//shree

I am a social studies & math teacher who is no longer involved in full-time argument coaching. I am judging this tournament because my wife, a mentor, or a former student asked me to.

I previously served as a DOD at the high school level and as a hired gun for college debate programs. During this time, I had the privilege of working with Baker Award recipients, TOC champions in CX, a NFA champion in LD, and multiple NDT First-Round teams; I was very much ‘in the cards.’ Debate used to be everything to me, and I fancied myself as a ‘lifer.’ I held the naïve view that this activity was the pinnacle of critical thinking and unequivocally produced the best and brightest scholars compared to any other curricular or extracurricular pursuit.

My perspective has shifted since I’ve reduced my competitive involvement with the community. Debate has provided me with some incredible mentors, colleagues, and friends that I would trade for nothing. However, several of the practices prevalent in modern debate risk making the activity an academically unserious echo chamber. Many in the community have traded in flowing for rehearsing scripts, critical thinking for virtue signaling, adjudication for idol worship, and research for empty posturing. I can’t pretend that I wasn’t guilty of adopting or teaching some of the trendy practices that are rapidly devolving the activity, but I am no longer willing to keep up the charade that what we do here is pedagogically sound.

This ‘get off my lawn’ ethos colors some of my idiosyncrasies if you have me in the back of the room. Here are guidelines to maximize your speaker points and win percentage:

1 – Flow. Number arguments. Answer arguments in the order that they were presented. Minimize overviews.

2 – Actually research. Most of you don’t, and it shows. Know what you are talking about and be able to use the vocabulary of your opponents. Weave theory with examples. Read a book. Being confidently clueless or dodgy in CX is annoying, not compelling.

3 – Please try. Read cards from this year when possible; be on the cutting edge. Say new and interesting things, even if they’re about old or core concepts. Adapt your arguments to make them more ‘you.’ Reading cards from before 2020 or regurgitating my old blocks will bore me.

4 – Emphasize clarity. This applies to both your thoughts and speaking. When I return, my topic knowledge will be superficial, and I will be out of practice with listening to the fastest speakers. Easy-to-transcribe soundbytes, emphasis in sentences, and pen time is a must. I cannot transcribe bots who shotgun 3-word arguments at 400wpm nor wannabe philosopher-activists who speak in delirious, winding paragraphs.

5 – Beautify your speech docs. Inconsistent, poor formatting is an eyesore. So is word salad highlighting without the semblance of sentence structure.

6 – No dumpster fires. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy. I find unnecessarily escalating CX, heckling opponents, zoom insults, authenticity tests, and screenshot insertions uncompelling. I neither have the resources nor interest in launching an investigation about outside behavior, coach indiscretions, or pref sheets.

7 – Don’t proliferate trivial voting issues. I will evaluate a well-evidenced topicality violation; conditionality can be a VI; in-round harassment and slurs are not trivial. However, I have a higher threshold than most with regards to voting issues surrounding an author’s twitter beef, poorly warranted specification arguments, trigger warnings, and abominations I classify as ‘LD tricks.’ If you are on the fence about whether your procedural or gateway issue is trivial, it probably is; unless it’s been dropped in multiple speeches, my preferred remedy is to reject the argument, not the team. Depending on how deranged it is, I may just ignore it completely. I strongly prefer substantive debates.

8 – Be well rounded. The divide between ‘policy,’ ‘critical,’ and ‘performance’ debate is artificial. Pick options that are strategic and specific to the arguments your opponents are reading.

9 – Not everything is a ‘DA.’ Topicality standards are not ‘DAs.’ Critique links are not ‘DAs’ and the alternative is not a ‘CP.’ A disadvantage requires, at a minimum, uniqueness, a link, and an impact. Describing your arguments as ‘DAs’ when they are not will do you a disservice, both in terms of your strategy and your speaker points.

10 – I’m old. I won’t know who you are, and frankly, I don’t care. Good debaters can give bad speeches, and the reverse can also be true. Rep has no correlation to the speaker points you will receive. 28.5 is average. 29 is solid. 29.5 is exceptional. 30 means you’ve restored my belief in the pedagogical value of policy debate.

Bill Batterman
Associate Director of Debate — Woodward Academy (2010-present)
Director of Debate — Marquette University High School (2006-2010)
Assistant Debate Coach — Marquette, Appleton East, Nicolet, etc. (2000-2006)
Last Updated 9/17/2021

Twitter version: Debate like an adult. Show me the evidence. Attend to the details. Don't dodge; clash. Great research and informed comparisons win debates.

My promise: I will pay close attention to every debate, carefully and completely scrutinize every argument, and provide honest feedback so that students are continuously challenged to improve as debaters.

Perspective: During the 2010s (my second full decade of judging/coaching debate), I coached and/or judged at 189 tournaments and taught slightly more than 16 months of summer debate institutes. I don't judge as many rounds as I used to — I took an extended sabbatical from judging during the 2020-2021 season — but I still enjoy it and I am looking forward to judging debates again. I am also still coaching as actively as ever. I know a lot about the water resources protection topic.

Pre-round: Please add billbatterman@gmail.com to the email chain. Respect your opponents by sending the same documents to the email chain that you use to deliver your speeches. If you create separate versions of your speech documents (typically by deleting headings and analytical arguments) before sharing them, I will assume that you do not respect your opponents. I like debaters that respect their opponents. I will have my camera on when judging; if it is off, confirm that I'm ready before beginning your speech.

1. I care most about clarity, clash, and argument comparison.

I will be more impressed by students that demonstrate topic knowledge, line-by-line organization skills (supported by careful flowing), and intelligent cross-examinations than by those that rely on superfast speaking, obfuscation, jargon, backfile recycling, and/or tricks. I've been doing this for 20 years, and I'm still not bored by strong fundamental skills and execution of basic, core-of-the-topic arguments.

To impress me, invite clash and show off what you have learned this season. I will want to vote for the team that (a) is more prepared and more knowledgeable about the assigned topic and that (b) better invites clash and provides their opponents with a productive opportunity for an in-depth debate.

Aff cases that lack solvency advocates and claim multiple contrived advantages do not invite a productive debate. Neither do whipsaw/scattershot 1NCs chock-full of incomplete, contradictory, and contrived off-case positions. Debates are best when the aff reads a plan with a high-quality solvency advocate and one or two well-supported advantages and the neg responds with a limited number of complete, consistent, and well-supported positions (including, usually, thorough case answers).

