Competed – 4 years

Judge – 3 years

Undergrad: USC (Fight On), CSUN (Go Matadors)

Debate coach and grad student at CSU Northridge 

Pet peeves: Unneccesary aggression (please do not confuse this with using rage or anger as part of an argument or advocacy), talking over your partner, excess snarkiness devoid of humor, Zooey Deschanel. 

Debate teaches us, all of us. Through a depth of issue understanding and a distinct competition of ideas/methodologies/philosophies, through community building and hard work.

As such, my main concern when judging a round lies making sure debate is optimized as an educational tool. Arguments without depth or those that don't explain and delineate their plans/ideas tend to be significantly weaker in my book. I am not more or less susceptible to certain kinds of arguments.

In full disclosure as a debater and through my academic career philosophy and critiques were my preferred argument to run, however, I also ran DAs, topicality, anti-K arguments, and framework. And as a judge, I prefer to hear all manners of arguments.

The forms of arguments mean much less to me than the content of the round itself. Line by line responses, detailed explanation of standpoints, and contextualization of evidence hold a lot of weight. As such, I also value quality over quantity in argumentation and evidence.

Speed is mostly a non-issue to me, unless your argument is specifically tied to that notion and contextualizes it in a larger, relevant frame of reference. Also, complexity and confusion of arguments (complex philosophy/performativity) are also not issues to me so long as they are, again, explained, and formed into a relevant argument.

When it comes to speaker points two things determine my scores: grasp and explanation of the arguments and how you treat each other in round. Winning the round is important and it's part of what produces so much education in this activity. However, learning your evidence and being able to truly tie it into the narrative of your argument and treating your fellow debaters with respect are paramount to me when deciding your individual speaker points.

Other than that, try to have some fun and that's about it.

- Calvin

Ryan Cheek

Assistant Director of Forensics

Weber State University

***Updated for Wake 2015***

This is my 12th year in college debate. I would like to be included on your email chain (ryancheek@weber.edu). For me, debate is the intersection of community, paraprofessional training, and gaming. I don’t care what style of debate you prefer. Instead, I’m interested in your ability to defend and advance the advocacies and arguments you find important and/or strategic. I will do my best to adapt to you. That being said, after eight years of judging, I’ve come to realize some of my own quirks and limitations more fully:

1. Clarity of thought is paramount. I often find myself voting for teams that can make complex arguments sound like common sense.
2. I can sometimes be facially expressive and I don’t think my expressions are counter-intuitive. If I give you a confused look, then I’m probably confused. If I give you a skeptical look, then I’m probably skeptical of what you are saying.
3. Debaters that can maintain eye contact and deliver a compelling speech are very impressive to me.
4. On occasion, and particularly in debates with a lot of perms, I will correct you in cross-ex in regards to what the perm texts I recorded you saying are.
5. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.
6. If there is an “easy” way to vote that is executed and explained well, I’m very likely to take it.
7. I’d prefer to judge the text of the round in front of me rather than what debaters/teams have done outside of that round.
8. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.
9. Well explained meta-framing arguments usually control my ballot, but aren’t a substitute for substantive impact comparison.
10. Less is more. The earlier in a debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more of a chance I have to really latch onto what is going on and make a decent decision.
11. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Most debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will likely be ahead in my mind.
12. I’m not a fan of two-person speaking. This comes in many forms. Debaters talking over each other in CX, partners prompting each other through extended monologue, performative elements that make it difficult to tell who is giving what speech, teams prepping very loudly with side commentary while the other team’s speech is going on, etc.  Please, one person at a time.
13. I like to keep time. When your timer and my timer are in conflict, mine trumps.
14. Minimizing downtime is important. Go to the bathroom and jump/email the 1AC before the round start time.
15. I don’t want to adjudicate ethical challenges. If I have to do so, then be aware that presumption is on the side of the accused.

Finally, I love debate and the community that it generates. Competition is fun, but is ultimately secondary to the communal nature of what we do. I don’t treat my job as a coach/critic much differently than I do my job as a teaching faculty member. In both spaces, pedagogy is my primary responsibility and I promise to do my best to live up to being the educator you deserve. 

 

 

October 2017 Update:

I don't judge debates very often anymore, so I may not be familiar with certain topic-specific acronyms. I will not be offended if you want to ask me about my familiarity with certain acronyms before or during a debate. Also, a note relating to the 2017-2018 NDT/CEDA Topic: I do work for a health insurance company, so do with that information what you will.

 

(Updated January 2015)

Experience

LD at Horizon High School, 2007-2011 (Susan Seep)

Policy at ASU, 2011-2015 (Adam Symonds, Izak Dunn, Em Parker)

Assistant Debate Coach at Tempe Prep, 2011-2015 

General

- I think it’s very important to be courteous and respectful in a debate round. To paraphrase my high school debate coach, Susan Seep: I have a lot a respect for this activity, and I expect you to show respect for the activity. The way I think you show respect for the activity is by respecting each other.

- I also think it's my role as a judge to respect the debaters by taking their positions and arguments seriously by devoting my whole attention to them. For that reason, I've started a new experiment where I flow CXs.  CX isn't a speech, so debaters aren't responsible for responding to it; however, it is binding, so I'll hold teams to CX answers that I have written down.

- Extending an argument means extending a claim, warrant, and impact.

- If you debate paperless, you need to have a viewing laptop for your opponent(s).

- I probably won't be familiar certain abbreviations or topic-specific jargon.

- Flex prep and tag-team CX are OK

- There is such a thing as zero-risk of an argument.  I am persuaded by alternatives to the offense/defense paradigm

- Debate should be fun.  Do what you enjoy, and try to learn something

Kritiks

I think the aff should be able to weigh the impacts of the plan against the kritik, but will vote for framework arguments advanced by the neg about why the aff shouldn’t get to weigh its impacts or why weighing those impacts is illogical. 

For the aff, it’s an uphill battle to win that the K should be excluded from debate, but substantive arguments about the necessity of political engagement are persuasive arguments for why the alt can’t solve/net benefit to the perm.

The aff will have more leverage against the kritik defending whatever the negative criticizes instead of saying why those things don't matter (e.g., instead of saying "ontology doesn't come first," defend the ontology behind the scholarship in the 1AC).

I don’t like Floating PIKs and am also sympathetic to certain theoretical objections to different types of alternatives (e.g. reject alts or vague alts) - usually, these are not reasons to reject the alternative, but they do give the aff some leeway on the severance/intrinsicness arguments the neg makes against the permutation.

 

Non-topical Affs

I have been on both sides of the framework debate, so I wouldn't say that I have a heavy bias in either direction in terms of framework yes/no, but I do have some biases on particular arguments.

Neg arguments are more persuasive when they are substantive, not theoretical (although if the aff isn't germane to the topic/is in the opposite direction of the topic/doesn't defend anything, I'll find your theoretical objections more persuasive).  Arguments about engagement being a better political strategy, or ontological defenses of engaging institutions will get you a lot of leverage.  Theoretical arguments should both explain why the aff is bad for debate and why the framework interpretation is good for debate.

Arguments requiring the aff to have an advocacy statement usually aren't persuasive, unless the aff seems like it could justify aff conditionality (or it's not clear what the aff defends after the 1AC or CX of the 1AC).  Often, I would just prefer that you go for framework instead. 

The argument "no plan, no perm" has never made sense to me and seems like a terrible standard for competition.  I tend to believe the negative has the burden of rejoinder, and the perm is the aff's enforcement mechanism for that.  If the neg wants to make this argument against a planless aff when going for the K, it would be in their best interest to present a reasonable theory of competition that allows the aff to use the perm as a check against neg positions that are not at all related to the aff.  I would prefer that a neg going for the K against a planless aff grounds its competition argument in a philosophical disagreement with the aff (incompatible ontological claims, for example), a trade-off argument, or a performative DA to the aff.  

 

CPs

I lean Aff on most counterplan theory (e.g., Object Fiat, Consult, Word PICs, International Actor, Multi-Actor, 50 States, Agent, Conditions - in roughly that order), with the exception of conditionality.  I am also more willing to deviate from the offense/defense paradigm the more illegitimate I believe your counterplan is, assuming the aff has advanced a theoretical objection (especially if the net benefit is not topic specific).  For example, if the neg wins that an agent counterplan solves ~100% of the aff and is barely ahead on a generic politics DA, I'd probably vote aff, whereas, all other things being equal, if the negative has a nuanced, topic-specific counterplan with a more topic specifc net benefit, I'd probably vote neg (NOTE - that doesn't mean that I'm committed to offense/defense - although it does become more persuasive when there's a counterplan in the debate).

I'll reward debaters who slow down on counterplan texts in the 1NC, especially if it's multi-plank or complicated in some other way 

I will not kick the counterplan for the negative, unless explicitly told so (either in the 2NR, or at some point during CX if the aff asks the status of the advocacies).  Additionally, if the neg wants me to kick the counterplan for them, they should spend some (not necessarily a lot of) time comparing the SQUO with the aff (this can be a cross-application of a lot of net benefit outweighs analysis from earlier). If the neg doesn't tell me to kick the counterplan in the 2NR, presumption flips aff. 

DAs 

Try to stick to the line-by-line instead of grouping “the uniqueness debate,” or “the link debate,” when you’re extending the DA in the block. The better the line-by-line in the block, the less leeway I will give to the 1AR (and worse line-by-line = more 1AR leeway).

A bad disad can easily be beaten by smart, developed analytic arguments.  The aff does not need offense to beat a disad, especially when there's not a counterplan in the debate

Case 

I think it’s strategic to spend a lot of the 1NC on case. It puts a big time crunch on the 2AC, and makes it easier for you to weigh the impacts of your off-case arguments against the Affirmative.

Good, smart analytics can beat a bad advantage, and I am willing to vote negative on presumption. 

