Debated for University of Rochester for 6 years in Varsity Policy Debate and BP/Worlds Debate

Coached HS policy debate for 1.5 years

Currently a Clinical Psychology PhD student at Indiana University Bloomington

And yes, I would like to be on the email chain: oabubaka@u.rochester.edu

Borrowed from the Glass man himself: "If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible."

Honestly, just do what you want in front of me and just explain your arguments. I will vote on how you want me to vote (since how I see the debate may not be the same way you think you are articulating).

Also, if you can, I prefer debaters to slow down when in front of me. I am not the best judge for you if you decide to spread as fast as Harvard MS or Northwestern MV (although Arjun is very clear).

If you read high theory, do not pref me unless you are willing to explain your argument. My area of study is in psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and disability studies so I am not hitting up the latest post-modern/structuralist/etc. papers.

Debate is what you make it, so first and foremost ALWAYS DO YOU!!!!!

With that said most of my decisions are made off of what is said in the last 2 speeches, IMpact comparrison is really really important.

I view the debate in terms of offense and defense. Offense wins games, defense wins championships! ( except in debate)

I hate most theory args (unless its super creative), I hate high theory,by high theory I mean all those white dudes who were clearly high when they were writing their sh***, If you read that stuff make it as real world as possible! I hate debaters who just read into a computer screen and never look at the judge, stuff like that causes you to lose speaker points.

Speaker point Scale=27-30, if i give you below a 27 you did smthing really rea

//shree

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am a College, Highschool, and Middle school debate judge. History includes three years high school competition experience (LD Debate) and over two years experience judging. My philosophy is simple: Debate the best way you can, give adequate analysis and deliver with persuasiveness. Voting usually involves Framework, 

My preferences are standing for speeches, cross-ex, rebuttals. Unorthodox arguments are fine. 

Hello CEDA!  The first five paragraphs are important, you can probably skim the rest.

You're all beautiful people, but you're also faster than me, so do me a favor and slow down through taglines and author cites.  I wouldn't have abused formatting like that if I didn't mean it, because seriously though, I have no idea what half of you are saying in about one in five debates I watch until I call 'clear.'  Also I'll do that, so don't be all upset when it happens.  I competed in NPDA, but after a year in the CEDA pool I'm pretty much on-board with y'all's(?) game.

I am in my final year of law school, and I focus in environmental law and administrative procedure, I wear sport coats while judging, I was raised in west Texas, and have a love affair with fiat. This combination makes me essentially the dreaded White Male Heterosexual Cisgendered (etc.) Gaze.  Sadly this can't be helped.  This isn't to say I won't vote for your performance argument, and I've begun at least one RFD this year with "I desperately wanted to vote on T/FWK, but," so I try to be onboard with pretty much whatever.  I will say that I try as hard as I can to write a neutral ballot, but I definitely have an academic bias against Affs that necessarily require the Neg to defend the indefensible.  That is to say: arguments which are so fundamentally tied to the identities of the debaters that the only response is to either come up with a more radically individual argument which is personal to the Negation debaters or attack the identity politics of the Aff, the latter of which is essentially prettied up ad hominem attacks.

If that's what you do, on both sides, there's one other thing that I think is probably important.  While I try as hard as I can to fairly evaluate rounds, I'm probably farther behind on the radical multicultural literature than most debaters are.  I'm not trying to discount evidence, but I think its super important that everybody explain and re-explain exactly how it is that your evidence functions, and how your affirmative fulfills the promise of your evidence if its performative.  I caught some deserved criticism earlier this year after watching a round between two of the better performance teams in the country on less than a full night's sleep, and trying to put across the impression that I was super hot-shit and knew what everyone was talking about and didn't need more explanation than anyone else.  Realistically, my background just isn't sufficiently aligned with most of the performative literature to make that representation in good faith, so I'm asking you here to grant me a small amount of leeway and clean up the debate as much as possible.  

If this makes me sound like a complete idiot, I'm sorry you cannot adapt your argumentative style for those who do not think like you, and I wish you the best in building your social movement.  I'm probably not the right judge to have in the back of your round.

Also if you're just mean to your opponent it's likely that I'll end up being subconsciously biased against you, which is a real thing, because (most) judges aren't robots.  Don't do that.  And definitely don't make your CX a petty re-hash of some previous round you were in against the same opponent, or I'll just completely check out.

Arguments: I'm perplexed that framework isn't run more often. Do so, please, but do it correctly.  That means answering the pre-empts which are built into the 1AC, having a stable interpretation and violation, and giving me impacts to fairness, education, or whatever.

