries  

Please describe your approach to the following.

1.     Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? 

27-30

2.     How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?

I am very open to critically framed arguments on both the aff and neg. I am not as deep in the literature as mydebate partner was, but I have a reasonable debate understanding of most of the more common K type args. Cutting corners in your arg construction/explanation by name dropping doesn’t do it for me—just because your author isn’t Reuters 3-15 doesn’t mean that your author’s name becomes a warrant for your argument. I don’t believe that framework is a voting issue; I think that it is a lens through which you evaluate the rest of the debate. I think that you can win a K without winning the alt (as an impact turn to the aff) and that you can win K impacts in a net bens framework. I don’t mind perfomative contradictions so long as you can justify it and aren’t going for a contradictory strat in the block.  

3.     Performance based arguments… 

These are fine. I’m not as familiar as my debate partner was with this type of argument, but if you give me a mechanism by which to evaluate the debate, I will do my best to evaluate the debate by such a mechanism.

4.     Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?

I think that you can win topicality on potential abuse but that these instances tend to require deeper, more analytic work. Topicality (or any of a number of other procedural debates) has to be an all-in strategy for me to think seriously about it. I am not persuaded by RVIs. In all or nearly all instances, competing interpretations helps more than it hurts. T is just like any other arg, you need to win offense within your framing of the debate and weigh it against the offense your opponents have.

5.     Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? functional competition?

I think that you should identify the status of your CP. I believe in conditionality personally but am not closed to arguments in favor of other statuses. I think you should give your opponents a legible copy of the CP (or K or plan) text when you read it and then ask them if they have a question before continuing. I think that a permutation needs an explicit net benefit if you are going to advocate for it. I think that functional competition and textual competition both have their merits depending on the type of debate you want to have. I think that the most legitimate permutations compete through both mechanisms. I personally think that PICs are okay in some instances, but I’m open to hear you justify yours/say why the instance of the neg’s PIC isn’t okay.

6.     Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) 

I have no problem with sharing.

7.     In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?

T > K > Adv(s) = DA(s) = CP(s)

8.     How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?

In the absence of this interaction made explicit by the debaters, I will likely look for a root cause impact or whatever impact seems to be furthest upstream in the impact pathway, ie. Economic collapse can prevent R&D necessary to solve warming, so I’d prefer to stop economic collapse than solve warming itself, since solving warming may be a consequence of avoiding economic collapse but is almost certainly impossible in a world post-collapse. Absent a direct comparison by the debaters, I am likely to believe that abstract impacts encompass/explain internal links to more concrete impacts. 

TL;DR version: I don’t think that my job is to define for you the way that debate should be done. You should debate what you’re good at, not what I did/liked as a debater.
**The only caveat: Please read interpretations/plan texts/and alt texts twice. That is the best way for me to get them down. Texts would be even better, but do what you want there.

Longer version:
General:

I think that debates are won on offense, and I think that debates are won on strategy. I think that debate is capable in some ways of being a tool of liberation and expression, but I think that it is primarily a game to be played by two teams. The educational aspect of debate is nice, but if debate were about education, I would expect both teams to read textbooks to me about calculus or something during their speech.

Win however you can and in whatever way you can.

Speed:

Hardly ever an issue. Clarity and argument depth often is. The way I flow is: I flow the claim and then flow the warrants underneath them. If I miss the claim, I flow the warrants and infer the claim from those warrants. If I miss both, your arguments are not warranted enough for me to write them down, and I will tell you to slow down.

If you are unclear, then I will yell clear. Your options are to
either become more clear, or slow down until you are clear. Or keep
mumbling I guess.

Theory/T/Procedurals:

Run them. I default to competing interpretations, and that is the best way for me to evaluate theory, because it comes down to whoever debated it best and requires (arguably) the least intervention on my part; however, if I am given arguments as to why potential/proven abuse is good reason to pull the trigger, or why I shouldn't evaluate T, and the other team fails to provide an adequate answer, I’ll bite. Topicality is a voting issue, it is not a reverse voting issue. It's your fault if you let T become a time-suck. SPECs are generally for bad debaters.

The Criticism:

Can be run on the aff or the neg. Affs can be topical or not topical (as long as you win that you get to run a non topical aff), and affs can use fiat or not use fiat.

A note about the criticism: If it is general/you assume that both teams understand it, I don’t need a thesis. If you are running something that I’m not familiar with/is super complicated, I would run a SHORT thesis. Most of the criticism’s that I ran were environmental, fem, and queer. I understand race pretty well, but if you start into post-structural, European philosophers like Baudrillard, Agamben,
Derrida or the like, I need some indication of the thesis of the argument. For some reason, reading a bunch of leftist white academics wasn’t a thing we did at ACU in my undergraduate. That being said, I
like hearing new things, if they are explained to me.

I debated the criticism a lot as a debater, but in my old age, I prefer a Disad/CP debate. I also like DA/CP/K debate a lot if the negative can win condo.

Criticisms/Turns of language in the PMC/LO/MG are generally ok. They are arguments that force the other team to spend time answering, which is always a good thing. Sometimes they make the other team look silly too, that can’t hurt your chances, right?

On narratives/performance: Do it if you want, but when you introduce your own stories and experiences into a competitive environment, you make them competitive, and weaponizing identity doesn't help anybody in my experience. Do not physically hurt yourself or others in front of me (I cannot believe that I have to put this in a judging philosophy now). We should protect our activity and the people in it, and physical violence, I'm afraid, is not a good way to do this.

Permutations are good to run on the aff. So are impact turns, and so is framework. And if you want to run a framework that policymaking is the only way to evaluate the round, I’ll evaluate that. Framing them out of the round is a good way to win.

In general, I default to seeing permutations as tests of competitiveness, but will gladly hear all of the arguments about why they’re more than that. In general, when answering the criticism, do anything to win.

Conditionality/multiple worlds:

I don’t mind voting for a conditional argument, I also don’t mind voting on condo. I don’t care if you run three counter plans and a K, I don’t care if they conflict, and I don’t care if you collapse out of all of them into case turns. You should be the best condo debaters you can be though, because if you lose on condo or multiple worlds, I’ll vote against you. My favorite opp strat to watch as a judge is DA/CP/K debate. But each team should have one strategy that they're going for in the rebuttals. Opposition, you should go for one sheet of paper in the block (unless its a Disad/CP combo). Don't you dare stick to both disads. That is so bad. It's like the worst part of debate. Trust me enough to vote in the direction that you tell me.