Topicality 

I love Topicality and am disappointed that judges aren't more willing to vote for it.  I would prefer that you go at about 75% of your top speed, especially on the standards debate

My default is competing interpretations. I also think that T is about what you justify, and potential abuse is a voter.  This doesn't mean that I don't find aff reasonability arguments un-persuasive, but that they should be reworded in the rhetoric of competing interpretations (e.g. instead of saying "competing interpretations is an arbitary race-to-the-bottom," I'm more persuaded when someone says "arbitrary interpretations are unpredictable, which precludes effective clash over the topic, even if they're winning their limits/ground arguments"). That being said, if you are making a reasonability argument (and these are fine and good to make in the 2AC), tell me what it means for how I should evaluate the debate (e.g. "if there's a negligible difference between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation, vote aff"). In-round abuse and topical versions of the aff are good but not necessary.

Plan text in a vacuum is not a persuasive aff argument for me - I am persuaded by negative arguments that it leads to aff conditionality and doubles the number of arguments the negative has to win in the 2NR if they want to prove counterplan competition.

I prefer that specification arguments have reasons to prefer that are related to the topic over a generic "90% of policy is implementation" card

 

Theory  

Please go at about 75% of your top speed. I’ll listen to any theory argument with a clear interpretation and impacts.

I default to reject the argument not the team for all theory arguments except conditionality.  Even if the other team does not say, “reject the argument not the team,” I will probably just reject the argument absent an argument from the debaters why that isn’t sufficient.

                     

 

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.

I feel that a new tabbing website calls for a new judge philosophy.  That, and my other one was about to start kindergarten, so...  

Some things have changed, some things have stayed the same.  Looking back on my old philosophy, I could tell that it was the scribbles of youth and over-exuberance.  There were many foundations that I would have liked to shake with that little document, but it is a rare occurance that anything written changes anything acted.  And such a poorly written little document at that! 

Some things you should know about me: I'm a philosophy guy.  I've done all of my formal academic training in philosophy and the history of philosophy, and debate plus a few classes on the side are all I have in communications studies training.  I tend to think that fact-value and fact-theory distinctions are bogus in practice but conceptually useful.  So, for example, against an "ontology comes first" argument, I would much rather hear a defense of your ontology rather than an argument about why ontological questioning should subside in the face of mass death.  Despite all this, I am a believer in the incommensurability of theories (paradigms?), so make your comparisons relevant--I'm a big sucker for elegance on this front.

I'm not big on offense-defense, especially on debate theory arguments.  Thus I'm not particularly happy when someone banks a debate on "any risk of a _____" impact calculi.  I'll vote on we-meets, too.  Even worse than this quirk in the way I evaluate the logos of your claims is the fact that I'll let the ethos and pathos of your speeches play into my decision.  I will let myself be "persuaded" by arguments, and though this sounds unfair, I think it is better that I am up-front about it rather than in denial.  As much as anyone tries to exclude them, these factors play a role in every decision.

I no longer default to flowing you in paragraphs in Word.  I used to do this because I thought that it would help me see through the way that the line-by-line obfuscates larger narratives and commitments in the debate round.  Not a lot of people do the line by line effectively anymore, and I feel that this obscures larger issues in a debate round in a more fundamental way (bad line by line outweighs dangers of line by line-centrism).  So now I'm out to help you figure out how to make the line by line work for you.

I will time your prep until the flash drive is out of your computer.

I will not disclose my decision until you update your wiki.

Without getting into too many specifics, I think that this pretty much covers what might make me different from the majority image of a policy debate critic.  I would much rather discuss concerns or questions you have about the way I'll evaluate debates with you in person, so please feel free to approach me or email me questions.

izak

9/17/2012

New Pet Peeve (10/14/2012)

2ac says various things about the alternative throughout their speech.  In the block, you say "Now onto the Alternative debate" and just say a bunch of stuff about the alternative.  "Embedding" clash is not an excuse to forego comparison between arguments, and not going to the line by line is not license to not talk about your opponent's arguments.  If this is your style of debate, you'd better make sure you are EXTENDING arguments (i.e., comparing them, arguing for them, deploying and employing them) as opposed to REPEATING the constructive that happened before you spoke.

If you do this in front of me, I'm going to set a very high bar for your speaker points.  If you do not actually embed clash, you will not receive more than 27 points from me.

Not all of you are ready to "do" embedded clash.  In fact, you've got to be pretty good at making discriminations about the line by line before you can decide on what does and does not count as a responsible or responive argument--in a way, it's a prerequisite to doing competent embedded clash.

Point Inflation Adjustment (11/8/2013)

After reading a lot about speaker points this year, I realize that I am way behind the times regarding point inflation.  When I was a debater, "competent and winning" was a fast way to get a 27.5, which wasn't bad (wasn't great, but wasn't bad either).  If I were "competent and losing", I usually got a 27 or a 27.5.  Speaker points describing incompetence lived around 27 and below.

My scale to date has pegged "competent and winning" at a 28.  This, of course, is just a baseline--I've definitely given points higher than a 28 to all four debaters in a round.  But, as long as you aren't vomiting on yourself during your speeches and are making good enough strategic decisions to win the debate, I'll give you a 28.  

It seems like I need to bump my points about half a point overall considering 5-3 teams are averaging about a 28.5.  I'm going to try and give "competent and winning" a 28.5 starting at Wake, if only to prevent teams from preffing me in all of my educational glory from being unfairly penalized by my miserly nature.

Point Inflation Update (11/12/2013)

Two edits: (1) For Wake, I'll use their speaker point scale.  It already seems pretty close to my inflation adjustment.  (2) After Wake, I'm going to try and give "competent and winning" a 28.3.  Seems to capture what teams that are winning just over half of their debates are averaging in 2013.  Also, I used to have to work hard for my 28.5's and am besieged on all sides by a burning and childish need to feel better than all of you.

I debated and judged at San Francisco State University, was the ADOF at CSU Fullerton and am now the DOF at Chabot College. Most of my experience is in policy debate, but I have also judged/coached some parli and NFA-LD as well.

I was a K/performance debater, but this impacts the way I like arguments explained much more than the type or style of argument I prefer to evaluate. I will always vote for a well explained argument that is fully warranted over the line by line. AKA, I frequently vote for teams who are winning the fundamental thesis of their argument over teams who are winning minor drops on the flow. I will give leeway to drops on the flow if you are winning your central claims and doing a good job of impact analysis. If you plan to win on minor drops in front of me, you had better impact them well and go all in on them.

I enjoy a good, specific K debate where a complex theory is both clearly explained and applied strategically. I enjoy an alternative that does more than simply "reject the team" and love debaters who can tell me what the world looks like post-alt. I enjoy a well applied, smart disad debate with real world scenarios and clear, coherent links to the aff. I enjoy and miss the lost art of the case debate and think that it's an excellent strategy against any style aff. I enjoy an interesting framework debate on both ends of the spectrum, however you should know that if you want to use FW or T as a round-winning argument you would do best to treat it like a disad with a clear impact. Otherwise I think framework and topicality are great strategies to pin the aff to a specific advocacy to garner links in the debate. I enjoy a well developed policy-focused affirmative. I enjoy affirmatives that include performance, style and alternative methodologies. Pretty much, I enjoy good debate.

I'd say my biggest dislike or pet peeve is when debaters use theory arguments to avoid engaging the arguments from the other team. If you are going to go for theory at the end of the debate, I need a clearly explained impact scenario and why this means the other team should lose the entirety of the debate. I’m very sympathetic to “reject the arg, not the team.”

I'm fine with cross talk and partner communication so long as one partner does not dominate the conversation or consistently talk over the other. If that becomes an issue, it will certainly affect your speaker points and may affect my decision.

A note on speed: I believe that many debaters in our community would benefit from slowing down a bit, not just in rate of delivery but in overall organization of their thoughts/arguments/etc. A well explained central argument is more important than hitting every single piece of the flow or overwhelming your opponents with repetitive cards. Likewise, I believe many debaters could benefit from some sort of overview or round framing argument in their speeches, especially in the rebuttals. In debates where neither team is giving me a clear view of how I should evaluate the round, what I should prioritize or how I should weigh impacts, I will generally default to the team who I feel is most persuasive from a rhetorical perspective.

I like fun debates, debaters who have fun, smart strategies and well developed arguments, no matter the "style". I look forward to watching you do your thang!

*PLEASE READ FOLLOWING NOTICE: I have specific judging philosophies for the different styles of debate (Policy, ld, pofo, parli) For a full record of my judging history, please look for my other account by searching my full name, Mariela Garcia. Any rounds that I judge after October 16, 2015, will be located on this judge's page. I apologize for the inconvenience.*

General Information About Me

My speech and debate background:

I am currently an senior director for Advantage Communications, a leading speech and debate company that in 2023, had 60% of our students in out rounds at the NSDA championship. I have dedicated the past few years developing district programs in California and Illinois for affluent and Title 1 communities of various backgrounds. I train and advise staff, students, and families, while also creating curriculum with our team of experts. My students and teams are usually in the finals, if not champions. As a coach, I want students to challenge themselves to read material that they wouldn't otherwise read if they were not in this activity. My goal is to ensure all students feel empowered enough to use the stage to say something they truly care about OR that they feel is urgent. I also encourage my students to do at least one event in each category every year if their schedule allows so they stay well-rounded. I train coaches to ensure they bring out the best in students by engaging a growth mindset that keeps them both busy with goals rather than busy work. I work with students from all backgrounds, ethnicities, economic brackets, orientations, races, genders, etc. and it is my goal to ensure all my students feel that there is someone in their corner that is rooting for their success.

My Experience in Debate:

• I debated for about 4 years at CSU-Fullerton ranging from novice to varsity. I am currently the head coach and director of the policy and public forum teams at La Quinta High School. I have been coaching them for almost a year now.
• I have judged policy, ld, pofo and parli, at all levels for 4 years now at various tournaments and have coached minimally in the past. My entire record is not on my judging history, given that many of these judging events occured when I was filling in for missing judges at our CSU-Fullerton tournaments.

My Educational Experience:

• I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculum. More than likely, I will know if you have made up evidence or if you took evidence out of context. I will automatically give you a 25 for your speaker points and you will lose the round.

My Debate Motto:

• EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES. I encourage you to be creative with your arguments, even if that means you must debate the resolution (Policy/LD). However, please note my requirements for these types of arguments to be valid in a round below.

