Tabroom.com

The Meadows Invitational

2015 — NV/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

All Paradigms: Show Hide

Tim Alderete Hire

Monica Amestoy FSHA (Flintridge) 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 11, 2021 at 12:25 AM PDT

Update:
I haven't judged since 2018, I dont think my opinions on debate have changed but maybe slow down for me as I get back into this. You definitely should slow down on texts (plant texts, alts, interps etc.) and author names pls. My email is amestoy.monica@gmail.com

Background:
My name is Monica Amestoy. I graduated in 2013 and debated for Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy in La Canada, CA. I qualified for TOC my senior year, coached a few debaters who did very well at the TOC and have taught at VBI, NSD, PDI and BFI. I also debated in college. Overview: I will do my best to evaluate the round the way you tell me to. I will try to be as objective as possible, but I think that it is impossible to be a completely "tab" judge. So instead of pretending that I will vote like a blank slate my paradigm is to let you know about some of my opinions on certain aspects of debate. Also I haven’t really edited the rest of this paradigm in a while so feel free to ask questions.

Short version: I like policy style arguments, non topical argument, Ks and theory. Read whatever you feel you are best at and when in doubt weigh. I will straight up drop you if you make racist, sexist, homophobic and transphobic arguments.

Theory: I really enjoy good theory debates.

Ks:
I hesitate to tell you about my love for the K debate because I’m scared people will think that means they have to run their K in front of me. I obviously love the K but you should run what you think you will do your best with. That being said, I have found that I am more compelled by critical arguments so if you are responding to one of these types of positions or feel that you would perform better under a different paradigm of debate then I think you should probably address questions of what fairness is and for whom/what it means in the debate space.

CPs, Perms, Plans and DAs:
Go for it
Is condo good? Bad? Idk you should tell me these things in your speech

People need to slow down for their plan/cp texts. -Slow down for card names. I think judges lie way too much about how good they are at flowing. I'm just okay.

Things I will drop your speaks for (a lot):
1. Formatting your case in a way that makes it difficult for your opponent to read: multiple colors, fonts, highlighting or lack of spacing. (honestly win the round because your arguments or ballot story is better not because your opponent has a hard time reading your case)
2. Being really rude
3. Stealing prep
4. Lying
Just have fun and read what makes you happy.

Mike Bietz Harvard-Westlake School 1 rounds

Last changed on Tue January 2, 2024 at 6:43 AM PDT

Head Coach: Harvard-Westlake School, Los Angeles CA | mbietz AT hw.com

I am diagnosed (and am on medication) with severe ADD. This means my ability to listen carefully and pick up everything you say will wane during the round. I would strongly suggest you have vocal variety and slow down, especially for what you want to make sure I get.

Jonah Feldman, friend and former coach at UC Berkeley, summed up a lot of what I have to say about how I evaluate arguments

I do not believe that a dropped argument is necessarily a true argument.

I am primarily interested in voting on high-quality arguments that are well explained, persuasively advanced, and supported with qualified evidence and insightful examples. I am not interested in voting on low-quality arguments that are insufficiently explained, poorly evidenced, and don't make sense. Whether or not the argument was dropped is a secondary concern...

How should this affect the way I debate?

1) Choose more, especially in rebuttals. Instead of extending many different answers to an advantage or off-case argument, pick your spots and lock in.

2) If the other team has dropped an argument, don't take it for granted that it's a done deal. Make sure it's a complete argument and that you've fully explained the important components and implications of winning that argument.

His full paradigm: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6366

More stuff:

I never thought I'd have to say this, but you have to read aloud what you want me to consider in the round. Paraphrasing doesn't count as "evidence."

The affirmative probably should be topical.

I think that I'm one of the few circuit LD judges who votes affirmative more than I vote negative. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must engage. Being independently right isn't enough.

I consider myself a policy-maker with an extremely left bent. Answering oppression with extinction usually doesn't add up for me. I'll take immediate, known harms over the long-term, speculative, multi-link impacts 90 out of 100 times. This isn't paradigmatic, so it is NEGS failing to engage the Affirmative Case.

Given my propensity to vote affirmative and give the affirmative a lot of leeway in defining the scope of the problem/solution, and requiring the negative to engage, I'd suggest you take out the 3 minutes of theory pre-empts and add more substance.

Topicality is probably not an RVI, ever. Same with Ks. Today I saw someone contend that if he puts defense on a Kritik to make debate a safe space, the judge should vote for him because he'll feel attacked.

Cut your presumption spikes. It's bad for debate to instruct judges not to look for winning arguments. It also encourages debaters to make rounds unclear or irreconcilable if they need to catch up on actual issues.

Where an argument can be made "substantively" or without theory, just make it without theory. For example, your opponent not having solvency isn't a theory violation. it just means their risk of solvency is very low. Running theory flips the coin again. So it's both annoying and bad strategy. Other examples might include: Plan flaws, no solvency advocate, and so on. Theory IS the great equalizer in that it gives someone who is otherwise losing an argument a chance to win.

Cross-x cannot be transferred to prep time.

Some annoyances:

- Not letting your opponents answer a question. More specifically, male debaters who have been socialized to think it is ok to interrupt females who have been socialized not to put up a fight. If you ask the question, give them a chance to answer.

- Ignoring or belittling the oppression or marginalization of people in favor of smug libertarian arguments will likely not end up well for you.

- People who don't disclose or they password protect or require their opponents to delete speech documents. I'm not sure why what you read is private or a secret if you've read it out loud. The whole system of "connected" kids and coaches who know each other using backchannel methods to obtain intelligence is one of the most exclusionary aspects of debate. This *is* what happens when people don't disclose. I'll assume if you don't disclose you prefer the exclusionary system.

Some considerations for you:

- if you’re reading such old white male cards that you have to edit for gendered language, maybe consider finding someone who doesn’t use gendered language... and if you notice that ONLY white men are defending it, maybe consider changing your argument.

- if you find yourself having to pre-empt race or gender arguments in your case, maybe you shouldn't run the arguments.

Andrew Bower Lynbrook High School 6 rounds None

Kelli Brill Sage Ridge School 6 rounds

Robin Brown Clark HS 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu February 9, 2023 at 7:43 AM PDT

LD
Judging Experience: 14 Years
High school coach, 10 years
High school policy debate, 4 years.

Overview: in general, I prefer traditional value debate in LD. My judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, etc.
I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Be a debater, not a competitive librarian.

Plans: I will accept cases which offer some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being different from Policy—I don't think very narrow and specific plans are effective in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with something squirrely (and potentially abusive), that’s not ok. With that in mind, it's debaters' responsibility to point out that their opponent is running squirrely/abusive plan.

Kritiks: I'll accept them.

Values/ Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. You should have cards in your framework.

Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing.

Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.

Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.).

Matt Conrad La Reina High School 4 rounds

Erin Cowley West High School 6 rounds

Liz Dela Cruz Loyola High School 6 rounds

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

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

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

Note:

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

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

General:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary/FF:

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

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

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

4. Break it down! Give me voting issues!

Speed:

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

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

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

Policy (Cross-Ex) Paradigm (Updated 041715)

Affiliation: SouthWestern College, Weber State University

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean Fee Palo Alto (Independent) 6 rounds

Travis Fife Harvard-Westlake School 3 rounds

Last changed on Mon February 6, 2023 at 2:29 AM PDT

TFA 2023: I haven't judged much since TOC 18. Prior to that, I was heavily involved in the activity and taught / coached for Harvard Westlake. I'm a civil rights attorney now. I love debate and really don't have that strong of feelings on things. It's your debate, do as you will. Just start a bit slower than you normally would..... it's been awhile.