My favorite thing in the world is a Plan/CP debate with competing disads and advocacies, and after a couple dozen rounds this has only happened once. D: At least the theory debates have been fun so far.

I'm not going to intervene unless you leave me no other options because there's absolutely no clash and nobody has a clearly articulated message about the role of the ballot. Else, I default to net benefits. If you want me to vote on theory, I had better hear a more convincing explanation than "voter for fairness and education onto the disad"

Style:

You're going to be doing a lot better on my flow if in the rebuttals you can count on me knowing exactly which Yancy card to extend out of the 6 in your 1AC, and I'll tend to prefer arguments which I have flowed clearly. This means a couple of things:

First: slow down through taglines, and precede them with a LOUD, CLEAR, and OVERENUNCIATED verbal cue at the end of the previous card like "next" or "and" or "new card" or in an ideal world, numbers(!) for cards 1, 2, 3, etc. as you read them in your shells. After the shell it matters less because things tend to get messy anyway. Anyone who claims to flow perfectly from the back of the room at the same pace as debaters with the text in front of them is probably overselling their ability to take dictation.

Second: Repeat, at least once, anything that requires a stable text. This includes plan text, alt text, CP text, and T interpretations. Even though you schmucks all have copies of everythnig on your fancy laptops, I'm flowing by hand and want to be able to refer to my flow intelligibly later. If you have another means of ensuring that I get a copy, like handwriting it for me in prep and handing it to me or something, that's cool too.

Third: If your author has a name that's hard to pronounce or long or otherwise going to be a hassle for me to refer to in round when you ask me to "extend the [name] in [year] card" later on, please clarify which card that is and from which speech I should be extending it.

If I miss something else below, ask me in-round or before-round if you care.

Things I like:

Foucault and his progeny, Irony (the argument and the concept), Humor, specific plan texts, a friendly debate round, plan texts, or failing that, advocacy texts, Disads that are unique, specific link stories, advantages, clash, impact calculus, descriptions of how the worlds of plan/CP/Alt differ and in what ways, kritiks I've either heard of or which the team running them is willing to explain for me, overviews, surprise 2AC wipeout arguments, and really anything that makes my day more entertaining.

I also love this translation of Beaudrillard's 'Precession of Simulacra' from English into American: http://www.continentcontinent.cc/index.php/continent/article/viewArticle/91

You should read it, it's great.

Things I don't like:

Arguments run purely for the sake of sounding smarter than the other team; arguments designed to exclude debaters from competing due to some feature of their identity; bad -isms; anything generally in-line with the things I've just outlined; absolute nonsense asserted as true simply because an auhor of dubious repute published it in something you're willing to powertag.

Background:

This is my first year judging CEDA, I've been out of the debate community for the last two years because I've been in law school, which if you were wondering is quite the time-suck. The third year (3L), however, is kind of a waste of time, so I thought I would get back into debate. From 2008-2012 I debated in NPDA for Willamette, which is close enough to CEDA for me to know what I'm doing. If you know anybody from NPDA that you want to ask about my debating style back in the day, my partner was Kristen Stevens, who I think is still coaching at Western Washington. 

I'm currently a third-year student at NYU Law, specializing in Environmental Litigation, but also versed in campaign finance, administrative law, national security, and regulation of for-profit colleges, if for some god unbeknownst reason you want to cut a DA regarding them specifically to run in front of me.

Cole Bender

Debate Experience:

Assistant Debate Coach, Liberty University (2011-Present)

Years Judging: 2008-present

Former varsity debater at Liberty University

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

ADDITIONS FOR SPRING 2015 (This section supersedes any subsequent, older part of my philosophy.)

The cliff notes version is: I'd prefer you speak conversational speed, my default assumption is that you have to have a reasonable chance of solving in order to have "presumption" on your side (not just .1%), stop powertagging / overclaiming / making arguments that violate all rules of reasoning and logic, and follow the rules of the sanctioning bodies of the tournaments you attend (which includes but is not limited to having a topical plan at ADA tournaments and addressing the resolution at CEDA tournaments.

I have substantial modifications to my judging philosophy that will radically change how teams pref me. I have listed the changes below.