Disads:

Are good. I like them to be big, and really like to have “burnt, dead bodies” in a disad. Dehume impacts are fine, and so are value to life arguments. With all disads, specificity is key (especially with politics). Lazy debaters are rarely rewarded, and many disads are lazy.

Counterplans:

Run as many as you want and run whatever you want. If you’re on the aff, run theory and run disads to the Counterplans. Also, permutations. Those are always a good thing.

Case Debate:

Offense is better than defense, but I think that impact defense (or impact turns) can be a pretty powerful tool.

A note on impacts: I like impact calc, and I think it makes things easier for me. I default to extinction outweighs Dehume, but I am also very open to hearing impact frameworks that prioritize certain impacts over others. Everybody should let Ben Campbell teach them how to do impact calc, because that's the exact way that I feel about it.

Speaker Points/Etiquette/etc:

I don't call the house to order, I don't even know how to do that. I don't particularly like thank yous, but go for it I guess. I don't care if you talk to your partner or prompt them. I don't care if you stand or sit. You should wear some kind of clothing, but beyond that, you do what you want. I pretty much roll out of bed every morning. I don't care if you stand or sit, if you say "point of information" or not, or if you do the little teapot shin-dig when you ask a question (you know the hand on the head and the other one outstretched? Yeah, that's pretty silly).

I always liked it when I felt that debaters were friendly to me, and I always disliked debaters that were not friendly to me. I think that for a lot of teams, being welcoming to them is important, inside and outside the round. Last year, I felt that my own RFD's were kind of mean spirited, and I'm trying to be more helpful in giving debaters an RFD that seems well justified. Because of that, I'll always flow on paper, but I'll probably open up my laptop afterwards and type up my RFD to read back to you. This is the best way for me to lay out the round and make the best decision possible. In addition, I promise to be respectful of you in my decision, and will always say something that is honest, but also encouraging. That being said, during the debate, I'm not very expressive, and may even look a little perturbed. I'm not, I promise, that's just the way that my face looks.

I like jokes and references from Dungeons and Dragons, Star Trek, Battlestar Galactica, Warhammer 40k, Firefly, Isaac Asimov books, The Sopranos, The Wire, The West Wing, Slavoj Zizek, my main man Barry-O, Kim Il-Sung/Jong-il/jong-un, and other weird things.

Speaker points:

My speaker points were a little lower than average last year, so I tried to change that this year, and create a more reliable/valid scale for speaker points. It is as follows: if I give you a 27, I think that you are a good debater, if I give you a 28, I think that you should be breaking, if I give you a 29, I think that you should be getting a speaker award, If I give you a 30, I think that you should be in finals. You want good speaker points? Then your rebuttal should be my RFD.

Background

I have been involved in competitive debate since 1996, when I started competing at Durango High School in Southern Colorado. I have been coaching debate events since 2001, when I started coaching Policy and LD for Rocky Mountain High School in Northern Colorado--and I have continued to coach debate (primarily NPDA and BP) through my time in Graduate School and at my current school.

In college, I competed for Colorado State University, and then worked at California State University, Long Beach and Southern Illinois University, Carbondale coaching debate and striving to secure some very expensive pieces of paper. Since 2013, I have been working as a Professor at The College of Idaho--where our team has primarily competed in BP and NPDA. My scholarly pursuits are generally queer in nature--and my published work has engaged with pedagogy, settler colonialism, media and digital activism, and international networks of queer conviviality. I characterize my work and educational labor in connection with interdisciplinary frameworks, critical/cultural studies, performance studies, critical race theory, queer theory, process philosophy, activism, theories of affirmation, and failure. While I like to believe I am becoming new, every day. When pushed toward position, I usually articulate myself as: a temporarily able bodied, white, neurodivergent, male-and-masculine ascribed, homosexical genderqueer of fairly fluid class status (though, with the recent elimination of around $236,000 in student loans, the fluidity there feels like it might be firming up--Jello style [but with less horse hoof]). I currently live in Boise, ID--in violation of the unratified Treaty of Fort Boise, signed in 1864.

Debate Things

It has been well over a decade since I have judged a collegiate policy debate round, and even then, it was only at small, regional tournaments. I do have a lot of respect for Policy debate, and I can credit a Towson team for introducing me to Octavia Butler, and changing my life through the power of the livestream.

I like to assume that people are doing the best that they can, given the circumstances of their lives at the moment, and I strongly believe that the purpose of education is to grow and change. Debate is one of the coolest ways, I have found in my life, to practice learning in public. I will strive to take the best notes that I can about the discussions and points of contention that are raised in your debates, and I will try to evaluate them in relation to the totality of the arguments made in the debate.

One important thing to note: given that the majority of my time in debate has been dedicated to impromptu forms of debate, that emphasize the evidence of experience and example, over the authoritative declarations of the credentialed elite--I anticipate that my approach to evidence might be different than the approach that you may typically encounter. For me, reading is a highly engaged process and interpretation is a (if not the) key element. Since my own understanding of written material tends to change and evolve as I read and re-read, I will place a premium on how evidence is contextualized, compared, and contrasted in your debates. I have a strong core belief that debate is a live performance, and as such, contains elements of ephemerality and affect that are crucial distinguishing factors that demarcate a debate round from a written forum. If I find myself in a situation in which I am being asked to read and re-read speech documents, I don't know if I am really truly being asked to adjudicate a debate, which I tend to approach as a live and living entity. For this reason, I often find myself skeptical of doing much more than quickly checking written material, to confirm or challenge my recollection of moments in a debate that I observed. Trying to "read the script" of a performance is a radically different thing than evaluating a performance, and I understand the role of the debate judge as the open-minded observer/adjudicator of a challenging, engaging, interesting performance of embodied, intellectual conflict. I am not "a trained mortician of the mind," which is a line that has stuck with me from McClaren's Schooling as Ritual Performance,and thus, I will not painstakingly dissect and re-construct your debate based on its written record.