Hard and Fast Rules:

Flashing counts as prep if you are assembling the document. If everything is in one doc and you are just saving then that is not prep.

You must either flash or email your opponent your docs.

Evasiveness of any kind before round is highly frowned upon. My expectation is that debaters are honest with one another in all their dealings.

In general, I really enjoy judging debate. If you have a well thought out and interesting take on the topic/debate, I will be happy. If you use strategies that reflect a shallow understanding of the arguments you're running that avoid clash i will be less happy.

Toc 18:

Here are 8 things i'd like for you to know:

1.I keep a good flow. I will hold you to what you say. I do not mind justifying my decisions after the debate by reading back to you what i have on my flow.

2. I will read your evidence and compare it to your explanation in round. Putting powerful spin on your ev is good and highly encouraged. Falsely representing what your evidence says is not. Similarly, having good ev but explaining it poorly will also hurt you.

3. I like philosophical debates. I majored in philosophy. I read ethics, philosophy of mind, political theory in my free time. But i have found that i do not like "phil debaters" because debaters who identify as such seem much more inclined to try to obscure clash and rely on spikes/tricks. If you debate philosophy straight up and have read primary source material to enhance your explanations, I might be the best judge for you. If you intend to read a million analytics and use trickery, i would be a terrible judge for you.

4. On K's, I start from the perspective of "why are the aff and alt different?" This means i focus my decision on 1. links application to the aff and how they turn case or gut aff solvency. 2. does the alt solve the k or the case?

i tend to think the AFF gets to "weigh" the case in the sense that the plan is some what relevant. I think framework arguments best indict how i evaluate the plan and impact calc more broadly. I think the aff commonly drops a lot of 1NC f/w arguments, but negs rarely capitalize on these drops in persuasive ways.

5. I research the topic a lot. I like debates about the topic grounded in a robust academic/theoretical/philosophical/critical perspective.

6. I think debate is both a game and contains an important educational aspect. I do not lean either way of "must defend the topic" but i tend to believe the topic has a role to be played in the community and shouldn't be totally ignored. How that belief plays out in a given round is much more hard to say. I think my record is about 50/50 on non-T AFF's vs topicality.

7. I like CX. You can't use it as prep.

8. I don't think i've voted in an RVI in like over 2 years. I would consider myself a hard press.

Ryan Fink The Harker School 6 rounds

Tyler Gamble Clovis North 2 rounds

Akhil Gandra The Kinkaid School 6 rounds

Ryan Hamilton Hire 2 rounds None

Michael Harris Lynbrook High School 6 rounds

Katie Hughes Hire 6 rounds

Shania Hunt Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Last changed on Fri May 3, 2024 at 8:50 AM PDT

Update for MS TOC 2024 (the only important updates are PF-specific for MS TOC)

Updated March 2023 (note this is partially from Greg Achten's paradigm - an update for Kandi King RR 2023)

Email: huntshania@gmail.com-please put me on the email chain

Pronouns: she/her/hers

Overview [updated MS TOC 24]

I've done debate for over a decade now, and I think it's a really awesome activity when we share similar value in the activity. Please be kind and respectful to each other, and have fun debating! Feel free to ask any questions/clarifications before you debate. Some quick background, I competed the longest in LD in high school (elims of NSDA, 4th speaker / quarters at TOC, championed Greenhill, Co-championed Cal Berkeley Round Robin and Finals at Cal Berkeley Tournament my senior year). I've also competed in a lot of other events besides LD (WSDC, Impromptu, Extemp, Oratory, PF, Congress) and other notable achievements include being runner-up at NSDA 2013 in Extemp Debate and debating for the USA on the NSDA's inaugural USA Debate team my senior year in WSDC. I've coached a lot of students at this point, I was an assistant coach for Northland, Harvard-Westlake for 4 years, The Harker School for 3 years as the MS Director of Speech and Debate and currently as an assistant coach/law student, and am presently one of the head coaches for the USA Debate Team through the NSDA. Good luck, have fun, and best effort!

Paradigm[Updated March 2023]

[**Note I copied this paradigm from my colleague, Greg Achten at The Harker School when my paradigm was deleted in March 2023.]

I enjoy engaging debates where debaters actively respond to their opponent's arguments, use cross-examination effectively, and strategically adapt throughout the debate. I typically will reward well-explained, intellectually stimulating arguments, ones that are rooted in well-grounded reasoning, and result in creativity and strategic arguments. The best debates for me to judge will either do a stand up job explaining their arguments or read something policy-based. I love a new argument, but I just caution all debaters in general from reading arguments your judge may not have a background in that requires some level of understanding how it functions (that often debaters assume judges know, then are shocked when they get the L because the judge didn't know that thing).

I haven't judged consistently in awhile, and what that practically means it'd be wise to:

(1) ask questions about anything you may be concerned about

(2) avoid topic-specific acronyms that are not household acronyms (e.g., ASEAN, NATO, WHO, etc.)

(3) explain each argument with a claim/warrant/impact - if you explain the function of your evidence, I'll know what you want me to do with that evidence. Without that explanation, I may overlook something important (e.g., offense, defense, perm, or "X card controls the link to..", etc)

Argument Preferences:

The execution of the argument is as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.

Critiques: Overall, not what I read often in debates, but you'll likely do fine if you err on the side of extra explanation, extending and explaining your arguments, directly responding to your opponents arguments, etc. I try my best to flow, understand more nuanced arguments, etc. But, I don't have a background in critical studies so that will need extra explanation (especially links, framing arguments, alternatives).

Topicality/Theory: I am slightly less prone than other judges to vote on topicality. Often the arguments are quickly skimmed over, the impact of these arguments is lost, and are generally underdeveloped. I need clear arguments on how to evaluate theory - how do I evaluate the standards? What impacts matter? What do I do if you win theory? How does your opponent engage?

The likelihood of me voting on a 1ac spike or tricks in general are exceptionally low. There is a zero percent chance I will vote on an argument that I should evaluate the debate after X speech. Everyone gets to give all of their speeches and have them count. Likewise any argument that makes the claim "give me 30 speaker points for X reason" will result in a substantial reduction in your speaker points. If this style of theory argument is your strategy I am not the judge for you.

Philosophy/Framework: dense phil debates are very hard for me to adjudicate having very little background in them. I default to utilitarianism and am most comfortable judging those debates. Any framework that involves skep triggers is very unlikely to find favor with me.

Evidence: Quality is extremely important and seems to be declining. I have noticed a disturbing trend towards people reading short cards with little or no explanation in them or that are underlined such that they are barely sentence fragments. I will not give you credit for unread portions of evidence. Also I take claims of evidence ethics violations very seriously and have a pretty high standard for ethics. I have a strong distaste for the insertion of bracketed words into cards in all instances.

Cross examination: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X. A good cross-ex will dramatically increase your points, a bad one will hurt them. Everyone in the debate should be courteous.

Disads/CP's: these are the debates I am most familiar with and have spent nearly all of my adult life judging and coaching. DA turns the case is a powerful and underutilized argument. But this is all pretty straightforward and I do not think I have a lot of ideas about these that are not mainstream with the exceptions in the theory section above.Speaker points: for me are based on the following factors - clarity of delivery, quality of evidence, quality of cross examination, strategic choices made in the debate and also, to a degree, on demeanor. Debaters who are friendly and treat their opponents with respect are likely to get higher points.

Also a note on flowing: I will periodically spot check the speech doc for clipping but do not flow from it. I will not vote on an argument I was unable to flow. I will say clear once or twice but beyond that you risk me missing many arguments.

Public Forum

Pretty much everything in the above paradigm is applicable here but there are two key additions. First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence. This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence.

