UCO Joe C Jackson Tournament
2013 — OK/US
Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideSome tidbits to consider, no particular order:
I try to make decisions based on criteria established by debaters. If none are offered, I will rely on my knowledge of convention, style, and execution to guide me. What that means - I am equally likely to vote for a good thought experiment or critical intervention, as I am a traditional policy proposal. That being said, I have a higher threshold for what counts. Asserted risk calculus is as unappealing as unapplied critical jargon.
Mediocre debaters copy others. Good debaters advance arguments. Great debaters persuade.
Don’t assume I know what you are talking about
I prefer organization and development of arguments as the debate proceeds. That means: 
Details matter. Warrants matter. Cross-ex matters. History matters. 

Evidence matters when a claim is contested. "We have a card" is not a warrant for an argument. How one chooses to highlight evidence should be of relevance to you, but it is especially relevant to me.


Argument "type" is not extremely relevant to me - select the arguments that you are prepared for rather than those that you think I agree with. I obviously have preferences but am interested in seeing how you make sense of the activity, not with advancing my agenda.


I think the activity is at its best when rounds are serious and complex investigations of policy, philosophy, and politics based in literatures and discussions made relevant by and to the resolution. 

That means I am less likely to care about miniscule theory debates or certain kinds of performances until/unless their relevance is clearly explained and impacted. Then, it's awesome.
I like:
case debates
disadvantage impacts that focus on early internal link claims and less on terminal impacts
affirmatives that affirm things
consistent but tricky negative strategies
counter plans with solvency advocates and real net benefits
alternatives
some relation to reality, even if contested
ethos
serious theoretical objections, including topicality
Everyone is always learning - including me and you.
If you are unable to come up with a better name for me, then you should just call me Andrew.
I debated for the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I have coached for Kansas State University and the University of Pittsburgh. I am currently a Visiting Lecturer in Rhetoric, Film, and Screen Studies at Bates College. My undergraduate studies were in Philosophy and Political Science. My graduate work has been in Communication (MA) and Rhetorical Studies (PhD).
I am most familiar with critical and performative approaches to policy debate. I have no problem voting on framework, topicality, etc. in clash debates. I am comparatively less skilled at adjudicating traditional policy debates.
In a bygone era of debate (c. 2013-2017), I wrote a judging paradigm that you can find at the bottom of this page. In retrospect, it appears quaint and mildly amusing. In all likelihood, it is not all that helpful any longer. Below, I have provided an update for your consideration. Oddly, this update is less specific but perhaps more useful for determining whether you would like to have me adjudicate your debates.
Generally speaking, I hold the following presuppositions about debate:
(1) policy debate is a mode of inquiry that uses competition to motivate participants to develop divergent lines of argument in their pursuit of knowledge that is related to a predetermined resolution
(2) the intellectual, social, and civic benefits of policy debate accrue primarily through sustained engagement with dynamic points of clash that emerge from the articulation of conflicting propositions and/or performances
(3) the outcome of any individual debate only reflects the extent to which a judge can justify the claim that the winning team was able to establish the persuasiveness of their arguments relative to those of their opponents; such decisions do not determine whether any particular argument reflects the truth of some matter
(4) the value of a proposition and/or performance is not intrinsic to untested arguments any more than it is tied to the outcome of a particular debate; it, instead, emerges as a consequence of its iterative development and refinement through practices of research, revision, re-articulation, and revaluation
(5) your value as a person and your contributions to this community are not determined or measured by your ratio of win to losses; much less does either of those things have anything to do with the way that a judge casts their ballot
As such, I tend to judge debates with preference for the following:
The affirmative should provide and defend a proposition and/or performance in support of the resolution. I would prefer not to judge debates that have nothing to do with the topic.
The negative should provide and defend compelling reasons to reject the proposition and/or performance advanced by the affirmative. I would prefer not to judge debates where negative strategy does not involve direct engagement with the affirmative.
Competition between affirmative and negative arguments should develop by way of clearly identifiable points of clash. I would prefer not to judge debates where the primary inclination is to avoid or eliminate clash.
Participants in the debate are responsible for identifying the points of clash that they would like me to evaluate. I would prefer not to judge debates where clash is assumed, embedded, implicit, unstated, or otherwise unclear.
The quality of a debate is largely correlated with the ability of its participants to identify and address the most significant points of clash by developing reasonable lines of inference in response. I would prefer not to judge debates where it is unnecessarily burdensome to track the ways that the participants determine and interact with divergent lines of argument.
The use of evidence to substantiate a claim or resolve a point of clash is often the best way to qualify the persuasiveness of arguments relative to those of an opponent; as a bonus, establishing reasons why argument evaluation should be guided by appeals to supplemental experiences, perspectives, expertise, and/or external standards of methodological rigor is pretty neat too. I would prefer not to judge debates where little-to-no value is placed in the use of evidence to substantiate arguments.
While I’m at it, here is some thinly veiled advice in a couple of ineloquently formed conditional statements:
If you would like to have me read the evidence that you have introduced in the debate, the likelihood of that happening increases dramatically if you include me in the email chain (aallsupgmail.com).
If you include me in the email chain with the presumption that I will read the evidence that you introduce in the debate, you should also know that the chances of me reading said evidence decreases dramatically when you include an unreasonable number of cards that end up not being read in your speech.
If you make me stare into the abyss (e.g., a “card doc” including cards that were not referenced by name in the rebuttals), I will entertain the possibility of letting the abyss star back at you (e.g., my blank stare when you ask how I evaluated x piece of evidence; I probably didn’t read it).
If you are worried that you are speaking too fast or that your words are too unclear for me to understand, you’re probably right. If you never question whether you are speaking too fast or whether your words are unclear, you should probably give questioning it a try.
If you consciously and willfully use discriminatory, prejudicial, and/or bigoted language to characterize, substantiate, or advance an argument (including, but not limited to, those pertaining to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, disability, class, income, language, heredity, etc.), you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.
If you attempt to leverage the competitive nature of this activity to try to justify some right to express and/or advance arguments that create to a hostile or otherwise discriminatory environment for members of a protected class, you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.
If your strategy relies on the expectation that you ought to be evaluated favorably for cruelty, humiliation, threats, or otherwise demeaning remarks that you’ve directed toward other debaters, judges, coaches, directors, etc., you shouldn’t expect me to recount much from the debate because I probably stopped listening and found a better use for my time.
Since nobody asked, here is a long-winded series of remarks on flowing, adjudicating, and RFD’s.
I will do my best to fairly adjudicate debates based on the arguments that were presented in the round. I do so, primarily, by referencing the record of those arguments as they appear on my flows. I have been flowing debates since I started debating in 2004. I’ve been using flows to reconstruct and evaluate debates since I started judging in 2013. I still occasionally miss arguments that my fellow judges happen to catch on their flows. Sometimes arguments which seem unclear on my flows end up appearing completely transparent on those of others. There have been many times where I did not record the same connections between arguments that those presenting them believe themselves to have expressed in the debate. I imagine that it has often been the case I may have decided a debate differently were I given a full transcript and the leisure to evaluate every detail, so as to avoid the possibility of having missed or misinterpreted something. Nevertheless, a flow is not a transcript and even the sometimes-indefinite delay in decision times when Harris is assigned to judge a debate is not sufficient to consider every detail of a given debate.
This is all to say that you should bear in mind that I perceive your arguments by both listening to your speech and recording them in writing; the latter serving as the primary basis upon which I will reconstruct arguments in the debate and determine who has won. You should be constructing and presenting your arguments in a way that is fitted to the various processes that are typically involved in judging this format of debate: listening, writing, reconstructing, and evaluating. For those of us who flow debates, we are listening to a constant stream of new information while simultaneously attempting to efficiently record, in writing, what we can recall from our immediate and longer-term memory of the debate. In that same process, we are trying to manage a number of considerations: how different claims relate to each other, the quality of evidence and the ways it is being applied to the debate, we consider lines of inference as they related to those uses of evidence while also comparing them with those that were presented in other speeches, we look for strategic options and anticipate the consequences of those choices relative to others, and so on. The threshold between listening and writing involves a significant degree of information processing that can easily go awry when claims are unclear, speeches are disorganized, connections between claims are unstated, evidence is missing or unhelpful, etc.
This is all to say that, for me, the best thing a debater can do to maximize the likelihood of success is to observe the following maxim: debate in such a manner that you are directing how I should be navigating the threshold between the information that you have presented orally and the record that I am constructing on my flow in writing. In all the time that I have been judging debates, the teams that have been most successful are those who find ways to make these processes work for them rather than against them. This means resisting the temptation to convince yourself that you will win so long as you simply state “x, y, and z.” In addition, you should consider how to communicate “x, y, and z” in such a way that they not only find expression on the flow but, also, that I know what to do with those claims/arguments and how they affect the other elements of the debate. There is no formula to ensure that, in each instance, you will resolve every contingency that arises at this threshold between listening and writing, but there are basic practices that you can do to help me manage it in potentially favorable ways.
(1) The most important practice is to ensure that your strategic choices (including any conditional sub-strategies; e.g., “if we lose this argument, you can still vote for us because…”) are absolutely clear, preferably from the start of a speech and/or the top of a flow. If your strategic choices only become transparent when I’m being post-rounded, that’s obviously a problem. Thankfully, it is easily fixable.
(2) Next, identifying and defining the key points of disagreement or clash can establish the foundation for my decision-making. I would rather take directions from you when it comes to the key issues that require resolution in order to render a judgment about the debate. This is an extraordinarily underused technique, yet it tends to reap significant results when done well. There should be debate over the issues that I must ultimately resolve, the sequence with which they should be resolved, and how I should go about resolving them.
(3) You should be making use of clear comparisons between arguments throughout the debate. Speeches in a debate should involve, well, debate. If I’m comparing one monologue against another monologue—each of which contains some self-serving and otherwise incommensurable criteria for evaluation—my decision will likely be no more informed than a choice that is based on the flipping of a coin.
(4) Building on this discussion of comparison, you should be developing evaluative criteria to help me determine the way that I should adjudicate those comparisons. Refutation is not just about saying something that is different or opposite than your opponent but give clear standards for how to evaluate divergent perspectives, inferences, items of evidence, etc.
(5) Regarding evidence, I will typically only scrutinize or compare evidence when explicitly directed to do so in accordance with some definitive question about it that needs to be resolved. I won’t use your end-of-round “card doc” to reconstruct the debate. If you would like me to review pieces of evidence from the debate, there needs to be a clear reason for doing so. When I review it, what am I likely to find? Why is it significant? How should I use that information? What does it mean for the debate? Keep in mind, I’m not evaluating the arguments being made in the evidence that you provide. I’m evaluating the arguments that you are advancing, often with the utilization of evidence as support for them.
Alright, some final notes on RFD’s. In the event that you believe that I have incorrectly decided a debate, you’re always welcome register your disagreement in person or in writing. I only ask that you engage those discussions with the understanding that my decision reflects the best justifications that I could surmise within the decision time and based on the information on my flow (and, to a lesser extent, what I can reliably recall from memory). We may not see eye-to-eye on a decision, but helping me see the debate from your perspective may have beneficial effects that extend beyond the specific debate in question. Nevertheless, it’s worth recognizing from the outset that I will not change a decision based on a post-round conversation. I will, however, listen intently to your perspective with the goal of learning from it. If necessary, I will offer additional details about my decision with the hope that I can provide further clarity as to the reasons for my decision. In these conversations, however, my inclination will be to diffuse conflict because I don’t believe that RFD’s and post-round commentary ought to be an extension of the debate (let alone its own separate debate). Instead, I believe that they should be reciprocal, dialogical, and ultimately pedagogical opportunities to reflect on the debate while simultaneously participating in an ongoing and iterative effort to determine the value (or lack thereof) of divergent and conflicting propositions and/or performances as they are shaped over the course of a debating season.
When debaters utilize post-round conversations to help others learn more about their arguments and to help those involved in the debate to understand the ways that they think their arguments ought be evaluated, I often find myself more likely to perceive and consider argumentative subtleties and nuances that I didn’t notice initially when evaluating debates in the future. Generally speaking, I am unlikely to engage as openly or be receptive to post-round commentary that is demeaning or otherwise aimed at diminishing me or anyone else involved in the debate. Such conduct is not necessary to get me to admit to my own ignorance or to compel me to confirm that I may have made a mistake. I am quite willing to do so upon recognizing the error of my ways. If our differences in perspective are impossible to reconcile through constructive dialogue, in the absence of intimidation and bullying behavior, then the best remedy is to strike me in your judging preferences. Ultimately, none among us is immune to charges of ignorance and error; everyone involved debate (myself included) still has much to learn about whatever issues happen to be at stake in a given dispute. If we can’t find ways to resolve those issues without cruelty, humiliation, threats, and the like, then I’m not convinced that we can sincerely champion the virtues of dialogue, deliberation, and debate that supposedly drive our commitment to engage our disagreements in this activity.
That all being said, I realize that wins and losses do often function as a kind of social currency in debate. I also realize that there is no way to completely avoid using them, consciously or unconsciously, as a way to measure our own sense self-worth or to determine whether we are meaningfully contributing anything to this activity. I felt those pressures when I debated, at least. Mixing competition with education and advocacy is often a dangerous proposition. It can be downright destructive to self-esteem and the bonds of community and belonging. The optimistic promises of a platform for creativity, expression, and advocacy meets its limits when evaluation and judgement can have the effect of limiting opportunity and access (whether that involves the ability to participate in elimination rounds, denying enjoyment of the social currency that comes with it, etc.). I can’t claim to know how to resolve these effects and preserve the competitive structure of the activity. The best I can offer is to adjudicate debates transparently and to communicate the reasons for my decisions with honesty and care. My hope is that none of my decisions have the effect of diminishing your sense of self-worth or your value in the debate community. If my RFD has the effect on you, I encourage you to either tell me directly or ask a mutual friend or colleague to relay that sentiment to me. My preference is to, hopefully, find a way to make amends. Barring those (hopefully) exceptionally circumstances where there is a need to have difficult conversations about offensive language, objectionable lines of argument, or unacceptable conduct, my goal is to communicate both wins and losses in ways that demonstrate the respect that you deserve and the consideration that your arguments are owed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is my expired paradigm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Biographical Information:
I am in the second year of a doctoral program in Communication and Rhetoric at the University of Pittsburgh. I helped coach at Kansas State University for two years while earning an MA. I debated for 5 years at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
II. The Big Picture
Evidence:
First, this is a competitive academic activity and I expect the evidence you introduce into the debate to meet a certain level of intellectual rigor. This does not mean that every piece of evidence needs to be from a peer-reviewed source (although it is often preferable) but it should contain a coherent argument (i.e. claim and warrant). Hint: one line cards rarely (read: never) meet this standard.
Second, quality always trumps quantity. The “strategic” decision to read a bunch of cards that either come from questionable sources or fail to make a coherent argument will never beat one well-warranted card. This shouldn’t be controversial yet somehow debate has conditioned otherwise intelligent people to think otherwise.
Third, question your opponent’s sources. This is a quick way to get favorable speaker points from me. Do your opponent a favor and tell them that their sources are unqualified. Do me a favor and explain why I should disregard certain pieces of evidence because they aren’t academically credible and unfit for this academic community. Bottom line: read unqualified/bad evidence at your own risk.
Paperless Information: Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive/send the email. If you are doing an email chain then you should include me in it (my email is aallsup[at]gmail.com).
Good Speaker Points 101:
- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
- Clarity: If I cant hear/understand your argument I will not flow/evaluate it
- “Extinction” or “Nuclear War” is not a tag. Tags include claims AND warrants
- Author name extensions are insufficient. Don’t do it. Make an argument and use the evidence to support it
- Cross-X is a speech and it will factor heavily in speaker point distribution. I reward good questions and responses.
- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate
III. Argument Specific:
Topicality/Theory:
First, I am not the judge for you to stake the round on arbitrary interpretations. You need to be able to defend that your interpretation presents a useful norm that should be universalized within debate. That being said, I default to competing interpretations but have a decently low thresholds for critiques of topicality/theory when interpretations are wholly arbitrary.
Second, if you want to win a critique of topicality/theory you must prove that the exclusion of the affirmative is worse than the negatives ability to expect a fair, limited, or predictable debate.
Third, I tend to side with the idea that conditionality is a beneficial and educational tool in debate. The affirmative will have to win a decisive and tangible impact in order to get me to vote against conditionality. That being said, there is a point at which conditionality can be abused and that abuse trades off with good scholarship. I’m not the person to read nine conditional advocacies in front of. At a certain point there is an inverse relationship between number of advocacies and good arguments that demeans the purpose of engaging each other in this competitive academic forum.
Fourth, you can read your agent/actor counter plans and I will evaluate them fairly but I certainly will not be happy about it. My belief is that the negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. I don’t think competition based on the “certainty” of the plan is productive or interesting.
Fifth, my default is that most theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you think you can win a reason to reject the team then go for it. I guess we will find out what happens.
Counterplans: I’m not a fan of conditions/consultation counterplans. I think they should be both textually and functionally competitive. The negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. If you’re affirmative, don’t be afraid to go for theory. However, as mentioned before, I often find theory to be a reason to reject the argument not the team. As a former 2a I am not even in the ballpark when it comes to word pics/floating pics. Reading it as a critique solves your pedagogical net benefit. QED.
Disadvantages: Higher risk almost always beats a higher magnitude. You should always make disad turns the case arguments. You must provide some sort of impact calculation in order to have me interpret your strategy favorably.
Politics:
First, the story has to match. Please don’t make me listen to a scenario that doesn’t have matching parts. If the uniqueness and link evidence don’t assume the same politician/group of politicians then you lose.
Second, explain the implication of core defensive arguments. If Obama has no political capital or if the negative is missing a crucial internal link then you need to explain how that affects everything else they are saying.
Third, surprisingly I find myself enjoying politics debates more and more. Don’t hesitate to go for it when I’m judging. Just be smart about it – put your logical-analytic skills to work and make the debate worth listening to.
Critical Affirmatives and Framework:
First, I don’t think framework is a voting issue. Framework is a means by which I determine how to evaluate the round.
Second, topicality is absolutely essential to winning a framework debate when you’re negative.
Third, you need to prove that your interpretation can offer the possibility for the same education as the affirmative has provided to emerge. The best way to do this is to offer a topical version of the 1ac. Another way to do this is provide other topical examples that produce the same pedagogical effect as the 1ac.
Fourth, you also need to prove some competitive reason why the negative has been disadvantaged by the affirmative. More importantly, you need to prove why this violation of competitive equity impacts or implicates their education impacts.
Critiques:
First, the worst thing you can do is read a critique that you have little-to-no knowledge about or practice debating. Critiques are hard to win. I loved debating them. They’re all I debated. However, my experience has led me to conclude that I should have a high standard for those who wish to read critical arguments. It’s better for you (because you learn more about an absolutely fascinating literature base) and it’s better for me (because I don’t have to listen to bad scholarship).
Second, framework against the negative critique is rarely a winning strategy. Reading a bunch of cards is rarely a good strategy. Find the 2 or 3 crucial issues you need to win and win them with good arguments. For example, instead of telling the negative they need to provide a policy option, why not just win that policymaking is the best way to solve the impact to the critique?
If you are unable to come up with a better name for me, then you should just call me Andrew.
I debated for the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I have coached for Kansas State University and the University of Pittsburgh. I am currently a Visiting Lecturer in Rhetoric, Film, and Screen Studies at Bates College. My undergraduate studies were in Philosophy and Political Science. My graduate work has been in Communication (MA) and Rhetorical Studies (PhD).
I am most familiar with critical and performative approaches to policy debate. I have no problem voting on framework, topicality, etc. in clash debates. I am comparatively less skilled at adjudicating traditional policy debates.
In a bygone era of debate (c. 2013-2017), I wrote a judging paradigm that you can find at the bottom of this page. In retrospect, it appears quaint and mildly amusing. In all likelihood, it is not all that helpful any longer. Below, I have provided an update for your consideration. Oddly, this update is less specific but perhaps more useful for determining whether you would like to have me adjudicate your debates.
Generally speaking, I hold the following presuppositions about debate:
(1) policy debate is a mode of inquiry that uses competition to motivate participants to develop divergent lines of argument in their pursuit of knowledge that is related to a predetermined resolution
(2) the intellectual, social, and civic benefits of policy debate accrue primarily through sustained engagement with dynamic points of clash that emerge from the articulation of conflicting propositions and/or performances
(3) the outcome of any individual debate only reflects the extent to which a judge can justify the claim that the winning team was able to establish the persuasiveness of their arguments relative to those of their opponents; such decisions do not determine whether any particular argument reflects the truth of some matter
(4) the value of a proposition and/or performance is not intrinsic to untested arguments any more than it is tied to the outcome of a particular debate; it, instead, emerges as a consequence of its iterative development and refinement through practices of research, revision, re-articulation, and revaluation
(5) your value as a person and your contributions to this community are not determined or measured by your ratio of win to losses; much less does either of those things have anything to do with the way that a judge casts their ballot
As such, I tend to judge debates with preference for the following:
The affirmative should provide and defend a proposition and/or performance in support of the resolution. I would prefer not to judge debates that have nothing to do with the topic.
The negative should provide and defend compelling reasons to reject the proposition and/or performance advanced by the affirmative. I would prefer not to judge debates where negative strategy does not involve direct engagement with the affirmative.
Competition between affirmative and negative arguments should develop by way of clearly identifiable points of clash. I would prefer not to judge debates where the primary inclination is to avoid or eliminate clash.
Participants in the debate are responsible for identifying the points of clash that they would like me to evaluate. I would prefer not to judge debates where clash is assumed, embedded, implicit, unstated, or otherwise unclear.