At the end of a debate, I generally find myself asking who has told me a more persuasive story about a better world: the affirmative or the negative. I value both the heft of the logic, and the clarity (as well as the affect) of the explanation. Inscribed on my flesh, on the lower inside of my right arm, directly above an artists rendering of Paul Klee's Angelus Novus, is a quote from Gilles Deleuze, pulled from his short essay about Walt Whitman--"Nature is not a form, but rather the process of establishing relations." I would encourage any who debate in front of me to do the work necessary to establish relations between the evidence of your argument, and the evidence of your opponents. I care more about how you articulate those interactions, than any interactions I might be able to form on my own, reading the material that has been "read into" the debate.

Jim Hanson

Judging Philosophy 2017

Executive Director

Climb the Mountain Speech and Debate Foundation

jim@climbthemountain.us

President

West Coast Publishing

jim@wcdebate.com

I have coached and judged NDT-CEDA, NPTE-NPDA, Policy-CX, LD, and Public Forum Debate at the regional and national circuit levels including national champions and major national tournament champions. I debated high school policy and college CEDA and NDT debate long ago. I have been involved in the speech and debate community since 1976 as a frosh in high school and continue that tradition by helping new speech and debate programs as well as existing ones to succeed with my work with Climb the Mountain and West Coast.

My Default Decision-making: I weigh the benefits of the topical parts of the affirmative/pro advocacy versus those of the competing negative/con advocacy.

EVERYONE: STYLE ISSUES

1. Please speak loudly; speak with emphasis and meaning.

2. Please give clear thesis statements for your arguments especially any position you want to go for in the last speeches.

3. Please extend evidence by the tag with a reference to where it was on the flow (eg 5th answer).

4. I dislike 1) arguments that advocate purposely or actively killing thousands of people (e.g. "spark" “wipeout”), 2) rudeness, 3) “They are stupid” comments. I really dislike personal attacks on opponents and usually results in loss of speaker points and if carried too far could be the cause of a loss.

5. I think teams tend to cry “no new arguments” too much especially when they have a one card turn that turns into 5 minutes of additional links and impacts in later speeches. I am lenient about new arguments until the very last speaker in the debate. If you want me to “box-in” your opponent, then you will need a good explanation of what you could not argue because of the new argument and why that was so critical.

6. Good cross-examination/crossfire matters a great deal to me. Questioners should ask questions to expose holes in their opponents’ cases and use followup questions to answers to gain an advantage and ask questions in a way that is clear but tough for the opponents to answer. Respondents should directly answer the question or talk about good arguments they have made related to the question. Citing sources and specific warrants in your answers is a bonus—as is answering right away without delays because you are trying to figure out an answer.

7. Speed:

--Open Policy, LD, and NPTE-NPDA: National Circuit style is fine for me although I prefer a rate at about 80% of high speed debates.

--In Novice/JV divisions of Policy, LD, and NPTE-NPDA and in ALL divisions of public forum debate: I prefer a rate that is a bit faster than normal conversational speed but not much faster.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATERS MAINLY: KEY TO MY DECISION

Cases should provide quality evidence with warrants and impacts and should address key arguments about the topic—those arguments can be creative and unusual but since it is public forum they should be real ones that experts/the public are discussing.

Read evidence (quotations) in the rebuttal speeches and directly answer your opponent’s case arguments—don’t just cross-apply your case contentions.

Summary speakers should primarily/nearly exclusively defend their cases rather than also attacking their opponents’ cases (which was just done by the rebuttalists).

Winning the debate means winning the contentions with the most impact. Explaining how/why your strongest arguments outweigh the opposing teams’ arguments is a good idea.

NPTE-NPDA ONLY: TRADITIONAL VERSUS LINE BY LINE REBUTTALS

NPTE-NPDA debaters: If you are going to debate national circuit line by line style (which is totally fine), then do it throughout the debate—line by line right through the last speech. If so, I support in NPDA-NPTE, MO’s and LOR’s splitting the block. MG’s should put out lots of offense and PMR’s should go for the 2 to 4 key answers on each position. If a team splits the block—then deal with it—don’t argue abuse because I am highly unlikely to vote on block splitting is abusive (however, if a tournament's rules ban splitting the block, i will follow the tournament's rules).

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: TOPICALITY AND THEORY

1. I have a strong predisposition that affirmatives must be topical. I’m lenient on topicality including for post-modern/performativity/“we support but don’t traditionally fiat a plan” types of cases. However, affirmatives should not count on me voting that topicality oppresses you or that your case outweighs topicality; I’m very predisposed to believe that an affirmative does have to be topical.

2. My predisposition is that the negative must show a clear violation and that it has significant harmful effect (my default is not "competing interpretations"). Show the topic size explodes, becomes unpredictable for prep, kills core negative ground (eg the negative can't run "usfg action is bad" arguments; if you can't run a particular politics disad, i'm less likely to care).

3. I think my basic view of theory is: as long as an advocacy is clear, then argue it—don’t waste time arguing theory. Attempts to win theory with me on arguments such as “Conditionality bad” and “T is a reverse voter” and “A-Spec” tend to be uphill battles. To win such an argument, you should show that your opponent’s strategy destroyed your ability to debate effectively--not just that you lost an ability to run "x disad" or "y counterplan." Theory arguments that I find more convincing are: plan is so vague, it is not clear if any arguments apply; the affirmative severs or changes part of their plan; the negative runs two positions that straight turn each other.

4. My default is the negative gets the status quo, a counterplan, and a kritik alternative.

5. My default is that non-permable counterplans are ones that are functionally opposite to part or all of what is advocated in the text of the plan.

6. I have leanings (though not super strong) against consult/condition counterplans--I think plan is usually enacted normal means and if the cplan alters the normal means, then that is consistent with the plan since it did not endorse a specific normal means.

7. I strongly default to "its severance and that's a voter" when affirmatives use perms that jettison a "functional" part of their plan needed to make it topical. e.g. on the "pressure china topic" the aff. plan submits a complaint to the wto; aff. says the complaint would lead to sanctions (so the plan is topical pressure); then aff says "perm--do plan without sanctions." that is severence as far as i am concerned and it is a voter (and yea, that plan is probably also not topical).

8. International Fiat: Fine; I'm not likely to drop a Japan nor EU nor UN Counterplan.

9. Multiple Actor Fiat: More debatable but the Aff. will need to give good args why I shouldn't consider such counterplans.