My Speech Motto:

Practice does not make perfect, only perfect practices makes progress. This means that you have to bring 100% of yourself OR communicate to your coach if you cannot do that at a practice because without full commitment, we cannot grow and improve at a steady pace. I believe that students are keenly aware of the world around them and they have a lot that they want to say to adults, so I encourage my students to read articles that will help them better express a message, argument, or idea because it is my job to ensure they sound astute on stage. As for acting, it is one of my passions that I am constantly working on improving so I can better teach my students. Impromptu and extemp are difficult events if you don't respect formulas, but if you take it as a coding project, you can create neuropathways that will easily help you during your prep time. I love to coach and I love to teach others how to coach students.

My Judging Philosophy for Policy/LD:

All types of debate prescribe to a game with rules that are ALWAYS debatable. Having said that, I encourage debaters to establish a role of the ballot and a role for the judge as a way for me to score the round. This is separate from framing the debate through framework arguments. Framework tells me how to evaluate and prioritize certain issues within the debate while giving me net benefits to preferring it over other framings. The roles you give to the ballot or judge are additional arguments that allow me to weigh the round given the interpretations you give to those roles and clarifying the necessity to accept these roles as opposed to upholding my own predisposition.

Thus, I will do my best to keep my predispositions away from the round. We as judges merely evaluate the arguments presented to us given the strategies that are used to explain and spin the issues. I stay true to the flow and not my opinion. A debater’s job is to clearly communicate what your argument is and spin the debate by reverting back to the arguments you should have consistently presented throughout the debate to answer the opponents opposition. Thus, you have to warrant your explanations and create clear impact calculations to narrow down my vote in the last speeches.

I welcome metaframing debates and kritiks. However, kritik debate is hard work. This means that if during cross x you do not have a clear explanation of your alternative, metaframing, or links to clarify to the opposing team why your kritik exists in the debate, you have basically lost the round. You may be able to explain it in later speeches, but the cross x is your time to make sure I know what it means to vote for the k. The best k’s engage the topic or the affirmative to either turn the case or frame out the affirmatives impact. Topicality against these types of arguments are good but are not enough to win the debate. To win the debate against a k, you must set up a good framework and topicality argument and demonstrate why it is that we should preserve the norms of thinking in the direction you want us to go (lay out the harms, impacts, and voters). Net benefits for both k and fw/topicality are necessary.

LD debaters must explain how their criterion is the correct moral choice to make. LD is not about solving an issue per say, it is a morality debate. So please make sure you emphasize how your case supports your criterion and why your criterion is the best moral position to take, especially if you aren't doing TOC or CA style debating. Remember that LD started off as a debate about morality, and not so much policy. If there is a plan, I expect you to provide solvency and the neg can counter with a CP. I will respect the type of debate category you enter and I will also respect arguments about the importance of keeping a distinction between LD and Policy. After all, I do believe that while many teams that experienced cuts to their budget have moved to LD to carry on their policy habits, it is also hurting the policy debate community and their budget when we bleed the two together. This doesn't mean we can't have a K in LD, I mean the criterion/value portion of LD welcomes the K, but it does mean that people DON'T have to have a plan but if they do, then you have the burden to prove it's probability and solvency.

Specificity is key. Don't put your judge in a position where they may need to intervene with their own thoughts or emotions, just prove your point thoroughly and make sure you do it in a way that can easily be flowed and explained. This is how I know that no one else knows your argument better than you and I reward specificity with higher speaker points. You don’t need masses amount of evidence to win the debate. Quality over quantity.

Note some other specifications about formalities in debate that I judge on:

Clarity & Speed:

I value clarity over speed. I am fine with any speed. I will give you three warnings for clarity, no exceptions. After that, do not hold me accountable for missing an argument on the flow since I clearly gave you a warning about not being able to understand what you were saying.

Do not spread the following items for your own benefit: Value, Value Criterion, Contentions, Tag Lines, Authors, Date". This avoids me having to call for evidence to make my decision. I want to be as fair as possible. It is your responsibility to to help me make it a fair round.

Road Map & Sign Posts:

This helps me keep up with you on my flow. After the first constructives, I recommend the following structure:

• AFF: Overview, What you are winning on, Dispute Neg. claims by referencing evidence, Why you should win debate(calculation of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, risk of solving, etc.)
• NEG: *BLOCK SHOULD ALWAYS BE SPLIT: I will take off speaker points for teams who fail to do so* Overview, Restate arguments (should be split in block), Why Aff isn't resolving your claims with clear warrants from your evidence, and why you should win the debate (calculation of actualization of impacts, magnitude, timeframe, etc.)

Evidence:

As long as I can follow a clear, reasonable, and logical line of thought, I will always value that as evidence. This means that if you use your experience, poems, performance, or anything that can be seemingly categorized as "unorthodox" evidence, I will still count it as a warranted claim in the debate. I am graduating with majors in American Studies, Chicano Studies, and Philosophy and have had to follow our general requirements at CSU-Fullerton which provide a well-rounded background in many of the disciplines that are categorized as a-g in your curriculm. EVERYTHING IS DEBATABLE BECAUSE THE WORLD IS INTERPRETED THROUGH DIFFERENT METHODOLOGIES AND PEDAGOGIES.

Diplomacy:

• SPEECHES: If you need to yell, scream, or perform your speech in any way that is necessary to make emphasis to your claims or give it performative interpretations(say that you are running an identity K or performance K), I will NOT deduct speaker points. Make sure that any claims you are making can be backed up reasonable, logical lines of thoughts. Try to be as respectful to the other team as you can.
• CROSS X: Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another. I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in cross x, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

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

My Judging Philosophy for POFO and Parlimentary:

As A Team

I only judge on what you actually said in the round. I will stick to my flow and nothing else. So you have to make sure you are clearly defining terms and positions on issues that are raised in the round. Evidence is key in pofo and parli and the rules must be followed thoroughly as to set up fairness for every student in the tournament. Contention of the rules is reserved, in my opinion, only to policy and LD debaters. In making the decision, judges are expected to ask the following questions:

1. Which team was more persuasive?

2. If yes to number 1, did the debaters back up their claimswith evidence?

3. Based on my flow, were the ideas understandable enough that I can repeat (almost word for word) the argument that they made?

4. Were the debaters polite and professional throughout the entire round? (speaker points)

As Individuals

Debate, in essence, should be the diplomatic exchange of ideas. We practice how to exchange ideas in this form so that we avoid yelling at one another.I will deduct speaker points if you are rude or disrespectful to your opponent in crossfires, no questions asked. There is an exception to this rule: if I see that another team is yelling, and the opposing team needs to speak up, I will allow the team being yelled at to get louder so that they can carve out space to talk. I will not take off speaker points to teams who merely decided to stand up for themselves.

*My normal range for speaker points is 26-29, but I have given rare 30s to truly deserving debaters. 25's are distributed only in special circumstances.*

General Notes about my judging preferences:

I mimicked my judging philosophy from many of my past coaches and through my experience in debate, but I found a great breakdown of what most judges will judge like by looking at Mike Maier's judging philosophy. He has great tips on what you should be doing in almost every form of debate and recommendations for you as well. I highly recommend that you read it. I do hold different positions on some of his ideas, so please make sure to note those distinctions by reading my paradigm thoroughly. Do not expect me to give you a thorough breakdown of my judging philosophy before the round!

Mike Maier's judging philosophy link: https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Maier,+Mike

 

Background Info: Danny Iberri-Shea, MA

 

Hello!  My name is Danny Iberri-Shea, and I am the DOF at San Diego State University.  I have coached, and competed in a variety of debate formats, with policy debate remaining my favorite format.  I was a high school CX debater from Los Angeles, who competed in debate for 4 years, attending summer institutes such as Claremont and Berkeley, where I learned a variety of theoretical and strategic techniques to be employed in evidence-based, policy debates.  I was a 2x district qualifier in senate for student congress, and achieved "quad ruby" (the highest NFL ranking) by my junior year, before ultimately dropping out of high school for personal reasons.

 

After taking some time to rebuild myself, I humbly entered the California Community College system, at Moorpark College, where I became Director Jim Wyman's last CEDA debater, winning many awards for CEDA and CEDA LD over the 1997 period, at the local, state, and national level, attending the World Debate Institute for CEDA, and later, the Willamette Institute for NPDA debate.

 

Due to a change in living circumstances, I moved back down to the San Fernando Valley, where I competed for Los Angeles Valley College in NPDA Parliamentary Debate and CEDA debate.  While debating on the ASU campus, in 1999, Dr. Sharon Porter witnessed my partner and I win the final round of NPDA (as community college students), and at the next tournament, my partner and I received  "full ride" scholarships to debate in NPDA style, as a leading team to help establish their NPDA program.  While at NAU, my partner and I were ranked 5th (junior year) and 9th (senior year) in the U.S. according to the NPTE national ranking system, which calculated hundreds of competitors from across the nation.  As a community college competitor, I maintained a 6-2 prelim record at NPDA nationals, with a 7-1, and 8-0 (2nd seed) status my final two subsequent years.  The culminating activity for myself as a debater, was advancing to the final round of the NPTE (top 32 teams in the U.S.), and taking 2nd place in one of the closest recorded decisions.

 

As a debate coach and/or Director of Forensics, I have taught students at Northern Arizona University, the United States Air Force Academy, Colorado State University -- Pueblo, and now in my current position as DOF at San Diego State University.  I have coached students to compete and succeed in CEDA/NDT, NPDA/NPTE, NFA LD, Karl Popper (IDEA Youth Forum), NFL LD (value debate), Student Congress, BP debate, and other academic or educational formats.  I coached the World Champion Karl Popper Team -- USA WEST -- in Roosta, Estonia, in 2007, and the 2nd Place Mixed Nation Debate Championship, where I served as lab leader to predominantly Eastern Block nations, in Trest, CZ.  I love both the educational as well as the competitive qualities of all forms of debate, and believe that debate, or the process of competitive discourse, is perhaps the highest form of learning that can take place.  Additionally, next to dance and martial arts (I am a judoka shodan), I believe that the debate round itself serves as a forum for the powerful ritual for the performance of competing narratives, values, and agendas.  As a classically trained rhetorician, I am well aware that argument can be formulated in a variety of texts and mediums (e.g., visual, performative, poetic, analytical, structural, and emotional), and as such, I don't hold too many preconceived notions about what a good argument is.