I would unapologetically prefer not to judge debates between students that do not want to invite a productive, clash-heavy debate.

2. I'm a critic of argument, not a blank slate.

My most important "judge preference" is that I value debating: "a direct and sustained confrontation of rival positions through the dialectic of assertion, critique, response and counter-critique" (Gutting 2013). I make decisions based on "the essential quality of debate: upon the strength of arguments" (Balthrop 1989).

Philosophically, I value "debate as argument-judgment" more than "debate as information production" (Cram 2012). That means that I want to hear debates between students that are invested in debating scholarly arguments based on rigorous preparation, expert evidence, deep content knowledge, and strategic thinking. While I will do my best to maintain fidelity to the debate that has taken place when forming my decision, I am more comfortable than most judges with evaluating and scrutinizing students' arguments. I care much more about evidence and argument quality and am far less tolerant of trickery and obfuscation than the median judge. This has two primary implications for students seeking to adapt to my judging:

a. What a card "says" is not as important as what a card proves. When deciding debates, I spend more time on questions like "what argument does this expert make and is the argument right?" than on questions like "what words has this debate team highlighted in this card and have these words been dropped by the other team?." As a critic of argument, I place "greater emphasis upon evaluating quality of argument" and assume "an active role in the debate process on the basis of [my] expertise, or knowledge of practices and standards within the community." Because I emphasize "the giving of reasons as the essential quality of argument, evidence which provides those reasons in support of claims will inevitably receive greater credibility than a number of pieces of evidence, each presenting only the conclusion of someone's reasoning process. It is, in crudest terms, a preference for quality of evidence over quantity" (Balthrop 1989).

b. The burden of proof precedes the burden of rejoinder. As presented, the risk of many advantages and disadvantages is zero because of missing internal links or a lack of grounding for important claims. "I know this argument doesn't make sense, but they dropped it!" will not convince me; reasons will.

When I disagree with other judges about the outcome of a debate, my most common criticism of their decision is that it gives too much credit to bad arguments or arguments that don't make sense. Their most common criticism of my decision is that it is "too interventionist" and that while they agree with my assessment of the arguments/evidence, they think that something else that happened in the debate (often a "technical concession") should be more determinative. I respect many judges that disagree with me in these situations; I'm glad there are both "tech-leaning" and "truth-leaning" judges in our activity. In the vast majority of debates, we come to the same conclusion. But at the margins, this is the major point of disagreement between us — it's much more important than any particular argument or theory preference.

3. I am most persuaded by arguments about the assigned topic.

One of the primary reasons I continue to love coaching debate is that "being a coach is to be enrolled in a continuing graduate course in public policy" (Fleissner 1995). Learning about a new topic area each year enriches my life in profound ways. After 20 years in "The Academy of Debate" (Fleissner 1995), I have developed a deep and enduring belief in the importance of public policy. It matters. This has two practical implications for how I tend to judge debates:

a. Kritiks that demonstrate concern for good policymaking can be very persuasive, but kritiks that ignore the topic or disavow policy analysis entirely will be tough to win. My self-perception is that I am much more receptive to well-developed kritiks than many "policy" judges, but I am as unpersuaded (if not more so) by kritiks that rely on tricks, obfuscation, and conditionality as I am by those styles of policy arguments.

b. I almost always find kritiks of topicality unpersuasive. An unlimited topic would not facilitate the in-depth clash over core-of-the-topic arguments that I most value about debate. The combination of "topical version of the aff" and "argue this kritik on the neg" is difficult to defeat when coupled with a fairness or topic education impact. Topical kritik affirmatives are much more likely to persuade me than kritiks of topicality.

Works Cited
Balthrop 1989 = V. William Balthrop, "The Debate Judge as 'Critic of Argument'," Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory Practice & Teaching (Third Edition).
Cram 2012 = http://cedadebate.org/CAD/index.php/CAD/article/view/295/259
Gutting 2013 = http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/19/a-great-debate/
Fleissner 1995 = https://the3nr.com/2010/05/20/chain-reaction-the-1995-barkley-forum-coaches-luncheon-keynote-speech/

Maggie Berthiaume Woodward Academy

Current Coach — Woodward Academy (2011-present)
Former Coach — Lexington High School (2006-2008), Chattahoochee High School (2008-2011)
College Debater — Dartmouth College (2001-2005)
High School Debater — Blake (1997-2001)
maggiekb@gmail.com for email chains, please.

Meta Comments

1. Please be nice. If you don't want to be kind to others (the other team, your partner, me, the novice flowing the debate in the back of the room), please don’t prefer me.

2. I'm a high school teacher and believe that debates should be something I could enthusiastically show to my students, their families, or my principal. What does that mean? If your high school teachers would find your presentation inappropriate, I am likely to as well.

3. Please be clear. I will call "clear" if I can't understand you, but debate is primarily a communication activity. Do your best to connect on meaningful arguments.

4. Conduct your own CX as much as possible. CX is an important time for judge impression formation, and if one partner does all asking and answering for the team, it is very difficult to evaluate both debaters. Certainly the partner not involved in CX can get involved in an emergency, but that should be brief and rare if both debaters want good points.

5. If you like to be trolly with your speech docs (read on paper to prevent sharing, remove analyticals, etc.), please don't. See "speech documents" below for a longer justification and explanation.

6. I am not willing or able to adjudicate issues that happened outside of the bounds of the debate itself — ex. previous debates, social media issues, etc.

7. In debates involving minors, I am a mandated reporter — as are all judges of debates involving minors!

8. I’ve coached and judged for a long time now, and the reason I keep doing it is that I think debate is valuable. Students who demonstrate that they appreciate the opportunity to debate and are passionate and excited about the issues they are discussing are a joy to watch — they give judges a reason to listen even when we’re sick or tired or judging the 5th debate of the day on the 4th weekend that month. Be that student!

9. "Maggie" (or "Ms. B." if you prefer), not "judge."

What does a good debate look like?

Everyone wants to judge “good debates.” To me, that means two excellently-prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues related to the policy presented by the affirmative. The best debates allow four students to demonstrate that they have researched a topic and know a lot about it — they are debates over issues that experts in the field would understand and appreciate. The worst debates involve obfuscation and tangents. Good debates usually come down to a small number of issues that are well-explained by both sides. The best final rebuttals have clearly explained ballot and a response to the best reason to vote for the opposing team.