10. Object Fiat: Probably bad but I think it is debatable and might depend on the situation. Affirmatives should be ready to defend US action but there's a limit to how much the negative gets to counterplan out of harms.

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: DISADS

Links, links, links. Explain to me why the plan causes the disadvantage—that is by far the most important part of a disad to me (uniqueness and impacts important too but links MORE important).

POLICY, NATIONAL CIRCUIT LD, NPTE-NPDA: KRITIKS

• Negatives should have specific links (links are key!!!), clearly stated implications/voters, and strong answers to perms.

• I probably should either be able to envision an alternative or you should lay out a clear alternative—and it would be nice if it appeared in the 1NC. If it isn’t, I give the 1AR tons-o-latitude.

• I'm not really big on kritiks of a word (eg “your evidence said the word ‘man’ so you lose”). Absent a team dropping the arg/making real weak responses, I avoid voting on such issues unless the word is so bad it prevents debate (e.g. using an epithet to attack another debater in the round). Now, if both sides agree that representations are key, then "word kritiks" matter.

• Arguments about “pre-fiat” “post-fiat” “in-round is all that counts” and “fiat is illusory” aren’t real persuasive to me. Both sides made arguments in the round—so argue them. If the debate centers on representations, then show your representations--including the policy implications--are more important. K Debters: This means I almost always weigh the aff. advantage impacts against your K impacts.

• “This kritik completely turns solvency” arguments are often not persuasive to me especially if the affirmative can depict one of their advantages as being independent, as being something specific and empirically proven, happens before kritik consideration, etc.

• Ethical imperatives are fine but if you drop or lose badly nuclear wars/mass death/suffering--I have a hard time finding your argument persuasive. Put at least some defense against the consequences or you will have an uphill battle getting my ballot even if you have flaming "ignore the consequences" arguments.

• Affirmatives should try to perm kritiks, show how the benefit of their case’s advocacy is more important than the harm of the kritik, and how the perm uses the aff in a way that makes it solve the kritik.

• "Framework" arguments can help but in my opinion, they usually end up with one side just slightly winning and that usually isn't enough for me to throw out the kritik nor to throw out the aff. case advocacy. Wanna win a framework argument? Do like I suggest for theory/t arguments: show serious harm to your side; and frankly, most of the time the problem is the aff isn’t really topical—argue that. Otherwise, both side's arguments count.

• Negatives that run performativity/project kritiks against affirmatives often leave me wondering how they answer the affirmative case especially as of the 1NC/LOC speech (meaning, after you truly explain your K during the next negative speeches, I let the affirmative make new responses even if it is the 2AR in LD or PMR in NPTE-NPDA). Make sure you link your performance to the affirmative clearly; make it clear how the performance defeats the affirmative case.

Background/Experience

I debated a lot (CEDA, NDT), and have coached and judged even more (CEDA, NDT, NPDA, NPTE, Worlds). I teach courses in argument theory, diversity, and civil dialogue, and I am heavily involved in community service. While my debate background comes primarily from a “policy” paradigm, I have no problem with either good “critical” debates or “persuasive communication”, and am willing to listen to any framework a team feels is justifiably appropriate for the debate.

I think that debate is simultaneously a challenging educational exercise, a competitive game of strategy, and a wonderfully odd and unique community – all of which work together to make it fun. I think debaters, judges, and coaches, should actively try to actually enjoy the activity. Debate should be both fun and congenial. Finally, while a written ballot is informative, I feel that post-round oral critiques are one of the most valuable educational tools we as coaches and judges have to offer, and I will always be willing to disclose and discuss my decisions, even if that may involve walking and talking in order to help the tournament staff expedite an efficient schedule for all of us.

Unique consideration

I am hearing impaired. No joke – I wear hearing aids in both ears, and am largely deaf without them. I think most would agree that I keep a pretty good flow, but I can only write down what I understand. I work as hard as just about any of your critics to understand and assess your arguments, and I appreciate it when you help me out a little. Unfortunately, a good deal of my hearing loss is in the range of the human voice – go figure. As such, clarity and a somewhat orderly structure are particularly important for me. For some, a notch or two up on the volume scale doesn’t hurt, either. However, please note that vocal projection is not the same as shouting-- which often just causes an echo effect, making it even harder for me to hear. Also, excessive chatter and knocking for your partner can make it difficult for me to hear the speaker. I really want to hear you, and I can only assume that you want to be heard as well. Thanks for working with me a little on this one.

Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)

Although I don't see absolute objectivity as easily attainable, I do try to let the debaters themselves determine what is and is not best for the debate process. Debaters should clarify what framework/criteria they are utilizing, and how things should be evaluated (a weighing mechanism or decision calculus). I see my role as a theoretically “neutral observer” evaluating and comparing the validity of your arguments according to their probability, significance, magnitude, etc. I very much like to hear warrants behind your claims, as too many debates in parli are based on unsubstantiated assertions. As such, while a “dropped argument” has considerable weight, it will be evaluated within the context of the overall debate and is not necessarily an automatic “round-winner”.

Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making

As noted, clarity and structure are very important to me. It should be clear to me where you are and what argument you are answering or extending. Bear in mind that what you address as “their next argument” may not necessarily be the same thing I identify as “their next argument”. I see the flow as a “map” of the debate round, and you provide the content for that map. I like my maps to make sense.

That said, good content still weighs more heavily to me than slick presentation. Have something good to say, rather than simply being good at saying things.

Additionally, 1) although I think most people speak better when standing, that’s your choice; 2) I won’t flow the things your partner says during your speech time; 3) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time.

Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making

I find that good case debate is a very effective strategy. It usually provides the most direct and relevant clash. Unfortunately, it is rarely practiced. I can understand that at times counterplans and kritiks make a case debate irrelevant or even unhelpful. Nevertheless, I can't tell you the number of times I have seen an Opposition team get themselves in trouble because they failed to make some rather simple and intuitive arguments on the case.

Openness to critical/performative styles of debating

See above. No problem, as long as it is well executed – which really makes it no different than traditional "net-benefits" or "stock issues" debates. To me, no particular style of debating is inherently “bad”. I’d much rather hear “good” critical/performative debate than “bad” traditional/policy debate, and vice versa.