Other than that I am excited to hear your debate! If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask me.

Sierra Inglet Harvard-Westlake School 6 rounds

Steve Knell Harvard-Westlake School 4 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 29, 2022 at 1:27 PM PDT

Alta 2022 Judging Philosophy

Email: stevejknell@gmail.com

Education:

- DMA, University of Texas at Austin (2019)

- MM, University of Georgia (2013)

- BMus, University of Utah (2011)

Debate experience:

- Harvard Westlake School––Upper School LD Assistant; Middle School Head Coach (2014–2016)

- DebateLA––MS Parli and LD Instructor (2014–2016)

- Weber State Debate Institute––Director of LD Debate (2014)

- Wasatch Mountain Debate––Founder and LD Instructor (2013–2014)

- Rowland Hall-St. Marks––LD Coach (2013–2014)

- Bingham High School––LD Coach (2007–2011)

- Sun Country Forensics Institute––LD Instructor (2010–2011)

- Debated for Cottonwood High School––4A Utah State Champion in LD (2004–2007)

Foreword: I have judged a lot of circuit debates, but it’s been six years since I judged my last round. I’m not up-to-date on trends or new jargon in the activity, and otherwise rusty on jargon I knew in the past. You should probably not read at your top speed. I have not seen any rounds on the topic, nor coached/researched it.

TL;DR philosophy: I have over a decade of experience in LD and should be able to handle any style or argument you throw at me. I view resolutions as normative statements that are tested through some kind of evaluative standard––straight-up util, more nuanced meta-ethical frameworks, etc.––and offense which funnels through that standard. The rest is up to you, with a few exceptions:

- I will not vote on moral skepticism.

- This is new for people who know my philosophy:

o I don’t think judges have jurisdiction to evaluate the out-of-round implications of what happens in the debate. My ballot has no role except to inform the tab room of the winner of the debate.

o I also don’t think judges have jurisdiction to make an in-round decision about anything that might occur/might have occurred out-of-round. I will not vote for positions that ask me to evaluate people and not arguments.

- I will not vote for arguments endorsing or justifying any pernicious “-isms” or “-phobias,” like racism, homophobia, etc.

More things consider:

- Policymaking: These tend to be my favorite debates. Plans are great. Counterplans must be competitive and should probably negate the resolution. PICs are okay but I think they are generally bad and/or poorly executed arguments.

- Kritiks: Ks are fine, but these debates tend to be at once dense and poorly explained, and thus require good storytelling and clarity.

- T/Theory: I default to competing interpretations but will hear arguments to the contrary. Topicality and theory debates are, to my mind, the most boring variety, and uniquely challenging to judge, so I may not be the best judge for complex theory debates. High threshold for RVIs, especially for T; having said that, if the shell is clearly ridiculous and merely designed to suck your time so it can be kicked in the 2N, feel free to go hard for the RVI.

- Speed: It’s not my job to tell you how fast you should talk, but I’ve been out of the activity for years, so anything close to your top speed isn’t advisable. You’re responsible for my understanding of your arguments; if I miss a game-changing argument, you weren’t clear enough. I’ll say “clear” or “slow” twice; after that, you’re on your own. Overviews are excellent. Please don’t speak at any speed at which your opponent can’t understand what you’re saying.

- Speaker points: 27.5 is my guidepost for the "average" debater at a given tournament and I go up/down from there. I rarely go lower than 26.5 unless you are disrespectful. You can earn higher speaks through clarity, savvy strategic execution, good management of the macro-level of the debate (i.e., good storytelling), and respectful conduct.

- Presumption: Neg gets presumption, though you can always argue why that shouldn’t be the case. Please don't make me vote on presumption.

- Odds and ends: I have heard there are new arguments floating around asking the judge to decide the round after a speech which is not the 2AR––I will not vote for these arguments. Suspected evidence ethics violations must be flagged immediately, clearly verifiable, and will be a win-lose issue for both parties.

-Questions are fine, but I am wholly uninterested in arguing with you (or your coach) after the round.

Feel free to ask any questions you have, or shoot me an email before the round.

Jackson Lallas Brentwood School 6 rounds

Erik Legried Brentwood School 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat April 21, 2018 at 9:21 AM MDT

*Updated on 4/21/18 while migrating to Tabroom. I'm revising this because my former paradigm was dated, not because of any significant changes to my judging philosophy.*

Background: I coach LD for the Brentwood School in Los Angeles. I competed in LD for Robbinsdale Cooper HS and Blake HS, both in Minnesota, from 2006-10. I studied philosophy, economics, and entrepreneurship at Northwestern University, graduating in 2014. I have judged several hundred circuit LD rounds, and plenty traditional rounds too.

Overall: I am a 'least-intervention' judge, and try my best to vote on the arguments in the round. Barring certain complicated extremes (i.e. offensive language, physical coercion), I vote for the best reason articulated to me during the debate. This involves establishing a framework (or whatever you want to call it - a mechanism for evaluation) for my decision, and winning offense to it.

Some implications/nuance to 'least-intervention' - a) I won't evaluate/vote on what I perceive to be new arguments in the 2NR or 2AR, b) I won't vote on arguments that I don't understand when they're introduced, c) I won't vote on arguments that I don't hear, and d) I won't vote on arguments you don't make (i.e. if your evidence answers something and you don't point it out)

Spreading: I think speed is overall bad for debate, but I will not penalize you for my belief. You should debate at whatever speed you want, granted I can understand it. If it's just me judging you, I will say clear / slow up to three times per speech. After three I will stop trying. The first two 'clears' are free, but after the third one I will reduce your speaker points by 2 for a maximum of 28. On a panel I will say 'clear' once, maybe twice, depending how the other judges seem to be keeping up.

Speaker points: holistic measure of good debating. I'm looking for good arguments, strategy, and speaking. I average around a 28.5. A 29.3+ suggests I imagine you in elimination rounds of whichever tournament we're at. I'm averaging a 30 once every four years at my current rate.

Loose ends:

- As of the 4/21/18 update, I do not need extensions to be 'full', i.e. claim / warrant / impact, especially in the 1AR, but I do expect you to articulate what arguments you are advancing in the debate. For conceded arguments, a concise extension of the implications is sufficient.

- If I think there is literally no offense for either side, I presume aff.

- I default to a comparative world paradigm.

- I default to drop the argument, competing interpretations, no RVI, fairness/education are voters.

- I will call evidence situationally - on the one hand it is crucial to resolving some debates, on the other hand I think it can advantage unclear debaters who get the benefit of judges carefully reviewing their evidence. I will do my best to balance these interests.

Feel free to contact me at erik.legried@gmail.com.

trimaan malik Hire 6 rounds

Zane Miller Arcadia High School 2 rounds

Last changed on Fri March 8, 2024 at 7:04 AM MDT

~*~Short Version~*~

Room rules: no stabbing, no fire, and no leaving without cause during a speech. Besides that, I don't just have no preferences, but actually prefer that you do whatever makes the most comfortable. Sit, stand, lie down while speaking. Tag-team in cross.Please time yourself.

Please give roadmaps, just don't say "brief offtime roadmap." Use all of your time, but if you don't, don't say you'll "yield the rest of your time." I'm a very evidence-focused (note, nothaving evidence, but demonstrating understanding of evidence - this entails referring back to your citations in speeches besides the first one you read them) judge who is also a big fan of unusual and philosophical positions. I default to condo good, reasonability, no RVIs, perms are aff ground, AFC bad, tag-teaming and flex-prep ok. Share evidence via speechdrop.