 

What is important to me as a Critic:

 

1. Well defined burdens early on in the debate (e.g., criteria, decision-rules, moral imperatives, key values, framework-type arguments, and other "top of case" theoretical justifications).

 

2. Consistent performance between partners.  Some talking between partners happens, but debaters should try not to be full-blown ventriloquists for their partners, necessarily undercutting the ethos, and "voice," of their other half.

 

3. Clear impact analysis.  I am more concerned with this than which position to look at first.  Just because a judge looks at something, does not mean there is a compelling reason to vote for it.

 

4. Control the agenda of the round.  Too often, in the face of one lengthy off-case (e.g., a strong K), affirmative teams allow themselves to be put on the defensive, arguing their positions more on their opponent's turf, than through their own case (e.g., making offensive turns and claiming them as advantages to the case).  The team that appears to be losing the round, probably will.  Be confident, take risks, and utilize the Jedi Mind trick.  If you say something is important, it IS, unless otherwise noted.

 

5. I have no inherent issues with speed, but as a former CEDA debater, I was fast, but loud and articulate.  I do not believe that speed should be utilized for speed sake, or for clearly abusive purposes (like blowing down a novice debater).  That being said, a nice and steady "hum" gets my head nodding and foot tapping, which is always fun.

 

6. I am only 38, but I am an OLD SCHOOL SCORPIO in that I probably flow on paper (or with a digital pen), believe debaters should be polite, don't like lazy or apathetic attitudes in the debate round, and tend to not be the biggest fan of "oppression Olympics."  I believe that debaters should argue over the topic.  I would probably be willing to listen to old school theory challenging many of the assumptions regarding stable and fair debate ground.  I am all about what debaters concede is important (the forum), and which side best "cashes-in" on that premise/burden/criterion.  Whether pre-fiat or post-fiat, jurisdictional or critical (k), stock issues, policy-maker, games (one of my favorites... RIP TUNA SNIDER), activist, comparative advantage, plan-meets-need, etc., I am willing to listen.  For jurisdictional-type arguments (T, XTRA T, FX T, Justification, Burdens Presses), I like to see actual articulated abuse to make the positions stick.  If they are warranted, run them.  Conversely, for you critical teams: Really strong critical debaters BECOME the argument, as they are aware that full embodiment of the narrative is required, complete with 100% emotional investment, to bring an audience on board with such normative frameworks.  In other words, “don't spit good lit, if it’s clear you be faking it!”  Take big risks, don't go for everything, be strategic!  Kick the fluff and go for the ULTIMATE ISSUES towards the end of the debate.  Finally, no matter how fast, or complicated the debate round might get, it is the final rebuttalist’s job to not only to lock down any unanswered or under-covered positions, but more importantly, to demonstrate the big picture mastery of the round (which hopefully is evident throughout the round by virtue of that team's ability to control the agenda of the round), what the ULTIMATE ISSUES were in the sea of issues, isolating 1-5 core voting issues for the judge (e.g., criteria/burdens, offensive turns, successfully argued solvency and/or advantage scenarios), and using examples from the previously argued speeches, demonstrate why the better debating (clash, evidence, reasoning, extended arguments, advanced burdens, etc.) was done by their side.

 

NOTES: I am an open-minded Scorpio who loves a good fight.  Before I learned argument, I was a competitive judoka, which may tell you a lot about how I view techniques (waza), practice (randori), and respect for the practice forum (dojo).  Before I ever learned to win a damn thing, I was really adept at losing, despite my delusions of adequacy.  The master is but a student, our foes are but our trainers, and a true fight, a pure fight, is a magnificent dance, born out of love.  Perform well!  Fight hard!  Love hard!  Take Risks! Stay Classy! Be F'ng  Brilliant!!! :)

 

 

 

 

 

Hobbies: Fishing (like 100 days a year), judo-combat arts, argumentation and debate, water activities, playing with my kids and family in the Rockies, drawing, playing guitar, and reptiles (Queen Lilith is my CA king snake and Toothless is my Mexican king snake).  A good day with a feisty baby king snake means getting bitten, pooped on, and peed on, first thing in the morning, before chillaxin!  But they are sooooo beautiful! I am a big fan of all kinds of original music and variations of spoken word.  I am drawn to the mysteries of life and death, like to swim the depths of the unconscious, and feel equally comfortable by myself or with friends.  I am drawn to the intesities of this world.

 

Matthew Jallits

Debated 3 years @ Puyallup High School (08-11),

Debated 4 years @ University of Nevada Las Vegas (11-15)

Coached 2 years @ University of Nevada Las Vegas (15-17).

CEDA 2019 Update:

CEDA will be the first full college tournament I will have judged at this year, meaning I will have minimal knowledge about the topic.

I'm down for any form of argumentation as long as there's a reason to vote for it. Direct refutation of arguments is best over implied argumentation. This means I prefer technical, flow-centric line by line debate. I don't think every argument needs a card, but it certainly helps.

Other things:

-I flow on paper

-I don't have my laptop open and will not read any cards until after the debate (if the warrants of a card are in question). I want to be focused on what is being said in the speeches.

-I don't want to preside over accusations about what has or hasn't happened outside of the round I'm currently judging.

-If there's an email chain, I'll be on it: mmjallits[at]gmail[dot]com

Andrew Myers a.k.a. "Big" or "Big Mead"

Current Assistant Director of Debate for Gonzaga University and Former Assistant Head Coach at Mead HS.

BA- Phil/Poli-Sci GU '12, MA- Phil SUNY Buffalo '14

4 Years Debating for Mead HS, 3 Years for Gonzaga. 5 Years Assistant Coach Mead HS, 5 Years ADOD at GU.

Email: andrewrossmyers@gmail.com

Final NDT Update – Minnesota NDT 19 (3-19-19)

To paraphrase Ryan Wash, this 'stuff' here is like a novel – it’s long and a lot to read. Fair, so I stole the “philosophy for the Twitter generation” idea from Adam Symonds for those that don't want to read it all:

TLDR: I have voted for and against Framework, Antiblackness, ESR + Flex, Nuclear Deterrence, Storytelling, and the State. Boo untopical policy Affs and abusive ESR CPs. Hater's Guide: Strict about highlighting, thinks Logic is real, votes for caring about people, Education > Fairness, thinks Debate isn’t just a game, hates agenda politics disads, votes for identity arguments.

My Decision Making Process:

My Vote means I think Team A wins and Team B loses. The final rebuttals most likely to win my ballot are clear on why my vote should declare their Team the winner, but the final rebuttal isn’t the only thing I will consider.

The Process of deciding which Team wins

1. General Impression – What is my first intuition about which team won the debate and why?

2. Check the Record – Did I miss something? Did I undervalue an Argument? Is there a critical concession?

3. Casting a Vote –

A. What are the “voting” issues?

B. Which, if any, arguments were decisively won or lost?

C. How do those arguments relate to the voting issues raised?

4. Determination and Decision – How will I explain the decision? Why Do I accept one of Team A’s or Team B’s voting issues over the other, i.e. Why not vote the opposite way?

This, quite simply, is how I make a decision. For why I make my decision, the rest of my judging philosophy is committed to continued debates where the voting issues are familiar. Debate is more exciting when the ground is unfamiliar, but that doesn’t mean classic debates are not interesting. Note that what constitutes a “classic” debate has more to do with intensity than ideology.

I cannot express anymore so clearly than this: Debate should not be a violent exercise, but it should be competitive, performative, and reasoned activity.

Arguments I will not likely ever vote for

Either,

A. Make debate a violent activity

Or,

B. Refuse Competition, Performance, or Reasoning.

(See below: Ethos, Pathos, Logos)

Examples of Arguments I will likely not like voting for:

1. No K’s ever judge, philosophy is too hard! If making sure when we act we do the right thing is hard for you, I have no sympathy.

2. Debate is Bad because it’s competitive! If your argument is right that winning is bad, why should you win? Clearly debate can take the competitive spirit too far and into the realm of toxicity (see: Either, A.). That violence forgets that part of playing a game is that you play with others.

3. The Circular Logic of Intrinsicness – There is a difference between what I think is intrinsic to the activity, a.k.a. what is to be done while judging, and the assertion of something being intrinsically good. The remnants of theory debates recirculating invoke too fondly paramount truths that are evidently not so self-evident.

4. The Argument as You experienced it/know it – My role here is to consider how we experience you making that argument in relation to others.

Finally, Debating about a Topic is language gaming. There are various language games we play, but we do so competitively at the intersection of thought and performance.

The 2018-2019 CEDA-NDT Topic headache:

I’ll evaluate the debate in front of me. I don’t think this resolution makes sense, and worse, is the bad kind of language game. I miss resolutions that were a statement, not a matrix.

If y’all are intent on having an ESR/Flex debate, that’s fine. Aff’s should be able to answer those core generics, some CPs are more abusive than others. I just don’t find that debate interesting.

I don’t get why Framework teams read not-topical Affs and not-topical TVAs, but especially on this topic (where the floodgates are clearly open). Aim Higher! K teams should not be afraid to read T in front of me against policy Affs. Policy Negs should be ready to defend the topic if your Framework argument is that the topic is good.

No Exec Authority to First Use Nuclear Strike =/= No First Use

Affs should specify the restriction(s)

I don’t think the Act of students debating simultaneously does anything about Trump in the moment. I do think I have seen debating by students on this topic that could effectuate change out of the round. I don’t know if this means anything in regards to presidential power.

I’m really not cool with War Criminals or Fascists.

NDT 16 Judge Philosophy Update 3-25-16

This will by my second year judging and coaching at the NDT for Gonzaga, and I feel compelled to comment on my continually developing disposition(s) as a judge.

I’ve had 52 rounds on this topic, varying in all styles.

I implore you to read what I’ve written here. I take this part of my job seriously and want to demonstrate how my thinking (philosophy) changes and stays the same.

If you don’t read it, ask Michigan KM how that went.

I prefer my role as a judge to be a primarily nonverbal communicative partner – including me in the round, making eye contact (when appropriate), reacting to how I am understanding you, is not merely a narcissistic request: it’s a recognition of a preference for active learning and teaching, for all of us.