Topicality/Theory

While I try to keep an open mind here, I must admit I’m not particularly fond of heavy theory debates. I think most debaters would be surprised by just how much less interesting they are as a judge than as a competitor. I realize they have their place and will vote on them if validated. However, screaming “abuse” or “unfair” is insufficient for me. I’m far more concerned about educational integrity, stable advocacy and an equitable division of ground. Just because a team doesn’t like their ground doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have any. Likewise, my threshold for “reverse voters” is also on the somewhat higher end – I will vote on them, but not without some consideration. Basically, I greatly prefer substantive debates over procedural ones. They seem to be both more educational and interesting.

Parliamentary procedure

While I have no problem with them, I tend not to follow much of the traditional stylizations or formal elements of parliamentary practice: 1) I will likely just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals, but you are more than welcome to make them if you feel they are warranted; 3) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you or dig your arguments; 4) You don’t need to do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand or raise your hand; 5) I don’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech; you know the order, go ahead and speak; 6) I will include “thank yous” in speech time, but I do appreciate a clear, concise and non-timed roadmap beforehand.

I lean toward thinking that “splitting the block”, while perhaps theoretically defensible, is somewhat problematic in an activity with only two rebuttals and often only makes a round more messy.

TLDR: This is your round - do what you want, tell me how I should vote, and don't be mean.

I want to be able to judge the round with the least amount of intervention on my part. That means a couple of things:

You need to establish a framework that I can follow to evaluate the round. I don't care what that framework is, but I want one. If there is debate about that criteria, make sure the theory is clear and there are specific reasons why one framework is preferable to the other. That framework is what I will follow, so please don't set the round up as a discourse round and then ask me to look at only net benefits at the end. More importantly, give me something to look at in the end.

I would love to hear some impact analysis, some reasons to prefer, and something tangible for me to vote on. Absent that, I have to intervene. There are no specific arguments that I prefer over others. I will vote on pretty much anything and I am game for pretty much anything.

I do expect that you will not subject yourself to performative contradictions or present narratives that you don't want to be attached to the currency of a ballot, which is what presenting the narrative in the round really comes down to. If you run a k you should be willing to live in the round with the same k standards you are asking us to think about. However, it is the job of the opposing team to point that out. This is true of any theory-based argument you choose to run.

I am old, which means that I think the 1AC is important. If you are not going to address it after the 1AC, let me know so I don't have to spend time flowing it. You should have some offense on the positions you are trying to win, so it doesn't hurt to have some offense on case as well.

Critical rounds invite the judge to be a part of the debate, and they bring with them a set of ethics and morals that are subjective. I love critical debate, but competitors need to be aware that the debate ceases to be completely objective when the judge is invited into the discussion with a K. Make sure the framework is very specific so I don't have to abandon objectivity altogether.

Finally, make your own arguments. If you are speaking for, or allowing your partner to speak for you, I am not flowing it. It should be your argument, not a regurgitation of what your partner said three seconds ago. Prompting someone with a statement (like, go to the DA) is fine. Making an argument, and then having it repeated is not.

Delivery styles are much less important to me than the quality of the argument, but that doesn't mean you should have no style. You should be clear, structured, and polite to everyone in the round (including your partner if it is a team). Having a bad attitude is as bad as having a bad argument.

Speed is not a problem if it is clear, but never be used to exclude others from the round.

Someone is going to be unhappy at the end of the round that's how the game works. I will not argue with anyone about my decision. By the time I am disclosing I have already signed the ballot. I am not opposed to answering questions about what could have been done differently, but asking how I evaluated one argument over another is really just you saying think you should have won on that argument.

Because I don't want to intervene, I don't appreciate points of order. You are asking me to evaluate the worth of an argument, which skews the round in at least a small way. Additionally, I think I flow pretty well, and I know I shouldn't vote on new arguments. I won't. If you feel particularly abused in the round and need to make a point of some sort, you can, but as a strategy to annoy the other team, or me, it is ill-advised.

I have been coaching parli since 2005. I coached policy before that for seven years and competed in CEDA in college.

NEW FOR 2014:

(0) RESPECT THE INCREASED EQUITY CONSCIOUSNESS. Especially with your jokes and language. I don't want to ruin anyone's fun, but keep the humor harmless along lines of sexism, racism, and other frequent hotpoints of inclusivity. If you can't be "humorous" without trashing the feelings of others, then you suck at humor and should stick to business.

If you feel at any point your opponents or I have acted in a way that is inappropriate, you have two options. You can immediately call a point of privilege, stop the clock, and we'll get it out in the open. That's especially important if the transgression was minor and probably unintentional, because it encourages us to talk about these things more.

Or, if you don't feel comfortable with that, please explain the situation after the round to either the tournament director or the tournament equity officer/ombuds.  

(1) GROUND-LOSS AND ABUSE COMPLAINTS REQUIRE PERSUASIVE WARRANTS.  

You all know what's up in NPDA these days and you should expect anything. However, people get out of line, so you sometimes need some redress.

(1a) The easiest way to warrant loss-of-ground claims is to run a speculative argument that you would've been able to run but for the loss of ground or abuse. For instance, if you're asking for a ballot on T because of loss of ground, read me the DA you should've been able to run. This allows AFF to concede a link to the DA if they're treading the line and allows the debate to proceed. If they're smart.

(1b) If it's egregious abuse (eg. severe abuse of conditionality) calmly state your case and I'll evaluate it. The key thing to remember is you need to try to have a round anyway. If it's something involving social aggression (sexism, racism, harrassment, etc.), see point (0).

(1c) Similarly, the biggest. pet. peeve. I have in NPDA is complaining about loss of ground in a pro-forma T argument and then reading 4 DAs with clean links. I know the game was played this way for years but I'm sick of it, and it's the kind of crap that ruins this event. STOP DOING IT.

Penalty: If you do this, your opponents can simply say: "WE MEET and their DAs externally link" and I'll consider that adequate refutation of the T.

(2) FRAME CONTROL IS THE NAME OF THE GAME. You’re not reading cards, so you need to project rhetorical confidence and power. You must not only tell me what issues are more important in the round, but you should also do this at the end of every non-PMC speech. 