I have not decided to implement the Shunta Jordan "no more than 5 off" rule, but I understand why she has it, and I agree with the sentiment. I'm not establishing a specific number, but I would like to encourage negative teams to read fully developed positions in the 1NC (with internal links and solvency advocates as needed). (Here's what she says: "There is no world where the Negative needs to read more than 5 off case arguments. SO if you say 6+, I'm only flowing 5 and you get to choose which you want me to flow.") If you're thinking "nbd, we'll just read the other four DAs on the case," I think you're missing the point. :) It's not about the specific number, it's about the depth of argument.

Do you read evidence?

Yes, in nearly every debate. I will certainly read evidence that is contested by both sides to resolve who is correct in their characterizations. The more you explain your evidence, the more likely I am to read it. For me, the team that tells the better story that seems to incorporate both sets of evidence will almost always win. This means that instead of reading yet another card, you should take the time to explain why the context of the evidence means that your position is better than that of the other team. This is particularly true in close uniqueness and case debates.

Do I have to be topical?

Yes. Affirmatives are certainly welcome to defend the resolution in interesting and creative ways, but that defense should be tied to a topical plan to ensure that both sides have the opportunity to prepare for a topic that is announced in advance. Affirmatives certainly do not need to “role play” or “pretend to be the USFG” to suggest that the USFG should change a policy, however.

I enjoy topicality debates more than the average judge as long as they are detailed and well-researched. Examples of this include “intelligence gathering” on Surveillance, “health care” on Social Services, and “economic engagement” on Latin America. Debaters who do a good job of describing what debates would look like under their interpretation (aff or neg) are likely to win. I've judged several "substantial" debates in recent years that I've greatly enjoyed.

Can I read [X ridiculous counterplan]?

If you have a solvency advocate, by all means. If not, consider a little longer. See: “what does as good debate look like?” above. Affs should not be afraid to go for theory against contrived counterplans that lack a solvency advocate. On the flip side, if the aff is reading non-intrinsic advantages, the "logical" counterplan or one that uses aff solvency evidence for the CP is much appreciated.

What about my generic kritik?

Topic or plan specific critiques are absolutely an important component of “excellently prepared teams who clash on fundamental issues.” Kritiks that can be read in every debate, regardless of the topic or affirmative plan, are usually not.

Given that the aff usually has specific solvency evidence, I think the neg needs to win that the aff makes things worse (not just “doesn’t solve” or “is a mask for X”). Neg – Please spend the time to make specific links to the aff — the best links are often not more evidence but examples from the 1AC or aff evidence.

What about offense/defense?

I do believe there is absolute defense and vote for it often.

Do you take prep for emailing/flashing?

Once the doc is saved, your prep time ends.

I have some questions about speech documents...

One speech document per speech (before the speech). Any additional cards added to the end of the speech should be sent out as soon as feasible.

Teams that remove analytical arguments like permutation texts, counter-interpretations, etc. from their speech documents before sending to the other team should be aware that they are also removing them from the version I will read at the end of the debate — this means that I will be unable to verify the wording of their arguments and will have to rely on the short-hand version on my flow. This rarely if ever benefits the team making those arguments.

Speech documents should be provided to the other team as the speech begins. The only exception to this is a team who debates entirely off paper. Teams should not use paper to circumvent norms of argument-sharing.

I will not consider any evidence that did not include a tag in the document provided to the other team.

LD Addendum

I don't judge LD as much as I used to (I coached it, once upon a time), but I think most of the above applies. If you are going to make reference to norms (theory, side bias, etc.), please explain them. Otherwise, just debate!

PF Addendum

This is very similar to the LD addendum with the caveat that I strongly prefer evidence be presented as cards rather than paraphrasing. I find it incredibly difficult to evaluate the quality of evidence when I have to locate the original source for every issue, and as a result, I am likely to discount that evidence compared to evidence where I can clearly view the surrounding sentence/paragraph/context.

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning


Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

Debate is a fun competitive research game. Ask questions if you have them.

jeremy.hammond@pinecrest.edu, pinecrestdebatedocs@gmail.com (please put both).

I have experience judging most policy debates that would occur. I have found that there is really only one argument type that I currently won't evaluate which are wipeout based arguments which prioritize saving unknown life to that of saving known life (human/non-human life).

I haven't calculated the percentages but I below are some feelings of where I am in various types of debates.

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

Policy aff v Process CP - 60% for the neg (mostly due to poor affirmative debating rather than argument preference)

Policy aff v K - Probably have voted neg more mostly due to poor affirmative debating or dropped tricks. Side note i'm pretty against the you link you lose style of negative framework, but I have regretfully have voted for it.

Theory v Policy Neg - Probably voted more neg than aff when the aff has a non-sense counter-interpretation (i.e. CI - you get 2 condo). When the aff is just going for condo bad with a more strict counter-interpretation I have voted aff more.

K aff v FW - Probably even to voted aff more (like due to poor negative debating)

K aff v K Neg - Probably judged these the least honestly they don't stick out for me to remember how I voted. I have definitely voted for the Cap K against K affs but I don't know the percentages.

K aff v Policy Neg - (Think State good, Alt Bad, or CP) have judged but can't remember.

I have plenty of more specific thoughts about debate, but mostly those don't play into my decisions. I will add more as the year progresses if something bothers me in a round.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

Some thoughts about the fiscal redistribution topic:

Having only judged practice debates so far, I like the topic. But it seems harder to be Aff than in a typical year. All three affirmative areas are pretty controversial, and there's deep literature engaging each area on both sides.

All of the thoughts I've posted below are my preferences, not rules that I'll enforce in the debate. Everything is debatable. But my preferences reflect the types of arguments that I find more persuasive.

1. I am unlikely to view multiple conditional worlds favorably. I think the past few years have demonstrated an inverse relationship between the number of CPs in the 1nc and the quality of the debate. The proliferation of terrible process CPs would not have been possible without unlimited negative conditionality. I was more sympathetic to negative strategy concerns last year where there was very little direct clash in the literature. But this topic is a lot different. I don't see a problem with one conditional option. I can maybe be convinced about two, but I like Tim Mahoney's rule that you should only get one. More than two will certainly make the debate worse. The fact that the negative won substantially more debates last year with with no literature support whatsoever suggests there is a serious problem with multiple conditional options.