Contact me at zane@zanepmiller.com

~*~Long Version~*~

For lay debaters, the short version should be sufficient. I am a very flow- and evidence-focused judge, and I guarantee I can follow any pace of speech you're interested in (so long as the arguments themselves are cogent). For policy and technical/progressive debaters, read on.

I debated for 4 years at Centennial High School in Idaho, graduated in 2015. I qualified to the NSDA tournament 3 times and had been in multiple bid rounds (six my senior year). Won the Whitman tournament my senior year. I debated policy locally my senior year and did 2 and 1/2 years of policy at UNLV, and have been judging and/or coaching since (currently at Bishop Kelly High School in Idaho). I primarily read critical arguments late in my career and semantic, linguistic, ontological and epistemological positions remain my favorite, though I'm perfectly comfortable with down and dirty policymaking debates.

I have default opinions about procedural questions, but I hate using them. If the barest suggestion of a warrant for an alternative position is presented, I'll go with it (though I might not be happy about it, if the quality of said warrant is low). My defaults are listed in the short version; in general, I'm sympathetic to claims that a team should be allowed to do something as opposed to not. Many teams get surprised by the extent to which this is true, because I allow, and even enjoy, arguments many other judges might consider underhanded or even "abusive"; for example, the much-maligned 'tricks' archetype of LD AC was a favorite of mine in my senior year of high school, and I believe it remains under-developed and under-explored by other competitors.

If you want bad speaks, here are some easy ways to get it: be rude, especially in questioning periods (rude in this case meaning cutting speakers off unnecessarily - do control your CX, but there's a difference between 'controlling your CX' and 'asserting dominance' - making snide comments, talking down to your opponents), power-tagging or otherwise being misleading with evidence (distinct from actual evidence rule violations - I just really hate lazy cards), or making actively bigoted/micro-aggressive comments (this can easily spill over into my vote - don't say things that make me want to have a talk with your coach).

If you want good speaks from me, there are three ways to get it: sarcasm that remains in good humor (i.e., sassy comments that aren't belittling or unnecessarily rude), really deep understanding of your argument, and creative case-writing. Generally, the style I reward with speaker points is confident and humorous, with a preference for arguments that require deep understanding to execute well.

Naemah Morris Immaculate Heart High School 2 rounds

Bob Overing Loyola High School 6 rounds

Ashan Peiris Loyola High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue November 24, 2015 at 2:58 AM PDT

(Updated 10/14/15)
Asst LD Coach @ Loyola High School
Coached Loyola the past 10 years.
Judged numerous TOC level outrounds including the TOC and TOC outrounds as well.

Flashing/Prep
I will give an extra minute of prep for flashing/emailing but it is included in prep.

Speed
It's important to know that I flow by hand. The arguments show up on my flow in proportion to the amount of understanding I have of them, which is directly proportional to the amount of time you spend making the argument.

RFDs
At the end of the day my decision is almost entirely technical. I formulate my RFDs in almost an entirely technical manner. I vote for the side with more offense to the relevant framework.

Argument Evaluation
If there's more than one framework, layer the frameworks. If you're not the only one with offense to that framework THEN WEIGH THE OFFENSE. I absolutely abhor injecting my own beliefs into the debate round. Ideally, my RFD will just be me saying back to you only things that have been said in the round. I generally do as little embedded clash as possible because it involves what I believe to be intervention. Thus, you should take it upon yourself to do as much argument comparison as possible.

Rebuttals
I highly recommends that you start with framework debate at the beginning of your rebuttals. It will make my decision easier. Also have solid overviews that evaluate the issues of the round. The overview should predict the answers to the questions I will have at the end of the round. For example, does Fairness come before the K? Does their turn link to your Deont framework? etc. Generally, the rebuttals should collapse. I'm not particularly fond of new offs in the rebuttals. The best 2ARs I've seen so far collapse to the positions the neg collapsed to and spend the 2AR weighing offense.

T/Theory
My least favorite part of judging debate rounds is T/Theory. There are two reasons. First, if you're spreading analytics its almost impossible to flow by hand. Please power tag your analytics (at least the important ones) with one or two words that I can write down. Second, no one evaluates or weighs standards level offense. Please tell me what to do with offense under each standard, for both sides. Please tell me which standard comes first and why. Then please tell me which voter comes first.

ROB
Please tell me how the ROB relates to all other frameworks. Is it pre-fiat and weighs against T? Or is it post fiat and precludes ethical frameworks. Lastly, tell me what offense links and doesn't link and how it weighs out. (Am I sounding like a broken record yet?).

Speaks
Persuasive styles, strategy, solid and compelling overviews, dominant cross-ex's, ease of decision and less prep time use.

Erik Perez Juan Diego Catholic High School 2 rounds

Christopher Rogers Canyon Springs HS 5 rounds

Last changed on Wed January 3, 2024 at 9:20 AM PDT

I'm not impressed by sophistry.

Table of Contents

General Info

LD Paradigm

PF Paradigm

World Schools Paradigm

General Dislikes/Notes

Theory Issues

General Info

Started Judging: 2008

Started Coaching: 2010

Events Coached: LD, PF, Policy, Extemp, World Schools

Delivery: I don't want emails, flash drives, or printed copies. This is a speaking event and I plan to judge your argument based on your delivery of your case and rebuttals. I can handle fast talking, but no longer try to keep up with spreading. There is no educational merit, and many downsides, to encouraging students to speak at vastly accelerated paces.

Cross (excluding World Schools): I expect debaters to be polite during cross, but do not consider interruptions to be impolite. I understand cross time is limited and if you have the information you want and wish to move on to another question I understand.

RFD - If the tournament allows it, I will be happy to give my decision and discuss as long as competitors want/tournament time allows. If the tournament doesn't allow it, I will not disclose. If you try to get me to disclose at a tournament that doesn't allow disclosure I will take points away from you.

Lincoln-Douglas

Overview: LD is a moral debate that is meant to look at the underlying value of an issue. I favor a broad based approach that looks at the totality of the resolution vs. cases that over-focus on single examples or instances.

Values: I expect both debaters to have a value/standard/etc that clarifies the moral principle they are pushing for. Broadly speaking, I recognize values as automatic principles that don't need additional defense. If you tell me the most important moral issue is ensuring liberty/equality/artistic expression/self-actualization, I'll accept it as good. Having a sentence or two to explain the value/why you think it is important can be very helpful, but I don't need a long defense of the concept.

It is very hard, though not impossible, to disprove a value during a debate. Generally I expect to see the debate be about whether each side actually accomplishes the value they have outlined, not whether the value is morally good (the latter question becomes very hard for any person to judge without bringing their personal feelings into the debate).

Burden: Each side in LD has an equal burden. There is no Aff presumption that they get to set the terms, nor is there any Aff burden that they have to prove more than the Neg.

Flow: While I expect debaters to argue on the flow structure, I'm more looking to the upholding of the central principle (value) then whether debaters covered every contention.

Plans: I don't want to hear a plan and they usually don't make sense within the context of LD. That said, there are two very different types of plans that come up.

Broad explanations: Presume the motion: 'The US should end fossil fuel subsidies.' If the plan was that that US would end all payments to fossil fuel companies over the next five years, that would be fine. That's a common sense interpretation of what the motion is asking. I consider that more of an observation on the burdens of the resolution.

Narrow Plans: Taking the above motion, if the plan was 'the US will end payments to coal companies', to me that would be a bad plan. The Aff in this instance is trying to unfairly narrow the debate. The resolution's burden was end fossil fuel subsidies, not to end one type of fossil fuel subsidies. In such an example if the Neg said the Aff hadn't upheld the resolution, I'd almost certainly agree.