The quality of a debate is largely correlated with the ability of its participants to identify and address the most significant points of clash by developing reasonable lines of inference in response. I would prefer not to judge debates where it is unnecessarily burdensome to track the ways that the participants determine and interact with divergent lines of argument.
The use of evidence to substantiate a claim or resolve a point of clash is often the best way to qualify the persuasiveness of arguments relative to those of an opponent; as a bonus, establishing reasons why argument evaluation should be guided by appeals to supplemental experiences, perspectives, expertise, and/or external standards of methodological rigor is pretty neat too. I would prefer not to judge debates where little-to-no value is placed in the use of evidence to substantiate arguments.
While I’m at it, here is some thinly veiled advice in a couple of ineloquently formed conditional statements:
If you would like to have me read the evidence that you have introduced in the debate, the likelihood of that happening increases dramatically if you include me in the email chain (aallsupgmail.com).
If you include me in the email chain with the presumption that I will read the evidence that you introduce in the debate, you should also know that the chances of me reading said evidence decreases dramatically when you include an unreasonable number of cards that end up not being read in your speech.
If you make me stare into the abyss (e.g., a “card doc” including cards that were not referenced by name in the rebuttals), I will entertain the possibility of letting the abyss star back at you (e.g., my blank stare when you ask how I evaluated x piece of evidence; I probably didn’t read it).
If you are worried that you are speaking too fast or that your words are too unclear for me to understand, you’re probably right. If you never question whether you are speaking too fast or whether your words are unclear, you should probably give questioning it a try.
If you consciously and willfully use discriminatory, prejudicial, and/or bigoted language to characterize, substantiate, or advance an argument (including, but not limited to, those pertaining to race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, marital status, familial status, sexual orientation, gender identity, genetic information, disability, class, income, language, heredity, etc.), you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.
If you attempt to leverage the competitive nature of this activity to try to justify some right to express and/or advance arguments that create to a hostile or otherwise discriminatory environment for members of a protected class, you can expect to lose the debate and receive a 0 for speaker points.
If your strategy relies on the expectation that you ought to be evaluated favorably for cruelty, humiliation, threats, or otherwise demeaning remarks that you’ve directed toward other debaters, judges, coaches, directors, etc., you shouldn’t expect me to recount much from the debate because I probably stopped listening and found a better use for my time.
Since nobody asked, here is a long-winded series of remarks on flowing, adjudicating, and RFD’s.
I will do my best to fairly adjudicate debates based on the arguments that were presented in the round. I do so, primarily, by referencing the record of those arguments as they appear on my flows. I have been flowing debates since I started debating in 2004. I’ve been using flows to reconstruct and evaluate debates since I started judging in 2013. I still occasionally miss arguments that my fellow judges happen to catch on their flows. Sometimes arguments which seem unclear on my flows end up appearing completely transparent on those of others. There have been many times where I did not record the same connections between arguments that those presenting them believe themselves to have expressed in the debate. I imagine that it has often been the case I may have decided a debate differently were I given a full transcript and the leisure to evaluate every detail, so as to avoid the possibility of having missed or misinterpreted something. Nevertheless, a flow is not a transcript and even the sometimes-indefinite delay in decision times when Harris is assigned to judge a debate is not sufficient to consider every detail of a given debate.
This is all to say that you should bear in mind that I perceive your arguments by both listening to your speech and recording them in writing; the latter serving as the primary basis upon which I will reconstruct arguments in the debate and determine who has won. You should be constructing and presenting your arguments in a way that is fitted to the various processes that are typically involved in judging this format of debate: listening, writing, reconstructing, and evaluating. For those of us who flow debates, we are listening to a constant stream of new information while simultaneously attempting to efficiently record, in writing, what we can recall from our immediate and longer-term memory of the debate. In that same process, we are trying to manage a number of considerations: how different claims relate to each other, the quality of evidence and the ways it is being applied to the debate, we consider lines of inference as they related to those uses of evidence while also comparing them with those that were presented in other speeches, we look for strategic options and anticipate the consequences of those choices relative to others, and so on. The threshold between listening and writing involves a significant degree of information processing that can easily go awry when claims are unclear, speeches are disorganized, connections between claims are unstated, evidence is missing or unhelpful, etc.
This is all to say that, for me, the best thing a debater can do to maximize the likelihood of success is to observe the following maxim: debate in such a manner that you are directing how I should be navigating the threshold between the information that you have presented orally and the record that I am constructing on my flow in writing. In all the time that I have been judging debates, the teams that have been most successful are those who find ways to make these processes work for them rather than against them. This means resisting the temptation to convince yourself that you will win so long as you simply state “x, y, and z.” In addition, you should consider how to communicate “x, y, and z” in such a way that they not only find expression on the flow but, also, that I know what to do with those claims/arguments and how they affect the other elements of the debate. There is no formula to ensure that, in each instance, you will resolve every contingency that arises at this threshold between listening and writing, but there are basic practices that you can do to help me manage it in potentially favorable ways.
(1) The most important practice is to ensure that your strategic choices (including any conditional sub-strategies; e.g., “if we lose this argument, you can still vote for us because…”) are absolutely clear, preferably from the start of a speech and/or the top of a flow. If your strategic choices only become transparent when I’m being post-rounded, that’s obviously a problem. Thankfully, it is easily fixable.
(2) Next, identifying and defining the key points of disagreement or clash can establish the foundation for my decision-making. I would rather take directions from you when it comes to the key issues that require resolution in order to render a judgment about the debate. This is an extraordinarily underused technique, yet it tends to reap significant results when done well. There should be debate over the issues that I must ultimately resolve, the sequence with which they should be resolved, and how I should go about resolving them.
(3) You should be making use of clear comparisons between arguments throughout the debate. Speeches in a debate should involve, well, debate. If I’m comparing one monologue against another monologue—each of which contains some self-serving and otherwise incommensurable criteria for evaluation—my decision will likely be no more informed than a choice that is based on the flipping of a coin.
(4) Building on this discussion of comparison, you should be developing evaluative criteria to help me determine the way that I should adjudicate those comparisons. Refutation is not just about saying something that is different or opposite than your opponent but give clear standards for how to evaluate divergent perspectives, inferences, items of evidence, etc.
(5) Regarding evidence, I will typically only scrutinize or compare evidence when explicitly directed to do so in accordance with some definitive question about it that needs to be resolved. I won’t use your end-of-round “card doc” to reconstruct the debate. If you would like me to review pieces of evidence from the debate, there needs to be a clear reason for doing so. When I review it, what am I likely to find? Why is it significant? How should I use that information? What does it mean for the debate? Keep in mind, I’m not evaluating the arguments being made in the evidence that you provide. I’m evaluating the arguments that you are advancing, often with the utilization of evidence as support for them.
Alright, some final notes on RFD’s. In the event that you believe that I have incorrectly decided a debate, you’re always welcome register your disagreement in person or in writing. I only ask that you engage those discussions with the understanding that my decision reflects the best justifications that I could surmise within the decision time and based on the information on my flow (and, to a lesser extent, what I can reliably recall from memory). We may not see eye-to-eye on a decision, but helping me see the debate from your perspective may have beneficial effects that extend beyond the specific debate in question. Nevertheless, it’s worth recognizing from the outset that I will not change a decision based on a post-round conversation. I will, however, listen intently to your perspective with the goal of learning from it. If necessary, I will offer additional details about my decision with the hope that I can provide further clarity as to the reasons for my decision. In these conversations, however, my inclination will be to diffuse conflict because I don’t believe that RFD’s and post-round commentary ought to be an extension of the debate (let alone its own separate debate). Instead, I believe that they should be reciprocal, dialogical, and ultimately pedagogical opportunities to reflect on the debate while simultaneously participating in an ongoing and iterative effort to determine the value (or lack thereof) of divergent and conflicting propositions and/or performances as they are shaped over the course of a debating season.
When debaters utilize post-round conversations to help others learn more about their arguments and to help those involved in the debate to understand the ways that they think their arguments ought be evaluated, I often find myself more likely to perceive and consider argumentative subtleties and nuances that I didn’t notice initially when evaluating debates in the future. Generally speaking, I am unlikely to engage as openly or be receptive to post-round commentary that is demeaning or otherwise aimed at diminishing me or anyone else involved in the debate. Such conduct is not necessary to get me to admit to my own ignorance or to compel me to confirm that I may have made a mistake. I am quite willing to do so upon recognizing the error of my ways. If our differences in perspective are impossible to reconcile through constructive dialogue, in the absence of intimidation and bullying behavior, then the best remedy is to strike me in your judging preferences. Ultimately, none among us is immune to charges of ignorance and error; everyone involved debate (myself included) still has much to learn about whatever issues happen to be at stake in a given dispute. If we can’t find ways to resolve those issues without cruelty, humiliation, threats, and the like, then I’m not convinced that we can sincerely champion the virtues of dialogue, deliberation, and debate that supposedly drive our commitment to engage our disagreements in this activity.
That all being said, I realize that wins and losses do often function as a kind of social currency in debate. I also realize that there is no way to completely avoid using them, consciously or unconsciously, as a way to measure our own sense self-worth or to determine whether we are meaningfully contributing anything to this activity. I felt those pressures when I debated, at least. Mixing competition with education and advocacy is often a dangerous proposition. It can be downright destructive to self-esteem and the bonds of community and belonging. The optimistic promises of a platform for creativity, expression, and advocacy meets its limits when evaluation and judgement can have the effect of limiting opportunity and access (whether that involves the ability to participate in elimination rounds, denying enjoyment of the social currency that comes with it, etc.). I can’t claim to know how to resolve these effects and preserve the competitive structure of the activity. The best I can offer is to adjudicate debates transparently and to communicate the reasons for my decisions with honesty and care. My hope is that none of my decisions have the effect of diminishing your sense of self-worth or your value in the debate community. If my RFD has the effect on you, I encourage you to either tell me directly or ask a mutual friend or colleague to relay that sentiment to me. My preference is to, hopefully, find a way to make amends. Barring those (hopefully) exceptionally circumstances where there is a need to have difficult conversations about offensive language, objectionable lines of argument, or unacceptable conduct, my goal is to communicate both wins and losses in ways that demonstrate the respect that you deserve and the consideration that your arguments are owed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is my expired paradigm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Biographical Information:
I am in the second year of a doctoral program in Communication and Rhetoric at the University of Pittsburgh. I helped coach at Kansas State University for two years while earning an MA. I debated for 5 years at the University of Missouri-Kansas City.
II. The Big Picture
Evidence:
First, this is a competitive academic activity and I expect the evidence you introduce into the debate to meet a certain level of intellectual rigor. This does not mean that every piece of evidence needs to be from a peer-reviewed source (although it is often preferable) but it should contain a coherent argument (i.e. claim and warrant). Hint: one line cards rarely (read: never) meet this standard.
Second, quality always trumps quantity. The “strategic” decision to read a bunch of cards that either come from questionable sources or fail to make a coherent argument will never beat one well-warranted card. This shouldn’t be controversial yet somehow debate has conditioned otherwise intelligent people to think otherwise.
Third, question your opponent’s sources. This is a quick way to get favorable speaker points from me. Do your opponent a favor and tell them that their sources are unqualified. Do me a favor and explain why I should disregard certain pieces of evidence because they aren’t academically credible and unfit for this academic community. Bottom line: read unqualified/bad evidence at your own risk.
Paperless Information: Prep time stops when you pull the flash drive/send the email. If you are doing an email chain then you should include me in it (my email is aallsup[at]gmail.com).
Good Speaker Points 101:
- Make an complete argument (claim, warrant, and impact).
- Clarity: If I cant hear/understand your argument I will not flow/evaluate it
- “Extinction” or “Nuclear War” is not a tag. Tags include claims AND warrants
- Author name extensions are insufficient. Don’t do it. Make an argument and use the evidence to support it
- Cross-X is a speech and it will factor heavily in speaker point distribution. I reward good questions and responses.
- Get to the point: focus on the core issues of the debate
III. Argument Specific:
Topicality/Theory:
First, I am not the judge for you to stake the round on arbitrary interpretations. You need to be able to defend that your interpretation presents a useful norm that should be universalized within debate. That being said, I default to competing interpretations but have a decently low thresholds for critiques of topicality/theory when interpretations are wholly arbitrary.
Second, if you want to win a critique of topicality/theory you must prove that the exclusion of the affirmative is worse than the negatives ability to expect a fair, limited, or predictable debate.
Third, I tend to side with the idea that conditionality is a beneficial and educational tool in debate. The affirmative will have to win a decisive and tangible impact in order to get me to vote against conditionality. That being said, there is a point at which conditionality can be abused and that abuse trades off with good scholarship. I’m not the person to read nine conditional advocacies in front of. At a certain point there is an inverse relationship between number of advocacies and good arguments that demeans the purpose of engaging each other in this competitive academic forum.
Fourth, you can read your agent/actor counter plans and I will evaluate them fairly but I certainly will not be happy about it. My belief is that the negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. I don’t think competition based on the “certainty” of the plan is productive or interesting.
Fifth, my default is that most theory is a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you think you can win a reason to reject the team then go for it. I guess we will find out what happens.
Counterplans: I’m not a fan of conditions/consultation counterplans. I think they should be both textually and functionally competitive. The negative should only be allowed to fiat the agent of the resolution. If you’re affirmative, don’t be afraid to go for theory. However, as mentioned before, I often find theory to be a reason to reject the argument not the team. As a former 2a I am not even in the ballpark when it comes to word pics/floating pics. Reading it as a critique solves your pedagogical net benefit. QED.
Disadvantages: Higher risk almost always beats a higher magnitude. You should always make disad turns the case arguments. You must provide some sort of impact calculation in order to have me interpret your strategy favorably.
Politics:
First, the story has to match. Please don’t make me listen to a scenario that doesn’t have matching parts. If the uniqueness and link evidence don’t assume the same politician/group of politicians then you lose.
Second, explain the implication of core defensive arguments. If Obama has no political capital or if the negative is missing a crucial internal link then you need to explain how that affects everything else they are saying.
Third, surprisingly I find myself enjoying politics debates more and more. Don’t hesitate to go for it when I’m judging. Just be smart about it – put your logical-analytic skills to work and make the debate worth listening to.
Critical Affirmatives and Framework:
First, I don’t think framework is a voting issue. Framework is a means by which I determine how to evaluate the round.
Second, topicality is absolutely essential to winning a framework debate when you’re negative.
Third, you need to prove that your interpretation can offer the possibility for the same education as the affirmative has provided to emerge. The best way to do this is to offer a topical version of the 1ac. Another way to do this is provide other topical examples that produce the same pedagogical effect as the 1ac.
Fourth, you also need to prove some competitive reason why the negative has been disadvantaged by the affirmative. More importantly, you need to prove why this violation of competitive equity impacts or implicates their education impacts.
Critiques:
First, the worst thing you can do is read a critique that you have little-to-no knowledge about or practice debating. Critiques are hard to win. I loved debating them. They’re all I debated. However, my experience has led me to conclude that I should have a high standard for those who wish to read critical arguments. It’s better for you (because you learn more about an absolutely fascinating literature base) and it’s better for me (because I don’t have to listen to bad scholarship).
Second, framework against the negative critique is rarely a winning strategy. Reading a bunch of cards is rarely a good strategy. Find the 2 or 3 crucial issues you need to win and win them with good arguments. For example, instead of telling the negative they need to provide a policy option, why not just win that policymaking is the best way to solve the impact to the critique?
tl;dr update 2014:
Opinions I have on most of this stuff haven't changed, I don't think assertions of roles of the ballot are relevant I think Role of the Ballot are value priority arguments nothing more. Given the extremely aff biased nature of the 2014-2015 topic, at least at first, I see myself erring negative on a lot of theoretical issues and winning T debates will require a little more gumption and finesse than I may have held them to in previous seasons.
Disclaimer: These are just my opinions and default positions on various arguments in debate. You can win arguments that defy parts of this paradigm, I won't discount anything outright. The purpose of this is to let you know what biases I might bring in and what the paths of least resistance are. Anybody that says they don't bring bias into their decision is lying to themselves.
Early stuff out of the way, never undervalue defense. I think the distinction between terminal defense and mitigation is often overlooked. That said, if you win a yes/no issue over something essential either to affirmative or negative strategy it can take you far. If your negative strategy never contains case debate you're going to have an uphill battle.
I shouldn't have to say it but clarity is essential, if I have no idea what you're saying you might as well be saying nothing (something to keep in mind in analytic heavy debates).
Speaker points start at a 27.8 and go up and down from there. Efficiency, knowing when to call bullshit, and a cogent narrative for your argument vs a scatter shot approach will take you higher as will particularly effective and devastating cross-x. What will take you lower are obvious things like strategic fumbles (double turns, key concessions, etc), consistent lack of clarity, abhorrent rhetoric, and generally just being a turd sandwich. Try to be kind and respectful, if you're better than your opponent you should be stooping to a level outside civil discourse. That said if some offensive business happens I understand if you might take stuff personally, it's a social contract after all.
Role of the Ballot - Is not a thing. All it is is the value paradigm for interpreting/adjudicating the debate. Maybe someone dropped that part of the debate, but that seems unlikely. At the very least not saying the words "role of the ballot" does not rise to the level of dropping that section of the debate.
Topicality -Affirmatives should be a topical defense of the resolution. Do not confuse this with an instrumental defense of the resolution. While I think it is possible for you to win that all affirmatives must be an instrumental defense of the resolution I think a topic specific approach is more desirable than that debate. On the flipside being about the resolution is not the same as topical defense of it. A good example from topics past would be West Georgia DF's NRC aff (Wake 1AC). While there was maybe some debate there about what the restrictions on nuclear power were, they didn't defend a plan in any traditional sense but did defend the removal of a statutory restriction on licensing for reactor operation. My inclination is that these types of affs are probably topical even though they don't defend a plan. If you want to go for T versus a K aff a term of art violation for the topic is much better bet than "USfg" "Resolved" etc.
More generally for the argument while I default offense/defense if the negative cannot articulate a clear category of ground that is lost and explain why it is essential to strategy I don't care. Likewise if the aff loses some parts of T but can demonstrate there is not a significant distinction between the two worlds for ground they'll still probably be ok. "The difference that makes no difference is no difference."
Finally if you want to just impact turn T fine, that's a whole different debate and would be evaluated like any other impact turn debate.
Disads - They're fine. Not much to say. Politics scenarios can sometimes be confusing if the internal link chain is complicated or tricky. Just try to make sure I'm on the same page, the story of an argument is everything to me. I evaluate the disad first with PICs, if you don't have a DA that can get to its terminal on its own by the end of the debate "any risk" probably won't cut it, this in part goes back to what I said about the function of defense at the top.
Counterplans - They're cool but I need to know what the counterplan does, try to explain it in terms of its functional distinction from the aff as much as possible. Artificially competitive counterplans are a pet peeve but I also won my fair share of rounds on Consult Russia so that's a debate to be had. Counterplans that are textually competitive but not functionally competitive would be well served with some solid story telling about the net benefit because in reality most of them are probably bullshit but I'll entertain them nonetheless.
Kritiks -you need an alt. In theory you could win on case turns and such but you're gonna have to spend some time resolving all of the obvious problems with uniqueness and then you better have a link to the plan because turns based on reps are probably not going to cut it. I don't think you always have to have a link to the plan but if you're abandoning the alt this won't make much sense without it. The caveat to this is an argument that is grounded in debate pedagogy but then winning all the framing issues becomes paramount.
Policy affs that don't know what the neg is saying don't fret. As long as you have some offense and/or defense of your research methods, debate pedagogy vis a vis roleplaying/decision making, etc you'll be ok. At the same time realize that a lot of the time your onto/epist never first arguments don't make a ton of sense. Just don't get dragged down into the K muck and keep a clear head in the defense of your aff and you'll be fine. It's important to remember with Ks that will deploy many of those kinds of framing tricks that the alt has to solve the links or they are not relevant which brings me to the last thing I'll say about Ks.
It drives me absolutely insane when the framing of the alternative doesn't match the links. Ex - If you're reading a Cap K and many or all of your links are about material structures/economic power relations/etc but then your alternative is about giving up the ghost on ideology, something about ontological or epistemic shifts, do nothing etc. YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG. There is no conceivable world where that alt solves those links and all an aff has to do is point that out and I will probably just disregard them.
Theory - most explained above. Conditionality is probably ok. I don't think the neg needs an interpretation in a conditionality debate. The distinction between number of conditional advocacies is usually arbitrary as hell. I have yet to meet anyone that can quantify or even coherently explain a qualitative difference between 2 conditional worlds and 3, 3 vs 4, etc. 2 is better is than 3 is not going to cut it. Other theory arguments are a debate to be had.
I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North HS. I was an NDT/CEDA debater at Wichita State University (2012) and a graduate assistant at the University of Kansas. I have taught camp at Michigan or Kansas every year since I graduated. I typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pf/ld/speech.
email: brianbox4 @ gmail dot com - do not stop prep until you hit send on the email.
I really, really enjoy judging good debates. I really, really dislike judging debates that take two hours, lack clash and mostly involve unclearly reading a document into the screen. I care far more about your ability to speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. Good debate good, bad debate bad. I will vote for any argument you win.
Ultimately, the debate is not about me, and I will do my best to evaluate whichever strategy you pursue, but I am very bored by negative strategies that do not demonstrate an undesirable effect of the affirmative. There is a time and a place for most strategies, and I firmly believe there is no one right way to debate, but I wish more of the debates I judged were about core topic arguments and less about non-competitive counterplans (obviously debatable), generic critiques of fiat, poorly supported politics disads, ridiculous impact turns, etc.