Does that mean the neg auto-loses if they read three conditional options? No, debating matters - but I'll likely find affirmative impact arguments on theory a lot more persuasive if there is more than one (or maybe two) CPs in the debate.

2. I am not sympathetic about affirmative plan vagueness. Debate is at it's best with two prepared teams, and vagueness is a way to avoid clash and discourage preparation. If your plan is just the resolution, that tells me very little and I will be looking for more details. I am likely to interpret your plan based upon the plan text, highlighted portions of your solvency evidence that say what the plan does, and clarifications in cx. That means both what you say and the highlighted portions of your evidence are fair game for arguments about CP competition, DA links, and topicality. This is within reason - the plan text is still important, and I'm not going to hold the affirmative responsible for a word PIC that's based on a piece of solvency evidence or an offhand remark. And if cx or evidence is ambiguous because the negative team didn't ask the right questions or didn't ask follow up questions, I'm not going to automatically err towards the negative's interpretation either. But if the only way to determine the scope of the plan's mandates is by looking to solvency evidence or listening to clarification in CX, then a CP that PICs out of those clarified mandates is competitive, and a topicality violation that says those clarified mandates aren't topical can't be beaten with "we meet - plan in a vacuum".

How might this play out on this topic? Well, if the negative team asks in CX, "do you mandate a tax increase?", and the affirmative response is "we don't specify", then I think that means the affirmative does not, in fact, mandate a tax increase under any possible interpretation of the plan, that they cannot read addons based on increasing taxes, or say "no link - we increase taxes" to a disadvantage that says the affirmative causes a spending tradeoff. If the affirmative doesn't want to mandate a specific funding mechanism, that might be ok, but that means evidence about normal means of passing bills is relevant for links, and the affirmative can't avoid that evidence by saying the plan fiats out of it. There can be a reasonable debate over what might constitute 'normal means' for funding legislation, but I'm confident that normal means in a GOP-controlled House is not increasing taxes.

On the other hand, if they say "we don't specify our funding mechanism in the plan," but they've highlighted "wealth tax key" warrants in their solvency evidence, then I think this is performative cowardice and honestly I'll believe whatever the negative wants me to believe in that case. Would a wealth tax PIC be competitive in that scenario? Yes, without question. Alternatively, could the negative say "you can't access your solvency evidence because you don't fiat a wealth tax?" Also, yes. As I said, I am unsympathetic to affirmative vagueness, and you can easily avoid this situation just by defending your plan.

Does this apply to the plan's agent? I think this can be an exception - in other words, the affirmative could reasonably say "we're the USFG" if they don't have an agent-based advantage or solvency evidence that explicitly requires one agent. I think there are strong reasons why agent debates are unique. Agent debates in a competitive setting with unlimited fiat grossly misrepresent agent debates in the literature, and requiring the affirmative to specify beyond what their solvency evidence requires puts them in an untenable position. But if the affirmative has an agent-based advantage, then it's unlikely (though empirically not impossible) that I'll think it's ok for them to not defend that agent against an agent CP.

3. I believe that any negative strategy that revolves around "it's hard to be neg so therefore we need to do the 1ac" is not a real strategy. A CP that results in the possibility of doing the entire mandate of the plan is neither legitimate nor competitive. Immediacy and certainty are not the basis of counterplan competition, no matter how many terrible cards are read to assert otherwise. If you think "should" means "immediate" then you'd likely have more success with a 2nr that was "t - should" in front of me than you would with a CP competition argument based on that word. Permutations are tests of competition, and as such, do not have to be topical. "Perms can be extra topical but not nontopical" has no basis in anything. Perms can be any combination of all of the plan and part or all of the CP. But even if they did have to be topical, reading a card that says "increase" = "net increase" is not a competition argument, it's a topicality argument. A single affirmative card defining the "increase" as "doesn't have to be a net increase" beats this CP in its entirety. Even if the negative interpretation of "net increase" is better for debate it does not change what the plan does, and if the aff says they do not fiat a net increase, then they do not fiat a net increase. If you think you have an argument, you need to go for T, not the CP. A topicality argument premised on "you've killed our offsets CP ground" probably isn't a winner, however. The only world I could ever see the offsets CP be competitive in is if the plan began with "without offsetting fiscal redistribution in any manner, the USFG should..."

I was surprised by the number of process CPs turned out at camps this year. This topic has a lot of well-supported ways to directly engage each of the three areas. And most of the camp affs are genuinely bad ideas with a ridiculous amount of negative ground. Even a 1nc that is exclusively an economy DA and case defense is probably capable of winning most debates. I know we just had a year where there were almost no case debates, but NATO was a bad topic with low-quality negative strategies, and I think it's time to step up. This topic is different. And affs are so weak they have to resort to reading dedevelopment as their advantage. I am FAR more likely to vote aff on "it's already hard to be aff, and your theory of competition makes it impossible" on this topic than any other.

This doesn't mean I'm opposed to PICs, or even most counterplans. And high quality evidence can help sway my views about both the legitimacy and competitiveness of any CP. But if you're coming to the first tournament banking on the offsets CP or "do the plan if prediction markets say it's good CP", you should probably rethink that choice.

But maybe I'm wrong! Maybe the first set of tournaments will see lots of teams reading small, unpredictable affs that run as far to the margins of the topic as possible. I hope not. The less representative the affirmative is of the topic literature, the more likely it is that I'll find process CPs to be an acceptable response. If you're trying to discourage meaningful clash through your choice of affirmative, then maybe strategies premised on 'clash is bad' are more reasonable.

4. I'm ambivalent on the question of whether fiscal redistribution requires both taxes and transfers. The cards on both sides of this are okay. I'm not convinced by the affirmative that it's too hard to defend a tax, but I'm also not convinced by the negative that taxes are the most important part of negative ground.

5. I'm skeptical of the camp affirmatives that suggest either that Medicare is part of Social Security, or that putting Medicare under Social Security constitutes "expanding" Social Security. I'll approach any debate about this with an open mind, because I've certainly been wrong before. But I am curious about what the 2ac looks like. I can see some opportunity for the aff on the definition of "expanding," but I don't think it's great. Aff cards that confuse Social Security with the Social Security Act or Social Security Administration or international definitions of lower case "social security" miss the mark entirely.