Both sides in a debate have an obligation to argue the entirety of the motion. Single, narrow examples on either side that don't relate to a broader principle are not enough to prove your side correct or the opponent's side incorrect.

Public Forum

PF is meant to be delivered to a general audience, not to people experienced with debate. Thus I will judge it as who did better communicating to a general audience. Please keep debate jargon to a minimum.

Final Focus is meant to narrow down the debate and explain the most important issues. It should be between 1 and 3 points. A final focus should not try to explain every single contention.

World Schools

Scoring - My ultimate decision will be based on the final score. Even if I feel like a certain team won, if the points say otherwise, I decide on the points. Unless I hear differently at judge instructions my scoring standard is -

68 - 70: A fine speech. This was either a performance that was neither particularly good nor bad, or had some really good moments mixed with some really bad moments.

64 - 67: A speech below standard. This range doesn't say that a speaker gave a bad speech, just that the speech was either underwhelming or had some problems.

71 - 75: A great speech. The speaker hit good points, spoke well, used their time well, etc.

Above a 75 is reserved for truly amazing speeches. On a level of "I ran out of the room to tell other people how amazing it was".

Below 64 is reserved for a speech with serious mistakes. The most likely is a speech that is off topic/framework and thus suffers on the content and strategy score.

What I'm looking for in each area:

Content - Logic, analysis, explanation, and evidence. Good content should be backed up by logic and explanation, but also thoroughly explained for how it helps your side. Just stating an opinion, even of an expert, on an issue isn't enough; it needs to be explained and tied to the overall argument.

Style - This is scored just like an oratory. I look for things like eye contact, understandable speed, clarity, emphasis through tone/volume changes or pauses to call emphasis to key points, and emotion and interest. Humor and/or emotional intensity may gain points if appropriate for the motion.

Strategy - Was the speech well put together? Was time well spent on the key issue, or where minor portions of the debate given too much attention? Did the speaker belabor arguments he/she had already won?

POIs - I expect a speaker to take between two and three POIs during his/her speech. These should be spread throughout the speech. If the first two are taken, and all others ignored, I will not count that as taking a good number of POIs.

If only one POI is taken I will give a slight penalty. If zero POIs are taken that will get a major penalty.

Taking excessive POIs will hurt the strategy score. The only exception to this is if the speaker is winning (improving their side) when taking POIs - in that case continuing to take POIs is acceptable.

If a team is not trying to ask their opponent POIs, or asking very infrequently, then obviously the requirement to take two to three disappears.

POIs should be no longer than 15 seconds. That is the absolute max amount of time I think you have a right to take from an opponent. The speaker has the right to cut the POI off at any point and answer/continue.

Barraging - I think it is reasonable to stand 12 to 15 times during an opponent's speech (this is for the entire opposing team). Even going up to 20 could be acceptable. More than that though and you are taking away from the opponent's right to give a speech. For online WSD this should be cut in half.

I will take away/reward to 2 points per speaker based on quality of POIs. A bad POI is one that the opponent is able to use to strengthen their own case or just a waste of time. A good POI strengthens the case of the deliverer or points to a weakness in the opponent's argument.

Framework/Terms of Debate - The prop has the right to set the framework for the debate. I define framework as an explanation of what the motion means, what, if any, specific burdens exist, what, if any, things are trying to be achieved, and what, if any, mechanism is being used (if any of those are not being done, because they don't need to be, you don't need to tell me, I'll understand). This framework should be fair and reasonable.

Fair - Does it give both teams an equal chance to win. If you try to define the debate in a way that substantially benefits your team, even if all your definitions are correct/unchallenged, you will lose.

Reasonable - Was this framework something that a person would consider the motion to mean upon hearing it? This framework should be based more on a common understanding of the words, not strict dictionary definitions.

Example - If the motion was 'THBT the death penalty is a just punishment for heinous crimes' and the prop tried to argue that they only had to show a single example, that would be a bad framework. It's not fair to the opposition and no person who was asked that motion would think they were being asked about a single hypothetical instance. If the proposition defined it as 'only in cases of premeditated murder' or 'for war crimes or crimes against humanity', either of those would most likely be fair.

Challenging Framework - If you believe the framework is unfair/abusive/unreasonable, you may challenge it. If you want to make a slight adjustment/clarification/addition you may also do that, but here I am focusing on a challenge to the entire framework proposed.

Alternative - You must offer an alternative framework. This must conform to the above standards of fair and reasonable.

First Thing - The challenge to the framework must be the first thing in the speech. If the prop disagrees with the opposition framework, it must be the first thing in their speech (and so on until there is an agreement on framework or we're out of debate).

Debate under that Framework - You must debate under the framework proposed at the beginning of the speech. You may not debate under both frameworks. If you believe you can debate under the proposition framework then that is what you should have been doing.

I don't like framework debate. If the proposition framework is fair and reasonable and the opposition challenges it, the opposition will probably lose. Likewise if the proposition proposes an unfair framework, they will likely lose.

Other Issues:

When a speaker finishes, the next speaker should promptly proceed to wherever speeches are being given. There is no prep time. You may organize your materials, but you should not be having a conversation with your teammates. Once you get to the speaking position please confirm that I am ready for you to begin.

General Dislikes (All Debates)

If a team falsifies their evidence I will always vote them down. I do not care about the level of impact it had on the debate or whether the mistake was done via maliciousness or negligence. I see falsification as any of the following:

-Creating a piece of evidence

-Changing the wording of the evidence to alter meaning

-Cutting the evidence in a way to leave out arguments that might hurt your case.

I will also punish misinterpretations of the evidence, though the degree of penalty is determined by the level of misinterpretation. I see this as situations where the speaker makes substantial errors about the quality of the source, who paraphrases the evidence in a manner that is not accurate, or misunderstands the point the author was making.

Things I commonly see that I dislike

"My opponent did not attack X contention, therefore they must agree." This isn't true. If an opponent hasn't gotten to an argument in the time allowed for them to make their initial arguments, they can not offer any new evidence, but that doesn't mean they agree. The fact that they have their own case means they have principles that disagree with you and they can always argue why their side is more important. Also, many times people will claim their opponent hasn't attacked a certain contention when I have on my flow that they have.

"If I can prove just a 1% chance of this impact, I should win this debate." This is a profoundly silly line of argument.

"My evidence says I'm right" "Well, my evidence says I'm right", "What my opponent is forgetting is that my evidence says I'm right". I commonly see debates that just become a circle of the debaters going back to the evidence they read that backed their side and inherently presuming their evidence is superior to their opponents. During evidence clashes someone has to explain why their evidence is superior: more topical, better source, more logical, etc.

If you have an important piece of evidence, please explain the validity of the source if the name doesn't explain it (major news organizations, magazines, politicians, college institutions, could have an explanation, but don't need one per se). If I just hear 'According to Williams in 2017', I have no idea who Williams is. I'll evaluate whatever you say as if you'd delivered it without a source if you don't explain why the source matters.

"My evidence is more recent so you must prefer it." In certain cases recency is important, but it has to be explained why.

Theory

Theory issues are a check for fairness. Ideally, theory should never come up in a "good" debate, but they do need to exist.

I define theory as arguments that in some way deal with your opponent(s) having violated the structure of what a "good" debate should be. Examples: they are off topic, their delivery is inappropriate, they aren't providing their evidence, etc. Issues that don't have anything to do with the core resolution/motion, but based off how they are dealing with it.

To me, if you run theory you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating/being abusive. This is the most important issue in debate, but one that should only be run if you believe it to be true. If you run a theory argument that is itself abusive (ex: topicality against an obvious topical argument), I will hold it against you.