I have found that 99% of high school debates are such clear technical victories that my argument specific thoughts aren't terribly relevant. As such, I want to emphasize a few points that are important for debating in front of me.
Points of emphasis - adhere to each of these and your speaker points will be no lower than a 29.
1. Clarity. Many of the debates I judge mumble and slur the text of evidence, and the transitions between arguments are difficult to follow. If I cannot understand you, I will say "clear" once. If I have to say it a second time, I will reduce your speaker points by a full point. If I have to say it a third time, I will stop flowing your speech.
2. Refutation. If you use your flow to identify the argument you are answering, read evidence with purpose and speak clearly while you do it, the floor for your speaker points will be a 29. If you start the timer and read straight down without saying which argument you are answering or how to apply your evidence, the ceiling for your speaker points will be a 27. Scouring the flow to fit the pieces together IS judge intervention.
3. Highlighting. I will completely ignore evidence that is highlighted nonsensically. The threshold is obviously subjective, so if you are of the school of thought that you should intentionally highlight your evidence poorly to force the judge to read the unhighlighted text on their own, I am not a good judge for you.
4. Flowing. If you aren't flowing the debate, I won't flow your speech.
5. Meaning of the plan. If asked to clarify the meaning of the plan in CX, you need to answer. The way you choose to answer is up to you, but If your plan is the resolution + one word, be prepared explain what it does. If you do not, I will A. automatically assume the negative CP competes or DA links (based on the part of the plan in question) and B. The burden for what the negative has to do to win a vagueness procedural or solvency argument becomes exceedingly low.
6. Prompting. Each speaker should give one constructive and one rebuttal. You are permitted to prompt your partner once per speech. Additional interruptions will result in a full speaker point deduction and the arguments being ignored.
7. CX. Each partner must ask questions in one CX and answer questions in one CX. You are permitted to ask or answer one question in a CX to which you are not assigned. Additional instances will result in a full speaker point deduction and the questions/answers being ignored.
Other things to know
Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. The application of meaningful author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore poorly supported arguments.
I cannot emphasize enough how important clarity is. I can't believe how often I see judges transcribing the speech document. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed - no matter how clear you are - is nearly impossible for me to understand.
Go for theory? I will never be the judge who views all sides of any theory debate to be equal, but am far more likely than I once was to vote for an argument about the scope of negative fiat. I am more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. Affirmatives should be extending theory arguments that say a type of counterplan or category of fiat is bad more often. Conditionality is good. Judge kick is my default.
The link matters the most.The first thing I look at is the link. When in conflict, it is more important to contest the link than the impact.
CX is huge. This is where you separate debaters who have researched their argument and can intentionally execute a strategy from debaters who have practiced reading unclearly as fast as possible. I don't flow CX, but I am very attentive and you should treat me like a lay judge because these moments will be impactful.
Shae Bunas
Debated @ Oklahoma for 4 years.
Currently an Assistant Coach @ UCO.
Big Picture
In general, I don't have much of a preference for what people read in front of me. Despite having debated critiques throughout college I enjoy CP/DA/T debates and hope teams will be willing to read those arguments if they are more prepared to do so. Whatever strategy you choose, the more specific the strategy the better.
Specific arguments
Topicality: Generic T arguments don't get very far in front of me unless they are based in the literature and the negative can prove that the loss of core (generic) ground outweighs the affs education claims (e.g., why is the politics da/other generic da more important than the aff's particular education). If the aff doesn't read any offense they will very likely lose the debate.
Framework: Absent a T component it's not a reason to reject the aff. I have yet to hear a good reason why policy education is the only predictable education.
Disads: 'DA turns the case' is pretty important. I could be persuaded of 'no risk of the da' but it's unlikely.
CPs: Well-researched PICs are enjoyable and I encourage you to read them. I tend to lean negative on theory but aff on questions of competition. Textual/functional competition is up for debate.
Critiques: In my experience, alternatives are under-debated. The aff needs offense against the alt and the neg needs a specific explanation of how the alt solves the case. Impact framing is important: don't stop at 'utilitarianism is key' or 'ethics first'. Tell me why you should still win even if you lose the impact framing debate (e.g., 'even if the neg wins that ethics comes first you will still vote aff because....'). Absent specific link analysis the permutation is pretty compelling. When deciding between reading the K you always go for and are comfortable with versus reading the K's you know that I read you should default to the K's that you are comfortable with. Don't read a huge-ass overview in the block, put it on the line-by-line.
Theory: Reading blippy blocks is a non-starter as are cheap shots. Just like every other issue in debate it needs to be well-developed before I will consider it. Conditionality is probably ok as long as the neg isn't reading contradictory positions.
Evidence: I prefer a handful of quality cards that are debated well over a stack of shitty cards that are read as fast as possible. As such, I'm persuaded by smart analytical arguments that point out the contrived nature of the case advantage/da/cp/k/whatever. You won't convince me that a card cut from a blog should be rejected if it has a warrant in it. I evaluate arguments, not qualifications with T debates being the exception to the rule: literature-based definitions hold more water than the definition given by merriam-webster or some other dictionary.
Paperless: Clock stops when the jumping team pulls the flash drive out of their computer.
Peter P Cancro's Judge Philosophy:
Some quick background; I've been judging debates, albeit at the HS level, for over a decade (and averaging over 100 rounds a year for the last 5 years or so). Fall 2013 will be my first semester working with KSU, and thus judging on the college level.
That said, I don't really have much of a paradigm anymore. I'm willing to vote on anything for any reason. The only rules that are non-negotiable are the speech times and some degree of civility/professionalism, and adherence to all legal constraints applicable to the jurisdiction(s) in which the debate occurs.
I prefer not to call for or read evidence; it should be the debaters' job to articulate what the evidence actually says and contest its meaning.
Any other preference I could list here would be a "weak default", subject to change based on the content of the debate round and relevant argumentation within it. For example, in general, I will consider evidence more credible than a debater's assertions. As a weak preference, that could be overcome by a debater's arguments and warrants contending that thier particular assertion is more credible or true than a particular card in that debate (especially if this argument is made, a warrant is given, and the other team drops it).
Other than the above, and the classical advice "don't drop things", the best way to win debates in front of me is to "get underneath" whatever level of analysis of the debate your opponent is engaging in. For example, if no one is dropping anything, but are only clashing based on the tags of the cards, you could easily win by making claims about the warrants of the relevant cards. If the warrants are being contested, then you could either give empirical examples that demonstrate why your card's warrants are superior (more true or more applicable to the circumstances being debated).
I hope that gives you some sense of who I am as a judge, and wish you luck competing or coaching someone to compete in front of me!
after a year of judging college dabaits i have decided to update my philosophy. i've taken time to reflect on the decisions i've made and how the changes in this philosophy have changed the rounds i've been in the back of the room for. as a result of making clear the issues i have with framework i have judged many interesting rounds. some say i have a tendency to vote for the team that goes furthest to the left, but i did vote on t last year. i feel that some judges do tend to be very ideological about their decisions but just don't say anything about it. i want to at least let you know what you are getting in to by having me in the back of the room. here is how i feel about particular arguments.
i will default to voting on the flow, but i am open to whatever the teams think the role of the ballot should be. you should just explain why it shouldn't just be based on the flow and i am happy to facilitate that discussion. i think what the ballot does, how it should function, and what it means are interesting and valuable questions worth discussing. i also flow cross-x, so if you wonder why i am frantically typing while y'all are doing cross-x, that's why.
t - i don't mind a good t debate. if you want to earn my ballot, it needs to be a substantial portion of the 2nr. i have voted on t more than once this year, you just have to win it.
theory - i actually enjoy theory debates and have also voted for theory this year. like t, it needs to be a substantial portion of the 2nr or 2ar, but it can earn my ballot.
framework - i did not vote on this argument last year. in fact, i will not vote on this argument, and i am not a huge fan of the "boggs k" either. it just seems to me that the argument is more about exclusion than inclusion and is more about refusing to debate than about encouraging education. if you are committed to reading this position, then you should be not pref me. there are plenty of other judges in the pool who will check in for framework, maybe pref one of them?
politics - i'm not much of an expert on the politix disad, there are definitely better people in the pool to pref if you want to read this argument. the few times i have heard it this year, i am pretty sure i voted the wrong way.
heg - it is really difficult to get me to check in for heg good. it just flies in the face of the last ten years of foreign policy in the u$. if heg solved war, why is there still tension in iraq and afghanistan? this is another argument that probably falls under the, "plenty of people who are not me are in the pool and will check in for this arg, so maybe pref them instead."
counterplans - they are fine.
critiques - i enjoy them, but you should do the work of explaining the position. it is important for me to understand all the parts of the k, not just the link and impact but what the alternative is and how it is supposed to function.
this is where i am at. i considered changing my philosophy to be less hostile to framework and politix/heg, but i think that is inconsistent with what i have done last year and will continue to do until i am dissuaded from doing so. until the elimination of mpj i will continue to use my ballot to cancel out those who do the exact opposite with framework and just check out whenever a performance, or non-traditional, or whatever term of art you want to you for teams beginning their 1acs with something other than a mass of cards.
oh, and prep time runs until the flash drive comes out of the computer or the e-mail is sent.
one last thing - because of my philosophy, i don't just a lot of fast rounds. so understand that if you go full speed, as fast as you can, it is possible that i may not get every single argument on my flow. prepare accordingly.
2023 update: I haven't judged in almost a decade. I'm just a local attorney. This old paradigm was too long to read but I thought this stuff once I guess but given it has a section, I wouldn't take it as authoritative. I am unaware of the topic and argumentative trends. I did go to the NDT 2 or 3 times long ago. I do take notes.
I've been advised to put my preferred email address here:
Old stuff from long ago starts here:
All arguments have links. All arguments have impacts.
I can and will evaluate your DA/CP strategy.
I prefer to defer to thematic applicability/evidence quality distinctions when evaluating directly competing claims (assuming explicit argument on the point).
I am willing to vote on holistic conceptual defense (no link to the DA, no risk of triggering an impact/internal link, etc.) when proven beyond doubt but I usually end up to assessing vague risk characterizations in the face of competing claims extended into the 2n/ar. I may be less familiar with acronyms or debate short-hand for certain topical artifacts/plans/actors than some of your more prefered judges.
Topicality - I find the evidence quality and scope in these debates dictates the strength of the debaters argument. This is not to say that evidence will be given undue weight against analytic arguments - on the contrary, I seek to reward teams who respond on-point with analytics rather than merely reading stacks/pages of cards.
Teams often either focus too much on the internal link/link questions or the terminal education/competition impacts to the exclusion of the other. Building these argument simultaneously by impacting each link as it is made will be more persuasive to me. I am open to the normative valuability of topicality debates in both directions. I also think that the text of your interpretation is absolutely critical.
Framework - I think that all topicality arguments assume some type of framework. Not all framework arguments enforce the same type of relationship to the topic, nor do they neccesarily answer the question of what the topic is.
It is the responsibility of the team forwarding an interpretation to clearly explain what is included/excluded in their interpretation (and the other teams' job to exploit those decisions). I don’t presume any minimum standards of advocacy for either team so if you want them to be forced to do something, explain why. That said, I find explicit defenses of one's own position more persuasive than attempts to cater to or accommodate the opposing teams arguments.
I have found that the text of the interpretation and violation is often considered to be an afterthought and I could not disagree more. Both are absolutely necessary to prove a link to the framework debate.
Theory - I defer to inclusion/permissibility meaning that I presume that you can do anything you want to in a debate round absent an argument to the contrary (which contains both a link and impact).
You can do/exclude anything you can justify. I am equally amenable to the plan-less 1ac, the contradictory, conditional negative impact turns and internal link turns as I would be to conditional consultation, PICs, or process counterplans.That means the burden is on the team who argues that the other's argument is impermissible (i.e. on aff to explain why the neg can't be condo, on the neg to explain why the aff must have a plan, etc.). This is significant.
Critiques - The more specific the link application, the better. I think the alt is permitted to dictate its own terms of competition (the desirability of employing this comparison as a method of competition is, of course, subject to debate). Impact comparison/interaction with the aff matters and its importance increases with the neg's reluctance to make physical violence impact calculations on the traditional probability-magnitude-timeframe scheme. To establish clash for your position on either side, quote evidence or arguments made in your opponents speeches rather than vaguely asserting that the opponents are/are not whatever you say they are.
Paperless Stuff: When you are your partner are no longer touching your respective computers (i.e. save has been hit already and you are waiting), your prep time will be stopped. I do not want to "follow along" with a copy of your speech. Instead, I will listen to you and write your arguments down on paper as I hear them.
David Cram Helwich
University of Minnesota
28 years judging, 20-ish rounds each year
Quick version: Do what you do best and I will try to check my dispositions at the door.
Topic Thoughts: We picked the wrong one (too narrow, needed at least sole purpose). Aff innovation is going to require NFU-subsets affs, but I have yet to see a good argument for a reasonable limit to such an interpretation. "Disarming" creates an unanticipated loophole. Process counterplans that are not directly related to nuclear policymaking seem superfluous given the strength of the negative side of the topic literature.
Online Debate: It is "not great," better than I feared. I have judged quite a few online debates over the past 3 years. Debaters will benefit by slowing down a bit if that enhances their clarity, avoiding cross-talk, and actively embracing norms that minimize the amount of "null time" in debates--watch for speechdocs and download them right away, pay attention to the next speaker as they give the order, be efficient in getting your speechdoc attached and sent, etc.
Evidence: I believe that engaged research is one of the strongest benefits of policy debate, and that judging practices should incentivize such research. I am a bad judge for you if your evidence quality is marginal—sources, recency, and warrants/data offered. I reward teams who debate their opponent’s evidence, including source qualifications.
Delivery: I will provide prompts (if not on a panel) if I am having trouble flowing. I will not evaluate arguments that I could not originally flow.
Topicality: I vote on well-developed procedurals. I rarely vote on T cheap shots. T is not genocide—however, “exclusion” and similar impacts can be good reasons to prefer one interpretation over another. Debaters that focus interpretation debating on caselists (content and size), division of ground, and the types of literature we read, analyzed through fairness/education lenses, are more likely to get my ballot. I tend to have a high threshold for what counts as a “definition”—intent to define is important, whereas proximity-count “definitions” seem more valuable in setting the parameters of potential caselists than in grounding an interpretation of the topic.
Critical Arguments: I have read quite a bit of critical theory, and will not dismiss your argument just because it does not conform to ‘traditional’ notions of debate. However, you should not assume that I am necessarily familiar with your particular literature base. I value debating that applies theory to the ‘artifact’ of the 1AC (or 1NC, or topic, etc). The more specific and insightful the application of said theory, the more likely I am to vote for you. Explaining what it means to vote for you (role of the ballot) is vitally important, for both “policy” and “K” teams. Absent contrary guidance, I view ‘framework’ debates in the same frame as T—caselist size/content, division of ground, research focus.
Disadvantages/Risk: I typically assess the ‘intrinsic probability’ of the plan triggering a particular DA (or advantage) before assessing uniqueness questions. This means that link work is very important—uniqueness obviously implicates probability, but “risk of uniqueness” generally means “we have no link.” Impact assessments beyond shallow assertions (“ours is faster because I just said so”) are an easy pathway to my ballot, especially if you have strong evidentiary support
Theory: I will not evaluate theoretical objections that do not rise to the level of an argument (claim, data, warrant). Good theory debating focuses on how the operationalization of competing interpretations impacts what we debate/research and side balance. Thought experiments (what would debate look like if the neg could read an unlimited number of contradictory, conditional counterplans?) are valuable in drawing such comparisons. I tend to find “arg not team” to be persuasive in most cases. This means you need a good reason why “loss” is an appropriate remedy for a theory violation—I am persuadable on this question, but it takes more than an assertion. If it is a close call in your mind about whether to go for “substance” or “theory,” you are probably better off going for “substance.”
Counterplans: The gold standard for counterplan legitimacy is specific solvency evidence. Obviously, the necessary degree of specificity is a matter of interpretation, but, like good art, you know it when you see it. I am more suspicious of multi-conditionality, and international fiat than most judges. I am probably more open to condition counterplans than many critics. PICs/PECs that focus debate on substantive parts of the aff seem important to me. Functional competition seems to make more sense than does textual competition. That being said, I coach my teams to run many counterplans that I do not think are legitimate, and vote for such arguments all the time. The status quo seems to be a legitimate voting option unless I am instructed otherwise. My assumption is that I am trying to determine the "best policy option," which can include the status quo unless directed otherwise.
Argument Resolution: Rebuttalists that simply extend a bunch of cards/claims and hope that I decide things in their favor do poorly in front of me. I reward debaters that resolve arguments, meaning they provide reasons why their warrants, data, analysis, sources etc. are stronger (more persuasive) than those of their opponents on critical pressure points. I defer to uncontested argument and impact comparisons. I read evidence on questions that are contested, if I want the cite, or if I think your argument is interesting.
Decorum: I believe that exclusionary practices (including speech acts) are unacceptable. I am unlikely to vote against you for being offensive, but I will not hesitate to decrease your points if you behave in an inappropriate manner (intentionally engaging in hostile, classist, racist, sexist, heterosexist, ableist etc. acts, for example). I recognize that this activity is very intense, but please try to understand that everyone present feels the same pressures and “play nice.”
Use an email chain--establish one before the round, and please include me on it (cramhelwich@gmail.com) . Prep time ends once the speechdoc is saved and sent. Most tournaments have policies on how to deal with "tech time"--please know what those policies are. I do not have a strong opinion on the acceptability of mid-speech prep for other purposes.
If you have specific questions, please ask me before the round.
Updated - Fall 2020
Number of years judging: 12
For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com
I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.
I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.
As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.
KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.
I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.
Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.
Scott Elliott, Ph.D. J.D.
Asst Director of Forensics, KCKCC
Years Judging: 35+
Judging Philosophy:
What you need to know 10 minutes before your round starts:
I believe the affirmative should affirm the resolution chosen by the organization. I have been persuaded to vote otherwise. But, it is tough.
That argument you always wanted to run, but were afraid to run it….this may be your day to throw the Hail Mary. I prefer impact turns and arguments that most judges dislike.
Affirmatives still have to win basic stock issues. I prefer counterplans and disads. But I also believe that the affirmative has a burden to defend the ontological, epistemological, pedagogical and ethical assumptions of the affirmative arguments they have chosen.
I have probably written, cut cards for and against, and coached teams about, the “cutting edge” argument you are thinking of running. I have also voted for it and against it depending upon how that argument is deployed in the round.
I am not intimidated nor persuaded by team reputation, verbal abuse, physical assaults or threats. If you won, I am willing to take the heat and I do not care about the community’s reaction. I have friends outside the debate community and I have my dogs. I don’t need to be your buddy and I certainly do not care about my social standing within this so-called “community.”
Memorable examples of ways teams have unexpectedly picked up my ballot:
1) Voted for Baylor one time because Emory misspelled their plan text;
2) Voted for Emporia once because their plan wiped-out the universe, destroying all life (you had to be there);
3) Voted numerous times on anthro kritiks, De-Dev, Cap K's, anarchy, malthus, space, aliens A-Life, etc.;
4) voted for a counter-performance because it made me feel more emotional than the 1AC narrative;
5) voted for porn good turns;
6) voted for genocide reduces overpopulation turns;
7) did not vote, but the team won, because they took my ballot filled it out, gave themselves the win and double 30's;
8) voted once on a triple turn--link turned, impact turned, and turned back the impact turn (had to be there);
9) voted on inherency;
10) voted on foul language in a round--both ways--foul language bad and "yeah, we said F***, but that's good" turns;
11) voted for veganism K while eating a cheeseburger.
One last point: All of you need to flow the round. The speech document they flash over to you is not the debater's actual speech. Look. Listen. You may be surprised what the other team is actually saying.
He/him
These are most of the predispositions I have about arguments that I can think of, these are not ironclad as my views on debate are constantly in flux. However, without being instructed otherwise, the below points will likely influence how I evaluate the debate.
Top Level:
-Please add me to the email chain, fifelski@umich.edu and please make the subject something that is easy to search like "NDT 4 - Michigan DM v UCO HS."
-I prefer to flow on paper, but if you would like me to flow on my computer so I can share the flow after the debate, just ask.
-I read along with speech docs and prefer clear, relatively slow, and organized debates. I am still trying to hone flowing in online debate.
-I cannot emphasize enough how important card quality and recency should be in debates, but it requires debaters to frame arguments about that importance.
-If you break a new aff and you don't want to share the docs, I will chalk it up to academic cowardice and presume that the aff is largely a pile of crap.
-Evidence can be inserted if the lines were read in CX, but otherwise this act is insufficient. I will only look at graphs and charts if they are analyzed in the debate.
-I generally think war good arguments are akin to genocide good. I also think dedev is absolute nonsense.
-The past year of my life has been filled with the death of loved ones, please don't remind me of it while I'm judging a debate. I categorically refuse to evaluate any argument that could have the thesis statement of death good or that life is not worth living.
-Affs should be willing to answer cross-x questions about what they'll defend.
Topic thoughts:
-I'm not a fan of this topic, but I don't think "aff ground" arguments make much sense in terms of the topicality debates from fringe affs. The topic is not "adjust nuke policy" so even if "disarming" was a poorly choice word, it doesn't mean you can just get rid of a handful of bombs. Anything else makes the triad portion of the topic irrelevant. It sucks, but the negative should not be punished because the community came to consensus on a topic. Want to fix it? Engage in the thankless work that is crafting the topic.
-Russia is 100% a revisionist power, at war in Europe, and is evil. My thoughts on China are more complex, but I do believe they would take Taiwan if given the chance.
How to sway me:
-More narrativization is better than less
-Ev quality - I think higher quality and recent ev is a necessity. Make arguments about the qualifications of authors, how to evaluate evidence, and describe what events have happened to complicate the reading of their evidence from 2012.