I have previously written here that I prefer to be an educator, but frankly that won’t be the case for certain content or experiences. I can, however, offer some academic advice on the structure of your arguments, rhetoric and speaking style. Thus, being an educator is a preference based on comfort, but my comfort isn’t my preference with exception to the following uncomfortable (enough to vote you down) scenarios:

• Making jokes about rape, or responding to issues of sexual violence with jokes. It’s not funny to me. You know who you are.
• Sex, Gender, Orientation, Race or Ability discrimination
• Being willfully ignorant about Race. Racial naiveté isn’t always a reason to lose a round, but being unwilling to admit fault, mistake or responsibility for certain behaviors is not, at the very least, a persuasive way to get my ballot.

As a quick aside on education, the question of what a university should be for often causes me consternation. After all, for someone who valued education as an excuse not to go home, my growing pessimism in the academy (whether from the expected bitterness of graduate school or from the contemporary conversations of the occupy and black lives matter generation) makes me receptive to some cynical positions. I’ve seen some pretty indefensible things condoned in the University. That said…I still believe this activity can be good for students and as such my responsibility is primarily to them. The second I don’t believe that, I won’t be here. Without students we coaches don’t have a job. See Below: Commitment to Educational Debate.

And so I return to my reason for posting: I felt compelled because of my position to comment on some topics pervading the debate community right now:

- If I’m on a panel and someone wants to replace me, I won’t be offended as long as I can cover the rounds I am obliged to so my students can debate.

- If there is a recording, I don’t really want to be on it… So I understand the concern with being recorded against your will. I know states differ on their local laws and the NDT Committee has put forth polices on it. If both teams have to be on video, then I will also have to be on video for the space to be fair(er). I think there are interesting privacy arguments in support of extending protections against being recorded in debates, but I also think accountability is important. In the end I just want to judge the debate.

- I think speech times have to be rigid. I am fine with flex prep, and am honestly lax about prep in general, but at some point fairness and timeliness is a concern.

- I once judged a debate where a Bifo team hit a Buddhist team and they deconstructed the round, reconstructed it, and gave final speeches after dialogue. It was different but not uncomfortable, on time, mutually agreed upon, and productive.

- The only things I will say about civility concerns: a) Before the debate starts I don’t expect much other than if I’m asked I’ll answer questions. b) When the timer starts for the 1AC it’s all performance – that’s a necessary space to express some seriously challenging thoughts c)When the timer stops I prefer some quiet to make a decision, but I often will go smoke or put my headphones in anyway d) At no point should you physically harass anyone. Consent for me applies equally well to unwanted intentional physical touching e) Other issues are probably not my fight and I don’t poke around in them unless beckoned to – either by the ballot or as a community member and academic employee.

As a child Hip Hop made me read books,

And Hip Hop made me wanna be a crook

And Hip Hop gave me the way and something to say

And all I took in return is a second look

- Slug, Party for the Fight to Write

An Admission of Hubris –

“I probably have read the primary sources your authors are talking about.”

Turns out I don’t know much about many contemporary primary source debate authors, even if many of them I do (Given my previous disclosures of my education, expected authors would include stuff like Foucault and Fanon, but exclude stuff like Berlant and Bifo). Either way, you could plausibly predict what I’ve read merely given the MA and BAs in Political Science and Philosophy from a Jesuit Liberal Arts School. Ah how the tables have turned!

To Finish, another nod to Z-Lowe..

Ten Things I Like and Dislike

1. Terrible highlighting -

Honestly a lot of the “evidence” students are reading into the round has become unrecognizable by academic standards of clarity and integrity. Examples of things that irk me: sentence fragments, highlighting parts of a word as a word (i.e., deforestation becomes “defo,” proliferation becomes “prolif,” nuclear weapons becomes "nucs" ). A good way to understand my expectation: highlight your evidence as if you were quoting your sources in an academic paper. Anything else is the privileging debate norms over educational standards of scholarship.

2. Reading a Pile ‘O’ Cards -

In almost every entry here I bring this up. I still will read a bunch of evidence after the round given certain circumstances, but it’s my least favorite thing to do. Given the complexity of debate and the relative short times to make decisions, I don’t want to spend my time adjucating reading evidence I should have heard as part of your “speech.” Making a decision after re-reading read evidence in a debate distances judges from the performance of the speech and increases the likelihood of interpretive hubris. I don’t think either of those things are desirable characteristics of a decision. My novel idea for debate would be for judges to hear evidence read, the first time its read. I also think this is possibly a reason why I often find affective modes of communication persuasive – what they lack in depth they make up in clarity. I don’t think debate is a research competition.

A minor quip on the subject of speech documents: sending a speech doc for your opponents and judges that is 100 pages is both annoying and unrealistic. It makes it hard for everyone and borders on obfuscation. For my philosophy on obfuscation, See: Baudrillard.

3. Affs That Do Things –

I was more often a 2A than a 2N throughout my career. I loved the challenge of changing the status quo. Debate is one of the few spaces you can advocate things we would otherwise be shutdown for: ideas being politically unlikely, socially difficult or subject to academic inertia. If you aff decides to do nothing, I am very likely to buy presumption/pessimism arguments in response. If your aff does something, I am more likely to filter the debate through that proposed change. On a somewhat related note, my proclivity for opacity arguments is almost always as a neg strategy. I do think there are instances in which an opacity Aff makes sense, but given my biases here, it may be best to explain opacity as somehow a strategy to change the SQ, instead of merely retreat from it.

4. Violence, Nebulas… not Stirred

Too many debates I’ve seen have debaters using violence as an ultimate impact, without explaining intricacies or giving frameworks for understanding what violence means. How am I supposed to adjudicate different claims of violence against each other? Or what about violence against some tangible traditional impact (War, Environment, Disease)? Ethics can’t function if everything is axiologically leveled to “violence,” and thus questions of what I should vote for is very likely to be arbitrary in the minds of participants, even if inevitable given the level of analysis in the debate.

5. Demarcating Points of Contestation

Similar to my respect for taking on the challenge of the SQ, I reward debaters who clearly demarcate points of contestation in the round and focus on those matters of debate. Too often debaters run away from arguments rather than engage them. In the college policy debate community this can be discouraging, because we are supposedly a model for deliberation and dialogue. Those latter realities only exist if you’re willing to admit where the debate is, admit that you may not necessarily be right, but debate out the issues.

6. Lost Art of the Case Debate

I am by no means a stock issues judge, but I do think that every argument, every aff should be responsible for these questions. A lot of the time case debate devolves into alt causes and impact defense. While those are good arguments to have, especially in the 2nr, not debating the case is almost always an important forgone opportunity. This is particularly true for K affs – put up a fit and you will be in a much better position than simply ignoring the case. Because of my expectations of an affirmative, I can be persuaded to not vote for an aff based on solvency alone.

7. Joshua Greene on Deontology and Util –

I feel it’s important to disclose this bias, and I have to a few teams. Here’s the thing, when you spend a year on a masters thesis and one of the opponents of your thesis becomes a large focus of effort, time and intellectual investment…it’s nearly impossible to remove that bias. Joshua Greene’s arguments in favor of a moral realist/essentialist account of utilitarianism and deontology invariably raises my blood pressure and leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Read a different defense of utilitarianism in front of me – I’m not persuaded FMRI’s prove how people think morally.

8. Flex Time –

I think there is enough to be gained in cross-examination, the most lively and engaging part of debate, that using prep time to ask and answer questions has almost no downside for me. That said, I think the other team has the right to not consent to questions of content (instead of clarification questions: theory, technical or flow) after the normal 3-minute cx period has expired.

9. Conflating Topicality and Framework –

The more persuasive arguments for me center on the content/object of the resolution (military presence) rather than on implementation/actor questions. For one, I think a resolution without “federal government” makes traditional Topicality arguments that turn into framework arguments very duplicitous. Framework should be the debate about what that Aff and Neg should have to do to meet a good interpretation of debate. If an aff makes an ethical statement that US Military Presence is bad, you have the grounds to say its good. You don’t need USFG action to do that. An Aff that doesn’t engage in the question of military presence, or some interpretation of that, isn’t being topical and I can find it a reason to vote Neg. I have voted on different conflations of Framework and T, but I increasingly find it important to delineate the two.

10. Being Big

I am still working on my pronoun usage and am myself unclear about my thoughts on many issues of identity, but I do think my persona in debate, while always authentic, is somewhat reserved. I am not particularly motivated to be extroverted in an activity that often reminds me how stuck up academics can be, and how they think that just because of my appearance they can crack jokes I find distasteful. As a result, I want to be known by who I am when I’m in the debate community. Calling me Andrew is a sign you haven’t given me the courtesy of reading this. Big is always the best way to refer to me.

2015-16 (Military Presence) Preseason Update:

I still endorse my philosophy as written below. Just a few quick updates as we begin this year:

- I am probably not the best judge for Baudrillard debates. Sue me. (Or Forget Baudrillard)

- I still like watching CPs and DAs, much to the dismay and/or shock of my fellow judges and coaches.

- I have a fairly low threshold for what is reasonably topical, but I prefer a reasonability argument on T to make an interpretation of the topic and give me a claim as to why the Aff (and other Affs) could engage the topic under that interpretation.

- Teams that escape jargonism, fashionable witticisms, and oversimplified argument explanation will do well in front of me. I like creative and unique debaters (which can be accomplished in any style - it's usually a matter of dedication, effort and presentation).

- Please explain Acronyms early in the year. Not everyone is going to get what your particular subdivision affirmative is on first hearing it.

- If you didn't read my judging philosophy before round, expect no pity for ignoring my preferences and/or committing offenses I find particularly blameworthy.

- If you can't debate technically, debate thuroughly. I am just flowing in excel columns anyway.

- Random but non-negligble pet peeve: students who start lists and never finish them (e.g., Debater says "There are Three Impacts to the K" then explains only two impacts).

- I value Cross-Examination like a speech. You can win and lose a round in one of those 3 min segments.

- Finally, I proscribe to this ridiculous notion that Debate is a Communicative Activity where Debaters try and Persuade me to Vote for them. See below for what persuades me and what doesn't.

2015 NDT Update:

I decided to post an update to my judging philosophy for the upcoming NDT (2015). Hopefully this is with enough time (a couple of weeks) for everyone to review it.