Catherine Shackelford Cambridge Rindge and Latin 6 rounds

Last changed on Sat February 15, 2020 at 8:19 AM EDT

Please include me on the email chain: jdutdebate@gmail.com

Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. I will not tolerate language or behaviors that create a hostile environment. Please include trigger warnings for sexual violence. Feel free to ask me any questions you have before the round.

Specific things:

Speed - I'm comfortable with speed but please recognize that if you're reading typed blocks that are not in the speech doc at the same speed you are reading cards, there's a chance I will miss something because I can't flow every word you're saying as fast as you can say them. Slow down just a bit for what you want me to write down or include your blocks in the doc. I will say "clear" if you are not clear.

Topicality- I enjoy good topicality debates. To me good topicality debates are going to compare impacts and discuss what interp of the topic is going to be better for the debate community and the goals that are pursued by debaters.The goals and purpose of debate is of course debatable and can help establish which impacts are more important than others so make sure you're doing that work for me.

Counterplans- I enjoy creative counterplans best but even your standard ones will be persuasive to me if there is a solid solvency advocate and net-benny.

Theory - In-round abuse will always be far more persuasive to me than merely potential abuse and tricksy interps. I expect more than just reading blocks.

K- I really enjoy a good critical debate. Please establish how your kritik interacts with the affirmative and/or the topic and what that means for evaluating the round in some sort of framework. Authors and buzzwords alone will not get you very far even if I am familiar with the literature. I expect contextual link work with a fully articulated impact and alternative. If your K does not have an alternative, I will weigh it as a DA (that's probably non-unique).

Performance - All debate is a performance and relies on effective communication. If you are communicating to me a warranted argument, I do not care how you are presenting it.

Melanie Shackleford Hire 6 rounds None

Calen Smith Rowland Hall-St. Mark's School 6 rounds

Aaron Timmons Greenhill School 3 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 18, 2024 at 8:40 PM CDT

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

Adam Torson Marlborough School 2 rounds

Last changed on Thu April 11, 2024 at 2:46 AM PDT

UPDATED: 4/11/2024

1998-2003: Competed at Fargo South HS (ND)

2003-2004: Assistant Debate Coach, Hopkins High School (MN)

2004-2010: Director of Debate, Hopkins High School (MN)

2010-2012: Assistant Debate Coach, Harvard-Westlake Upper School (CA)

2012-Present: Debate Program Head, Marlborough School (CA)

Email: adam.torson@marlborough.org

Pronouns: he/him/his

General Preferences and Decision Calculus

I no longer handle top speed very well, so it would be better if you went at about 75% of your fastest.

I like substantive and interesting debate. I like to see good strategic choices as long as they do not undermine the substantive component of the debate. I strongly dislike the intentional use of bad arguments to secure a strategic advantage; for example making an incomplete argument just to get it on the flow. I tend to be most impressed by debaters who adopt strategies that are positional, advancing a coherent advocacy rather than a scatter-shot of disconnected arguments, and those debaters are rewarded with higher speaker points.

I view debate resolutions as normative. I default to the assumption that the Affirmative has a burden to advocate a topical change in the status quo, and that the Negative has a burden to defend either the status quo or a competitive counter-plan or kritik alternative. I will vote for the debater with the greatest net risk of offense. Offense is a reason to adopt your advocacy; defense is a reason to doubt your opponent's argument. I virtually never vote on presumption or permissibility, because there is virtually always a risk of offense.

Moral Skepticism is not normative (it does not recommend a course of action), and so I will not vote for an entirely skeptical position. I rarely find that such positions amount to more than weak, skeptical defense that a reasonable decision maker would not find a sufficient reason to continue the status quo rather than enact the plan. Morally skeptical arguments may be relevant in determining the relative weight or significance of an offensive argument compared to other offense in the debate.

Framework

I am skeptical of impact exclusion. Debaters have a high bar to prove that I should categorically disregard an impact which an ordinary decision-maker would regard as relevant. I think that normative ethics are more helpfully and authentically deployed as a mode of argument comparison rather than argument exclusion. I will default to the assumption of a wide framework and epistemic modesty. I do not require a debater to provide or prove a comprehensive moral theory to regard impacts as relevant, though such theories may be a powerful form of impact comparison.

Arguments that deny the wrongness of atrocities like rape, genocide, and slavery, or that deny the badness of suffering or oppression more generally, are a steeply uphill climb in front of me. If a moral theory says that something we all agree is bad is not bad, that is evidence against the plausibility of the theory, not evidence that the bad thing is in fact good.

Theory

I default to evaluating theory as a matter of competing interpretations.

I am skeptical of RVIs in general and on topicality in particular.

I will apply a higher threshold to theory interpretations that do not reflect existing community norms and am particularly unlikely to drop the debater on them. Because your opponent could always have been marginally more fair and because debating irrelevant theory questions is not a good model of debate, I am likely to intervene against theoretical arguments which I deem to be frivolous.

Tricks and Triggers

Your goal should be to win by advancing substantive arguments that would decisively persuade a reasonable decision-maker, rather than on surprises or contrived manipulations of debate conventions. I am unlikely to vote on tricks, triggers, or other hidden arguments, and will apply a low threshold for answering them. You will score more highly and earn more sympathy the more your arguments resemble genuine academic work product.

Counterplan Status, Judge Kick, and Floating PIKs

The affirmative has the obligation to ask about the status of a counterplan or kritik alternative in cross-examination. If they do not, the advocacy may be conditional in the NR.

I default to the view that the Negative has to pick an advocacy to go for in the NR. If you do not explicitly kick a conditional counterplan or kritik alternative, then that is your advocacy. If you lose a permutation read against that advocacy, you lose the debate. I will not kick the advocacy for you and default to the status quo unless you win an argument for judge kick in the debate.

I am open to the argument that a kritik alternative can be a floating PIK, and that it may be explained as such in the NR. However, I will hold any ambiguity about the advocacy of the alternative against the negative. If the articulation of the position in the NC or in CX obfuscates what it does, or if the plain face meaning of the alternative would not allow enacting the Affirmative plan, I am unlikely to grant the alternative the solvency that would come from directly enacting the plan.

Non-Intervention

To the extent possible I will resolve the debate as though I were a reasonable decision-maker considering only the arguments advanced by the debaters in making my decision. On any issues not adequately resolved in this way, I will make reasonable assumptions about the relative persuasiveness of the arguments presented.

Speed

The speed at which you choose to speak will not affect my evaluation of your arguments, save for if that speed impairs your clarity and I cannot understand the argument. I prefer debate at a faster than conversational pace, provided that it is used to develop arguments well and not as a tactic to prevent your opponent from engaging your arguments. There is some speed at which I have a hard time following arguments, but I don't know how to describe it, so I will say "clear," though I prefer not to because the threshold for adequate clarity is very difficult to identify in the middle of a speech and it is hard to apply a standard consistently. For reasons surpassing understanding, most debaters don't respond when I say clear, but I strongly recommend that you do so. Also, when I say clear it means that I didn't understand the last thing you said, so if you want that argument to be evaluated I suggest repeating it. A good benchmark is to feel like you are going at 75% of your top speed; I am likely a significantly better judge at that pace.

Extensions

My threshold for sufficient extensions will vary based on the circumstances, e.g. if an argument has been conceded a somewhat shorter extension is generally appropriate.

Evidence

It is primarily the responsibility of debaters to engage in meaningful evidence comparison and analysis and to red flag evidence ethics issues. However, I will review speech documents and evaluate detailed disputes about evidence raised in the debate. I prefer to be included on an email chain or speech drop that includes the speech documents. If I have a substantial suspicion of an ethics violation (i.e. you have badly misrepresented the author, edited the card so as to blatantly change it's meaning, etc.), I will evaluate the full text of the card (not just the portion that was read in the round) to determine whether it was cut in context, etc.