-The 2nr/2ar should spend the first 15-20 seconds explaining how I should vote with judge instruction. If you laid a trap, now is the time to tell me, because I’m probably not going to vote on something that wasn’t flagged as an argument.
-I can flow with the best of them, but I enjoy slower debates so much more.
-More case debate. The 2ac is often too dismissive of case args and the neg often under-utilizes them.
-If reading cards after the debate is required for me to have comprehension of your argument, I’m probably not your judge. I tend to vote on warranted arguments that I have flowed and read cards to evaluate particular warrants that have been called into question. That said, I intend on reading along with speech docs this year.
-I think internal links are the most important parts of an argument; I am more likely to vote for “Asian instability means international coop on warming is impossible” than “nuclear war kills billions” OR “our patriarchy better explains x,y,z” instead of “capitalism causes war.”
-I like when particular arguments are labeled eg) “the youth-voter link” or “the epistemology DA.”
-If you're breaking a new aff/cp, it's probably in your best interest to slow down when making highly nuanced args.
Things I don’t like:
-Generally I think word PICs are bad. Some language obviously needs to be challenged, but if your 1nc strategy involves cntl-f [insert ableist term], I am not the judge for you.
-Overusing offensive language, yelling, being loud during the other team’s speech/prep, and getting into my personal space or the personal space of others will result in fewer speaker points.
-If you think a permutation requires the affirmative to do something they haven’t, you and I have different interpretations of competition theory.
-Old evidence/ blocks that have been circulating in camp files for a decade.
Critical Affs:
-I am probably a better judge for the K than most would suspect. While the sample size is small, I think I vote for critical args around 50% of the time they're the center of the debate.
-A debate has to occur and happen within the speech order/times of the invite; the arguments are made are up to the debaters and I generally enjoy a broad range of arguments, particularly on a topic as dull as this one.
-Too often I think critical affs describe a problem, but don’t explain what voting aff means in the context of that impact.
-Is there a role of the ballot?
-Often I find the “topical version” of the aff argument to be semi-persuasive by the negative, so explain to me the unique benefit of your aff in the form that it is and why switching-sides does not solve that.
-Framework: Explain the topical version of the aff; use your framework impacts to turn/answer the impacts of the 1ac; if you win framework you win the debate because…
Kritiks:
-Links should be contextualized to the aff; saying the aff is capitalist because they use the state is not enough. I'm beginning to think that K's, when read against policy affs, should link to the plan and not just the advantages, I'm not as sold on this as I am my belief on floating pic/ks (95 percent of the time I think floating PIC/Ks aren't arguments worthy of being made, let alone voted on)
-Alternative- what is the framework for evaluating the debate? What does voting for the alternative signify? What should I think of the aff’s truth statements?
-I’m not a fan of high theory Ks, but statistically vote for them a decent percentage of the time.
-When reading the K against K affs, the link should problematize the aff's methodology.
Answering the K:
-Make smart permutation arguments that have explained the net benefits and deal with the negatives disads to the perm.
-You should have a framework for the debate and find ways to dismiss the negative’s alternative.
Disads:
-Overviews that explain the story of the disad are helpful.
-Focus on internal links.
Counterplans:
-I am not a member of the cult of process. Just because you have a random definition of a word from a court in Iowa doesn't mean I think that the counterplan has value. I can be swayed if there are actual cards about the topic and the aff, but otherwise these cps are, as the kids say, mid.
-Your CP should have a solvency advocate that is as descriptive of your mechanism as the affirmative’s solvency advocate is.
Theory/Rules:
-Conditionality is cheating a lot like the Roth test: at some point it’s cheating, otherwise neg flex is good.
-Affs should explain why the negative should lose because of theory, otherwise I’ll just reject the arg.
-I'll likely be unsympathetic to args related to ADA rules, sans things that should actually be rules like clipping.
-I’m generally okay with kicking the CP/Alt for the neg if I’m told to.
A quick guide to getting good speaker points:
-get to the point, and be clear about it
-"extinction" or "nuclear war" is not a tag
-a well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by it's "card name"
-Ks need alts- i have a low threshold for voting aff when the neg is kicking their alt and going for a framework argument
-cross x is a speech-i figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points
Here is an explanation of how I evaluate debates at a meta-level:
While I think there is value in the offense/defense framework for evaluation, for me to vote on offense there has to be substantive risk. Second, quality trumps quantity.
Also, "extinction" is not a tag line. I don't even like tag lines like "causes nuclear war." I need complete sentences, with claims and warrants.
Where does the evidence come from? there are not enough debaters talking about the quality of research their opponents are quoting.
Get to the point. On any given controversy in debate, there are relatively few arguments at play. Get to the core issues quickly. Point out the central logical/argumentative problems with a given position. I am much more compelled by a speaker’s ability to take the 2-3 core problems with their opponent’s position and use those fallacies to answer all of the other team’s advances. It shows you have a grip on the central issue and you understand how that issue is inescapable regardless of your opponent’s answer
Calling for cards: I will do this, but I don’t like to read every card in the debate. If you opponent is making well explained arguments you should be very wary of just saying “extend our smith evidence”.
Theory/topicality:
Arbitrary interpretations are one of the worst trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team.
Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact (in policy debate).
While I'm fine with conditionality, I am persuaded by other theoretical objections (multi actor fiat, uniform fiat without a solvency advocate, etc). I also think that a theory argument that combines objections (conditional multi actor CPs) could be a reason to reject the team.
My personal belief is that the negative can only fiat the agent of the resolution, and that competition based off the ‘certainty’ of the plan (consult/conditions) is not productive. This does NOT mean I have an incredibly low threshold in voting aff on agent/actor cps bad, but it does make my threshold lower than most. To win these theory debates on the aff, see above point about cutting to the core 2-3 issues.
On topicality-you need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.
Counterplans: I spoke above about my theoretical beliefs on counterplans. I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.
Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.
Politics:
The story must matchup. I will vote on such non-offensive arguments like: your uq and link evidence don’t assume the same group of politicians, you have no internal link, passage of that bill is inevitable, Trump has no PC etc. Of course I don’t vote on these in isolation-once again, refer back to my meta-approach to debate-you need to explain why that core defensive argument trumps everything else the neg is saying.
Ks:
I’m generally not compelled by framework as a voter against a Neg K-I think all Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.
That being said, I don't like Ks that are just framework arguments. Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments. I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it.
In the 2ac, don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded. Perm do the alt is not a perm. Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.
Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.
K affs:
T > Framework. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Topical version of your aff is compelling, as well as giving other examples of topical action that prove the aff could have accepted the parameters of the resolution and gained the same educational benefits. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K aff hurts the neg. Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.
Case debate:
These are great. Impact defense is kinda meh unless it's real specific. Solvency and internal link answers are where it's at. Make alt causes great again!
Disadvantages:
It’s all about probability-magnitude is ok but only when you’re discussing it in terms of “our impact causes yours”. Extinction outweighs is trite because by the end of the debate all impacts are extinction or nuclear wars that easily result in another impact in the debate that has been claimed as extinction (nuke war hurts the environment, aff said that causes extinction). Probability is key. Establishing risk is where it’s at. A higher risk trumps a higher magnitude in most instances.
Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.
A quick guide to getting good speaker points:
-get to the point, and be clear about it
-"extinction" or "nuclear war" is not a tag
-a well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by it's "card name"
-Ks need alts- i have a low threshold for voting aff when the neg is kicking their alt and going for a framework argument
-cross x is a speech-i figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points
Here is an explanation of how I evaluate debates at a meta-level:
While I think there is value in the offense/defense framework for evaluation, for me to vote on offense there has to be substantive risk. Second, quality trumps quantity.
Also, "extinction" is not a tag line. I don't even like tag lines like "causes nuclear war." I need complete sentences, with claims and warrants.
Where does the evidence come from? there are not enough debaters talking about the quality of research their opponents are quoting.
Get to the point. On any given controversy in debate, there are relatively few arguments at play. Get to the core issues quickly. Point out the central logical/argumentative problems with a given position. I am much more compelled by a speaker’s ability to take the 2-3 core problems with their opponent’s position and use those fallacies to answer all of the other team’s advances. It shows you have a grip on the central issue and you understand how that issue is inescapable regardless of your opponent’s answer
Calling for cards: I will do this, but I don’t like to read every card in the debate. If you opponent is making well explained arguments you should be very wary of just saying “extend our smith evidence”.
Theory/topicality:
Arbitrary interpretations are one of the worst trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team.
Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact (in policy debate).
While I'm fine with conditionality, I am persuaded by other theoretical objections (multi actor fiat, uniform fiat without a solvency advocate, etc). I also think that a theory argument that combines objections (conditional multi actor CPs) could be a reason to reject the team.
My personal belief is that the negative can only fiat the agent of the resolution, and that competition based off the ‘certainty’ of the plan (consult/conditions) is not productive. This does NOT mean I have an incredibly low threshold in voting aff on agent/actor cps bad, but it does make my threshold lower than most. To win these theory debates on the aff, see above point about cutting to the core 2-3 issues.
On topicality-you need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.
Counterplans: I spoke above about my theoretical beliefs on counterplans. I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.
Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.
Politics:
The story must matchup. I will vote on such non-offensive arguments like: your uq and link evidence don’t assume the same group of politicians, you have no internal link, passage of that bill is inevitable, Trump has no PC etc. Of course I don’t vote on these in isolation-once again, refer back to my meta-approach to debate-you need to explain why that core defensive argument trumps everything else the neg is saying.
Ks:
I’m generally not compelled by framework as a voter against a Neg K-I think all Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.
That being said, I don't like Ks that are just framework arguments. Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments. I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it.
In the 2ac, don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded. Perm do the alt is not a perm. Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.
Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.
K affs:
T > Framework. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Topical version of your aff is compelling, as well as giving other examples of topical action that prove the aff could have accepted the parameters of the resolution and gained the same educational benefits. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K aff hurts the neg. Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.
Case debate:
These are great. Impact defense is kinda meh unless it's real specific. Solvency and internal link answers are where it's at. Make alt causes great again!
Disadvantages:
It’s all about probability-magnitude is ok but only when you’re discussing it in terms of “our impact causes yours”. Extinction outweighs is trite because by the end of the debate all impacts are extinction or nuclear wars that easily result in another impact in the debate that has been claimed as extinction (nuke war hurts the environment, aff said that causes extinction). Probability is key. Establishing risk is where it’s at. A higher risk trumps a higher magnitude in most instances.
Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.
Jishnu Guha-Majumdar
5 years of Policy Debate, University of Texas – Austin
Currently: Political Theory Graduate Student at Johns Hopkins
Last Updated: November 2015
Wake Update 2015-2016
I have not done any military presence topic research and this tournament will be the first that I have judged in college since War Powers, though I have continued to judge and coach in high school.
That means: Be careful with acronyms and topic buzzwords, take a bit of extra time breaking down T debate, specific links (which are still important, btw), etc.
Short version:
- Remember the big picture. Think of arguments holistically and pay attention to appropriate nexus issues.
- Debating > Evidence, at the margins - but when in doubt defer to truthiness.
- Evidence Quality > Quantity, almost always.
- I am less likely to be persuaded by "cheap shots" without substantial development.
- Internal links are often more important than terminal impacts.
- Speaker Points: Clarity, demonstrate historical and topic knowledge, don't be unnecessarily rude
- I like creative affs, but think they ought to have a more than cursory relationship to the topic.
- Theory predispositions at the bottom.
Long version:
General guidelines for debating in front of me regardless of particular argument genres -
1. Strategy/Big Picture over Tech Minutiae (when it matters):
- I rarely consider particular issues in isolation. If one argument is answered by the overarching strategy of the other team, it’s not dropped if it wasn’t put on the right line of the flow
- For you that means:
- The way you frame your speeches, especially the final rebuttals, is important. I try to pay attention to what debaters flag as important nexus issues
- Pay attention to interactions between arguments. Be able to leverage different parts of the debate against each other.
2. But tech still matters quite a bit.
- “Tech” doesn’t necessarily mean flow-centrism or perfect line-by-line, but it does mean you must answer all important and relevant arguments regardless of argumentative style.
- It also means that arguments made in the debate round supercede what I believe to be the truth. However, when in doubt, defer to truthiness.
3. The simple fact of a claim's assertion does not make it true
- - Arguments do not “count” unless they contain a claim, reasoning, and an impact (impact as in, "why does this argument matter for the round”)
- -Dropped arguments are not points or auto-wins, they’re opportunities that need to be impacted.
- - Examples of statements that, in themselves, do not count as arguments: “Extend our X evidence, it’s really good” “They’ve conceded the uniqueness debate”
- 4. Reading evidence
- - Comparison of and debate over evidence is, all other things being equal, more important than quantity or mere existence of evidence
-Quality and strategic value of evidence is almost always more important than quantity
- - I try not to read more evidence than I have to. When I call for ev that means that I’m: Trying to break an argumentative tie, verifying truth claims made by the debaters, giving a team the benefit of the doubt or getting cites.
5. Speaking, Speaker Points, and Style
- I will follow any speaker point rubric provided by a tournament.
- Otherwise, I'll admit that as a young judge my speaker point "scale" is still a bit in flux and subject to impulse. My points are generally relative to tournament difficulty
- In the absence of a rubric, a 27.5+ indicates technical competency, a 28.5-6 signifies a performance worthy of early outrounds, ~29 or above signifies a performance worthy of a high speaker award. Bonus points for the stuff covered below.
- Clarity over speed. Debate is foremost a persuasive, rhetorical activity, not a set of 1s and 0s. Err on the side of caution and be clear.
-Topic Knowledge, Specificity, and History are Pluses. This applies equally to “policy", “critique", and "performance" teams. Specificity won’t necessarily affect how I judge the arguments, but demonstrate an impressive breadth and depth of topic knowledge tends to garner better points. Historicization is usually more important than reading an extra card.
- Style. There is a fine line between being sassy and polite, and being rude and arrogant. That being said, I really like the former and really hate the latter. When in doubt, err towards being nice. Respect your opponent.
6. Random quirks
- - Internal links matter more than terminal impacts. I care less about how many scenarios for extinction or root causes the K controls than I do about the ability of the alt to solve or the magnitude of your link.
- “Role of the Ballot” should be an important argument but in most instances has become meaningless to me. The framework for evaluating debates is important to me, but I don’t think about them in a vacuum. I.e. If a team reads and thoroughly extends “policy-wonkage good” evidence, I consider that an answer to “Your role is to be a critical intellectual.”
7. Theory/Procedural Predispositions – since the assumptions debates are often unsupported and come down to judge presumptions, I figure I should make mine clear.
- Context and concreteness are important. I don't like thinking about theoretical concepts like limits and ground in the abstract.
- - I tend to lean more towards reasonability than most judges
- - Impacts. Yes, I think debate is largely a game, but I think it’s too important to be considered JUST a game. That means, “fairness” impacts don’t mean a ton to me in a vacuum, I’m more interested in what kind of activity certain types of fairness can create.
- - I don’t kick out of CPs or Alts unless I’m instructed to.
- - I have a slight neg bias on conditionality, absent contradictions. The litmus test for a contradiction is whether a double turn can be conceded.
- I have a slight aff bias for the following arguments: 50 states, consult, conditions, most CPs that include the full text of the plan/compete through normal means.
email: mitchellhagney@gmail.com
I think debate has lots of epistemological value, though I have voted that it is bad and should be destroyed more than once. I competed at the TOC and NDT, but eventually stopped debating to work in sustainable farming. Today, my day job is as the head farmer for the San Antonio Food Bank, operate a hydroponic farm and coworking kitchen space called LocalSprout (www.localsprout.com), and push local policy change to advance a sustainable and equitable food system through the Food Policy Council of San Antonio (www.fpcsa.org). I made these choices as a direct result of a decision-making style that I got from debate.
Evidence quality is important to me. +.1 speaker points if you mention a methods section in your or their articles.
For critical affs, teams that admit to being outside of the resolution need to describe what content and arguments debates would feature if their interpretation were adopted wholesale. It's best if that sounds like a version of debate where both sides stand a chance and is pedagogically valuable. There need to be strong answers to a topical version and reasons why awarding the ballot in a certain direction is good.
I miss the diversity of structural Ks debate used to feature. For those critiques, I like to know what the alternative looks like or why the details aren't important.
For counterplan theory, in each round there is an amount of conditional negative advocacies that is beyond the reasonable amount of testing the aff, which then degrades the quality of the discussion. Use your judgement on what that limit is. I don't like permanent/recurring inaction or attitudinal fiat. Solvency advocates are the best response to accused CP illegitimacy. If it was impossible to find a solvency advocate for a widely discussed aff, that's usually a bad sign. Multi-actor, international, and delay counterplans rarely seem to challenge the aff or the topic. They often put judges in a strange place between choosing between things no human has the authority over.
For politics DAs, I have a higher threshhold for the link debate than the community at large. I find fiat solves the link arguments persuasive if the aff requires that congresspeople change their mind. If it's normal means that the president expends capital to persuade them, I need reasons why that's normal means or why we should interpret the world that way. Delay, direct horsetrading, or focus links are different from usual political capital arguments and are often times more intrinsic to the aff.
Defense matters - No internal link, uniqueness overwhelms the link, empirically denied, impact inevitable - these arguments are some of the most persuasive to me and I am more likely to think you are smart if you say them.
I am likely to dismiss 2AR arguments entirely if I think they are new.
I usually make decisions based on comparative impact assessment. Relative to other judges, it seems like I pay more attention to impact uniqueness, which are often influenced by arguments like those that have been kicked earlier in the debate and turns case arguments. This is as true for critical debates as it is for policy ones.
Erik Holland
University of Texas at Austin
I've been a member of this community for over 15 years and, as such, there is little I haven't done, seen, or heard in a debate. I primarily debated critical/performance based arguments (at least in my latter years) but I've coached things on all places along the spectrum. If you’re doing something tricky or reading some complex lit, fine, but you need to SLOW DOWN and EXPLAIN your argument in a way that does not simply recycle the jargon within your evidence. I detest framework debates and would much prefer that teams try to engage each other in meaningful debate/discussion instead of trying to define or limit each others’ abilities to advocate a particular vision of the activity. I am very unlikely to vote on some fixed interpretation about how debate should be played, performed or enacted. I still believe that pushing limits can take place within the context of the resolution. I'm not saying you need a plan text or a defense of the usfg, but there should, at a minimum, be a coherent explanation as to why your arguments are a response to or engagement with the topic. I reward creativity, humor and wit, and I truly believe that it is important for debaters to continually push the activity to its limit whenever possible, but don’t pursue this for the sole purpose of gaining my ballot. The easiest way to win my ballot is to be the best debaters in the room. This means that you should always choose the argumentation that you are most comfortable with instead of trying to adapt your argument choice to appease me. If you are more comfortable with a counterplan and disad strategy, this should be your move rather than trying to roll with some K you read for the first time minutes before the start of the debate. Again, my preference is that you engage the other team's arguments on their level rather than defining them out of the discussion but there are a variety of ways to accomplish this.
I do not often read evidence unless there is an issue of contestation regarding evidence read. I feel it is the job of the debaters to explain the warrants in their evidence in a sufficient manner that does not require me calling for cards.
I’m a communication studies phd student with an emphasis on rhetoric and cultural studies (particularly the rhetoric of pop culture) as well as argument theory, so my exposure to critical literature is fairly deep but not exhaustive. If it's a postmodern (whatever that means) or a poststructuralist theorist, there's a good chance I've read something that they've written but don't make any assumptions that my reading of the work in question mirrors yours.
One final note: This seems so obvious to me, but I would appreciate it if you treated the other people in the room with a minimum level of respect. Debate can be an intense activity and the competitive spirit has a way of moving people to behave in particular ways that they might not otherwise in different social settings. I get that. But this is no excuse for treating your opponents, partner, me, or even yourself as less-than. I have no problem with giving you extremely low speaker points (or even a loss) if I perceive your behavior to be particularly nasty.
Justin Kirk - Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln
General philosophy – Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.
I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.
Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.
Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speech drop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.
Paperless Debate – You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. The easiest way to resolve this is through speech drop. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.
Topicality – Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis-à-vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.
Kritiks – Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.
Counterplans – Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.
Disads – Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.
Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.
Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.
Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate – no more, no less.
Disclosure (12/2/23 update) - I lifted this from Parker Hopkins at his blessing who borrowed from Chris Roberds.
TLDR - disclosure is an essential element to small-school competitiveness, the educational functions of the activity, and should be practiced by all teams.
I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.
I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:
1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.
2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.
3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.
4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.
5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.
6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.
That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.
A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.
B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.
C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.
(Justin's final thought on disclosure) - JV and Novice divisions need disclosure the most. There is a reason that CARD and ADA Novice divisions use a packet. There is a reason that the Nothern Tier used a packet when it was still a thing. Disclosure on the wiki serves a similar if not a congruent function for the community. Give those coaches some time to prepare their young debaters to engage their opponents and have a productive debate!
Scott Koslow (KAWS-low) he/they
When I judge, I will not be on social media or other websites. I will give you my full attention.
Include me on the email chain: SAKoslow@gmail.com
I competed in college policy debate for 5 years and coached/judged it for an additional 4 years. I've also competed in high school LD and judge high school debate in my free time. Nearly everything below constitutes warnings about my predispositions. I will do my best to default to the standards you set up in round, and I'll listen to almost anything (short of hate speech) and have voted for positions/strategies that are the polar opposite of those preferences. You're always better off reading the type of argument you're best at rather than "adapting" by reading something you're unfamiliar with.
Below I'll talk about LD, Policy, and college policy paradigms. This is already too long, so I'll write it such that you can ignore the other sections of my paradigm.