(3) ESTABLISH THE FRAMEWORK BY STATING IT EXPLICITLY. This is easy--say “value is X, criteria is Y” or something similar. Opposition teams can either accept the framework and show why we should reject the topic OR provide a counter-framework and show why it is better.

(4) IN REBUTTALS, ALWAYS ANALYZE CLASH OF FRAMEWORK OR IMPACTS. The easiest way to do this in the rebuttal is to crystallize the framework or impacts and say “we said this, they said that, we win because such and so.” If you need an explanatory overview, go for it. All else being equal, this will win you the round if the other team flubs it.

(5) OFFENSE IS BETTER THAN DEFENSE. You can win on terminal D, but it shouldn't be your game plan. If you don’t go on offense, you won’t be able to weigh impacts. Further, you’re not reading cards, so standing for something is simply more persuasive than standing against your opponent. While I don't believe the policy debate notion of "presumption" applies to Parli, I will not vote Gov unless Gov has at least some surviving offense, which has the same effect as presumption.

(6a) PRE-PROCEDURALS REQUIRE WARRANTS FOR PRE-PROCEDURALITY. You must explicitly demonstrate how the theoretical, procedural, or kritikal implications of your argument block access to your opponents’ impacts.

(6b) USE WEIRD OR SILLY TACTICS AT YOUR PERIL... This includes things like performance, laughably silly stock politics DAs, RVIs, wacky existentialism Ks, K-Affs, plan-minus PICs, Ospecs, and other stuff like that. Sure I'll listen and flow it, but then I'll probably wrinkle my nose and drop you, because I'm old school like that.

(6c) ...BUT I'M FAR MORE LIKELY TO ENTERTAIN THE UNUSUAL IN ROUNDS WITH BAD TOPICS.... If I feel the standard approach to your side of a topic is likely to force you to argue something absurd or offensive, I will give you a larger amount of latitude for nonstandard approaches. (Even though I will always intervene like this if I am aware of the imbalance, it's safer to point out to me that this principle should be in play.) A recent example is "USFGS mandate that blood donors cannot be discriminated against based on sexual orientation." Opposition teams are in the uncomfortable position of either advocating for discrimination or bad science if they are forced into the policymaker framework. K's and politics DAs are really the only ground they have, so I'm giving them a lot more weight.

(6d) ...OR IF YOUR OPPONENTS ARE ABUSIVE. See point (0) on equity and point (1) on warrants.

(7) SPEED DOESN’T KILL, BUT IT PROBABLY DOESN’T HELP. I’m probably about twice your age and don’t follow things nearly as well as I used to. A well-developed single argument wins against eight blippy and hard-to-follow ones. I’ll do the best I can, but it works better for all of us if you save your breath and show some quality of thought.

(8) IF I SUSPECT YOU'RE MAKING CRAP UP, I WILL “GOOGLE IT”. I won’t entertain arguments that are patently absurd just because they are theoretically proper, and if the round comes down to a factual dispute, I will do as much research as I can in 5 minutes. If that doesn’t resolve it, I will consider the argument a wash. 

(9) SPEAKS. Speaks. I use something close to the last NPTE rubric. PMs and LOs start with 27. Members start with 27.5. Then you depart from there in 0.5 increments. Your speaks will be between 26 and 29 unless something highly unusual has happened. In novice or junior, these numbers measure your progress against the progress I expect from developing debaters (that is, it's much harder to get a 28 in March than in October).

(10) YOU HAVE QUESTIONS?

Seriously, you worry way too much about these things. If you want to know the detailed crap like whether I prefer functional or textual competition or junk like that, just ask before the round.

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

Justin Morgan Parmett
University of Vermont

Assistant debate coach, Lawrence Debate Union

I have been involved in Policy debate at many levels (high school, college, regional, national, novice, JV and varsity) since the mid 1990’s. I did a brief stint in NPDA/NPTE (parli debate) for a few years recently, and have been back at UVM coaching BP debate for the past 4 years. You will find me very open minded and above all I want people to have fun, be nice to each other and develop your arguments thoughtfully. I am competent flowing at high speed and will do my best to deliver a fair decision. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions you have prior to the round. Here is a bit more detail:

My judging philosophy seems to be contextual to the round that I am judging. You can run whatever type of argument that you want to in front of me, however, I do have my preferences and they tend to be more towards the critical side of debate. I am not so likely to vote on topicality or FW arguments that are based in the assumption that this is the wrong place for the argument unless you not only win that there is some ground abuse, but also demonstrate that this ground loss is important. Do not just say that you can’t run your agent CP or your politics DA without saying why that ground is important. Likewise, I am not so likely to vote on theory arguments that say that I should reject a team for running a particular argument, usually the K. Theory arguments can operate effectively as defense, but rarely as offense for you. I would generally prefer that people attempt to answer each other's arguments rather than trying to frame each other out of the round. I also prefer for debaters to be nice to each other in rounds as meanness will hurt your speaker points and your credibility. This does not mean that you will lose the debate, but if I have to do work at the end of the debate to figure out what is going on, this will come into play as to which side I do work for. Also, I am not likely to be persuaded if you tell me that I am a policy maker so I should not look at arguments that are philosophically based. This does not mean that I should not consider myself a policy maker, but that this role includes me questioning assumptions behind our actions. Basically, this means that I do not believe in the pre/post fiat distinction. I think that affirmatives have a right to frame the debate in a reasonable manner. You do not have to uphold some standard as to what the resolution is supposed to mean for everyone and I don’t see why it is productive for us all to be stuck to thinking exactly the same way about the topic. This being said, if you are going to talk about things that have nothing to do with the topic at all (I don’t know, maybe you want to talk about sports or music or something) you should have good reasons as to why you should do that. To be clear, proving that debate is structurally flawed is a good reason, but you should still ask me to vote on the argument you are making rather than the fact that debate is exclusionary. That is a start to your argument, but not the end. I could otherwise be persuaded to vote on a topicality arg in these cases. I think that this is enough to get an idea of where I stand. The debate is for you, but I also am going to be a part of it if I am watching the round. If there are any questions that you have, you should ask me at any time.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PF PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. Speed is fine. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. At various times I have voted (admittedly, in policy) for smoking tobacco good, Ayn Rand Is Our Savior, Scientology Good, dancing and drumming trumps topicality, and Reagan-leads-to-Communism-and-Communism-is-good. (I disliked all of these positions.)