6. Critiques on this topic seem ok. I like critiques that have topic-specific links and show why doing the affirmative is undesirable. I dislike critiques that are dependent on framework for the same reason I dislike process counterplans. Both strategies are cop-outs - they both try to win without actually debating the merits of the affirmative. I find framework arguments that question the truth value of specific affirmative claims far more persuasive than framework arguments that assert that policy-making is the wrong forum.

7. There's a LOT of literature defending policy change from a critical perspective on this topic. I've always been skeptical of planless affirmatives, but they seem especially unwarranted this year. I think debate doesn't function if one side doesn't debate the assigned topic. Debating the topic requires debating the entire topic, including defending a policy change from the federal government. Merely talking about fiscal redistribution in some way doesn't even come close. It's possible to defend policy change from a variety of perspectives on this topic, including some that would critique ways in which the negative traditionally responds to policy proposals.

Having said that, if you're running a planless affirmative and find yourself stuck with me in the back of the room, I still do my best to evaluate all arguments as fairly as a I can. It's a debate round, and not a forum for me to just insert my preferences over the arguments of the debaters themselves. But some arguments will resonate more than others.

Old thoughts

Some thoughts about the NATO topic:

1. Defending the status quo seems very difficult. The topic seems aff-biased without a clear controversy in the literature, without many unique disadvantages, and without even credible impact defense against some arguments. The water topic was more balanced (and it was not balanced at all).

This means I'm more sympathetic to multiple conditional options than I might otherwise would be. I'm also very skeptical of plan vagueness and I'm unlikely to be very receptive towards any aff argument that relies on it.

Having said that, some of the 1ncs I've seen that include 6 conditional options are absurd and I'd be pretty receptive to conditionality in that context, or in a context where the neg says something like hegemony good and the security K in the same debate.

And an aff-biased topic is not a justification for CPs that compete off of certainty. The argument that "it's hard to be negative so therefore we get to do your aff" is pretty silly. I haven't voted on process CP theory very often, but at the same time, it's pretty rare for a 2a to go for it in the 2ar. The neg can win this debate in front of me, but I lean aff on this.

There are also parts of this topic that make it difficult to be aff, especially the consensus requirement of the NAC. So while the status quo is probably difficult to defend, I think the aff is at a disadvantage against strategies that test the consensus requirement.

2. Topicality Article 5 is not an argument. I could be convinced otherwise if someone reads a card that supports the interpretation. I have yet to see a card that comes even close. I think it is confusing that 1ncs waste time on this because a sufficient 2ac is "there is no violation because you have not read evidence that actually supports your interpretation." The minimum threshold would be for the negative to have a card defining "cooperation with NATO" as "requires changing Article 5". That card does not exist, because no one actually believes that.

3. Topicality on this topic seems very weak as a 2nr choice, as long as the affirmative meets basic requirements such as using the DOD and working directly with NATO as opposed to member states. It's not unwinnable because debating matters, but the negative seems to be on the wrong side of just about every argument.

4. Country PICs do not make very much sense to me on this topic. No affirmative cooperates directly with member states, they cooperate with the organization, given that the resolution uses the word 'organization' and not 'member states'. Excluding a country means the NAC would say no, given that the excluded country gets to vote in the NAC. If the country PIC is described as a bilateral CP with each member state, that makes more sense, but then it obviously does not go through NATO and is a completely separate action, not a PIC.

5. Is midterms a winnable disadvantage on the NATO topic? I am very surprised to see negative teams read it, let alone go for it. I can't imagine that there's a single person in the United States that would change their vote or their decision to turn out as a result of the plan. The domestic focus link argument seems completely untenable in light of the fact that our government acts in the area of foreign policy multiple times a day. But I have yet to see a midterms debate, so maybe there's special evidence teams are reading that is somehow omitted from speech docs. It's hard for me to imagine what a persuasive midterms speech on a NATO topic looks like though.

What should you do if you're neg? I think there are some good CPs, some good critiques, and maybe impact turns? NATO bad is likely Russian propaganda, but it's probably a winnable argument.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is harmful for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine if the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

St. Mark's School of Texas

CXphilosophy = Years judging: 23 as a hs coach another 10 as a college coach
Rounds on this year’s high school topic: 0 (by the time the 2023 season starts I will probably have judged 30 or so debates at camp)
Rounds on this year’s college topic: 0

yes, please add me to the email chain smdebatedocs@gmail.com

update 5-3-23

Clarity - If I yell clearer at you I don't mean slow down 1%. I mean clearly speak all the words in your evidence. Not just your tags - I want to hear and understand your evidence and your opponents shouldn't have to read your speech docs to know what your cards say. If I don't think you are clear be prepared to receive 27 speaker points.

CP/alternative - you get one and only one and you can kick it but you need to choose. If you talk about it in the 2nr then I will decide the debate based on the plan vs the cp/alternative. Yes, you can have more than one plank if you have a solvency advocate for every plank but you can't kick planks.

Solvency advocate - your plan needs one and your cp needs one and I expect you to defend it.

conditionality - don't bother in the 2ac with this argument. I've already limited what the neg can do and I'm happy to be done hearing this debate.

highlight more of your evidence - other than a short time period in 1994 CEDA, evidence quality is at an all time low. I've never seen it this bad in high school.

update 6-21-22

Research over Truth. The best arguments are backed by research. The burden of rejoinder for most analytics is pretty low. The burden of rejoinder for a good card is high. (yes, this applies to your analytic DA's on framework)

Old stuff pre 6-21-11

yes, please send out a card document at the conclusion of the debate. please make sure that the card document accurately represents the cards relevant in the debate i.e. make sure cards that were marked are marked in the document and that cards not read in the debate don't appear in it, etc.



Teachers teach, coaches coach, judges judge.1
Clarity is king.2
I view my role as a judge in the frame of least intervention.3


More and more I'm starting to think that it should all revolve around solvency advocates. While I've probably had some tendencies toward that approach for a few years now it's even more prominent now. If a team is willing to read a plan and they have a card that says their plan is EE or DE with China then we should thank our lucky stars that they are willing to talk about the topic and try to give them a good debate. (I know that's from way back on the china topic but it's still a good example) Having said that if they have a solvency advocate for their CP I think the neg should get a tremendous amount of leeway on theoretically legitimate questions. The test is "Is the cp solvency advocate at least as specific as the aff solvency advocate".