LD
General
My biggest bias is for depth over breadth. I prefer substantive explanation to tricks or a large number of technical arguments, so I hope you develop a few arguments well rather than many arguments poorly. If an argument is 15 second in the NC, I don't expect or require the 1AR to take more than 5-10 seconds to answer it (the same goes for each speech by both sides--a 10 second "trick" at the end of the 1AC warrants almost no answer, etc.). This does not quite mean "truth over tech"--it's not my role to evaluate the truth of what you say, and debating weird or even false arguments can be educational. Instead, I'd say "communication over tech"--give me a thorough explanation of the world or ideas you're advocating and spend a lot of time weighing it against the other side's world/position/ideas.
Please avoid any violent, offensive, or rude actions in the round. In policy, I would expect the other team to make this an in-round argument and tell me why it warrants a ballot. In LD, you don't have the time to do this unless you go all in on it early in the debate. So it will certainly effect your speaker points and in extreme cases I will intervene to vote against it. Extreme cases include explicit hate speech, implied or explicit threats, or mocking/demeaning an inexperienced debater.
Rankings (1 best--5 worst)
Critiques--2
Philosophy--1
Theory/Topicality--3
Tricks--3
Policy arguments ("LARP")--4
Critiques
These were the arguments I read almost exclusively in college policy debate, but LD is not policy. You have much less time and fewer speeches. So complicated critiques often work poorly. That said, these are where I have the most fun. Just know I expect a high level of explanation, and you should work to make your arguments as specific to the topic/affirmative as possible. Depending on the argument, I may be familiar with the literature, and I will hold you to a high standard to explain that literature beyond what I expect from more straight-forward positions.
Philosophy
I find LD best suited to these types of debate and I enjoy them. Every debate, across all styles and events, needs to set up the standards I should use to weigh the round, and that's what folks are worst at in other types of debate. In philosophy debates, this is baked into the structure. Give me some good old-fashioned act utility vs. rule utility debates, or tell me why protecting rights comes before anything else. Then, impact to that standard. Win your standard and you'll probably win the debate.
Your value is just an internal link to your standard/criterion. The standard is the weighing mechanism that I'll use and is the most important thing in these debates.
Try to extend impacts to your opponent's standard as well.
Theory/T/Framework
This (and LARPing) is where I'm an old policy curmudgeon. I love a good topicality debate, but I don't see them much in LD. A good topicality (or theory) debate must abide by that "communication over tech" preference. You need a clear interpretation (supported by evidence in T debates) where you slow down so I can flow every word; a clear violation; standards that are explained; and voters where you explain why those voters should come before anything else in the round.
"Standard: Breadth over depth" is not an argument. "Voter for education and fairness" is not an argument. "Ground outweighs limits" is not an argument. You need warrants for these claims in the AC/NC.
If you plan to go for these arguments, you should devote a significant amount of time to them in every speech. If you spend 30 seconds on T in your NR, the 2AR can likely get away with saying "They have not extended a full argument here; they have not extended evidence for their interpretation and have no warrant for limits" or "They have no voter that outweighs our standard" or something like that.
I prefer T to framework against critical affirmatives.
Check out these sections of my policy paradigm for more details.
Tricks
I often see these as 5 second throw-away arguments, which are only introduced in the hopes they'll be dropped. If that's the case, they won't overcome my threshold that there must be a complete argument even in the first speech they're introduced. If you go from 5 seconds in the AC to 1 minute in the 1AR, I'm going to give the NR a lot of leeway cross-applying arguments here. Sometimes I vote for them, but I'm not happy about it.
*BUT* "trick" arguments sometimes prove unique and interesting ways to approach debate. Arguments like "the affirmative must prove the resolution universally true" or something like that can be a lot of fun if you devote the time needed. And I've waited years to see someone go for something really tricky like an inherency bomb. If you devote the time needed, these debates rock.
Policy/LARP
I'm likely to be a policy curmudgeon, yelling "Hey, kids, get off my lawn!" in these debates. My background is primarily in policy debate, and I'll hold you to the standards I apply in policy debates where teams have much more time and more speeches. I often find LARP arguments underdeveloped or missing necessary pieces.
If your opponent agrees to the generic "maximize utility" standard then I'll adopt that, but teams can do very well challenging that standard. There are hundreds of different types of utilitarianism and even more types of consequentialism. They won't have to push very hard to demonstrate why "consequentialism" is, in and of itself, a meaningless standard. Justify and tell me, for example, "act utility, prioritizing existential threats" and you'll be significantly more likely to win.
Look at my policy paradigm for comments on specific types of arguments.
Speed
My background is college policy, so I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. If I can't understand you, I won't say "clear" and I won't flow you. If I don't flow it, then it doesn't count.
If you're slow but struggle to enunciate, I've been there. I'll be sympathetic and do my best to get down everything I can.
You MUST slow down on values, criteria, interpretations, CP texts, and complex theory arguments. I want to get every word, because wording is often important.
Online Debate
Is great; it allows a lot of people to compete who wouldn't otherwise be able to.
But it also comes with problems. It can be much more difficult to understand you, so you should do extra work to enunciate clearly. And when there are tech issues, I'll do my best to help you, but it's a tournament on a schedule so we can't pause the round for 20 minutes while you work out tech issues. Make sure you test everything before hand and if possible have a backup available. If we can't fix it, and you're unable to debate, that typically means a loss (unless the tournament offers specific rules for resolving the situation).
Policy
General
My main bias is toward substantive explanation and weighing over tech. and number of arguments. You should try and describe the world of the plan/aff advocacy/perm/whatever compared to the status quo/alternative/CP. Or, for T and Framework debates, carefully delineate what cases are allowed under each teams's interpretation. Whatever the position, your comparison of the affirmative and negative worlds should frame all your arguments on that flow. Within that frame, I'm fine with any type of argument you'd like to run.
My baseline is presumption goes negative, the negative can do whatever they'd like, and the affirmative can *probably* do whatever they like. You may subject any of those beliefs to debate.
When I debated, I ran critical arguments almost exclusively, both aff and neg, and on the negative I usually read 1 off-case position. However, as a judge I think that has given me a higher standard for critiques and I fear I have an automatic (and perhaps unfair) bias against a lot of critique debates because my standards are so high. I've also acquired a strong appreciation for T debates. So my own debating does not mean you should always go for the K in front of me. But depending on the argument I am likely to be familiar with the literature if you do.
If you do something offensive, it will affect your speaker points. If your opponent does something offensive, make an argument about it. I'll vote on it, but you need to win: 1. an interpretation of what behavior should and shouldn't be allowed, 2. they violated that interpretation, 3. such behavior is harmful, and 4. it's bad enough to warrant the ballot. Such arguments should be structured like framework or a critique and require a significant time investment (at least 1-2 minutes).
Speaker points
27 - the lowest I'll go unless you do something offensive; 27.5 - average; 28 - you should be breaking at this tournament; 28.5 - you should be getting a speaker award; 29-29.5 - you should be top speaker at the tournament; 30 - the best speech I've ever heard. I'll readjust that scale if I find it differs from the community norm.
Framework
I prefer topicality to framework debates.
Framework debates against critical affirmatives usually come down to whether there's a topical version of the aff and whether it can solve the affirmative's offense.
"Fairness" is not a terminal impact. If you go for theory, I suggest you focus on education or you must explain why fairness is a sufficient reason to vote. And if your impact is that everyone will quit debate if X unfair behavior is allowed, that impact is demonstrably untrue.
I'm willing to vote on "framework is bad," in fact that's how I typically answered framework, but the affirmative will be very well served by a counter-interpretation.
Topicality
The affirmative should have a strong relationship to the topic, but that doesn't have to be a traditional plan.
Your interpretation matters a lot. You should be reading evidence for the interpretation dealing with legal usage in the particular context of the topic. Telling me, for example, how Canadian dairy unions define the term "substantially" tells me nothing about the topic.
I prefer limits to ground as a standard. Every position will give the negative ground, but that's irrelevant if it's not predictable ground (if there aren't predictable limits on ground).
Competing interpretations *does* lead to a race to the bottom and is probably bad, but I don't know of a better alternative to competing interpretations.
See my comments on framework.
DAs
You can win with terminal defense, but their evidence better be terrible.
I still struggle with politics (the DA, not the sphere of life; well, also the sphere of life). If you go for this argument, I'll likely require a greater level of explanation than normal.
Case Debate
Is great.
CPs
The negative should usually run at least one.
They compete through net benefits.
Conditionality
I assume negative positions are conditional until told otherwise.
Dispositionality is typically meaningless. Most often, it means "We can kick the position whenever we want, but we don't link to your Condo Bad blocks." You should not go for dispo as an answer to "conditionality bad" in front of me.
More than 3 conditional negative advocacies are usually too much to develop each sufficiently by my standards, and more than 2 is difficult. If the negative reads 5 or more off, the affirmative can sometimes say "they haven't made a complete argument on this flow" and if true that's sufficient to defeat the (non)argument.
The last negative speech should generally pick one advocacy or position to go all-in on.
I like the aff theory interpretation: "The negative gets 2 conditional advocacies (plus the status quo) and must pick one advocacy in the last rebuttal."
Critiques
These are the arguments I usually went for. But if you're arguing for a complex position, that requires a high level of explanation.
A critique is not the same as a DA with a weird CP or utopian fiat. They usually adopt a different understanding of the world and should be approached as such.
Your links should be as specific as possible.
You should explain specific scenarios for your impacts, even if this is just your own analysis. Don't tell me capitalism will destroy the world. Explain how it inflects and turns the affirmative's scenarios (on top of how your authors claim it will destroy the world).
"Perm: do both" is not an argument. If you plan to advocate the perm, it should be a substantive argument beginning in the first speech you introduce it.
Weighing should be done not just on impacts but also on the strength of the links. The negative will usually win a risk of a link, but the affirmative should mitigate the magnitude of that link and a link doesn't automatically mean you get the full weight of your impacts.
Paperless debate
Prep time ends when the speech document is sent.
I will not be reading through your speech docs. during your speeches. The burden remains on you to use paperless debate efficiently and to orally and clearly communicate your ideas.
Role of the Ballot
This argument is usually unjustified and self-serving. You need a strong reason why I should give up my standards of debate and adopt yours.
Olio
Debate is not (just) a laboratory for testing ideas, a game for developing future skills, or a big tent where all ideas should be included. What happens in rounds can be intrinsically meaningful.
Go as fast as you'd like, as long as you're clear. If I can't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. You should usually slow down on dense debate theory, CP texts, alts, perms, and interpretations so I can flow everything.
I try not to call for cards unless the content or authority of those cards is called into question. I usually won't read more than 4 or 5 cards after a debate, though some debates require I read much more.
I flow everything straight down on a laptop in a Microsoft Word document. If both teams agree I should adopt a line-by-line flow, I will do so but I'll also get less down because it takes me time to line everything up.
College Policy
I'm going to limn Bill Shanahan--the disgraced former coach at Fort Hays--and William Spanos:
A/Part
Boring biographical information: Debated at UMKC & ESU (RIP to each) 2002-2005 & 2008-2010. Assistant director at Emporia State 2012-2014, director of debate at Emporia state 2016-2023, current director at Johnson County Community College.
Clarity note:
It has become extremely apparent to me as my hearing loss has worsened that I benefit immensely from slower debates both in-person and online. However, this is especially true of online debates. I have discovered that I have a very hard time following extremely fast debates online. I'm not looking for conversational speed, but I do need a good 15-20% reduction in rate of delivery. If you can't or don't want to slow down, I would really prefer you don't pref me. I cannot stress enough how important for me it is for you to slow down.
I have tinnitus and hearing loss and both have gotten worse over the past few years. What this means for you is that I have a hard time getting tags and transitions when everything is the same volume and tone, so please try to make those portions of the debate clear. I also have an extremely hard time hearing the speech when people talk over it. If you're worried about this stuff, please just slow down and you'll be fine.
Here's the stuff I'm guessing you want to know about the most:
1. Please add me to the chain: dontputmeontheemailchain@gmail.com
2. I follow along with speech docs to help me make faster decisions. If you think clipping has occurred, bring it up because I'm not watching for that.
3. Yes, I will vote on framework. Yes, I will vote on impact turns to framework. Along these lines, Affs can have plans or not.
4. I love CP/DA debates. I'm generally open to most CPs too, except for conditions CPs. I really hate conditions CPs. I vote on them, but it's usually because no one knows what artificial competition is anymore. But, yes, please CPs. Veto cheato, con-con, national ref, consult, unilat, etc. But beware of...
5. Read more theory. Go for theory more. No one expects it. You win because of theory and sometimes you even win on theory.
6. Impact turns > Link turns
7. I think there's such thing as "no risk of a link."
8. I try really hard to vote on what happens in the debate, and not on what I know or think I know. I am generally very expressive, so you can often tell if I understand a thing or not. Along these lines, though, I often need help in the form of you explaining to me how to read a piece of evidence or what an argument means for other arguments in the debate.
9. All that said, please just do what you're good at and we'll all be fine.
Note about points: Unless I tell you in the post-round that you did something worth getting bad points for, my points aren't actually an attempt to punish you or send a message or anything like that. Historically I've given high points and I want to make sure I keep up with the community because points are arbitrary and silly so I don't want anyone to miss because I'm just out of touch or whatever.
Samuel Maurer
Part time coach @ Head-Royce
Yes I want to be on the speech doc. samuel.maurer@gmail.com
TOC 2024 update
I haven't judged a debate in a year so you're going to have to fill me in on topic nuance if you want me to vote on it. Since I also haven't been flowing for awhile, focusing on transmission of the important stuff is probably a very valuable use of your time.
ALSO...I clarify below that CXing and getting CXed are speeches to me. If you waive your CX to prep, the floor for speaker points falls well below a 27, just as if you had 'opted-out' of a rebuttal. Not being able to come-up with any useful attempts at CX questions screams "I don't understand strategy" to me so I don't have reservations about wrecking points. You've been warned.
old stuff
A note on speech docs: I read them during the debate to enhance my knowledge of your arguments. I do not read them to fill-in the blank for a speech that is incomprehensible. I judge the debate speeches, I don't referee emails. So assuming that the written existence of an argument in the document is a sufficient means of introducing it into the debate is dangerous in front of me. If that key comparison was buried in the middle of a wall of text you read like a bored robot, I'm not going to evaluate it. Conversely, if you are deliberately unpacking evidence that I can re-read to verify your interpretations and arguments, your doc can help add depth to your argument. I read the doc as a speech supplement, not a substitute.
I’ll talk about some more specific proclivities that may be useful for your strike-sheet since, if you are reading this, you’re probably filling it out.
Speaker points/CX: I believe that debaters give 4 “speeches” in a debate: C, R, CX, and Being CXed. My speaker points are based on all 4. If you don’t answer/ask a CX question, your speaker points will suffer dramatically. If you’re an jerk or don’t answer simple questions or are simply obstructionist, speaker points suffer. Don’t neglect CX. I will diligently flow cross-examination but if you take prep to ask questions, I consider it to not be part of the debate. Don't be offended if I leave while you go into overtime.
Know when its better to slow down
-- if I’ve never judged you before, give me time at the beginning of a constructive to get used to your voice.
-- complex/tricky CP texts – please slow down during these. I’m not going to look at the speech doc and CX won’t always clear it up. Clearly emphasize the differences (supreme court, different language pic, etc.)
-- Judge instruction helps me -- big picture moments in rebuttals -- "if we win this, we win the debate", etc. Crucial moments of impacts/evidence comparison.
Evidence: Quality over Quantity – I know this is almost a cliché in judging philosophies but I don’t just mean lots of bad cards are worse than 1 good card. That is obvious. I also mean that you should consider focusing on fewer cards in front of me than you might otherwise.
-- Indexing – judging debates where last rebuttals (more often 2NR’s) mention every name of every card and say how it interacts with an argument concept (“McCoy means we turn the link”, “Smith is the impact to that”) is very frustrating for me. I thrive on the big picture. I don’t view your evidence as that or even an argument unto itself – I view your evidence as a tool. You have to explain how it works and why.
-- highlighting – I find myself increasingly choosing to ignore or assign very little weight to evidence because scant highlighting leaves a lot to the imagination. In front of me, it might be wise to select a few important cards in the debate that you would read a longer version of (crucial internal link card for elections, link to the PIC’s net benefits, alt cards, etc.).
-- I read evidence after debates to confirm its function in your speeches, not so that it can “make an argument” to me in some disembodied fashion 15 minutes after the round ends.
I prefer narrower, deeper debates: Not going to lie, when debates get horizontally big and stay that way through rebuttals, I’m less comfortable making a decision. I think this has to do with how I read evidence (above) in that often times debates that stay horizontally big require the judge to do a lot of inference into conclusions made in cards they read as opposed to speeches they evaluate. I’m okay with debates on several sheets of paper but just make sure you are identifying what you think are the strategic bottlenecks of the debate and how you are winning them. “they can’t win X if we win Y because the following impact comparison wasn’t answered…”
Links/UQ: I think debaters too often think of link direction in purely binary terms. In addition to winning links, debaters need to explicitly create mechanisms for evaluating link direction. don’t just put “this thing key” cards in my hands and expect me to ref an ev fight. Tell me why this internal controls the other or vice versa.
Framework: I’ve voted for either side of this debate plenty of times. If it’s a choice between an engaging strategy against a critical aff and T, the former is a preferable strategy in front of me. I will vote on impact turns to topicality even if the negative doesn’t go for it (provided, of course, the affirmative makes a valid argument for why I should). I find myself often frustrated in debates that lack concrete nouns and instead choose arguments/strategies where abstractions are posited in relationship to one another, concretizing through examples helps a lot. I think 'fairness' is an internal link that, when well-developed with method for debate that is academically engaging and balanced, can have a large impact on my decision. By itself, a fair game is just stable, could be good or bad. I think negs running framework are best when talking about dynamics of the debate, not just complaining about how much/many affs there are. I'm not one who believes in the "procedural fairness or education" dilemma, good framework execution involves both I think. TVA's and SSD's are defense/counterplan type arguments that I think both sides are wise to not just address but frame in my decision.
Theory: Seems dead. Seemingly fewer and fewer affirmatives even make a meaningful press on theoretical objections to the CP. I still appreciate theory on the aff and not just as an “independent voter” but rather a good way to strategically dictate the landscape of the debate. This by no means implies that I’m a hack for any affirmative theory argument. But it does mean aff’s that hear a 3 cp’s in the 1NC and don’t make more than a 10 second conditionality block and don’t mention that there were 3 counterplans are giving up on some production. I think it goes without saying that very blippy theory debates are terrible. Slowing down and being more thematic and explanatory is almost always a better approach the theory execution in front of me. In the end, I'm pretty old school and think theory needs to make a comeback (mostly so aff's can not give their cases away to disposable 15-plank hydras every debate) but it seems perfunctory in execution anymore.
Finally, please make sure to mark evidence as you read it.
Matthew Moore
Judge Philosophy- Update Oct 23
I am no longer actively coaching debate so if I am judging you it was because someone really needed a judge. I was involved in college policy debate for over 20 years. I was the Director of Debate at the University of Central Oklahoma until May 2022.
Do the style of debate that suits you best and you are best at. Traditional/non-traditional/K/performance/whatever, do your best. Make arguments, impact them, explain to me as a judge why your arguments should win.
The only argument I will not be open minded to on the high school level is disclosure theory. If you run it in front of me, even as a throw away, you are risking losing my ballot and a lot of speaker points. It is ok to make they did not disclose anything as part of a larger theory argument, but if you think that the other team failing to disclose to the level of your liking is a reason you should win the round, then you are doing debate wrong. Seriously, just stop.
Important questions:
Will you vote on framework? Yes
Will you vote for an aff that is not topical against framework? Yes
I am about 50/50 in these debates because I leave it up to the debaters. The aff usually wins these debates when they have substantive impact turns to the framework impacts. The neg usually wins when a topical version can access most of the aff’s offense. For affs: T version of the aff does not solve is not very persuasive to me when the solvency argument is functionally it does not solve as well as the aff.
Neg goes for a K versus a policy aff:
At the ’16 Texas tournament, negs going for K’s versus policy affs were 3-0 in front of me. Why? The aff only said weigh the aff, it is true, and then had no substantive answer to the K beyond the aff impacts. You should have offense to the alt that is not just the aff.
Theory:
After hearing multiple rounds where the 2AR goes for conditionality bad and not voting on it once, it is highly probable that affs will not win on condo bad in front of me. Not impossible, just highly improbable. This is especially true is the argument is less than five seconds in the 2AC, 30 seconds in the 1AR, and then six minutes in the 2AR. If you think the neg is cheating, tailor specific theory arguments to the situation (i.e. this conditional pic is uniquely bad). That will be more persuasive to me and garner you better points than "Condo is bad, strategy skew and time skew voter for fairness." I will not vote on perm theory. The aff shouldn’t lose for making a perm no matter how bad it is. The more a counterplan/alt cheats, the more lenient I am to theory arguments against it. Cheating is a relative term here, but affs that can demonstrate the cheating in concrete terms will win my sympathy. You should make the arguments.
Misc:
·The aff can win there is no link to the DA if they win their link turns. Uniqueness does not make the link magically only go in one direction.
·Paperless sharing of speech documents is not an excuse for being unclear. Presentation matters for points.
·For K Debaters- saying the aff results in violent interventions like NATO missions in Libya is not an impact. At best you have an intervention internal link to something else, not a terminal impact.
· Speaker Points - I tend to adjust my scale at the tournament using the points I have given in previous rounds as a guide for future debates. Be professional and respectful to each other. Shut up during the other team’s speeches. I will be pretty honest with you after rounds about what I thought was rude/not professional and what was good. These things really do impact your points.