CHANGES:

1. I will continue to flow, but I would like to hear debates at a conversational pace. I still believe in the existence of common sense and that most people have a sense of how fast “conversation pace” is, but in case you need more specific guidelines, the average conversation speed of speakers using the English language is 150-200wpm. A person not trained in college debate should have no difficulty hearing and processing each individual word being said during your speech. If you’re going too fast, I’ll ask you to slow down. If both teams refuse and go fast, I’ll still prompt you to slow down, but I’ll flow the debate as normal. If the neg intends to go slow, they need to inform the aff before the 1ac begins. If the one team goes slow and the other team goes fast, I’ll default to the slower teams’ arguments and evaluate the debate largely in truth over tech terms. Speaking too fast will impact speaker points because speaker points indicate the level of clarity, persuasiveness, and effectiveness of your communication, but it is not an automatic reason for me to vote against you.

2. I see the role of the judge as being a critic of argument. My threshold for what constitutes “making an argument” was already fairly high relative to the average judge. In addition to this, I think it’s the burden of the team making the argument to produce an argument that is minimally coherent, demonstrates some level of rational consistency, and avoids obvious logical fallacies. The net effect of this is that the rational strength of the argument matters, even if the argument is dropped. Tech still matters, but my calculus for argument is shifting some toward the direction of truth. For example, your advantages in your policy affs are not deductive arguments that yield logical certainty. Doing your plan is not the one and only policy that can stop the 3-4 guaranteed extinctions that will happen in the status quo. Likewise, for non-policy arguments, ‘X’ philosophical system is not the root cause of all violence, nor is a given resistance strategy the one thing that will lead us to utopia. Evidence quality, reasonable extrapolations from evidence, and warrants matter much more in front of me. I’d vastly prefer if teams who intend to debate in front of me would re-structure their arguments to avoid overclaiming / powertagging / general disregard of rationality. I’d also appreciate if you read the qualifications of your authors. Teams that make reasonable, smart arguments will be rewarded with speaker points, and, if their tech is close to as good as their truth, they will be rewarded with ballots.

3. My default position is that I do not think 1% risk is high enough to keep / shift presumption in your favor. You can argue otherwise, but absent an argument in the debate, this is my position. For example, in a policy debate, the affirmative has an obligation to read a plan that has a reasonable chance of solving before they have proven the resolution true (my default assumption is that reasonable means 5-10%). Similarly, if the neg reads a CP, then the risk of the net benefit has to be reasonable (5-10%) in order for presumption to shift in favor of the CP instead of the plan. For non-policy debates, it’s increasingly unclear what presumption does mean or even what it should mean. I tend to be easily convinced that the affirmative ought to at least defend that that something material be done to change the status quo.

4. I will be following the rules of the sanctioning bodies of any tournament I attend, and I will expect those who debate in front of me to do the same. All the remaining tournaments I’m attending are either CEDA or ADA sanctioned tournaments. You can see a tournament’s sanctioning on Tabroom. The CEDA rules are available here (http://www.cedadebate.org/) if you log in, and the most recent copy of the ADA rules is located here (http://www.liberty.edu/academics/communications/debate/index.cfm?PID=22660). I encourage all participants to familiarize themselves with the rules of the various tournaments they agree to attend.

A short summary of how this impacts non-topical affs:

For CEDA tournaments: the CEDA documents only indicate that the debate should be about the resolution. The minimum affirmative burden is therefore to discuss the resolution in some capacity and to affirm something in relation to the resolution. Obviously I can be convinced through a process of debate that the affirmative ought to do much more than this (standard topicality and framework is still a viable strategy). But I cannot be convinced by arguments in the debate that the affirmative can do less than this.

For ADA tournaments: the ADA documents indicate among other things that the affirmative must present a topical plan of action and that topicality is a voting issue. (I’d encourage negative teams to look at the section on critiques as well.)

I will not intervene to make an arbitrary decision that the aff has not met these burdens. The responsibility is still on the negative team to present an argument for their interpretation of the resolution and how the affirmative has not sufficiently addressed the resolution (CEDA) or fallen within it (ADA).

To be very clear, you can and should have a debate about what these rules mean and what their proper interpretation is. But for the purposes of the ballot I won’t evaluate arguments that the rules should not be applied.

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

Addition for Decrim and Subsequent Topics:

I do not wish to see or hear any sexually explicit speech acts or performances, nor do I wish to see debaters in any state of undress. To clarify, speech acts that discuss sex, sexuality, and corresponding topics are fine in front of me. Speech acts or performances that simulate or vividly describe sex acts are not fine in front of me. If that statement isn't clear, either ask, or, when in doubt, presume in favor of caution. If you choose to speak or perform in such a way in front of me, I will ask you to stop and adopt a differnet strategy. If you refuse to honor that request, I will excuse myself from the debate for at least the duration of that portion of your speech but possibly the debate as a whole. If I have to leave the debate, I will attempt to get the tabroom to replace me. If this is impossible and I am required to sign the ballot, then the situation will likely result in a ballot for the opposition. This is a personal conviction about the types of acts I want to be exposed to as a judge and as a member of this community, and I ask that you respect it. This is not intended as a statement about how debate should look in general.