New additions:
Framework: I'm over it. The aff gets to weigh their advantages (fiat) and the neg gets their K. The neg can't win fiat is an illusion but they can win it's a waste of time/bad idea to engage the state OR they can say "Our argument is that in the face of the aff Obama/Congress/Supreme Court/usfg should say 'no, we reject the securitization/racism/imperialism/capitalism/insert k lingo' of this idea the world would be better if we FILL IN WITH YOUR ALTERNATIVE". If you don't understand what I mean then feel free to ask questions about this.
If you say you are ready then say "Oh wait, I need another second." I will probably penalize you 15 seconds of prep. Don't say you are ready and ask me to stop prep time until you are ready.


Virtually everything else in this judging philosophy is about ways you can get better speaker points or some of my subjective biases I think you should be aware of. The reality is that most of my subjective preferences rarely matter in debates because the debates aren’t close enough to make it matter.

Respect others.4
Want good speaker points? Impress me with arguments that prove you have done a substantial amount of research on the topic and that you can make smart arguments.5
New aff’s are intellectual terrorism – you ask for it you got it.6
Topicality is for the unresearched.7
Most theory debates are terrible.8
Evidence is a good thing. Read some cards, preferably some with warrants from people with expertise in the relevant area.9
Excessive arrogance is unacceptable.10
Take ownership of your arguments.11
Post round discussions are good.12
Notes on the use of computers in debate.13

Make complete arguments. "perm do both" and "voting issue fairness and education" are not complete arguments.

]1 While this may seem obvious it bears repeating. What I teach my students and what I coach my students, i.e. what I think about debate and how the game should be played, shouldn’t be relevant when I’m judging two teams that I don’t coach or teach.

2 I've decided that a part of my role as a judge is to ensure that all debaters speak clearly. It is unfair that some debaters are virtually incomprehensible forcing the other team to read over their shoulder or look at every card instead of just being able to flow. So I'm adding a deterrent to the unclear debater. I expect debaters to speak clearly at all times. That doesn't just mean the tags on your cards, it means all the words of your evidence, it means everything. When I say "clearer" what I'm saying is "you are so unclear I have virtually no idea what you are saying so please make a SIGNFICANT, MEANINGFUL change in your delivery". I don't mean make a .001 change. If I have to say clearer a second time you are well on the path to having a cranky judge.

3 As a judge I have two jobs 1) pick one winner in each debate 2) enforce time limits as set by the tournament. To some extent intervention may be inevitable, however, it is my job as a judge to pick a winner based on the arguments made in each debate. That includes being cognizant of my subjective biases and doing my best to keep those preferences from influencing my decision.

4 This should be self evident. See also, footnotes 10, 11 and 13.

5 If your strategy relies on your technical proficiency it probably won’t impress me. If your strategy relies on reading a host of confusing cards that you don’t really understand and you hope that the other team won’t understand them either then you probably won’t impress me. A 1ac with several advantages all with poor internal links probably won’t impress me. A 1nc with a clear coherent method of winning the debate based on good evidence probably will impress me. A 1ac with a solvency advocate and well evidenced advantages probably will impress me. I like it when the aff is kritikal and the neg beats them with a smart go farther left strategy.

6 If you really wanted to have an in depth educational debate you would have disclosed your plan and advantages and given the other team a chance to research it. Break a new aff and your chances of losing on T go up and your chances of winning that anything the neg did was an illegitimate voting issue go way down. Will I be really impressed if, in the face of a new aff, the neg provides a well researched coherent strategy? Yes. Will I understand if, in the face of a new aff, the 1NC is three conditional cp’s and a K? Yes. (For purposes of the fiscal redistribution topic this is out. The neg has a huge number of options and they should be able to figure out a good one before the debate starts - see above)

7 Limits usually wins topicality debates and that is unfortunate. Smart teams should make arguments not only about limits/ground but about the educational value of the topic envisioned by both sides. A narrow topic that excludes some of the core issues that would generate educational research probably isn’t as good as a broader topic that encourages students to research important issues.

8 I generally find theory debates to be the bastion of the weak. Your amazingly good ASPEC debate usually sounds like a 27 to me. Think of it this way…every time you say something besides topicality is a voting issue count on losing half a speaker point. Again, this will not affect who wins debates only speaker points. However, I can be persuaded that illegitimate counterplans have so skewed the playing field that reject the argument not the team is insufficient and they must be voting issues. There are probably a host of counterplans that fall within this category. Three that leap to mind are consult, delay, and states. Two exceptions to this rule to help the negative: If your counterplan is unconditional it will be pretty hard for the aff to convince me it has unfairly skewed the debate. Second, have a true solvency advocate for your counterplan. Just a hint, a card that says states have acted uniformly and another card that says the states have poverty programs doesn’t cut it. You need a card that is as specific as the aff solvency advocate. Of course, if the aff solvency advocate doesn’t really match up to the plan it will probably be difficult for the aff to convince me that the counterplan should be rejected for lack of an advocate.
It would help make theory/topicality debates better if you SLOW DOWN so I can flow your arguments. It’s not necessarily a clarity issue it’s just that it’s very difficult for judges to flow short analytical arguments as fast as you can spit them out.
“Voting issue – fairness and education” usually gets flowed as VI F@E and I presume that means it’s a voting issue if they go for whatever argument you have identified as a VI. If you expect it to be a voting issue if they don’t go for it then you need to give some type of warrant as to why the debate has been skewed by them merely making the argument.

9 One good card is better than three short bad ones. Qualifications should matter but debaters rarely take the time to explain what constitutes qualified evidence and what doesn’t. In front of me that would be time worth spending.

10 Confidence is good. It’s better when it’s backed up with smart arguments and good evidence. If you disrespect your opponents because of some inflated sense of your own importance be prepared for low speaker points.

11 If it sounds like you read the same argument every debate, your coach wrote all your blocks, and you have no idea how your arguments interact with your opponent’s arguments then your speaker points aren’t going to be very good. My argument preferences are way less important than your ability to explain arguments. When in doubt about what arguments to go for choose arguments you understand, you can answer cx questions about, and arguments you will be able to explain in rebuttals.