By far the most important thing: While I've judged 40-45 rounds on this topic, I have done so primary here out west. I don't think that disqualifies any of the debates I've watched - there were some terrific debates I had the privilege to judge this year. Still, full disclosure: I am more familiar with some teams than others, in the sense I've judged them debate before. Then again, with mutual pref judging, this seems like an inevitable outcome - you will always have seen certain parts of the debate community, hardly ever the whole field.

I decided to update what I've written so far for my judging philosophy primarily because I know the preceding to be compelling case for further disclosure of how I adjudicate debates. I stand by much of what I've already written. To expand, I decided to give a "Top Ten Things I Like and Don't like" (primarily an influence of reading Zach Lowe/Simmons Inc... also playing liberally with "Like" and "Don't Like," substitute "find persuasive" and "don't find persuasive" if you wish) in debate rounds.

Top Ten Things I Don't Like (In no particular Order):

1. Clipping

My First round back in debate came down to a clipping call out. Where I come from this is a "no-brainer" ethics question, but I do feel strongly that some rules in debate are necessary. One of those is you must read what you submit as evidence in speeches, particularly when in the form of cards. You will lose if you clip in front of me, but I need video/audio evidence and speech docs to determine this. Please, for everyone involved, do a better job of digitally "marking" your cards - don't leave things to chance.

Because I view clipping this way, it's important to note that while I'm not willing to vote for a team that clipped evidence, not all infractions are alike. I will not always simultaneously reduce speaker points to zero, or some other tanking number, and vote a team down. I believe mistakes can be made, but I also believe people can be malevolent.

Just don't do it, slow down and you'll probably sound better anyway.

2. Automization

I mean this somewhat sarcastically, but nothing about you reading into a computer screen is persuasive to me. I will always believe in the value of files, evidence and research, but those are neither absolute ideals nor the only means to win a debate round. Arguments, for instance, are not something I'm willing to vote on because it was written somewhere - explanation of evidence is key. I feel the prevalence of paperless debating is a evil necessity, primarily because debaters lose something of their ability to speak otherwise. Look up at me occasionally?

3. Avoidance

Call this my inverse justification for Clash being a thing I like. Debaters who avoid issues in debate/debate rounds are usually being: (1)selfish, (2)cowardly, (3)strategic or (4) unknowing/naive/unwilling. Only two of those states become problematic for a debate round, for two produce clash and argumentation, and the other two make the debate messy and needlessly complicated. Don't avoid a point of contestation with me, but also don't feel like I have a preferred set of points from which all arguments should begin.

4. Reading Evidence After the Round

I still dislike this practice, and I wrote about it previously below. However, I should make something clear: I really, really dislike debates where reading a pile of cards is the way to come to a decision. This, I understand, can be the natural outcomes of both good and bad debates. However, I want to stand by my statement:

"I will check evidence for accuracy/truth in representation if another team claims it doesn't support its intended use (i.e. your card that says the sky is purple actually claims the sky is blue). If an argument wasn't clear to me, and you were supposed to win a round on it, you probably should have made it clearer than a mumbled 15 seconds."

I have read multiple pieces of evidence in the post-round this year. I will admit that evil necessity paperless debate has this charm, and having the evidence in an email chain seems like not only good academics, but also a modicum of professionalism. I can't say I haven't been more compelled to read because I can get entire speech docs. This is a particularly helpful part of adjudicating that I won't ignore. However, if I can't get what you want me to get out of evidence in the post round (particularly if it's under-highlighted, which happens too frequently and is frankly discouraging) you will likely have dissuaded me more than had I not, and that matters for close NDT Debates.

The easy way to avoid all of this is to read evidence clearly, and draw the necessary warrants out of it. I think it's lazy to collapse an evidenced argument into a Authors last name (excluding titling a flow). Yes, technically there could be a "line" there, but is a bad practice of rhetoric and I find it unpersuasive. I also am always willing to check on factuality rather than persuasion. If you provide reasons why the other team's evidence is misread/doesn't support their argument, I value that style of argumentation equally as much as I dislike having to interpret evidence for/against speeches. I do not have a problem reading evidence, especially at the NDT, on the basis of these arguments. Ultimately, I am not going to read every piece of evidence submitted for review like that was all you did in the debate round - submitting evidence for review. I have other portions of the debate to think about.

5. Victim Blaming

I have no desire to vote for any argument that implies this ethos. This is both an ethos and a logos question. For example, Psychoanalysis K's can run dangerously close to blaming rape victims. I am not cool with that frame of mind and will flush your expensive euro-trash with a L.

6. Rude Partners

This is the sneaky dark-horse for my ideal in debate: the best debate occurs when partners work together, not individually.

Crazy right? Those who chose 2 person CX debate at some point chose to work with others. I reward debaters who embrace that aspect more than the sound of their own voice. A smart team is almost always two individuals working hard for each other, rather than two smart debaters working for themselves.

Don't be destructive to each other. Agonistic partnerships can be very successful, but they can also hurt your chances at winning. By far the best indictment of your argument, in any round, comes from your partner. Don't belittle, unnecessarily interrupt, or look upset/uninterested during your partner's speech. I ultimately give my ballot to a team, not an individual.

There is also a way to be kind/authentic in criticizing the arguments of your opponents (if you need a primer, see Dennett's "How to compose a successful critical commentary" in Intuition Pumps. I am by no means a fan of Dennett, but that process is one every debater should think about). Make sure, as much as one can, to do this as a team.

7. Tagless Taglines

A bit of 4 and 2 in this one, but I am also old school in how evidence is tagged. I am fine with short tags for evidence that requires no explanation. "Extinction," however, is neither a claim nor statement of fact. In fact, many cards read and tagged in such a manner frequently have little to make me believe the argument is even that strong. On the opposite end of the spectrum are K teams who read 3-4 paragraphs and don't introduce the evidence, or make it clear what part of their argument is supported by some fragment of analysis. Taglines in K debates I have a higher threshold on, but those issues irk me as much as badly tagged evidence that is then read unclearly anyway. Make claims, support them with evidence (or as I told many of my students in the past: evidence is a tool, not an argument).

8. Speaker Point Inflation

Mostly because I couldn't avoid it and my judging philosophy no longer represents my scale well. For the NDT:

26 and Below - You were punishably rude.

26.5. Incomplete, your speech ended with large gaps, whole flows dropped, no persuasiveness

27. Poor, you made a crucial error, were completely disorganized or had gaps in your speeches

27.5 Below Average, you provided no momentum for the ballot

28 - Average, you proved you should be here

28.5 - Above Average, you have the power to win some more ballots here

29.0 - Excellent, you should break at the NDT.

29.5 - Elite, you will be debating on Monday.

30 - Asymptotic, per my experience, these are so infrequent you can't predict them happening.

9. Debaters who don't Check Themselves

It's important to know when you're crossing a line from competitive to exclusionary, confident to obtuse. It's also important to act in a manner that produces a meaningful debate experience (whatever that may be). If that becomes impossible because you're not willing to discuss things like privilege, it seems you've failed at a basic test of self-skepticism that makes arguing possible. When debaters know they can lose on things like "Your evidence doesn't say Econ declines" and don't agree with decisions made through that framing, that to me is on par with refusing to answer the claim that "Your experience should be recognized as privileged in this analysis" and losing because they weren't open to how experience can be interepreted. We can't have debates if we don't purport to have some level of skepticism, arguing would cease to function educationally. That said, these are questions that implicate arguments, and almost completely arguments, rather than individual debaters.

10. Coaches that Degrade, not Support, their Students

I can deal with coaches making fun of each other, but how you treat the students in debate tells me more about you than how you treat the your fellow coaches. I am very intolerant of this in all forms - the students are paying to do this, not us. Treating any student in a defamatory or rude manner, that's a major turn off and I would prefer we don't speak.

Top Ten Things I Like (In no particular Order):

1. Analytic Arguments

I don't know if this a function of my experience with speech and debate growing up, but debaters who can't make arguments without evidence almost certainly are at a disadvantage in front of me. I will not simply dismiss a logical argument because you have a piece of evidence that argues, rather than proves/demonstrates, the opposite. Analytic arguments quality check the cohesiveness of the debate, bring issues to light in the block often foregone, and demonstrate a level of understanding and willingness to argue. Analytic arguments in debate almost always function on an a-posteriori basis and rarely a-prior unless that "K-Word" comes back into play. You should be able to argue, for instance, about connections between evidence, without needing another piece of evidence. This demonstrates a higher level of skill in debate that I reward. I do this not only selfishly as a lover of argumentative analysis, but also as someone who knows this skill can be, and often is, rewarded by graduate school, job opportunities and other sectors of life.

2. Proof by Example(s)

Though I like analytic arguments, and find a-priori claims persuasive, most often the fruitful discussions in debate occur when teams give concrete examples to explain, (sometimes seemingly) abstract concepts, connections or arguments. This process of concretion demonstrates to me a level of sophistication and understanding, and also a tangible hook to hang my hat on during post-round decisions. Obviously metaphors, poems, scripted-performances, etc. could all be examples of proof by example, not just history. Consider my preference here to be a testing question:

Basic Argument Necessities:

1. Do you have a Claim?

2. How is that Claim supported?

3. Proof by example: how does your argument operrationalize in different parts of the debate? How might it explain other questions in the debate?

4. Impact in/for the Round

3. Confidence/Willingness to Make Mistakes

I believe the qualities we associate with great debaters usually include fearlessness, confidence, complete attention, etc. These can manifest in different ways, and those ways in different people. The confidence that impresses me is the willingness to try, and be willing to fail to win a debate round. I think sometimes debaters are too worried about losing to focus on winning. As long as that focus doesn't result in other harmful mannerisms, attitudes and actions, I reward debaters for trying to win the round with with a cool confidence.

4. Round Awareness

Somewhat piggybacking of of 3, Debaters who are aware of details during a debate round can always make more strategic persuasive connections. There is a difference, for instance, in debating in the out rounds of the NDT and the Prelims. The way you construct your speech should be wary of that. The composition(s) of the people in the round is not ignorable, the audience included. There is also an awareness of how arguments function, when to stop belaboring, and when to reword and reclarify those arguments. These skills develop with time, but they should be easier to excersise with me because I am a fairly expressive judge. I am no Dallas, alas, but I do nod my head, smile, frown, laugh...you know, those things that make most of us feel human. I find this to be the most honest practice. Mostly, however, I am just very bad at Poker...so I will not try to be a stone-faced judge.