Don’t read to much into subtle nonverbal cues from me. I have had multiple rounds where I ask a team why didn’t you go for X and they will respond with you looked like you did not like the argument. Judging can be a miserable and uncomfortable experience, usually that look of disgust on my face is the result of a weekend of bad food, lack of sleep, and being stuck in an uncomfortable chair for hours at a time hunched over. I will do my best to make any nonverbal communication that may matter obvious. If I am grimacing because I do not like your argument, that is up to the other team to call out.
This is my first year judging. I debated for Baylor University for four years.
The type of debate arguments that my partner and I deployed while debating are not necessarily the type of arguments that I want to hear in a debate. In other words, do not over-adapt to what you assume my proclivities to be. I will listen to any arguments that are well impacted. Read the type of arguments that allow you to debate at your best.
Framework – I am definitely willing to vote on framework if an affirmative does not have a good defense of their reasons to interpret their relationship to the topic the way that they have chosen. Affirmatives need to have a good reason why debate is not just a game and why the topical version of the aff does not solve their offense. I do not find framework a compelling reason to vote against the negative. When you are affirmative, depending on the critique, framework will get you no more than the ability to make me weigh your impacts.
Topicality – I am not particularly attached to any interpretation of the topic and I am willing to listen to well-argued topicality arguments. You should have examples of the types of affirmatives allowed/precluded by each team’s interpretation.
Critiques – K’s with links to the aff plan/advantages/justifications are preferable. I love historical analysis, debates about card warrants/quality and analytical link arguments.
Disads – I prefer topic specific disadvantages, but I am willing to listen to politics, etc. I prefer good in-depth evidence comparison to a stack of cards labeled “more ev.”
CPs – I enjoy tricky counterplans. As long as you can justify why you should be able to read a particular counterplan, go for it.
Defense is important and can be a round winner if it fundamentally disproves an argument.
You should selectively flag the cards that you would like me to call for at the end of the debate. However, I am not willing to intervene and reconstruct a debate.
Speak clearly. If I cannot understand you enough to flow what you are saying it will become obvious. Emphasis and clarity will be rewarded (if your cards are good).
To quote Hester, “meta-debate is betta-debate.” Your last rebuttal should sound similar to how you want my decision to sound. Impact comparison will get you far.
Paperless – I never debated paperless, but apparently that is what everyone is doing now. This transition is not an excuse not to flow. You should flow. If you debate paperless, I expect you to find an amenable way to share evidence between teams. Make sure you do not block your face with your computer in such a way that I cannot hear you. I will not “follow along” in the debate on my computer so do not try to jump me your evidence during the debate. I think this encourages judge intervention, poor flowing skills, and judge inattention.
Some of my favorite judges were/are Alex Parkinson, Jeff Buntin, D. Heidt, and Hester. This is not due to the amount of times they did (not) vote for me, but their judging styles. As such, I will try to judge in a similar manner.
Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State – 29th Year Judging
++++ NDT Version ++++ (Updated 10-22-2019)
(NFALD version: https://forensicstournament.net/MissouriMule/18/judgephil)
Add me to the email - my Gmail is ermocito
I flow CX because it is binding. I stopped recording rounds but would appreciate a recording if clipping was accused.
Be nice to others, whether or not they deserve it.
I prefer line by line debate. People who extend a DA by by grouping the links, impacts, UQ sometimes miss arguments and get lower points. Use opponent's words to signpost.
Assuming aff defends a plan:
Strong presumption T is a voting issue. Aff should win you meet neg's interp or a better one. Neg should say your arguments make the aff interp unreasonable. Topic wording or lit base might or might not justify extra or effects T, particularly with a detailed plan advocate.
High threshold for anything except T/condo as voting issues*. More willing than some to reject the CP, K alts, or even DA links on theory. Theory is better when narrowly tailored to what happened in a specific debate. I have voted every possible way on condo/dispo, but 3x Condo feels reasonable. Under dispo, would conceding "no link" make more sense than conceding "perm do both" to prove a CP did not compete?
Zero link, zero internal link, and zero solvency are possible. Zero impact is rare.
Large-scale terminal impacts are presumed comparable in magnitude unless you prove otherwise. Lower scale impacts also matter, particularly as net benefits.
Evidence is important, but not always essential to initiate an argument. Respect high-quality opponent evidence when making strategic decisions.
If the plan/CP is vague, the opponent gets more input into interpreting it. CX answers, topic definitions, and the literature base helps interpret vague plans, advocacy statements, etc. If you advocate something different from your cards, clarity up front is recommended.
I am open to explicit interps of normal means (who votes for and against plan and how it goes down), even if they differ from community norms, provided they give both teams a chance to win.
Kritiks are similar to DA/CP strategies but if the aff drops some of the "greatest hits" they are in bad shape. Affs should consider what offense they have inside the neg's framework interp in case neg wins their interp. K impacts, aff or neg, can outweigh or tiebreak.
Assuming aff doesn't defend a plan:
Many planless debates incentivize exploring important literature bases, but afer decades, we should be farther along creating a paradigm that can account for most debates. Eager to hear your contributions to that! Here is a good example of detailed counter-interps (models of debate). http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,2345.0.html
Impact turns are presumed relevant to kritikal args. "Not my pomo" is weak until I hear a warranted distinction. I prefer the negative to attempt direct engagement (even if they end up going for T). It can be easier to win the ballot this way if the aff overcovers T. Affs which dodge case specific offense are particularly vulnerable on T (or other theory arguments).
Topicality is always a decent option for the neg. I would be open to having the negative go for either resolution good (topicality) or resolution bad (we negate it). Topicality arguments not framed in USFG/framework may avoid some aff offense.
In framework rounds, the aff usually wins offense but impact comparison should account for mitigators like TVA's and creative counter-interps. An explicit counter-interp (or model of debate) which greatly mitigates the limits DA is recommended - see example below. Accounting for topic words is helpful. TVA's are like CP's because they mitigate whether topics are really precluded by the T interp.
If I were asked to design a format to facilitate K/performance debate, I would be surprised. After that wore off, I would propose a season-long list of concepts with deep literature bases and expect the aff to tie most into an explicit 1AC thesis. Such an approach could be done outside of CEDA if publicized.
This was too short?
* Some ethical issues, like fabrication, are voting issues, regardless of line by line.
Please add me to the email chain: mwmunday@gmail.com
Affiliations and History
Director of Debate at Westminster. Debated in college between 2008 and 2012. Actively coaching high school debate since 2008.
Debate Views
I am not the kind of judge who will read every card at the end of the debate. Claims that are highly contested, evidence that is flagged, and other important considerations will of course get my attention. Debaters should do the debating. Quality evidence is still important though. If the opposing team's cards are garbage, it is your responsibility to let that be known. Before reading my preferences about certain arguments, keep in mind that it is in your best interest to do what you do best. My thoughts on arguments are general predispositions and not necessarily absolute.
T – Topicality is important. The affirmative should have a relationship to the topic. How one goes about defending the topic is somewhat open to interpretation. However, my predisposition still leans towards the thought that engaging the topic is a good and productive end. I find myself in Framework debates being persuaded by the team that best articulates why their limit on the topic allows for a season's worth of debate with competitively equitable outcomes for both the aff and the neg.
Disads/Case Debate – While offense is necessary, defense is frequently undervalued. I am willing to assign 0% risk to something if a sufficient defensive argument is made.
Counterplans – Conditionality is generally fine. Functional competition seems more relevant than textual competition. If the affirmative is asked about the specific agent of their plan, they should answer the question. I increasingly think the affirmative allows the negative to get away with questionable uses of negative fiat. Actual solvency advocates and counterplan mechanisms that pass the rational policy option assumption matter to me.
Kritiks – I teach history and economics and I studied public policy and political economy during my doctoral education. This background inherently influences my filter for evaluating K debates. Nonetheless, I do think these are strategic arguments. I evaluate framework in these debates as a sequencing question regarding my resolution of impact claims. Effective permutation debating by the aff is an undervalued strategy.
Theory – A quality theory argument should have a developed warrant/impact. “Reject the argument, not the team” resolves most theory arguments except for conditionality. Clarity benefits both teams when engaging in the substance of theory debates.
Speaker Points
(Scale - Adjective - Description)
29.6-30 - The Best - Everything you could ask for as a judge and more. (Top 5 speaker award)
29-29.5 - Very, Very good - Did everything you could expect as a judge very, very well. (Top 10 speaker award)
28.6-28.9 - Very Good - Did very well as a whole, couple moments of brilliance, but not brilliant throughout.
28.3-28.5 - Good - Better than average. Did most things well. Couple moments of brilliance combined with errors.
28-28.2 - OK - Basic skills, abilities, and expectations met. But, some errors along the way. Very little to separate themselves from others. Clearly prepared, just not clearly ahead of others.
Below 28 - OK, but major errors - Tried hard, but lack some basic skills or didn’t pay close enough attention.
I have experience judging a wide range of arguments. I have found the following qualities more important than any of the particular content of arguments:
- completeness of argument
- meaningul engagment with opponents arguments and questions and responses in cross-examination
- clarity
- creativity
- knowledge about the issues being debated
- organization
Those qualities provide the major criteria for my speaker points. I also find myself rewarding/considering:
- degree of difficulty
- general affect
I consider myself an active participant in the debates. I listen and flow intently and think thoroughly about whats happening in the debate. I take post rounds pretty seriously and view my role as a temporary coach, so please don't be hesitant with questions (whether you agree or disagree with the decision) I only ask that I am given time to fully explain my decision before interjecting.
2nd Year Judging. I debated for four years at Missouri State, 2008-2012.
Be clear. Speed is a strategic tool only insofar as I can understand what you are saying and transcribe it, in some form, onto my flow.
I think that most things are debatable. With that said, I think that some things are a waste of time to debate. I have little desire to listen to your poem about how the time cube means that the Mayans really thought the world would end in 2027. I only expect debaters to respond to arguments. An argument consists of a claim and a warrant.
Topicality should be a strategic option. It’s the aff’s job to define what they mean by reasonability.
Theory- I enjoy these debates. My default on theory is to reject the argument and not the team. This is also true of condo/dispo bad debates. When asked “What is the status of the counterplan?” I think that it is perfectly acceptable for the negative to say “That is open for debate.” I think of counterplan status debates in much the same way that I think of framework debates. By winning your interpretation you have established how I ought to evaluate counterplans. For example, if you win that cps/alts ought to be unconditional I will stick them with every cp/alt in the debate. I think that multiple counterplans bad and conditional counterplans bad are two separate arguments.
Counterplans- I would much rather listen to a topic specific counterplan than states, courts, or xo.
Critiques-I think of the critique like any other argument. There should be a clear alternative text. If you wish to shift the framework for the debate or advocate something other than the text of the alternative that should be very explicit. I have a rather strong preference against dying. Let that guide your argument choices as you will.
Be respectful. If I think you were mean or rude I will let you know. I will then ask you to publicly apologize before I give my decision.
10 Things I Believe About Debate
1. Debate is a game. There's no hidden meaning here. It's literally a thing we do to learn and possibly have fun. If you think it's more than that, fair enough. I don't.
2. Affs should be topical. Negs should be able to explain why affs should be topical.
3. Both policy and critical arguments have a place in debate. Whatever happened to being well rounded? Really, read whatever you want, but your argument directly should link to the other team's position. Links of omission are a joke and are a guaranteed way to get made fun of at the bar after rounds.
4. Persuasion still matters. Reading evidence in debates is good (essential?), but the evidence is where the debate begins not where it should end. Applying evidence and explaining arguments (and impacting arguments) matters much more to me than blurting out that extra terrible one line UQ card. Nothing is a voting issue "because," winning arguments have impacts that are compared to the opposing team's impacts.
5. You have to answer arguments. Flowing is fundamental.
6. You have to have an argument worth answering. Sometimes I just decide your words didn't rise to the level of an argument. Claim + Warrant = Argument. Claim + Increased Volume + Repetition = Me watching YouTube during your rebuttals. "Why?" is still the most powerful and important question in debate.
7. Stop acting offended when the other team answers your argument. You came to a competition, not a therapy session. Your feelings are important, and so are you, but they will never be a reason I vote for you. Also, your yelling does not impress me and will result in lower speaker points.
9. Cross X is a privilege, not a right. I can't wrap my head around why people allow themselves to be yelled at for three minutes. Ask questions and allow the other team to answer, otherwise, I'd rather not even listen to the Cross X. If your strategy is to yell at the other team for three minutes or talk to them like you have no home training, I'm not the one for you.
10. Impact turning is still a thing.
jasonlrussell1@gmail.com
School: Wichita State University
Years Judging: 20
College Rounds 2017: 40, High School Rounds: 50
Have the email chain set up starting around 5 mins before the debate. The prep time doesn't end until you've sent the email, not when you start compiling documents or attaching them. Part of preparing for paperless debate is having a time efficient method for document dissemination. That should start at home, in practices.
New new new content:
I strongly support policy debate. Most K affs that are just policy debate bad do not appeal to me much. If you believe that there ought to be some changes to policy debate, they ought to be specific, strongly supported, and feature a well articulated alternative model of debate. Absent any of these, you'll struggle to win. If your aff does not support the implementation of the topic as a policy, you'll almost assuredly lose. If your K on the neg fails to articulate an alternative or defend the SQ, you'll almost assuredly lose. I will vote for K's, but your window is much narrower than it would be with a friendlier audience. I will not lower my expectations nor will I apologize for it.
I still think most Aff framework args are bad. The cheatingest thing about Ks is the alt so win that they need one and theirs is unfair. I'm pretty much always going to weigh the Aff impact but that doesn't mean an ethics arg won't precede it necessarily if well articulated and won. Aff framework is probably a waste of your time & potentially a liability.
Method doesn't make anything compete and just saying that is adequate for me. This arg is nonsense. If the alt can't be desirably combined with the Aff, then it competes. And only then.
I strongly prefer to hear debates about the policies involved in the topic, although the approach to implementing and rebutting those policies may vary widely.
Generally, most kritiks are mumbo-jumbo. The links are stale and weak, the alt is contrived and probably contradictory to many of the links, in addition to being wholly ineffective, and the analytic lens is generally far less insightful than they purport to be. If the K aff doesn't do anything, I will vote on presumption without hesitation. A great number of K's make psychologically untenable claims that can be defeated easily with limited to no evidence. Often, the team debating a K would be well served to read fewer generic K cards and make some strong arguments from the perspective of logic that suggest that the thing they're suggesting folks should just do isn't as easily done as they make it out to be (embracing insecurity, fugitivity, abandoning hope, etc).
Indignant complaints about how it's rude to disagree with people will not be accepted as arguments.
The room a debate occurs in is shared by the opposing teams and the judge. Do not monopolize the room by loudly playing music, taking up all of the space with your materials and coaches, or generally behaving in such a way that both teams can't adequately prepare for a debate in a reasonable manner. I will give you points that are akin to clipping or other cheating practices if you do so.
New content 2015-2016
Points:
Between UMKC and UNLV I decided to raise my points a bit. Nothing radical, but probably a .2 increase on the top end. I'm still giving points below the mean as often as ever, but my high end points will more accurately reflect trends for the top 20 speakers at a major. I do this reluctantly as I don't like point inflation, but I also don't want to disadvantage quality speakers that would like me to judge them by holding them to a different expectation than the rest of the pack. I find it very troubling how often 29.6 and above points are handed out. People should stop that.
Don't ever ask me for speaker points. Those are mine and mine alone. I mean, I guess you can ask, but I won't do what you're asking me. I will give you the points you deserve.
Decision-making and diversification are figuring highly into my points. So, good argument choices throughout -- recognition of your strengths, their weaknesses, time allocation, block division, 1AR elaboration, etc -- will be rewarded and bad choices will be deducted. Diversification can be horizontal or vertical. In other words, you can still be a one-off K team and have excellent points provided that your block is interrogating the case, developing a variety of well-explained link arguments, engaging in good epistemological attacks on the aff ev, and explaining your impacts. Lazy polemic will not be as highly evaluated as in-depth attacks involving clash throughout. In other words, "state bad" is not my jam unless it's some very well-developed, context-specific state bad arg. I can imagine one, but haven't seen one.
T:
A great many things are not T. I'd encourage you to go for it. I like evidence-based T debates. What should be considered military presence is highly debatable and many affs do not meet a reasonable interpretation of military presence. Even fewer are significant reductions in said military presence.
K's:
The "aff didnt do enough" K isn't doing much for me. If this is your best option, I'd recommend T instead. Perms solve it and it's not offense.
K debaters that can't debate the case enough to prove that the aff doesn't simply reduce military presence but somehow reinforces it or some other bad process in trying to do so are having a really hard time winning with me. You need links. "You touched the gov't" isn't getting the job done. If this is your best strat, I am not the judge for you.
Negative state action undermines a lot of "we shouldn't have to debate as the gov't" args, absent more detailed elaboration by the aff team reading a non-topical or non-plan aff. I can personally entertain some reasons why this arg might still be true, but teams have yet to advance args that are not facile extensions of the standard "gov't bad" arg in explaining this for me. "Decrease military" and "gov't bad" are in the same direction on face. You'll need to do more to prove that they are not.
Politics:
Thumpers are a thing, UQ CP's aside. I can't even begin to understand people who don't believe they are. I'm not saying they're a universal problem for every politics DA, but there are times where they are a problem for a lot of popular politics DA's.
New content 2014-2015
1) K-related info
I am not sure if I’ve voted aff against framework this year (could be once or twice I’m forgetting about). A lot of things can explain this (lop-sided matches, conceptual mistakes, drops, I’m dumb), but teams with non-topical affs should probably know this.
I think most people’s framework args are soft and easy to beat if the aff actually interrogates them, but few do except saying “it’s anti-black” or “it links to Baudrillard/other French guy”. Do the work of K’ing something; your K is not a yellow card: “Penalty: anti-black!”. Develop content.
If you haven’t thought about the existential question “If the laws you are against are anti-black/otherwise rude, what should be done about them?”, you will have a hard time winning w me. As far as I know, getting rid of laws requires state action. If you are doing something else to get rid of or otherwise address those laws, I’m gonna need to hear some details. Unflinching paradigmatic analysis is a buzzword requiring further elaboration.
The strongest part of anti-K framework args is their “topical version of the aff/do it on the neg” cooptation args. The weakest part is the overall impact. If they win the cooptation args, they don’t need to win much of an impact, though. Food for thought.
Most K’s need an alt. If they don’t, be prepared to put some time into explaining why not.
Neg K’s are worse at permutations than ever. The “it’s a method” arg school of thought doesn’t make much sense to me without further elaboration. Some methods compete; others do not. You still need a link that’s not solved by including your alt (or some part of it) with the aff.
Aff’s typically lose K’s by not questioning a sweeping claim at the center of the K that takes out their case. A perm won’t help you much against that. Don’t fool around and forget to answer the central contention of the K. These claims are almost always an overreach; they’re not as absolute as they’re purported to be.
A lot of performances seem to be disconnected from the subsequent content. That’s not bad esoterically I guess, but it’s unstrategic because then the time you spend performing isn’t helping you win the debate.
I’m pretty much over role of the ballot. It’s just an impact framing arg. You still have to win that it’s a comparably preferable impact to whatever you’re debating.
K’s that go after the entire aff – their evidence, their harms, their plan, their solvency, their worldview – have a strong chance of winning even with a weak alt. They simply need to find a way to prove that an un-interrogated adoption of the plan would be worse than doing nothing or very little. That’s harder than just wishing away the SQ through magic, but debate is hard and that’s why it’s awesome.
K affs should defend changing the laws they criticize, but K the remainder of what the neg says is required to be complete legalization. Or read some cards on T. Or both. If your aff is nothing about the topic, or is anti-topical, you’ll want to be prepared to have a more comprehensive impact turn strategy for framework. This is a much tougher road.
2) CX-related info
Answer questions in CX. Seriously. Don’t repeat the question at them. Don’t ignore them and do something else. I’m going to start docking points for wasting people’s CX time. Mark my word. I will intervene once and after that I’m just going to start making notations to knock off some points.
Don’t extend the CX unless you absolutely have to. Usually you’re doing it for something useless and wasting your prep time. Also, feel free to deny your opponents a CX extension. Just say “no” if they ask to take prep to ask another question. It’s your prep time too.
3) Presentation info
I hate your pre-written overviews. No one can flow those. Your overview would be far better if tailored to the particular circumstances of the debate and delivered as if you were trying to reply to your opponents.
Prep time runs until your flashdrive leaves your computer or the email is sent. Start the chain/prepare the jump prior to the debate and deliver it a couple of minutes prior to the start of the debate. Feel free to tell people not to open it until it’s time and I’m sure that they won’t. DO NOT WAIT UNTIL THE DEBATE STARTS TO BEGIN PUTTING THINGS ON YOUR DRIVE OR I WILL START YOUR PREP TIME WHEN THE ROUND IS SCHEDULED TO START. Also, don’t wait until the debate is scheduled to start to pee.
You should think about how the music you’re playing affects others’ ability to hear you. A lot of times, music playing during your speech if not accompanying some performative component is a distraction from or direct hindrance to understanding speech content.
Loud music before the debate is irritating. I’d be glad to lend you some headphones.
Don’t act offended because someone is debating you. That’s what they’re supposed to do. Disagreeing with you is not akin to disrespecting you. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Consider how you’re tagging evidence. No one can flow your paragraph of mumbo-jumbo that precedes your French philosophy. Tags ought to communicate your interpretation of evidence to the judge, to demonstrate the way the evidence will be used. Tags are not story-time. If your tag is mega-long and uses a lot of high theory, plan to slow down so people can flow it.