12 If you have questions about the decision please ask them. Don’t be afraid to ask pointed questions. However, don’t become the debater who always whines about every decision as if they have never lost a debate. Word gets around.

13 I don’t penalize your time to jump/email material to your opponents but I’m a stickler for stolen prep so if I think you are abusing the privilege be prepared to be called out on it. You get ten minutes of “crash” time per debate. If you computer crashes and you need to restart I won’t penalize your prep time. I’ll set a timer for 10 minutes and if you can’t get your computer ready in 10 minutes you are going to have to start anyway. Most other issues related to this are covered under #4.

I REALLY love policy debate

This is my twenty sixth year as an active member of the policy debate community. After debating in both high school and college I immediately jumped into coaching high school policy debate. I have been an argument coach, full time debate instructor, program director, and argument coach again for Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart in Miami, FL for the past seventeen years.

I become more convinced every year that the switch side nature of policy debate represents one of the most valuable tools to inoculate young people against dogmatism. I also believe the skills developed in policy debate – formulating positions using in depth research that privileges consensus, expertise, and data and the testing of those positions via multiple iterations—enhance students’ ability to think critically.

I am particularly fond of policy debate as the competitive aspect incentivizes students to keep abreast of current events and use that information to formulate opinions regarding how various levels of government should respond to societal needs.

Equipping students with the skills to meaningfully engage political institutions has been incredibly valuable for me. Many of my debate students have been Latina/Latinx. Witnessing them develop an expert ability to navigate institutions, that were by design obfuscated to ensure their exclusion, continues to be one of the most rewarding experiences of my life and I am constantly grateful for that privilege.

Delivery and speaker points

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing trend toward clash avoidance. This practice makes debate seem more trivial each year and continues to denigrate our efforts in the eyes of the academics we depend on for funding and support.

Affirmatives continue to lean into vague plan writing and vague explanations of what they will defend. This makes for late breaking and poorly developed debates. I understand why students engage in these practices (the competitive incentive I lauded above) I wish instructors and coaches understood how much more meaningful their contributions would be if they empowered students to embrace clash over gimmicks.

I will be less persuaded by your delivery if you choose to engage in clash avoidance. Actions such as deleting analytics, refusal to specify plans, cps, and K alts, allowing your wiki to atrophy, and proliferating stale competition style and Intrinsicness arguments will result in my awarding fewer speaker points.

Remember your friends’ hot takes and even your young coaches/lab leaders’ hot takes are just that – they are likely not the debates most of your critics want to adjudicate.

If you are not flowing during the debate, it will be difficult to persuade me that you were the most skilled debater in the room.

Be “on deck.” By that I mean be warmed up and ready for your turn at bat. Have your table tote set up, the email thread ready, you pens/paper/timer out, your laptop charged, go to the restroom before the round, fill up your water bottle, etc. I don’t say all this to sound like a mean teacher – in fact I think it would be incredibly ableist to really harp on these things or refuse to let students use the facilities mid-round – but being ready helps the round proceed on time and keeps you in the zone which helps your ability to project a confident winning persona. It also demonstrates a consideration for me, your opponents, your coaches and teammates and the tournament staffs’ time.

Be kind and generous to everyone.

Argument predispositions

You can likely deduce most of this from the discussion of clash avoidance and why I value debate above.

I would prefer to see a debate wherein the affirmative defends the USFG should increase security cooperation with the NATO over AI, Biotech, and/or cybersecurity.

I would like to see the negative rejoin with hypothetical disadvantages to enacting the plan as well as introducing competing proposals for resolving the harms outlined by the affirmative.

One of the more depressing impacts to enrolling in graduate school has been the constant reminder that in truth impact d is >>> than impact ev. A few years ago, I was increasingly frustrated by teams only extending a DA and impact defense vs. the case – I thought this was responsible for a trend of fewer and fewer affirmatives with intrinsic advantages. I made a big push for spending at least 50% of the time on each case flow vs the internal link of the advantage. My opinion on this point is changing. Getting good at impact defense is tremendously valuable – you are likely examining peer reviewed highly qualified publications and their debunking of well…less than qualified publications.

I find Climate to be one of the most strategic and persuasive impacts in debate (life really). That said, most mechanisms to resolve climate presented in debates are woefully inadequate.

I am not averse to any genre of argument. Every genre has highs and lows. For example, not all kritiks are generic or have cheating alternatives, not all process counterplans are unrelated to the topic, and not all politics disadvantages are missing fundamental components but sometimes they are and you should work to avoid those deficiencies.

Like minds

The folks with whom I see debate similarly:

Maggie Berthiaume

Dr. Brett Bricker

Anna Dimitrijevic

David Heidt

Fran Swanson

 

Getting Higher Speaker Points with Me

1. Go as fast as you want, but I do try to listen to the evidence, so please speak clearly. Make sure your tags and cites are flowable; slower/louder/shorter helps.

2. Assertive is great. Aggressive, not so much. The line tends to be attacking the argument rather than the person.

3. Make the round easy for me. Write my ballot for me through a comparative analysis of competing positions. That means, among other things, not forgetting about impact calculus, and showing me the easy way to vote for you. Assume I'm lazy, and do the work for me. I typically won't read cards after the round unless there is a debate specifically about what a card said.

4. I welcome post-round questions about ways you can improve, whether when debating in front of me or generally. Don't bother trying to persuade me that I got things wrong. I might have, but it won't affect my decision, and you are missing an opportunity to have a more productive conversation and make a positive impression.

Personal Biases

1. There's a periodic change of topics for a reason, so absent amazing arguments to the contrary, I think affs need to be topical. I enjoy debates about the topic, and hate debates about "gotchas". For example, I prefer not to spend an hour or so of my life thinking about and resolving disclosure theory issues.

2. Similarly, I will vote on kritiks, but the neg needs to have a clear link and alt. I am sympathetic to permutations, particularly for Ks in which the alt is to think about things in a different way, unless someone does a great job at explaining how the other side's mindset is truly incompatible with the alt.

3. Tech over truth, but only if there is tech. That means there first needs to be an actual argument. I'm not going to vote for you just because the other side drops a blip that isn't explained or impacted.

4. Ethical behavior is important. If there is a significant ethics concern, raise it and impact the argument, but do not do so frivolously. Ethics violations are serious matters, and should be reserved for actual misconduct.