If an argument is in final focus, it should be in summary; if it's in summary, it should be in rebuttal,. I am very stingy regarding new responses in final focus. Saying something for the first time in grand cross does not legitimize its presence in final focus.

NSDA standards demand dates out loud on all evidence. That is a good standard; you must do that. I am giving up on getting people to indicate qualifications out loud, but I am very concerned about evidence standards in PF (improving, but still not good). I will bristle and register distress if I hear "according to Princeton" as a citation. Know who your authors are; know what their articles say; know their warrants.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about a nebulosity called "The Economy." Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase? When I consider which makes the world a better place, I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. I'm also receptive to well-developed framework arguments that may direct me to some different decision calculus.

Teams don't get to decide that they want to skip grand cross (or any other part of the round).

I am happy to vote on well warranted theory arguments (or well warranted responses). Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. I am receptive to Kritikal arguments in PF. I will default to NSDA rules re: no plans/counterplans, absent a very compelling reason why I should break those rules.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA PARLI PARADIGM

I have judged all kinds of debate for decades, beginning with a long career as a circuit policy and LD coach. I have judged parli less than other formats, but my parli judging includes several NPDA tournaments, including two NPDA national tournaments, and most recent NPDI tournaments. Speed is fine, as are all sorts of theoretical, Kritikal, and playfully counterintuitive arguments. I judge on the flow. Dropped arguments carry full weight. I do not default to competing interpretations, though if you win that standard I will go there. Redundant, blippy theory goo is irritating. I have a fairly high threshold for deciding that an argument is abusive. Once upon a time people though I was a topicality hack, and I am still more willing to pull the trigger on that argument than on other theoretical considerations. The texts of advocacies are binding; slow down for these, as necessary.

I will obey tournament/league rules, where applicable. That said, I very much dislike rules that discourage or prohibit reference to evidence.

I was trained in formats where the judge can be counted on to ignore new arguments in late speeches, so I am sometimes annoyed by POOs, especially when they resemble psychological warfare.

Please please terminalize impacts. Do this especially when you are talking about The Economy. "Helps The Economy" is not an impact. Economic growth is not intrinsically good; it depends on where the growth goes and who is helped. Sometimes economic growth is very bad. "Increases tensions" is not a terminal impact; what happens after the tensions increase?

When I operate inside a world of fiat, I consider which team makes the world a better place. I will be looking for prevention of unnecessary death and/or disease, who lifts people out of poverty, who lessens the risk of war, who prevents gross human rights violations. "Fiat is an illusion" is not exactly breaking news; you definitely don't have to debate in that world. I'm receptive to "the role of the ballot is intellectual endorsement of xxx" and other pre/not-fiat world considerations.

LES PHILLIPS NUEVA LD PARADIGM

For years I coached and judged fast circuit LD, but I have not judged LD since 2013, and I have not coached on the current topic at all. Top speed, even if you're clear, may challenge me; lack of clarity will be very unfortunate. I try to be a blank slate (like all judges, I will fail to meet this goal entirely). I like the K, though I get frustrated when I don't know what the alternative is (REJECT is an OK alternative, if that's what you want to do). I have a very high bar for rejecting a debater rather than an argument, and I do not default to competing interpretations; I would like to hear a clear abuse story. I am generally permissive in re counterplan competitiveness and perm legitimacy. RVIs are OK if the abuse is clear, but if you would do just as well to simply tell me why the opponent's argument is garbage, that would be appreciated.

Communication focused. Prefer arguments that are framed in the real world and have real world harms/solvency/impacts vs hyper-critical and hyper-technical framework positions. Background- high school policy and Lincoln Douglas, college Parli, and have been the Assistant Director at C of I for over a decade. Also I think spreading is stupid. Sorry, not sorry. Good luck to all of you!

Unaffiliated

Previously coached University of Washington, University of Puget Sound, Interlake High School, Bingham High School.

Graduated from University of Puget Sound in 2013

Short version

All approaches (policy, k and beyond) are welcome. Do some good research. Be specific with your claims. Tailor your argument to your opponents. You can cheat, but not too much. I am probably about 50/50 on T vs the K aff.

I judge sparingly these days. It is a safe assumption that my knowledge of the topic is, at best, equivalent to a decent google search. What I've written below may no longer be of any relevance, but it's an approximation of what I thought about most when I was judging more often.

Miscellaneous pet peeves

- Saying "cut the card" without marking where it's cut

- Excessive (ie longer than :30) overviews

- Ending prep before clicking "send" on the email chain/before the flash drive leaves your computer

- CXes that don't go anywhere, or that get interesting and are promptly forgotten

- Cruelty/being unnecessarily mean/disrespecting people/using hateful speech

General

When I debated, I typically read a plan and tended to defend it, and went for both Ks and policy strategies on the negative. As a coach, I've worked across the spectrum, both with traditional policy squads and one-off/no-plan teams. I've qualified teams to the NDT and the TOC, and was a CEDA elim participant and NDT qualifier myself.

I have some thoughts about content and style, but at the end of the day, I think both sides of the k/policy "divide" are interesting and worthwhile. Fundamentally, I think debate is a game of research, in one form or another. In "policy" debates, author qualification, evidence specificity, recency, and conclusiveness are all worth referencing and comparing. In "kritik" debates, explanation and application to your opponents' arguments and evidence is crucial. Either way, I like it when debates are reflective of controversies in academic fields, and not just constructed out of ideas pulled from the back pages of newspapers or sketchy timecube-esque websites. I think reading evidence in the correct context and with minimal distortion of its authors' intent is important.

I think that you should respond to your opponents' arguments. How you do that is up to you, but it's much easier for me when you proceed in an order similar to that of your opponent, and make it clear which argument you're responding to. I've judged several debates that were pretty far from this, and while I enjoyed them, I think I'm far less predictable at deciding them.

Plan-focus debate

Excellent! I think well-researched and well-executed technical policy debate is awesome.

Particularly in this context, I think defense matters, and am willing to depart from the offense/defense cult. The last time I sat on a panel was because I assessed a 0% risk of a net benefit to a PIC. I think good internal link defense against advantages/DAs is an underutilized strategic element.