Debaters should also be aware of time. I don't reward teams with more than completing a sentence when the timer ends. I don't reward desperate shadow extensions in the last few seconds. I do reward speeches that end on or before time, or speeches that properly allocate time. I do reward good use of prep and CX time. Speaking time is the most valuable aspect of debate you can somewhat control, and everyone has the same access to the same time. Utilizing time well is a very good indicator of in round awareness.

5. Commitment to Educational Debate

This is an academic community (it includes mostly people employed and/or enrolled in the academy) that should primarily be focused on the Students. As such, students who understand where the pedagogical value of their arguments lie have a greater chance of winning in front of me. This is partly a question of logos (what have you learned, how did you learn it, what are we to learn?) and commitment your fellow students. Granted: not all students are alike, nor do they have the same experience. These two facts should be treated as advantageous: because you all are not alike and share different experiences, a commitment to learning together is probably the best possible praxis for debate. How does the debate round, per your framework or role of the ballot, promote learning? If learning is not all that important to you, that's fine. But understand I value this part of debate more than fairness or love of the game. I refuse to believe that debate doesn't help students - if that's your explicit goal I will likely be dissuaded. If you don't think debate is important, don't be in debate.

6. Humor

Judging very stressful debates can build up a lot of pressure. Humor is a great release valve. That being said, it's not in everyone's repertoire. Do what makes you comfortable, self-depreciation is almost always humbling but also potentially lighthearted.

7. Clash

Debate can be frustrating when neither team argues about the other teams arguments. The worst debates to judge, for me, have been ones where the Aff only talks about aff evidence, the Neg about the neg evidence. I think this is primarily a function of three practices:

A. Horizontal proliferation of arguments. I am persuaded by claims about 4-5 conditional options as weighing heavily against in depth clash from the 2AC. Part of me believes that this is inevitable in a competitive activity, part of me believes that it is also a defensible tactic. That said, if a team is "pushing pieces" but not arguing well, I do value theoretical objections on the basis of what positons move away from clash and what positions move toward it.

B. Fear of Impact Turning arguments. Too many times arguments become needlessly unwound without a point of disagreement. Your solvency/framework/kritik cards may poke many a whole, but the best evidence takes a stance in the opposite direction. Do I believe all impact turns are the same, ethically speaking? No: see Victim Blaming, above. That being said, in front of me, you can "Impact Turn" a methodology as much as you can a value claim. Why teams don't do this more often is strategically puzzling. They said Science was Bad? Maybe there are arguments that Science can be Good, or Useful? "Impact Turn" strategies make an obvious point of contestation that makes creative clash possible. However, Impact turning is merely a sufficient but not necessary means achieve that clash.

C. Debaters hate being wrong. Probably for good reason - most have been trained not to argue wrong things. Still, without trying out different arguments that produce a response from your opponent, debate kind of becomes oratory research reports, rather than engaging discussion.

8. ROTB's that Both Teams can Access

I do not find a "Role of the Ballot" claim that is to "vote for us" to be persuasive. I think its dishonest and transparently one sided to interpret the role of a ballot through one team's participation. Strictly speaking I think the role of my ballot is always to vote for the team that did the best debating, but if you have an argument otherwise, I would be more persuaded by a functionality/interpretation of how my vote works if both teams get a chance of receiving that vote. Otherwise its a meaningless piece of debate jargon substituting comfortable rhetoric for good impact framing.

9. Balance of Pathos, Ethos, Logos

Old-School Comm in this sense. Good public speaking requires a balancing all three. Excelling in one or more is ideal, but an above average accounting for each aspect is more valuable than any one on its own.

Examples:

You could be completely correct on a knowledge question, but did not impact that access to truth, nor argue for it with any passion. That is less persuasive than someone who may have lost a few questions of truth, but can still access impacts and passionately argue for them.

You could be full of passion, emotion and making an ethical case without an explanation of how your argument functions or why it should be believed (reasoning, logos).

Put another way:

If you are right on a question, that means you can win that part of the debate (Logos). You do not win for being right in places.

If you are passionate on a question, that means you can string together good arguments persuasively. Without arguments, you won't be persuasive, just passionate.

If you win an ethics question, that means you can frame the debate and win it. You could be right that violence is bad, but not provide a means to resolve it, analyze it or persuade me that its a reason to vote for you.

10. Round Framing in Final Rebuttals

Almost universally, this is what separates elite from above average debaters. Many of the Coachs and People Who Teach Labs I've talked to aree this is one of, if not the most important skill thats difficult to polish. The difficulty of the 1AR/2NR/2AR notwithstanding, the best speeches, and thus the easiest to vote for, frame how to make a decision regarding particular arguments and strategies as a whole. Not doing this puts it in my hands, which is not a bad thing per say, but it's always more strategic to tie together your arguments and show how they win the round. Old-school Voting Issues are important to me. What is most important, what could you do without? Even/if statements in the last rebuttals are supremely helpful.

Fall 2014 Judging Philosophy**

First, I should mention: I left College Debate before my senior year at Gonzaga. This did not play well with many in the community, after all I was abandoning an activity I had previously spent so much time on.

After graduating from Gonzaga, I enrolled SUNY at Buffalo's PhD in Philosophy program. I recently received my Masters and left UB to pursue other things in life.

I mention these things only to say, if I appear bitter, I really am not. But I do believe there are more important things than debate, and all of what I have been reading - on various media and social media platforms - about debate rings true about academia as a whole.

All of that said, I still think debate is an important activity, especially for students. As a judge, I have always preferred to act as an educator. This can include simply listening and giving the reflections of an average citizen - any debate is still ultimately a two-way street of communication for me. Thus, the primary importance of debate, for me, is that it is a speech activity emphasizing persuasion skills. I have no stylistic preferences, but I have been out of the game for about 3 years so I might be a bit rusty with speed, and might need some expanding of abbreviations, jargon and/or acronyms. Clarity and rhythm are crucial either way, and I'll announce "clear" several times before giving up flowing. Frankly, speed reading ultimately trades off with clarity, and I'd rather hear your argument than guess. Because I know I'm rusty I figured I should be clear with that warning - I'm not going to flow theory real well at 400wpm, let alone cards.

The other ultimate difference between myself and my peers: I detest reading a pile of evidence after a round. With few exceptions, most debates come down to a decision about a few issues. If this were quarters at the NDT, I would definitely join this practice insofar as my due diligence for the activity is concerned. If you think a piece of evidence is important, remember that I heard you read it once, and you have multiple opportunities to explain why the evidence is crucial. The obvious caveat to all of this is that I will check evidence for accuracy/truth in representation if another team claims it doesn't support its intended use (i.e. your card that says the sky is purple actually claims the sky is blue). If an argument wasn't clear to me, and you were supposed to win a round on it, you probably should have made it clearer than a mumbled 15 seconds.

I suppose in many ways my academic traits mirror that of my debate tastes. I tend to be a generalist - arguments of many shapes and varieties can peak my interest. In terms of my degree, my AOS is in metaphysics, and my AOCs are in Ethics, Ancient Philosophy and Continental/Social Philosophy. That being said, I spent the last few years being too weird for both the analytic and continental schools of philosophy - I find Baudrillard and Dennett equally intolerable. I probably have read the primary sources your authors are talking about. Just because you think repeating "Dasein" or some other term over and over is going to get a win, the reality of things often disagrees. Be clear and concise and don't rely on jargon to win your criticisms, make them apparent with evidence comparisons and concise link work. I love a good kritik debate, but despise a bad one. I debated all kinds of arguments in my career, and found many of those debates enjoyable for different reasons. I am comfortable with most anything, but don't tolerate any physical or mental abuse, discrimination or hate. Those are the easiest paths to make my ballot simple.

I'll accept any framework if it's argued for well. Performance, Identity etc. are all important elements in thinking about arguments. As I said, I like debate rounds that are aware of the activity as a communicative one. When I make expressions during your speeches, they usually are done intentionally. It's nice to be talked to as more than a transcriber.

If you have questions about typical jargon stuff, ask before the round. Frankly you should be able to convince me of something regardless of my biases - though I admit that my worst bias is openness to arguments. So I'm probably not going to reject a team for reading a K. Sorry.

Other housecleaning: I'm always a fan of being included in the debate if I'm judging, thus if you are paperless and are emailing, include me (andrewrossmyers [at] gmail [dot] com). I'll time prep as finished when the email is sent or flash drive is ejected. My main mentors, though I have had many, were Steve Pointer and Izak Dunn.

Speaker Points - My speaker points for an "average" debater is a 27.5. If I ever give someone a 30, it's probably going to be the last time I do.

Rewarded:

Crafty-ness and Tactics

Persuasion and Interpersonal Speaking

Clarity, Calmness, Confidence

Effective and Engaging CX's

Humor

Awareness

Punished:

Unintelligibility/Marble Mouths

Disorganization

Unbearable/boring CX's

Tunnel Vision

Defeatism

Why you gott be so rude? Don't you know they're humans too? Actually, being a little bit rude is what makes the activity fun, but there's a difference between joking/confidence/pressure and being distracting/harmful/obtuse. Please respect the thin line.

** Weber Update: I will vote teams down for clipping. This includes skipping words. I will only do so with video evidence in combination with the speech doc. I don't think this is always malicious, so my reduced speaker points will vary with the severity of the offense. (For instance, if you skip entire lines, I will give you a zero).

Hello Friends,

I debated approximately 4 years of college policy debate, with my career spanning fresh doe-eyed novice to nationally travelling open. During that time I ran a medley of argument: Polx DA's, Counter Plans, K, performance args, and others.

Although near the end of my career I definitely veered left of debate and have ideological leanings towards the many literature bases comprised therein, my emphasis as an undergrad was argumentation and persuasion. So I am much more concerned with your ability to connect, analyze, and extrapolate evidence and arguments.

Don't feel inclined to change your strategy on my account, I am at least willing to entertain any and all arguments given well-reasoned justification. Ultimately I say: follow your heart.