Speaker Points

I use speaker points to evaluate your performance in relation to the rest of the field in a given round. At tournaments which have a more difficult pool of debaters, the same performance which may be above average on most weekends may well be average at that tournament. I am strongly disinclined to give debaters a score that they specifically ask for in the debate round, because I utilize points to evaluate debaters in relation to the rest of the field who do not have a voice in the round. I elect not to disclose speaker points, save where cases is doing so is necessary to explain the RFD. My range is approximately as follows:

30: Your performance in the round is likely to beat any debater in the field.

29.5: Your performance is substantially better than average - likely to beat most debaters in the field and competitive with students in the top tier.

29: Your performance is above average - likely to beat the majority of debaters in the field but unlikely to beat debaters in the top tier.

28.5: Your performance is approximately average - you are likely to have an equal number of wins and losses at the end of the tournament.

28: Your performance is below average - you are likely to beat the bottom 25% of competitors but unlikely to beat the average debater.

27.5: Your performance is substantially below average - you are competitive among the bottom 25% but likely to lose to other competitors

Below 26: I tend to reserve scores below 25 for penalizing debaters as explained below.

Rude or Unethical Actions

I will severely penalize debaters who are rude, offensive, or otherwise disrespectful during a round. I will severely penalize debaters who distort, miscut, misrepresent, or otherwise utilize evidence unethically.

Card Clipping

A debater has clipped a card when she does not read portions of evidence that are highlighted or bolded in the speech document so as to indicate that they were read, and does not verbally mark the card during the speech. Clipping is an unethical practice because you have misrepresented which arguments you made to your opponent and to me. If I determine that a debater has clipped cards, then that debater will lose.

To determine that clipping has occurred, the accusation needs to be verified by my own sensory observations to a high degree of certainty, a recording that verifies the clipping, or the debaters admission that they have clipped. If you believe that your opponent has clipped, you should raise your concern immediately after the speech in which it was read, and I will proceed to investigate. False accusations of clipping is a serious ethical violation as well. *If you accuse your opponent of clipping and that accusation is disconfirmed by the evidence, you will lose the debate.* You should only make this accusation if you are willing to stake the round on it.

Sometimes debaters speak so unclearly that it constitutes a negligent disregard for the danger of clipping. I am unlikely to drop a debater on this basis alone, but will significantly penalize speaker points and disregard arguments I did not understand. In such cases, it will generally be unreasonable to penalize a debater that has made a reasonable accusation of clipping.

Questions

I am happy to answer any questions on preferences or paradigm before the round. After the round I am happy to answer respectfully posed questions to clarify my reason for decision or offer advice on how to improve (subject to the time constraints of the tournament). Within the limits of reason, you may press points you don't understand or with which you disagree (though I will of course not change the ballot after a decision has been made). I am sympathetic to the fact that debaters are emotionally invested in the outcomes of debate rounds, but this does not justify haranguing judges or otherwise being rude. For that reason, failure to maintain the same level of respectfulness after the round that is generally expected during the round will result in severe penalization of speaker points.

Courtnhi Vho La Costa Canyon HS 6 rounds

Kris Wright Law Magnet High School 6 rounds

Last changed on Tue March 5, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT

Table of contents:

1. My Background

2. Paradigm Overview

3. LD specifics

4. Policy specifics

5. World School specifics

6. Public Forum specifics

- My Background -

I have been coaching for 20+ years. Currently, I am the head debate coach at Irma Rangel Young Women's Leadership School in Dallas ISD, where my students primarily compete in World School, though they have also competed in LD and Policy. Before that, I was the head debate coach at the JBS Law Magnet in Dallas ISD, where I coached both LD and Policy on the Texas and national circuits. Over the years, I've also coached national circuit LD for University School (Florida) and, in Texas, at Westlake, Southlake, Marcus, and Anderson High Schools, as well as individual LDers attending high schools across the country. I have coached TFA champions in LD and Policy, as well as to elimination rounds at the TOC and NSDA Nationals.

Most of my coaching and judging experience is in LD, Policy, and World School; however, I've also coached and judged Public Forum, though to a much lesser extent.

I have a BA in Philosophy and Government from UT Austin, where I also earned a MA in Gender Studies.

I am a co-founder and Board Member of the Texas Debate Collective (TDC) and have taught at every TDC summer camp to debate. I also previously taught LD debate at NSD, VBI, NDF, and UTNIF camps. I have taught Policy and World School debate at camps hosted by the Dallas Urban Debate Alliance.

- Paradigm overview -

Below I'll attempt to speak to some event-specific paradigms, but I'll start with an overview of how I tend to judge any debate event:

In my view, a judge should aspire to resolve issues/clash in the round based on what the debaters themselves have argued, as opposed to holding either side to the burden of debating the judge. In practice, this means that I am quite fine voting against my own beliefs and/or for arguments that I have good reasons (that were not raised in the round) for rejecting in real life. This also means that I tend to be pretty open to hearing a variety of arguments, strategies, and styles. MJPs frequently result in my judging so-called "clash of civilization" debates. Finally, this means that I think the debaters have the explanatory burden; just because you read something that I might be very familiar with, do not assume that I will fill in the gaps in your warrant and/or explanation of that philosophical theory because I will actively try my best to not give you credit for more than what you actually say.
I default to the view that the resolution (or, in WS, the "motion") is the stasis point for the debate. Meaning, the official topic divides ground, establishes burdens, and will basically serve as the thing being debated/clashed over by the opposing debaters/teams. (LD and Policy debaters: please note that I said, "default." I am fine with debaters shifting what that stasis point is. See the LD and Policy specific notes below).
I think all debaters have the burden of clear communication. For me, this doesn't dictate a particular speed or style of presentation---I'm open to many. However, it does mean that I expect to be able to flow the speeches and to use that flow to decide the round. I reject (or, at least, resist) using speech docs to fill in the gaps created by debaters' ineffective oral communication.
I aspire---as a judge, as a coach, as a person---to being humble, kind, respectful, open to the possibility that I am wrong, interested in learning, and more committed to becoming right, rather than being right. I expect debaters---and all people---to aspire to cultivate and exhibit those virtues as well. If you fail to do so---particularly in terms of how you relate to me, your opponent, and other people in the room---l will choose to address it in the ways that seem most appropriate and consistent with those virtues, including (but not limited to) reducing speaker points, talking to you at length after the round, and discussing it with your coach.

- LD -

Most of my experience judging and coaching has been in LD, across a wide-range of competitive styles and circuits. Below is a list of my defaults; however, please note that debater can (and often do) push me off of my defaults. Doing so requires that you make comparatively better arguments than your opponent---not that you have to defeat whatever arguments I personally have for those defaults. All that to say, feel free to argue that I should think about these issues in different---or even radically different---ways.