The politics DA gets a lot of hate from people, but if you think you can wordsmith your way through the logical oddities of the argument, I'm probably a surprisingly good judge for you. From an educational perspective, I think it's cool that debaters expend so much energy to keep up with news about federal legislation, and I'm more than happy to reward it as a judge.

Kritiks/etc

Academically speaking, this is probably my comfort zone, but that makes me much more willing to inject my interpretation about what an argument is supposed to say into how I evaluate a debate.

I think talking about the aff (when on the negative) is crucial. This is particularly true of how you explain the alt.

I think role of the ballot args are often arbitrary and self-serving. I think you're better off defending the relative merits of your framing mechanism, but I will probably disregard one-line interpretations that needlessly stack the deck in your favor.

I am open to and interested in alternative models of competition but will default to my interpretation of traditional opportunity cost absent any direction to the contrary. I have, in a couple instances, determined that the aff didn't get a perm, but that was usually because the block out-teched the 1AR on the theory debate, and not because I think that argument is particularly compelling.

Procedurals

I like neg flex. I think, as far as "the rules" go, that the neg probably should get to read a few conditional advocacies, and indirect "contradictions" between them (like the security k and a DA impact) aren't necessarily the end of the world. I'm open to arguments to the contrary, however, for both theoretical and critical reasons. Also, I'm not too keen on the "judge kick" conditionality argument.

I would rather reject the arg and not the team on theory, but I respect the value of theory as an element of a diverse strategy.

I think T debate is a good thing. Real-world relevance or engagement with core debates in topic literature is important. I like T debates that effectively use evidence.

The less generic a framework arg feels (vs the non-traditional/K aff), the more I will like it.

Overview: In general, I am most comfortable in a policy making paradigm.  A specific plan tends to offer the best focus for debate. However, I understand that not all resolutions are translatable into “policy” language.  In those cases, the teams must clarify their frame, and how it should be evaluated.  Criteria should be more carefully thought out than “net benefits” or “preponderance of evidence” as to what is to be weighed and should be identified along with how the weighing takes place.  The opposition team should feel free to offer counter criteria.

Resolutionality/Topicality should be impacted by the opposition team with something other than “unfair” or “abusive.”  There should be a good reason based in decision making integrity and advocacy that drives this argument rather than the opposition didn’t think of it or doesn’t want to talk about it. Must be in round abuse, not potential.  Generally, cases that are hiding from the subject matter of the resolution are weak logically, and subject to critique for refusing to address important issues.  Have substantive reason for voting on Res/T arguments, and in round vs. potential abuse. NOTE: I tend to NOT vote on T

 Procedure:­ Please note that I likely will just “take into consideration” points of order that identify “new” arguments in rebuttals.  I will penalize speaker points if the point is made and I feel it is inaccurate, or just a tactic to disrupt the speaker.

 Points of information are obviously strategic both as interruption devices and as a means to elicit information.  Debaters should make sure they are judicious in their use of them simply to interrupt.  There is such a thing as a stupid question.

Style: I tend not to follow much of the traditional or formal elements of the activity that are stylizations of parliamentary practice: 1.) Please time yourselves and keep track of protected time; 2.) Just because I am not rapping on the table doesn’t mean I don’t like you; 3.) Don’t do the little tea pot dance to ask a question, just stand; 4.) I won’t give the whole speaker of the house rap about recognizing speakers for a speech of no more than whatever, you know the order, speak; 5.) I will include thank-you and road map time in speech time. 

 Delivery: Structure is important and should be verbally identified as you speak.  It should be clear where you are refuting and extending arguments.  Simply going down the flow is not good enough, you should still be identifying the argument you are addressing by something other than “next.” I will reward humor and positive attitude.

 Argumentative Preferences:  I try not to eliminate any arguments simply because of their “title,” i.e. like “kritik” or Counterplan. However, any argument, even disadvantages, can be run poorly and weakly applied.  I try to focus on the content of the argument and its application instead of its title.  Please weigh arguments against each other and be aware of the others teams arguments as well when weighing.

 Aff “Projects”: Would prefer them to have links in the resolution and talk about the subject of the resolution even if just filtered through your project. I have deep doubts that the flaws of our activity will be solved by my ballot in a contest situation where the other team is automatically demonized and placed in binary opposition, your project should probably be presented at a business meeting to get any real outcome. But, if you run one I will try to evaluate based on both teams handling of framework.

This is an amendment to my posted judging philosophies, to which the content/style/preferences are all unmodified; this just serves as a “rider” to those documents

From this point forward, should any debater raise an issue in the debate that relates to the experience of personally being placed in a hostile environment or experiencing a harassing situation by participating in the activity, at the end of the round I am going to take that issue to the tournament director or ombudsperson for follow up. The intent is not to silence persons, or have them avoid talking about these things in rounds, but if harm has been done to you, I cannot leave it alone with the filling out of my ballot.

I feel obligated to take this position for several reasons:

1. It is a legal requirement. I face liability if I do not.

As per University Policy 1600.04:

“8. Employees Must Report Sexual Misconduct. Employees have a duty to promptly report to the Vice Provost for Equal Opportunity, Title IX Coordinator, known or suspected incidents of sex discrimination, including sexual misconduct (except for those employees statutorily barred from sharing such information). Students and visitors are also encouraged to report this.”

2.  This requirement extends to all places WWU is participating in activities related to University business.

“POL-U1600.04 PREVENTING AND RESPONDING TO SEX DISCRIMINATION, INCLUDING SEXUAL MISCONDUCT: This policy applies to all students, employees, agents, groups, third parties, individuals, and organizations that use University facilities and persons who participate in University programs and activities to the extent provided by law, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. This policy applies to all Western locations (i.e., main campus, satellite locations, Lakewood); locations where Western activities are taking place (i.e., field trips, away sporting events); Western sponsored transportation (i.e., buses to off-campus events); and off-campus non Western sponsored events where the off-campus behavior creates a negative adverse impact back on campus.”

3.  I am no longer personally accepting of harmful activities towards others others being part of the content and “contest” of debate. There is absolutely NO debate possible about the acceptability of such behaviors. I am no longer willing to let my ballot alone be a referendum on such behaviors.

TLDR:

Read whatever you’d like.