5. Similar to #4, I think everyone should be respectful of each other, but am unlikely to be sympathetic to arguments that a team should lose, for example, because they or their cited authors chose pronouns poorly. If the intent is malicious, however, that's different.

Updated Pre-Emory 1/9/2020

Email chain please: croark@trinity.edu

Professor and Assistant Director of Debate at Trinity University, Coach at St. Mark's School of Texas

I view my role as judge to be an argument critic and educator above everything else. As part of that, you should be mindful that a healthy attitude towards competition and the pursuit of kindness and respect are important.

Biases are inevitable but I have been in the activity for +10 years and heard, voted, and coached on virtually every argument. I genuinely do as much as possible to suspend my preconceived beliefs and default to explanation/comparison.

Quality > quantity – 1NC’s with a high volume of bad arguments will have a hard ceiling on speaker points & I will generously allow new 1AR arguments.

Speed is the number of winnable arguments you can communicate to your judge. I will usually say “clear” twice before I stop flowing your speech. If you can't flow or comprehend your partner that's a problem. If you don't sign-post I am likely to give-up on flowing your speech.

I try to flow CX so please make reference. CX is about LISTENING and responding – let your opponent finish their answer/question, acknowledge it, and then move to the next point. Be polite if you have to interrupt.

Everyone should give two speeches. I’ll only flow the assigned person during speeches.

Framework --- I’ve voted on all kinds of different impact arguments. Debate has wide-ranging value to folks and I think you should be willing to defend why it’s important to you in any given situation. Defense can be very compelling: Neg teams should win an overarching theory of how their model absorbs/turns the 1ac’s offense with explanations of switch-side or TVA examples that interface well with the aff. The TVA should be a proof of concept, not a CP. Aff teams should win a counter-interp/alternative model of what debate looks like OR terminal offense to the neg’s model of debate. Above everything, you should think strategically and react instead of just reading some dusty, generic blocks.

Dartmouth College, 2022

Woodward Academy, 2018

Last Updated: 01-06-2023

Put me on email chain: ask at the beginning of the round :)

Overview

Be nice, be clear, and make arguments supported by evidence.

My promise: I will try my best to judge each debate attentively and enthusiastically and provide each debater with constructive criticism.

Fran Swanson
Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart ’13
Harvard ‘17
franswanson95 [at] gmail.com (please add me to the email chain)

I debated at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart for 4 years and I'm currently a college senior. Assume no familiarity with the topic: acronyms, “norms” that have developed about topicality, and other topic-specific knowledge must be explained.

The aff should defend a plan that is an example of a topical action by the United States federal government. Teams that do not do this (or vaguely claim to in 1AC cx but shift out of this later) will be vulnerable to framework/topicality. A topical example of the aff when paired with well-impacted arguments about ground and fairness is a persuasive 2NR.

Each debate comes down to a few key questions. Give 2NRs and 2ARs that "write the ballot" by resolving these. Make fewer, more well-explained arguments (this goes for the 1AR too) with "even if" statements. 

Debate in a way that shows me how hard you work: read high quality evidence, be familiar with it, have an end-of-round vision, and plan strategic CXs.

Silly T violations, procedurals (ASPEC, etc), and bad theory arguments (new affs bad, no neg fiat, etc) are a waste of time and will hurt your speaker points.

Kritiks must be made specific to the aff/advantages/impacts (possible with an IR or consumption K, impossible with a death/suffering K). Don't neglect the case-- use solvency deficits, impact defense, and framing arguments. The aff is often in good shape with well-explained perms, attacks of alt solvency, and distinguishing the 1AC from the neg's (usually broad) link arguments.

Theory must be slow, consistently explained/extended, and impacted to be winnable. I will hold the 2AR very closely to the 2AC/1AR extension. Conditionality is good, within limits. A well-explained, impacted, and flowable push by the aff could persuade me otherwise. Theory requires a significant 1AR time investment. 

Non-condo theory is usually a reason to reject the argument but can be explained otherwise with significant investment on impact assessment. Conditions, consult, process, and agent CPs need specific solvency advocates and are very susceptible to theory. They are often so poor that they can be beaten on well-worded/explained perms and low risk of a net benefit.

Don’t overlook the internal link level of the case debate. Negs with well-impacted solvency take outs are in great shape against 2AR “try-or-die” framing. Case turns and impact turn debates are awesome and often determined by evidence and time frame comparison.

Competing interpretations seems like the least arbitrary way to evaluate topicality but a well-explained reasonability argument can help the aff. Reasonability requires a counter-interpretation. Evidence comparison is essential. So is a case list and topical version of the aff. Topicality is never a reverse-voting issue.

Dropped arguments are true but must be impacted and can be outweighed by other arguments.

--- NDCA 2022 update: I haven't thought much about debate since high school ('18). The majority of the below will still hold true, but I'm guessing I'll probably think through debates a bit less through a purely technical lens (than I would have in HS) and a bit more through the lens of argument/evidence quality instead. I also haven't judged a debate in the Zoom era before, so pls be patient with me and make an extra effort to be clear :)

---

Put me on the email chain: 18wilsonh@gmail.com as well as smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Things you should know:

- Assume no topic knowledge -- I don't follow the HS topic; explain acronyms, don't depend on the "community opinion" of an argument, over-explain complex args and do good high-lvl framing

- Tech is top priority, but good evidence is right below that -- cards need to meet a basic threshold of quality for them to mean anything anyway

- Link/overall strategy specificity matters a lot, but is obviously difficult on every topic -- again, technical superiority almost always wins debates, but specific strategies lower the bar

I went to St. Mark's and primarily was a DA/CP debater. For better or worse, I believe the following are important: fairness, speech clarity, case debating, and explanation

Thoughts on specific arguments:

Counterplans: great, specificity is better, advantage/states are fine, process is yucky, condo is fine without ideological inconsistencies

Disads: link magnitude is mort important, good 2nr framing wins debates, turns case args are lovely

T and Theory: when it's clearly an issue / abusive, go for it; otherwise, I'm pretty lenient

Kritiks: Not my favorite -- please thoroughly explain link/impact arguments, minimize the use of sweeping assertions, explain alternatives, use good high-level framing

Framework: makes the game work. Not a great judge for non-topical affs