The Aff has the burden of proving the resolution true and the Neg has the burden of proving the resolution false. What that actually means, though, is determined by the winning interpretation of the resolution's meaning and other framework arguments (including the standard/criterion/role of the ballot) that establish the epistemic standards for what will qualify as having proved the resolution true or false. Again, if you want to run a non-topical (or creatively topical Aff), you are welcome and encouraged to argue that this would be the better stasis point for the debate and, if your opponent challenges this, then do a comparatively better job of arguing that your alternative stasis point will make for a better debate. I have voted for (and coached) a lot of non-topical Affs over the years.
On my own, I do not default/presume neg...unless the neg has made a default/presumption neg argument and the conditions for it applying have been met. In the absence of the neg making and winning such an argument, if I am in a round where neither debater has actually met their burdens, then I will vote for the debater that is closest to meeting that burden. In other words, I'll vote for the side that requires the least intervention in creating a coherent RFD.
On theory and topicality, I default to the paradigm of competing interpretations. I also default to the view that there is no RVI on either of these debates---unless a debater has made the argument that there is an RVI. I think there are very good reasons for an RVI, so feel free/encouraged to argue for one
If the Aff does not read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does not get ground to defend topical advocacies, including topical PICs or PIKs. However, if the Aff does read a plan, I default to the view that the Neg does get topical PIC/PIK ground, so long as it is competitive with the Aff's plan.

- Policy -

When judging Policy debate, here are my defaults:

(Only in policy debate) I will default to the view that I am using a broad consequentialist decision calculus to filter and weigh impacts. I do this because that is already such a strong assumption/norm in the policy debate community; however, I think this practice is intellectually and strategically deficient. All that to say, I am always open to debaters arguing for narrower consequentialist or non-consequentialist decision calcs/roles of the ballot. If that occurs, I expect the AFF team to actually be able to defend the validity of consequentialism if they want that to remain the decision calc. Indeed, my background in LD and coaching K teams in policy makes me very open and eager to see teams contest the assumption of consequentialism.
I default to the view that the resolution is the stasis point for the debate. This means I default to the AFF having the burden of defending a topical advocacy; I default to the view that this requires defending the United States federal government should implement a public policy (i.e., the plan) and that the public policy is an example of the action described in the resolution. However, these are only defaults; I am completely open to AFF's making arguments to change either of these parameters. (Perhaps it's worth noting here that I have coached policy debaters across a fairly wide range of styles, including big-stick policy AFFs, topical AFF that are critical, and AFFs that are explicitly non-topical. Most of the AFFs I have helped my students create and run have leaned critical, ranging from so-called "soft-left" plans to K Affs that defend creatively-topical advocacies to K AFFs that are explicitly non-topical.) All that to say, if the AFF wants to affirm a strange/creative interpretation of the resolution or if the AFF wants to completely replace the resolution with some other stasis point for the round, the debaters will not be asked to meet some threshold I have; they need only do a comparatively better job than the negative in justifying that stasis point.
Relatedly, I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the explanatory burden you have to develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous arguments when you debate over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.
I am not going to flow/back-flow your speech based on a speech doc because I think the normalization of judges not actually listening to speeches and just flowing off of speech docs has resulted in worse debates and engagements with issues, and judges who simply miss thoughtful and intelligent analytics. If your articulation, volume, and/or signposting are not clear---especially after I verbally indicate that you need to be clearer, louder, etc---that's on you.
Arguments need warrants. Warrants could be, but do not have to be, cards. The belief that an analytic is categorically weaker/insufficient as a warrant is an intellectually dishonest and, quite simply, ridiculous view of knowledge that some corners of policy debate have proliferated to the detriment of our intellects. Whether a claim needs to be warranted by empirical evidence, let alone carded evidence, is mostly a feature of the specific claim being advanced. Of course, in some cases, the claim is about the empirical world and only empirical evidence will suffice, but this is not true of every claim debaters might make.
Theory and topicality: I default to theory and topicality both being issues of competing interpretations; though, I'm entirely open to a debater making arguments to shift that to reasonability (or some other paradigm). I also default to the view that there are no RVIS; I am open to that being contested in the round too, particularly if the 2NR goes for theory or topicality. As a generalization, I have found the theory and topicality debates in policy rounds to be abysmal --- both shells and line-by-line arguments that suffer from impoverished warranting and implicating. In my estimation, there is far too much implicit (and sometimes explicit) appeal to some supposedly settled norm, when the debaters themselves do not appear capable of critically analyzing, let alone sufficiently, defending that norm. I will always prefer to see fleshed out warrants. In the end, I'll resolve any theory and topicality debates via the clash produced by the arguments made by the debaters. I resist the idea that my role is to enforce a norm of policy simply because it has inertia.

- World School -

When judging world school, I try to adapt to the event by doing my best to follow the international norms for world school debate. With that in mind, I'll speak to a few issues that I've noticed WS students may need to be reminded of, as well as some issues that involve the biggest shift from how I evaluate other debate events:

Don't go fast. Even though I'll be able to flow it, you should aspire to keep your speed close to conversational because that's part of the conventions that make WS unique. If your rate of delivery is quicker than that, I'll likely not score you as high on "style."
Unless the topic is explicitly about one nation, you should provide examples and analysis of the motion that applies beyond the US as the context.
You should aim to take 1-2 POIs each speech, excluding (of course) the reply speech. Taking more signals to me that you can't fill up your time; taking fewer signals that you're afraid to be taken off your script. Either of those will result in fewer "strategy" and/or "content" points.
Countermodels cannot be topical; Opp's burden is to reject the motion, even if Prop has provided a model. Opp teams need to make sure that their countermodels are not simply a different way of doing the motion, which is Prop's ground in the debate.
Make sure you are carrying down the bench any arguments you want to keep alive in the debate. If Prop 2 doesn't extend/carry an argument down that Prop 3/Reply ends up using in their own speech, I'll be less persuaded. In the least, Prop 2 won't have earned as many "strategy" points as they could have.

- Public Forum -

I view the resolution as the stasis point for the debate. I'm fine with Pro defending the resolution as a general principle or further specifying an advocacy that is an instance of the resolution. (My default is that the Pro has the burden of defending a topical advocacy; however, I'm also equally open to the Pro defending arguments that justify they are not bound by the resolution.) If the Pro side further specifies an advocacy (for example, by defending a specific plan), then the stasis point for the debate shifts to being that advocacy statement. In the context of the arguments made in the debate, I vote Pro if I'm convinced that the arguments being won in the debate justify the truth of the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement). I vote Con if I'm convinced that the arguments being won justify that the resolution (or more specific advocacy statement) are false. The specific burdens (including the truth conditions of the resolution or advocacy statement) that must be met to vote Pro or Con are determined by the debaters: I am open to those burdens being established through an analysis of the truth conditions of the stasis point (i.e., what is logically required to prove that statement true or false) OR by appeal to debate theoretical arguments (i.e., arguments concerning what burdens structures would produce a fair and/or educational debate).

I tend to think that Public Forum debate times are not conducive to full-blown theory debates and, consequently, PF debaters would be wise to avoid initiating them because, for structural reasons, they are likely to be rather superficial and difficult to resolve entirely on the flow; however, I do not paradigmatically exclude theory arguments in PF. I'm just skeptical that it can be done well, which is why I suspect that in nearly any PF round the more decisive refutational strategy will involve "substantive" responses to supposedly "unfair" arguments from the opponent.

I'm open to whatever part of the library you want to pull from (i.e., I'm fine with whatever philosophical content you want to use in the debate), but debaters would do well to be mindful of the limitations and constraints that PF time-limits create for develop clear, nuanced, and intellectually rigorous debates over dense philosophical content. All that to say, while I won't intervene against/for either side based on their choice of philosophical content, I will evaluate the arguments based on your warranting of the claims...not my own. In other words, please don't expect that because I'm familiar (or, in some cases, very knowledgeable) about the argument you're reading that I'll be inclined to "fill in the gaps" on poorly explained and justified philosophical content. As a judge, I err on the side of holding debaters accountable for their own ability to explain and defend the content, which means I often end up voting against arguments that (outside of the round) I find quite compelling.

Login to Tabroom

The Meadows Invitational

2015 — NV/US

LD Judges Paradigm List

Judges