Bill Russell Judge Philosophy

Overview- I love good debates of many kinds. I try to decide debates solely on what is said in the round. I love good evidence, but love good explanation, and evidence comparison even more. I will give a lot of weight to the way you argue the evidence. Everyone works very hard to get where you are, and I know these rounds are very important to you, so I try to work hard as a judge also. It is important that you treat your opponent and your teammate with respect, so that everyone can enjoy the debate. Doing otherwise will be reflected negatively in your speaker points.

Paperless debate and flowing- I usually will ask to be included on your file sharing email, but, I am generally not reading along while you read. I will look at cards after the debate to the extent that I need to, and in light of how the evidence is debated. As a result, you need to make sure you are debating your arguments and evidence with the understanding that-unlike most of the debaters-I am not reading the cards as you go. Debating the details, and making evidence comparisons will go a long way in how I view the evidence after the debate. If you don't do that, I will interpret the evidence as I see fit.

Topicality- For the most part I prefer limits arguments over ground arguments. In other words, I prefer interpretations argued in terms of the predictability of the research burden, to any asserted right to particular ground. Case lists are important. My default standard on Topicality is likely reasonability, with the debate about the interpretations determining what is reasonable. The phrase competing interpretations, as it is often used makes no sense to me, because often no standard is given by which to evaluate the “competing interpretations”, with the implicit assumption seeming to be most limiting. Similarly, the “topical version of the aff” argment, when applied to non-critique affs makes little sense to me. The point of the violation is the aff isn’t topical. If what you mean is the same ground can be debated (advantages, etc) say that, but I think it is unlikely to be useful.

I generally believe that the affirmative should be topical but I have been persuaded otherwise for numerous non-policy affs of differing types. I don’t have strongly formed opinions on this at this point on topicality/framework as applied to non-policy affs, so tend to judge it like any issue, and attempt to decide based on what I hear in the round, and who I think is more effective at impacting their arguments, and blunting the impact of their opponents arguments.

Theory- I don’t especially enjoy theory debates, and don’t vote on theory issues very often. I tend to default to “reject the argument” not the team. As a result, in order to win on theory issues it is likely that a team will need to commit time to it, get beyond tag lines, and do a good job of explaining why simply rejecting the team would not be enough under particular articulated circumstances in that round.

An Additional Comment on Theory and T Debates- One issue that I think contributes to problems in theory and topicality debates is the tendency to make 1NC shells as short and fast as possible, and due to the fact that often there are few cards, these can become unflowable. I think if the argument is one you might be going for, you will benefit in front of me if the argument has some development when it is first presented.

Counterplans-I generally think conditionality is okay, but have been persuaded otherwise. If the negative goes for a conditional counterplan in the 2NR, and doesn’t make specific alternative arguments as to how the status quo would compare or why I should consider the status quo, I won’t do that work for you. In other words, no "judge kick".

I tend to think that the affirmative plan is not automatically immediate, and that a counterplan that conditions the plan on something that isn’t explicitly in the plan is not competitive. However, that personal preference is not very strong, and must be considered along with what I said on theory issues: that I haven’t voted on them often. So, I think an affirmative can beat these counterplans on theory, but they will need to do the work.

Disads/Impact Comparison It is obviously useful to have “offense” against a disad-or case advantage-but that it is not essential if a team does a very good job debating the uniqueness and link can win on that alone. Impact comparison is important, but I often hear more about the minutiae of “magnitude” when the relative risk seems like the place where better inroads can be made.

It should also be remembered in your impact comparison that when I evaluate the round at the end, I don’t usually decide “neg won the link” or decide most issues as yes/no, win/loss, but instead on some continuum of how much I thought you win on that, so the more comparison you do assuming the worst case, the better.

Critiques- I enjoy good critique debates the same as I do good policy debates. I don’t see critiques as a different way to run a disad, or counterplan, so debating it like a disad or counterplan makes little sense to me. That said, the more the negative treats it like another disad or counterplan, and doesn’t articulate some reason why they should win on the argument, or provide some explanation for why the judge should be doing something different than comparing policies, the more leeway the affirmative has in treating the argument that way as well. The more the critique can be related specifically to the aff, the better, and the reason to vote for the critique should be related as closely as possible to the type of argument presented in the critique. Feel free to ask me questions if that does not make sense to you.

* Minor note before Blake

I've done essentially no research on the 2023-2024 high school topic. While I've debated or coached on topics relevant to this area, I might not recognize very specific acronyms and am generally unaware of how people have approached questions related to the limits/broad meaning of this topic for T debates.

*Briefly updated before 2022 season

Debaters should have the ability to argue about what the terms of the debate are and how that relates to my decision. I prefer judging debates where the competitors are invested in their arguments, whatever those might be.

It is very rare in the debates I’ve judged that one team loses every argument on the flow. Consequently, it often seems going for a few less arguments improves the quality of the debating for both sides. Most debates tend to be decided in terms of how well either team characterizes each other’s options and framing what matters. At the top of your final rebuttal, please clearly prioritize how I should evaluate the debate. I love when debaters give me a roadmap of what's going to happen and then make it happen.

E-debate/Paperless:

Prep time only goes until you’re done prepping your speech, which means email time doesn't count against you. Please always include me on your email chain. Sometimes in cross-x when people are asking questions about evidence, I like to be able to look at the cards as well.

I'm pretty sympathetic that the transition to online debate is hard for many people and not the same as doing it in person. I'll try to do my best to make sure the rounds go smoothly.

I am better at flowing if I can maintain eye-contact with the person speaking. If you need to have your camera off for connection issues / personal reasons, I totally understand.

Speaker Points:

I spend most of my time at the end of the debate trying to decide who won and what I would have needed from the other team to win the debate or general commentary about the debate. While I’m filling out the ballot, I spend a few seconds trying to decide speaker points. I don’t have a static starting point for assigning or categorizing speakers, but try to decide how well the speakers used / responded during cross-x, whether a decision made by one of the speakers uniquely helped improve/hurt the teams chances of winning and how well the speakers brought together the debate in their final rebuttals.

I take notes during cross-x and enjoy when debaters get strategic concessions that are used in their speeches.

Argument related comments:

- Counterplans generally require a solvency advocate. This can be aff evidence or neg evidence.

- Critiques may not need to have an alternative to be competitive with the aff, but I will not judge kick an alt (or counterplan) for you unless the framing in the 2NR justifies that option.

- I often find it insufficient to read a hodgepodge of cards or arguments that “critique the squo” and call it an affirmative. Good affs have compelling methods, approaches to the space, or defenses of the resolution.

- In all debates but especially K aff verse K debates, links need impacts / clear internal links. The negative can win a link and still lose the debate if it’s unclear why that link “matters”.

- Competing methodologies is too often left as a buzz phrase that does not establish why the aff should not have a permutation. Similarly, asserting there is a permutation that is advantageous, does not explain why I should allow the aff to access that option. In either case, having a bit of depth goes a long way to win whether the aff should or should not have a perm.

In-round Accessibility

Part of my responsibility as the judge is to make the debate accessible. If there is something I can do to help with that – please let me know. If you don’t feel like disclosing then you’re welcome to email me (address above).

Pet Peeves:

1- Clipping cards is punishable with a loss and 0 speaker points. I do not feel that I need a debater to initiate a clipping challenge, as an educator I feel I have a responsibility to monitor against cheating.

2- I value very highly the safety for ALL competitors to engage in this activity, so please be considerate of others. Making arguments with sexist, racist, ableist, and other exclusionary language can be especially harmful for people in the activity.

3- Please make sure you ask your opponents what pronouns they use. Misgendering is a serious issue.

4- Stealing prep time

5- Reading conditional arguments that clearly and unquestionably contradict

6- Repeating that an argument was conceded- especially if it clearly was not

7- Asking cross-x questions that go nowhere in developing the strategy or understanding of the debate.

8- Don’t be disrespectful to the people who host tournaments.

Brief Bio

I studied philosophy and sociology as an undergraduate, communication at UNLV for an MA, and now communication at U-Iowa for a PhD.

3 years of debate at Millard South High School

4 years of debate at Concordia College – Moorhead

2 years coaching at University of Nevada- Las Vegas

5 years as a graduate assistant coach at the University of Iowa and 2nd year as the Debate Coach at Iowa

symonds77@gmail.com

I'm judging more often and tabbing less these days, so I thought it was fair to have a little substance here. Anyway, this is how I judge:

(1) I have the speech doc open and I'm following along as you're reading cards

(2) I'm only ever listening to the speaker(s), I think it's really important not to be messing around with electronic media while judging.

(3) I'm constantly judging argument quality throughout the debate, so when the 2AR ends, 90% of the time I'm fairly certain who I am going to vote for. What time I spend looking over my flow and the evidence is used to think through the most likely questions from the losing team, to see if there's something that I might have missed.

(4) My general decision making process starts with impact calculus and impact comparison. If one side is decisively ahead here, this often controls my vote. 2NR and 2AR work here is vital.

(5) To decide key points of controversy in the debate, I identify each one from the final rebuttals, list them in the AFF or NEG column, then find the arguments from the responding team and line them up. Once I think the lists are complete, I choose which side persuaded me on each one.

(6) While I work hard to keep my (long list of) debate opinions out of debate in deference to the specific ways debaters make their arguments, I think it's only fair to list some of my abstract debate leanings so that you have more context/information:

--Everyone reading an aff related to the topic IS ideal for fairness, education, and research-based reasons, but simply listing off these buzzwords is not going to persuade me. And "related to the topic" is really case by case.
--On framework, education is more important than procedural claims - I regularly vote aff against framework bc the neg is overly fixated on "procedural fairness outweighs"
--Topical Versions of the Aff and Switch-Side debate arguments function like CPs that access AFF education and preserve fairness
--States CP is illegit bc it eliminates the literature-based debate over FG vs States
--CPs ought to be textually and functionally competitive
--Alts succeed by being deliberately vague and shifting later in the debate - especially "reject the aff" alts
--"Realism good" indicts virtually all affs on the Space Cooperation topic
--Both truth and techne matter

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

Director of Forensics at CSU, Fullerton since Fall 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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