I will 100% discount evidence from weirdos. Astrologers talking about global warming or conspiracy theory websites will require deep defenses to stand up to someone merely asserting that they’re not qualified. Honestly, it’s probably not worth your time to defend them. A couple more pointed jokes will likely beat those too. The Internet has caused you all to cut some scandalously bad ev.
4) DA-related info
Politics UQ answers are so bad. Don’t expect me to interpret “Opposition exists” as “won’t pass” if the neg questions it. Everything in Washington has opposition. That doesn’t mean it won’t pass if they have evidence saying it will. You need to have some conclusive ev.
I’m never voting on logical policymaker or a perm to a DA unless it’s dropped. Maybe not even then.
Their new DA, whatever it is, probably has a terrible link.
I would sacrifice a close family member to judge a good economic DA.
5) CP-related info
I still believe in limited counterplan competition. I believe counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive, not one or the other. I still rarely see this arg pursued against CP’s that clearly violate it.
I’m defaulting to judge kick CP’s that are deemed non-competitive unless I’m told not to do so. That means if you’re aff, your answers to the net benefit cannot be all premised around the CP, but must also take into account the SQ.
Nothing can flip presumption to the aff. Presumption is 100% neg. Change is scary.
Don’t forget to review the basic plan vs. CP competition on a technical CP. This is probably your best perm answer (or perm arg if you’re aff). A lot of teams presume we know more about what the original plan was than we do.
6) Case-related info
Actually debating the case is good. Impact D is not actually debating the case. It’s a fair accompaniment to, but is not a substitute for, debating the harm and solvency. Solvency is where it’s at.
Aff plans are too vague. Many would be circumvented as a result of the loopholes the wording of these plans allows. I love this stuff.
7) Points
My points are probably marginally higher than 2 years ago, but not substantially. I would guess I use a 28.5 as average now over a 28.3. 29’s are not common and you won’t get one unless you’re actually really good. I won’t give you one for being a senior, or for showing improvement or effort, or for being snarky and mean. I will give you one (or one plus some more) if you’re very good, technical, complete, display vision and clarity, handle the CX, perform the CX, and read and analyze evidence well. Excessive reading will not get the job done. Excessive slow rambling will not get the job done. Comprehensively replying to your opponents’ arguments is a must for a 29+. If you’re dropping key content, you’re a 28.9 at best. Organization is important. It doesn’t have to be line-by-line (although I have a slight preference for it, historically), but it had better have a logic that makes sense and flows well.
I’m sure whatever is already in here is also fine and true. I dunno. I’m not re-reading it. END NEW CONTENT 2015
New addendums: I've adjusted my speaker point scale quite a bit in recent years. I think it's much higher than it used to be when people are good and maybe a little lower when people are bad. The additional variability allowed by the 1/10's system has given me more room to provide finer evaluations.
I assert myself into the CX more than I used to. Blame Dallas. I always thought it was cool when he did that. I typically do this just to protect people from your rambling incoherent responses to questions.
NEW, NEW Addendums:
Cheating of all kinds in debate is deserving of the deepest penalty we can level. I will vote against you and give you zero speaker points if you clip cards. I will not debate with you about clarity or unclarity. I will ask you directly what portions of a card were read and, if your response doesn't match the recorded evidence, I will level the punishment. I don't require the argument to be made in the debate. I will not necessarily be recording every debate, but I will record many. Any accusation of clipping will require recorded evidence to be prosecuted.
I think most people already knew how I felt about this. I did want to clarify in case you're a cheater and want to stop preffing me bc you cheat.
I like basically all styles of debate roughly equally. I think my points reveal a pretty well balanced rewarding of excellence on all sides of the ball. I think "topical version of the aff" and "knowledge is racially subjective" are just about equally difficult to beat. I think my points are often highest for "degree of difficulty" wins -- taking on tough issues eloquently and with style. A large component of my points are subjective -- I don't just give points to teams for "winning"; I also give points based on aesthetics. No rubric is going to alter that, at Wake or anywhere else. I think fast, technical debate can be pretty when combined with, say, humor, insight, intellect, and reason as much as I think performance style debate can be detail oriented when combined with penetrating analysis of the other teams arguments using the lens of their perspective on the world. These styles are, in my opinion, not fundamentally distinct, but different in emphasis.
My points roughly lie in the norms of the Wake judging rubric (I may give slightly more 28.5's and slightly fewer 28.9's than they're suggesting, but, whatever). I wouldn't expect my points to either change much because of the rubric or vary much from it. I'm not going to pay real close attention to it as the numbers seem to indicate I'm basically on par at the moment. One thing to note: your best speech and THE best speech are two very different things. You might think you gave the best possible speech you could and I would still not rate that speech as a 29.9 or 30. It's not just possible, but entirely likely, that you are not capable of giving a perfect speech. That's ok. No one is perfect.
Depth is almost always better than breadth, but I do expect people to answer arguments. I won't ever answer them for you. I don't care in what order you answer them or how clearly you signpost your answers or whatever (i.e. line-by-line as defined traditionally is not that crucial), but if you never answer an argument and expect me to intuit the answer for you, you're not likely to succeed.
I judge a lot. I'm kinda grumpy, but it's not just you. I'll be expressive in debates, a lot of it will be negative; don't cry. I just don't like watching you be bad. Other parts where you're good I'll like a lot (hopefully).
Big picture issues: Debate is for the debaters. I won't tell you what to do and what not to do. I have voted for some terrible arguments. Almost every debate involves some argument I hate. I often vote for arguments I loathe. Don't spend your time trying to decide which arguments I like. You play to win the game. Where this contradicts with something I've said below, you do your thing.
Topicality: Is ok. You need an interp. It needs an impact. The aff needs a reason to prefer their interp, or to meet the negative's interp. I believe aff's deserve predictability as much as the negative does. More aff's should say that. T can be outweighed by substantive arguments against the interp, like that it causes biopower, the state, zphc, derrida, la-dee-da, etc. In the instance that the aff attempts to "outweigh T", the neg should further elaborate on the substantive impacts of their standards. They should also probably say T isn't like the holocaust.
Framework: Is ok. I believe any argument can be introduced and won in a debate, but I'm often convinced that the harm to doing so outweighs the benefits. These debates are often tied up in issues I've discussed in reference to T. See above. Aff's especially should IMPACT their framework arguments. If the K has a link, I'm probably not going to be persuaded that they're trying to play football with a baseball bat (wrong forum) and patently exclude their argument. I may however decide that the neg has lost their alt and that doing so means the margin of the link is outweighed by the affs advantages. However, it is also possible that the K just takes-out the aff solvency and harm claims and turns the case, in which case the neg would win. Many framework debates are, as a result, stupid.
Other theory: PICs, Dispo, Condi, ASPEC, CESPEC, alt text, multi actor, conditional CPs, international CPs, etc. are all ok. So are objections to them. They're like T to me: theoretical disads to the other team's conception of debate. Most of them, however, do not rise to the level of VI. Typically, I believe that they prove that the argument should not be considered, not that the team running the argument should lose. In most debates, these argument are asserted to be a VI and countered by an equally assertive response that they are not. In those instances, I agree, they aren't. Basically, explain the voter if you want to win on 'em. I won't punish your points for consulting because I'm not a douche.
DA's and CP's: If the CP solves 100% of the case, I typically believe that there is a risk of a link to the net benefit. I have been, on occassion, convinced otherwise, but these instances are few and far between. I do not think presumption flips aff in any instance. I can't imagine how it could. I'd need to hear an amazing argument in favor of doing so. Link turns need UQ. If the disad sounds too good to be true, it probably is. "Their evidence is from liars" could count as a zero risk argument for me if articulated well. I tend to believe that the SQ is always an option for the neg unless it is explicitly foregone in the CX or a speech. Plan-plus counterplans are abusive and many CP's are plan-plus. Textual competition is good and many CP's are not textually competitive. Again, these are predilections, not hard and fast rules. I've been persuaded against my beliefs in virtually every debate I've ever judged.
K's: Alt, alt alt. The aff usually loses because the neg lies about their alt and the aff almost always wins if they beat the alt. Realism is real is unhelpful. I rarely know why this argument links. See comments on framework above. The aff typically gets to weigh their impacts regardless of the fabricated nature of fiat. The instance that the aff loses the case because of the K is typically associated with some indict of a. the evidence b. the impact claim itself or c. the solvency. In those instances, winning that you get to weigh the aff is not helpful; you still have to defend it. Good link and impact illustration is always helpful. Why does the K access the aff harm? Why does the alt solve the case? I often leave K debates wondering these things and it'd be helpful to have these questions answered and asked by the debaters.
Performance: Is ok. I don't love it; I can't lie. A good topical performance used as evidence to support a policy conclusion can successfully defeat a lot of the substantive arguments against a case, but performance for performances sake, the non-topical, obfuscatory variety, does nothing to impress me. I'll vote on it. I'll consider the merits of the argument. I may even find parts of it witty and funny. But if you think I'm a member of your project because I worked at OU, you're probably wrong. P.S. don't run your bad version of the Churchill K or nihilism because you think it will get me on your side. It won't. Run what you're good at and do it well.
CX: Is good. I love a grilling CX. You should have an agenda and follow it. Ask a lot of questions. Set things up. Don't badger the witness and don't bore me. CX has a lot to do with the points I give. I will probably be on the Internet and reading and stuff during CX, but, trust me, I'm listening. It matters greatly that you do well here.
Speed and flowing: I judge a lot of debates. I've judged people way faster than you and I get it down when it is clear. I often ask for clarity and the debaters go right back to being incomprehensible. I'm not asking anymore. You'll be clear or you'll get bad points. Seperate your cards, cites, and tags with good vocal inflection or I won't understand you and I won't try anymore. You don't need to be as fast as most of you try to read. Many of you would be more efficient at 75-80% speed. Theory debates are notoriously too brief and too quick. I'll just ignore you if you do this. If you want to win a theory arg, slow down so I can flow it.
Evidence: I don't read a lot of evidence after debates. I don't usually need to. Asking me to read some evidence doesn't mean I will. I think evidence is a tool, not a weapon, and blanket extension of cards without talking about their contents doesn't make an argument. Use evidence to support arguments, not to make them. That said, unevidenced, but well reasoned arguments are good. I'm for it! I don't think only cards can be evidence; a good story, poem, allegory, song, dance, whatever, could be evidence too. Of course, cards can beat non-traditional evidence also.
Overviews: Honestly, I'm pretty tired of them. Most of them are a waste of your time. Typically they are some long unnecessary diatribe about components of the disad ignored by the aff that I already understand. If you have an overview, it ought to be functional and make an argument rather than just "explain the thesis" of the argument or preview why you are so awesome and the other team so dumb. Worthless overviews are a negative speaker point in my mind. More line-by-line, more cards, more content.
Prep time: Don't steal prep. Once the timer stops, everyone must stop filing, writing, typing, etc. until the speech begins. Don't cheat. That said, don't be annoying and take hours to give the order. When you stop the prep time, you'd better know where you're going.
Clipping/Cross-reading/Mis-marking: I hear that this is coming back. To prosecute cheating, the accusing team needs hard evidence. A time trial is not hard evidence. A recording of the speech must be presented. I will stop the debate, listen to the recording, and compare it to the evidence read. If cheating occurred, the offending debater and their partner will receive zero speaker points and a loss. I'd also encourage them to quit. I consider this offense to be more serious than fabricating evidence. It is an honor system that strikes at the very core of what we do here.
Sexist/Racist behavior: Is not ok. Under any circumstances. Ever. The line is often unclear, but don't do anything that could hurt someone else in debate. Diversity is the heart of the activity, it is only just now getting better, and we don't want to turn back the clock to the good ole bad ole days. I'd prefer evidence not use sexist language in their evidence too, but that's not the type of behavior I'm talking about here. I'm talking about debater-directed verbal or behavioral evidence of prejudice. I've never actually seen a debate where it happened, but if it did I'd want to do more than give the team a loss and zero points. I have anger management issues.
Humor: Is good. But if you aren't funny, don't press it. Be yourself. If you're just some debate machine, do that and do it well. Good natured humor can get you good points though. Oh, and making fun of me, my colleagues, my debaters, and my friends are all welcome. If you've got a good burn, bring it. Jokes about the quality of the other team's arguments can be persuasive evidence.
Overview: These are my defaults. Everything is up for debate. Please add me to the email chain phildebate@gmail.com
First, I consider myself an argument critic. By this I mean I might vote on an argument that I do not agree with or one I think is untrue because in the context of the round one team persuades me. This means that I tend to fall on the side of tech over truth.
Second, I understand debate by argument. There is a trend in debate to replace argument with author names. The community has begun referencing authors instead of the argument that the evidence is meant to strengthen. This is a bad trend, in my mind, and should be limited to necessity.
Third, I will not now, nor will I ever, stop a debate if I think that someone is clipping or cross reading. While I think this is cheating I think it is up to the debaters in the round to make an argument and then for me to judge that argument based on the available evidence and render a decision. However, if you are caught clipping when I judge I will give you a loss and zero speaker points. .
Fourth, Speaker-Points are dumb. Preffing judges based on the speaker points they give is even dumber. It has long been the case that weak judges give high speaks in order to be preffed. It is unfortunate that judges of color have had to resort to giving debaters higher points than they deserve to get into debates. I will do my best to maintain the community norm.
Topicality: Yes, I vote on it. It is always a voter. Topicality debates are about competing interpretations and the benefits of those interpretations. It is incumbent upon the debaters to do impact calculus of their advantages (these are the reasons to prefer aka standards) vs. the advantages of the counter-interpretation and the disadvantages to your interpretation. In other words, to win topicality you need win that your interpretation is better for debate than your opponents. This formula is true for ALL theory arguments if you plan to win them in front of me.
Framework: Yes, I vote on it. Framework is, to me, a criticism of the affirmatives method. What does this mean for you? It means that I am less persuaded by arguments like debate is a game and fairness claims. I tend to think of fairness, strategically, and my default is to say that fairness almost never outweighs education. I have voted on fairness as a terminal impact before and will likely do so again but the threshold to beat a team going for fairness is often very low and this gets even lower when the affirmative rightly points out that fairness claims are rooted in protecting privilege. If you are negative and you are going for framework my suggestion is that you make sure to have as many ways to negate the affirmatives offense as possible in the 2nr; this includes switch side debate solves your offense and topical version of your aff. If you do that and then win an internal link into education you will likely win my ballot.
I default to utilitarian ethics when making judgments about what action/vote is most beneficial. If you would like me to use some other method of evaluation that needs to be explained and it needs to be upfront.
Counterplans-You should read one. Counterplans compete through net benefits.
*Presumption never flips aff. I know there is a redefinition of Presumption as “less change” but this is a misunderstanding of presumption. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. Now like everything in this philosophy this is a default. To say that presumption flips affirmative is just to say that the affirmative has achieved their prima facia burden to prove that the SQ needs change.
*Counterplan theory: My default is that conditionality is the state that counterplans naturally exist. Because I believe counterplans are merely a test of the intrinsicness of the affirmatives advantages it means that I also default to judge kick. This means that there is little chance that I will vote outright on conditionality bad. Instead, I will assess that the Negative is now “stuck” with a counter-advocacy that alters the debate in corresponding ways.
Criticisms: Criticisms function much like counterplans and disads, insofar, as they should have an alternative and link and impact. I can be persuaded that K’s do not need an alternative. With that being said, if you are going for a K without an alternative then you need to have a lot of defense against the affirmative. Some of that defense can come in the form of the k itself (serial policy failure or impacts are inevitable arguments) but some of it SHOULD also be specific to the plan.
Any questions just ask. Good Luck!
Justin Stanley - Johnson County Community College
I debated at Missouri State and have been coaching for about 10 years. I would like you to debate using the arguments that you feel will win you the debate without putting too much stock in my own personal preferences. I try to eliminate those preferences when judging and evaluate each argument outside of any feelings I have towards particular arguments. With that being said,
I am a better counterplan/disad/Case judge than kritik judge because I have more experience debating, coaching, and researching these positions. I certainly understand kritik literature more than I used to, but I am still probably not as well read on these issues as other judges.
I have a strong preference that the affirmative have a topical plan and defend its passage. However, I can be persuaded otherwise. This is an issue in which I try to eliminate my preferences and judge the debate based on what I see in the round. I often find that your defense of why you have chosen to be anti-topical is not as persuasive to me as it is to you. I haven't ever thought that topicality was genocidal. If there is a topical version of your affirmative that solves all of your "impact" turns then you are likely in a bad position. If there is not a topical version of your affirmative then that is likely more of a reason to vote against you then to vote for you.
I don't think conditionality is always the best approach for debate. This is especially true in rounds in which multiple conditional options are used to try and "Spread out" the IIAC and not necessarily to test the merits of the affirmative. I have not voted on conditionality bad very often, but I often find that has more to do with the debates then my own personal preferences.
I think PICs are often very good strategies, but I am not the best judge for obscure word PICs that claim a minute net-beneft.
A few other things...
1) Clarity - go as fast as you would like, but don't underestimate the importance of clarity in my decision. If I can't understand your argument then I am highly unlikely to vote for it.
2) Strong cross-examination will earn you additional speaker points. Being humorous and kind will also help you with speaker points. If you are a team that ranks based on speaker points then I am probably average to slightly below average in the speaker points that I give. I rarely give a 29+. Most debaters will fall in the 27 - 28.7 range for me.
3) Paperless debate is a great thing and I am relatively patient with tech problems. However, at some point my patience runs out and I get frustrated. Please do your best to eliminate delays between speeches.
4) One person should not ask and answer all of the cross-examination questions.
5) If you want me to call for a card then you should extend author, claim and warrant for the piece of evidence. Listing 20 authors in a row with no real explanation will likely result in not calling for any cards.
6) If I catch you clipping cards then you will automatically lose with zero peaker points. This is true even if the other team did not make a complaint about it.
Debate at Kansas State from Treaties (2001) – Courts (2006), Coached at Kansas State on Middle East (2007) & Agriculture (2008), Coached at University of Wisconsin Oshkosh for Weapons (2009) & Immigration (2010). I was at Johnson County Community College from Middle East (2011) to Space (2020).
I'd like to be on the e-mail chain- debatelearningdotcom@gmail.com (just copy and past that exact e-mail)
If I leave the room, please send the e-mail. It will signal I need to come back to the room. People should just not open the doc until I get back.
My litmus test for what I can vote for is solely based upon the ability to take what you said while debating and regurgitate it back to the other team as a reason why they lost.
I believe the most important part of debate is impacts. If left with no argumentation about impacts or how to evaluate them I will generally default to look for the biggest impact presented. I appreciate debate that engages in what the biggest impact means, and/or if probability and timeframe are more important. This does not simply mean “policy impacts”, it means any argument that has a link and impact. You could easily win that the language used in the round has an impact, and matters more than the impacts of plan passage. All framing questions concerning what comes first have impacts to them, and therefore need to be justified. The point is, whether you are running a Kritik, or are more policy based, there are impacts to the assumptions held, and the way you engage in politics (plan passage governmental politics, or personal politics). Those impacts need to be evaluated
I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.
Policy arguments are fine by me.
Quirks with Counterplans- I think consultation and conditions are more cheating, than not cheating, but up for debate. I think conditionality can get out of hand. When conditionality does get out of hand it should be capitalized by the affirmative as justification to do equally shady/cheating things and/or be a justification to vote against a team, again up for debate.
Kritiks- I enjoy Kritiks. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.
Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for. When aff I believe that framework is a non starter. Defending the assumptions of the affirmative is a much more persuasive argument. For the negative, a lot of the discussion will revovle around the topical version of the aff and/or why doing it on the neg is best and solves all the affirmatives offense. I don't generally feel as though framework should be THE option against critical teams.
Framework on the negative for me is also can have and act like a counter advocacy that the problems isolated by the affirmative can be helped by engaging the state. Topical version help prove how engaging the state can create better and meaningful changes in the world. There should also be historical and/or carded explanations as to why engaging the state can help with the problems of the 1ac.
One other caveat about framework. I do not believe that affirmatives must provide a counter interpretation. The affirmative has not forwarded a way to debate in the 1ac, therefore it is the burden of the negative to explain their version of debate and why it's good. This allows affs to just impact turn framework as presumption has flipped in this instance.
With that said, framework is the last pure debate. I very rarely see the better team not win. It's been too hashed out for many if any gotcha moments
I'm a crazy, old man. You are strongly advised to strike me. If that didn't convince you, I hope the following will.
While I'm pretty much willing to listen to anything, the following are my biases. As much as I try to set aside my preferences, I'm sure they influence my understanding what teams say, what the warrants are, and ultimately my assessment of issues.
I firmly believe that the affirmative should advocate a topical plan. I think this is the only viable way for the negative to have a chance to prepare well. If defended well, there is some chance of my voting for an aff without a plan, and the odds are a little better if the affirmative at least talks about issues related to the topic.
On topicality, I prefer a standard slightly different from reasonability and competing interpretations. I think it should be negative burden to prove the affirmative interpretation is bad for debate, not just that the negative interpretation is marginally better. The best way to prove an interpretation bad for debate is limits – that the interpretation is so broad than the negative could never be thoroughly prepared to debate every possible case.
I do not think debate is role playing of federal actors. You're you and I'm me, and there is a debate about what we think the federal government should do. Fiat obviously doesn't assume anything really happens. Fiat is just ignoring the question of "will" and debating "should" in order to focus the debate on the merits of the idea/ policy.
I tend to be fairly liberal on counterplans, with competition being about the only requirement. PICs, agents, etc are fine. There does needs to be some limit on negative fiat for agents, but that can be debated out. Presumptively governmental actions are OK, and private actors are not.
K's and K affs with plans are fine with me. I am not that familiar with much of the literature. So, you should explain things thoroughly. Ultimately, these debates become matters of what makes sense to me.
Spin, explanation, and telling a good story are crucial to winning my ballot. Even more important is resolving arguments, and I am increasingly frustrated by debaters in rebuttals emphasizing their own arguments and never referencing opposing responses. 2NRs and 2ARs with lots of "they say…, but" references are more likely to win my ballot.
Please be clear. Start speeches at less than full speed. Pause a little before and slow down some on the argument tags. I hate it when I cannot tell that a card has ended and a new argument is being made. Please do not get quiet when reading cards. I know this is hard for you to believe, but if you stop to breathe at punctuation marks, you will be faster and clearer than the awful double gasping that so many of you do.
Taylor, W. James “JT”
Kansas State University, ADOD
# of years coaching/judging: 27+
jtedebate@gmail.com
*I was also mostly absent from CEDA/NDT last year (or two) so don't assume I am familiar all the different K arguments (newer) or the depth of your lit base.
*I am so over this nukes topic. I am bored with the same NFU advantages and the newer ones with sketchy or no internal links. If you haven't received your topic education by this point you have failed in other ways.
*I probably care very little about what you have to say in the context of my role. Whatever it is---probably an important issue. However, I slip into "I don't care" mode when this oh so important discourse is said at me instead of to me. Are you trying to convince me? Am I just a note taker? If the latter, then don't get mad when I don't care. Are you giving me a reason to care?
*Take the national tournaments seriously. You might be here to have fun, but a lot of other people have worked very hard all year to succeed at these tournaments.
Other tips:
-I am not a robot. Just because you said it does not make it meaningful. Spitting out a string of theory claims without warrants or application is a good example.
-STOP BEING PETTY: You might think your arguments are the center of the universe, but c'mon. There is a really good chance I just don't care about your rando K or think it is generally irrelevant to the world outside of debates. Too many debaters overstate the importance of their claims, fake being deeply offended for purposes of hyping up a link argument, think their type of education is the only acceptable form, deny/ignore the validity of debates about scholarship, or assume that debate is separate from the "real world". Advocating a policy is not the same as role playing as the gov't. If you are role playing you are doing it wrong.
-Don't forget about T vs. Policy Affs.
-DEPTH OVER BREADTH.
-ENGAGE THE 1AC: I think teams should always engage the 1AC. Even if you are a one-off K team or you mostly take a more performative approach, there is no reason you can’t address the issues, logic, and general claims of the 1AC (denying their logic is not "playing their game"). Even if you don’t have evidence, you should still make smart arguments. Just reading links on case is not engaging the case. Be smart and make logical arguments against the Aff. that fit within your conceptual framework. I think being educated on the issues of the topic is the true "education" we get out of "topic education". In the end, there should be a detailed engagement/application in the link debate. CONTEXTUALIZE your links to the specificity of the Aff.
-Role of the Ballot/judge – The vast majority of these claims are self-referential and add nothing to debate: “Whoever best does what we said.” Just like policy framework claims, these function with the same intent to exclude. However, some truly act not as a veiled framework but as instructional in terms of judging, the meaning of the ballot and the function of my decision. I do not think the ballot inherently means anything beyond a recording of data. Humans infuse meaning to things like the ballot. Be VERY clear as to what you mean by these
-Perm Sloppiness - I think a lot of block debates get sloppy/lazy on the perm. I think the Aff. should have to explain how the perm resolves the links. I also think the Neg. should have to explain why the perm does not resolve those links (don't just say so). Just saying: "All the perms link" is lazy and not an argument. On the flip side, why does the perm solve?
-Method Debates: You need to actually do your method, not just prove it WOULD/COULD be a good idea. Historical Materialism comes to mind...Very few teams actually advance that alternate version of history. If you want a method debate, you actually have to perform the method or it is like I'm grading a paper---boring.
Updated Feb 2017
Yes, I want to be on the email chain, tewsie1@gmail.com.
If you are a team that has been judged by me in the past there aren’t many changes. This is mostly an update b/c I haven’t looked at this thing in like 7 years.
I don’t really have strong argumentative preferences. Do what you do best and I will give you my best attempt to understand what you are arguing. Complete arguments have a claim, warrant and impact (reason it matters in the debate). Incomplete arguments rarely make it into my decision.
I flow and I don’t really read speech doc until I need a specific piece of evidence at the end. I value line-by-line refutation and get irritated when arguments don’t line. Overview proliferation is annoying. Most of those args can just be made on the lbl. I also flow on paper so undeclared overviews destroy my flow.
Good impact analysis helps my decision. Spend a little time talking about timeframes and probabilities instead of just magnitude. Often times mag is a tie, so I need something to clarify the extinction v extinction debate, obviously.
I look mad all the time. I’m not actually mad. It has no bearing on how I feel about the debate or you as debaters. If I am mad at you, you will know it.
Pet Peeves:
Links are links not Disads to XYZ. If you win a link that means the argument competes, it isn’t a DA to anything on its own.
Debaters should handle their own CXs. If they need help that is fine, but they should at least be given the chance to answer questions in their own CX.
You are 18-25 year olds, figure out how email works. Excessive time sending email will result in prep time restarting.
I find it kind of sad that debaters aren’t funny anymore. I reward humor with points. Obviously, you should consider audience and appropriateness but don’t take everything so seriously all the time.
CP/Disads
I don’t really have anything substantive to say here. You can outweigh the aff with a good disad you don’t always have to have a counter-plan but you do have to win case defense. It also helps if you explain the warrants of the case defense in relation to the aff impact claims (instead of just reading cards and letting me sort it out). In DA outweighs the aff rounds, you must have internals between your DA and the case impacts OR some really good defense. You also need to spend a lot of time on internals and TF/Prob differentials.
Kritiks
I pretty much adjudicate K debates like I do disads, did you prove a link and does the impact outweigh. Also typically in K rounds I will ask myself at the end of the round if I can explain in plain English why I voted on this argument (to the losing team). In other words if you can’t explain a K in simple English it becomes more difficult (not impossible) for me to vote for you. Alternatives don’t have to solve the aff if they solve the K and it outweighs the aff.
Self-serving roles of the ballot are annoying. My ballot typically indicates who did the better debating. Sometimes that better debating means that you convinced your opponents that the ballot means something different, but for real that ballot doesn’t change just b/c you said so. Go ahead and play the game but like all other arguments you are going to have to win this. A simple assertion of a new role is not enough. If you want to change the role of the ballot you are going to have to have a rationale for why your role is good for debate/the round/has some justification that goes beyond “you want to win the round”.
Topicality:
It is a voter. I usually evaluate on competing interps. I can be persuaded by reasonability however I think that these args are deployed weakly these days. Reasonability is a value claim and as such you need to assert the value (i.e. we are reasonable) and then explain how to evaluate reasonableness (how do I recognize if something is reasonable). The aim of this should be to take the onus off of my moral system of what is reasonable/fair to me and put it more on an objective system for recognizing reasonability in relation to community norms. It helps if you have a vision for debate and can defend it and don’t just treat T/FW as an analytic disad.
Theory
I often struggle with theory debates because people blaze through them with no regard for pen time. If you want to win theory debate you have to have a clear link and impact and explain why the impact should merit the ballot. I won’t read your blocks, if I can’t understand it from the speech and my flow then it doesn’t count.
17 years of debate exp.
Former college debater/coach, NDT octofinals. Last 3 to 4 years coaching public forum in China.
I was a K debater in college 2007-2012, but I'm more likely to think topic relevance matters if its not plan passage. I've been all over the ideological spectrum debate wise I think.
Mike “Shooter” Weitz
***************************Updated 2014-15********************
A guy walks into the Buddha’s bar. Plopping on the stool, his dejected look was plain for all to see. “How can I help with what’s ailing you?” the Buddha asked, sliding the man a drink.
The man said, “I did everything I was supposed to, and nothing happened. I spend hours meditating under a tree every day, and I still haven’t reached enlightenment. I do my mantras, mandalas and sutras without forgetting a word. What am I doing wrong? I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I walk perfectly along the path.”
Giggling at the seriousness of the upset man, the Buddha exclaimed, “Well, there’s your problem right there! If your path is the trampled dirt of others’ footsteps, you’ve already lost your way.”
“But without that path, how will I know where I’m going?” the man asked earnestly.
“Exactly,” the Buddha smiled.
Not satisfied with the response, the man demanded, “If I don’t know where I am going, how will I know when I get there?”
“Exactly,” the Buddha quipped.
The man’s temper got the better of him, “That tells me nothing. Why don’t you just tell me what I need to know?”
“Exactly,” the Buddha chimed with glee.
“The Silent Flute”
I wish neither to posses,
Nor to be possessed.
I no longer covet paradise,
More important, I no longer fear hell.
The medicine for my suffering,
I had within me from the very beginning,
But I did not take it.
My ailment came from within myself,
But I did not observe it
Until this moment.
Now I see that I will never find the light
Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel,
Consuming myself.
-Bruce Lee
“Once More I Hold You In My Arms”
Once more I hold you in my arms;
And once more I lost myself in
A paradise of my own.
Right now you and I are in
A golden boat drifting freely on a sunny sea
Far, far away from the human world.
I am happy as the waves dancing around us.
Too much analysis kills spontaneity,
As too much light dazzles my eyes.
Too much truct astonishes me.
Despite all obstacles,
Love still exists between us.
It is useless to try and stir the dirt
Out of the muddy water,
As it will become murkier.
But leave it alone,
And if it should be cleared
It will become clear by itself.
-Bruce Lee
“Sharing a Mountain Hut with a Cloud”
A lonely hut on the mountain-peak towering above a thousand others;
One half is occupied by an old monk and the other by a cloud:
Last night it was stormy and the cloud was blown away;
After all a cloud could not equal the old man's quiet way.
-Kuei-tsung Chih-chih,
“Being as Is”
Food and clothes sustain
Body and life;
I advise you to learn
Being as is.
When it's time,
I move my hermitage and go,
And there's nothing
To be left behind.
-P'ang Yün
Enlightenment is like the moon reflected on the water.
The moon does not get wet, nor is the water broken.
Although its light is wide and great,
The moon is reflected even in a puddle an inch wide.
The whole moon and the entire sky
Are reflected in one dewdrop on the grass.
-Dogen
Look for Buddha outside your own mind,
and Buddha becomes the devil.
-Dogen
“Suchness”
The wind traverses the vast sky,
clouds emerge from the mountains;
Feelings of enlightenment and things of the world
are of no concern at all.
-Keizan Jõkin
Where beauty is, then there is ugliness;
where right is, also there is wrong.
Knowledge and ignorance are interdependent;
delusion and enlightenment condition each other.
Since olden times it has been so.
How could it be otherwise now?
Wanting to get rid of one and grab the other
is merely realizing a scene of stupidity.
Even if you speak of the wonder of it all,
how do you deal with each thing changing?
-Ryokan
“In science we have finally come back to the pre-Socratic philosopher Hercalitus, who said that everything is flow, flux, process. We in the West think of nothingness as a void, an emptiness, a nonexistence. In Eastern philosophy and modern physical science, nothingness—no-thingness—is a form of process, ever moving. In science we try to find the ultimate matter, but the more we split up matter, the more we find other matter. We find movement, and movement equals energy: movement, impact, energy, but no things.”
–Bruce Lee
************************************************************
(2013-2014)
To be honest, I am not sure what it means to have a ‘philosophy of judging.’ I can tell you what I do: I evaluate arguments in relation to other arguments. I like good argument more than I like bad arguments. I like good cards more than I like bad cards. But, other than that, I’m not sure what I am supposed to tell you. Am I, through some unknown process of self-evaluation, to disclose how I decide which arguments that I’m yet to hear, and how they will win out versus other arguments? Should I provide you a list of the arguments I like and dislike, the things I have pre-determined to be true, as avenues of persuasion to receive my ballot? Such a list doesn’t exist. However, i can tell you some things:
If it is about my personal philosophy, then I’m not sure how telling you that I am a Buddhist and like to study Eastern Philosophy explains my approach to judging debate rounds, except to say that i evaluate arguments as i understand them at their moment of utterance, i evaluate them by the interdependent relationship to other arguments in the round, and i do my best to remain present and attentive during the course of the round. I think that truth tends to be a little grey (and technically ungraspable by language and set, intellectual patterns of thinking). I very much believe in paradoxes, which means that sometimes even 'incompatable' truth claims can both be true and untrue. This can be frustrating for debaters sometimes, because it puts a higher argumentative standard on you to make sure that you not only make arguments, but make sure that your arguments answer your oppenents arguments. Finally, it's not a requirement, but i do tend to prefer the nice and humble debater, even while debating with a passion. I will also do my best to judge with humility; we are all human and all make mistakes. I definately will.
I like arguments to be clear. I don't like to have to do a bunch of extra work to read your cards after the round because I should be able to hear them when you read them if you're clear. I only like to call for cards if their meaning is contested, and arguments are made against them. This is usually a sign of a good debate, but i don't want to have to call for cards because i don't know what they say because you weren't clear the first time.
An argument is a claim and a warrant. Missing one makes an incomplete argument, especially in the warrant department. And just because you made a claim and a warrant, does not necessarily make them persuasive, which is why the more warrants the better, usually. Always answer the "why" question. Why is what you say true?
The same standard applies to evidence, if your evidence does not contain warrants, then it is a bunch of warrantless assertions, and, hence, a waste of your time. You don't have to read seven-page-long cards, but the more warrants the better. Highlight your cards down to one sentence at your own risk and peril.
You would be surprised how often teams will win portion of an argument, and lose because of their failure to properly 'impact' it in the debate round. This is a critical part of the debate that should not be skimped on just because it happens in the latter speeches. Again, answer the "why" question.
Finally, while I'm not quite ready to go "full Dallas," I do attempt to generally communicate my thoughts, feelings, how I'm receiving stuff, and might even pipe in a "that don't make sense." My point is that I'm a source for information that you should use.
As always, have fun!
Mark Wonnacott
About me: I'm aPhD candidate who studies argument and political communication. Coaching is a career path for me, so I consider it my obligation to work as hard as participants do to make this activity educational, enjoyable, and meaningful. I debated from 1998-2002, then took a lengthy hiatus.
I will call for cards only if their content becomes an issue in the round- if you think your opponents' cards are weak, you should point that out in round. If you think your cards contain warrants to which your opponents aren't adequately responding, point this out to me. In a similar vein, I'm unwilling to spend much time reconstructing rounds after the fact. After 20 minutes, I really think I'm intervening by reconstructing arguments in ways that are probably very different from the way they were presented in round. It is in your best interest, then, to make the decision criteria as clear as possible.
Debates are best when they are contests between well-researched competitors making tightly constructed arguments in direct response to one another, engaging civilly with ideas, and being explicit in their comparative analysis.
Kenneth Burke said that to know all there is to know, you should use all there is to use. I think that Burke is smart and that criticism is much llike debate. There are a variety of approaches available to the resolution and to the affirmative. Which one you ought to use should be determined by your modes of knowing and your opponent.
Arguments in particular...
T: My default stance is that words have many, multiple meanings. Metaphorical understanding of language is inevitable. I find limits debates interesting, but frequently mishandled- the question should not be one of degree but one of kind. Definitions are bad if they remove any limiting power from a word, not if they are not the most limiting definition. Illustrating that an affirmative interpretation makes a word in the resolution meaningless is likely the only way to move me from the default stance.
K's: I'm sympathetic to these arguments. My undergraduate training is in philosophy, so I enjoy this kind of reading. That said, I think many k's are easily reducible to pointing out that no ethical or epistemological system is self-sufficient, and that the presuppositions that support any epistemological or ethical system can be used to justify a variety of evils. I am no more persuaded by these arguments than am I by alt cause: the big bang and the boundary condition of the universe. So, every time I vote for a do-nothing alt, I die a little inside and complain about it. If you want to indict the epistemological or ethical justifications of the aff, you need to provide an alternative epistemological or ethical grounding. I think affirmatives let themselves get bullied away from the 1ac by inevitability claims and floating pics/solve the aff arguments. These things are frequently bad arguments that are poorly warranted even in their original context.
CP/DA/Ads/Case etc: What I love most about these kinds of debates is their specificity. When debates revolve around the details of problem-solving, I think they are at their most educational. As such, I really like PIC's and specific indicts. In my mind, there are two ways to get access to those levels of specificity- use procedurals (lazy, also kind of boring) or do research (educational, interesting, and makes you look smart). It's much easier to factually refute an aff team's attempt to disco out of your disad than it is to assert that they can't or shouldn't be allowed to do so. I think systemic harms as a certainty are underutilized against unrealistic extinction claims.
In-round strategy: There's an old baseball maxim- hit it where they ain't and run like hell. I think this is probably what the block ought to do. It's also probably what the 1ar ought to do. In the end, you'll go for the arguments you feel comfortable going for, but your odds of winning improve if you think about the round from a perspective of backwards design. When debates start late, I think the aff gets a lot of leeway, but I do my best to protect rebuttalists.
Misc: I think questions of gendered language and its exclusive function in debate are too frequently underexplored in rounds. There's a lot of unquestioned norms that exclude women and minorities that probably need significant reform, though to discuss it in round, you need to demonstrate that some behavior of your opponents is responsible for perpetrating that norm.
I hate mornings and everything in them- this is not a reflection on you, but rather a result of brain chemistry. Dont' take it personally.
Natalie Woodward Dwyer
Univerisity of Minnesota
Background: I have been coached debate at both the college and high school level since mid 2001. I took time off when I went to law school and was beginning my legal career. Along with a law degree, I have a M.A. in Political Theory. This is my second year back coaching.
Communication:
The debate round is the debater's to direct and determine and as such your argument selection is your own. However, I believe the role of coaches is as educators and in my role as a coach I believe I have an obligation to keep the debate round a safe space for all participants. This does not mean that students, judges, and observers should not encounter ideas that are difficult or challenging including to them as individuals. I understand that norms of "civility" and "niceness" are often deployed as a medium of reinforcing power relations and appreciate that ours is an intense activity. However, I will enforce a space in which we do not do violence, including rhetorical violence to each other. I expect you all to respect each other and me and I will afford you the same respect.
I would greatly prefer not to hear graphic depictions of sexual violence.
Evaluation:
I "think like a lawyer." This means a couple of things. First, I will evaluate your arguments and am less willing to vote on arguments that are weak. Highlight arguments, develop them and tell me why it's important. Also, I really dislike embedded clash. I will attempt to d the work of connecting arguments together . Second, the quality of your evidence is crucial. I like knowing the qualifications of your authors. Make evidence comparisons because I would rather default to your arguments than my own reading of your evidence. If I end up having to make the evidence comparisons myself you may not agree with my reading. As such, your rebuttals should not just be a list of author names and shallow extension of a lot of arguments but instead increase depth and compare the strength of your arguments to your opponents. Think depth.
Paperless debate:
Prep time stops when the jump drive is removed. I prefer email over flashing. My email is nwoodward@gmail.com.
Flowing:
I do flow, evaluate the debate strictly on my flow and even when asked not to flow, I wil often take some sorts of notes to help me when it comes to making a decision. I attempt to take down the argument and author and name but am not always successful at author and date. Thus, when you refer to evidence later, help me by giving me a reference point at where I should be looking on my flow. If you help me keep my flow clean and not just random columns of arguments (with no direct clash) that I have to connect to each other, then you will be rewarded.
Topicality and Procedurals/Framework
I will vote on well developed theory arguments though it typically takes an an investment of time to fully warrant these arguments for me. I view topicality as a debate about competing interpretations. As in all other forms of debate, you should have high quality evidence (including definitions). I am more persuaded by clearly deliniated fairness, ground and other sorts of debatability issues as reasons to prefer a certain interpretation.
Critical Arguments (on the Aff):
My default is not that you have to be topical but I do think you should present a viable workable political stratey. I do not have as high of a threshold for voting on framework arguments as I do on most topicality arguments. I am willing to listen and analyze a wide variety of forms of evidence, but you need to tell me what to do with the evidence and how to analyze it. As someone who has been out of the activity awhile, you should recognize that I do not view debate as the "end all" but rather an educational laboratory.
Critical Arguments (on the Neg):
As a graduate student and coach I have read a lot of the literature in this area and am familiar with many of the authors I have heard read in the last year. I am a good judge for you in this area if you use good link specificity (If you are defaulting to general "state action leads to x" then you may want to rethink). Similarly, I prefer a specific alternative and explanation of what the alternative does. I also want these arguments to have a concrete and comprehendable impact. I prefer a clear (and correct) explanation of the theory. Explaining the role of the ballot for both teams is crucial and must be consistent and well-articulated.
I have been more willing to vote on permutations lately for a few reasons: this is an area where I have seen embedded clash at it's worse and a team's generic perm block doesn't interact with what the plan in particular would add to the permutation or a variety of throw away threory answers. I am most persuaded in answering perms with explanations of how the perm itself links without solely a cross-application of all the other links.
Counterplans:
My ideal counterplan has specific solvency evidence for the plan. Absent that, I hold counterplan solvency to pretty high standards. I tend to default neg on mycounterplan theory, i.e. condo, PICs, agents, etc. I generally view the status quo as always an option at the end of each round. I have often found theory debates to be utterly incomprehensible and virtually impossible to flow and simply a battle of competing threory blocks that never answer each other.
Disads:
Focus on developing the link both through depth and increasing the number of link scenarios. I often find this work benefits the negative more than adding on impact scenarios and hoping for an RFD that is "I vote neg because there is a 1% risk of x,y and z impacts." I like applications of the disad to case and explanations of how it turns various case advantages and otherwise interacts with the affirmative works well for me. Please evaluate the impacts using evidentiary support and not just assertions.