As a judge, I will try to balance the importance of allowing debates that might make persons intellectually uncomfortable with also allowing debaters to protect themselves from emotionally damaging situations. I believe that in some circumstances the competitors have the right to let everyone know if they are uncomfortable and they may take appropriate action to avoid witnessing/hearing things they find to be emotionally damaging.

Email: mary.bobbitt1076@gmail.com  Please include me on your email chains

People I wish to judge like: Sarah Lundeen, Jarrod Atchison, and Matt Struth.

2016-2017 update:

I have recently left the debate community to work full-time. This means I know very little about the literature on the topic and you should explain acronyms etc. 

I. Overview:  Don't over adapt to me. I am a flow centric judge. I flow on paper thus you need to slow down on cp texts, theory, fw etc. I do not think of debate as a classroom but rather a seperate competitive activity.  I default to the offense/defense paradigm. An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I focus on analysis over evidence. I am most interested in the radical of the left and right.  I am a very expressive judge; if you need different signals than traditional nonverbals please feel free to tell me and we will work something out. 

                A. Timing the debate and paperless:  CX and prep starts as soon as your speech ends. The time ends when the jump drive is pulled out the computer.  You should time yourselves; however, I will be enforcing efficiency.   I am very strict about time. 

Additionally - I will stop flowing as soon as the timer goes off.  

                B. Clarity:  If I cannot understand the full text of your evidence clearly I will not flow your cards and will treat the tags as analytics.  Slurring so badly that you are not reading the text of the evidence is akin to clipping.  I will say clear one time before I stop flowing you.  I will give more leeway in JV and novice.

                C. Speaker points:  While I love snark and jokes and hilarity, there is a line where that passes into just being mean. Snark/Jokes/Puns internal to the debate and arguments you are presenting are better than those just randomly put in.   I think having respect for your opponents is fundamentally a good thing. 

II. The K: The alternative is generally the weakest point of these arguments. I prefer debaters to demonstrate that they know the literature they are speaking from and not simply the cards that have been cut. 

                A. Flowing nontraditional debate: If you would like me to take notes or evaluate rounds beyond the traditional method of flowing, you must outline for me how to do so. 

                B. Perms - Counterperms are a difficult sell.  I don't understand how                        they work. 

                C. Opacity:  If you ask me to leave the debate because I am white you must tell me to do so and tell me what to do with my ballot.  I will not leave you my ballot if I am the only judge – I will take it with me and flip a coin.  I will only leave if both teams would like me to.

                D. Social death theory: This argument is generally asserted rather than explained. Please give warrants for why it is true

                E. Do not try to steal my ballot. They’re now mostly online anyway so I’m not sure how this would work..

III. Framework: I default to counter interpretations.  I prefer traditional debate impacts as opposed to agonism impacts. 

IV. Counterplans: Advantage CPs > Process CPs.  This is probably my weakest point as a judge; if you are reading a techy counterplan you need to spend time explaining to me the mechanism of the cp. I have difficulty with internal net benefits vis-a-vis the permutation.  I love a good theory debate.

                A. Condo: All my predispositions are debatable but I think condo is generally good. I think perf con (CP + K) is good.  However, reading two contradicting k's is probably not legit. I will not kick the CP for you unless you ask me to. Slow down on theory.  

                B. Other CP theory: International fiat seems suspect. The more I judge the less I like 50 state fiat. 

V. DA – uniqueness determines the direction of the link.  The words “Fiat solves the link” is not an argument.  Explain what your interpretation of fiat is and why that doesn’t matter. 

VI. Topicality – Enjoyable.  Specification arguments are fun.  Please provide me a case list for your interpretation.  I think the most interesting part of this debate is competing interps versus reasonability.  How do they function in the debate in terms of abuse and what interpreteations are?  This is rarely developed in these debates. 

VII. Case – I think analytics can take out an entire advantage. Let's have some fun impact turn debates because #reasons. 

VIII. Theory - I

IX. Other comments

                A.  Card clipping: It’s an auto lose.

                B. Marking Cards:  If you do not physically mark a card during your speech I will not evaluate it if you ask me to call for it.  I write down every card that is marked. If is your responsibility to jump a marked document to your opponents at their request. 

                C. If you are reading or showing pornography, I would ask that you explain the theory/method/story/video without actually showing or reading explicitly sexual content for the purposes of arousal.  I will assume you have performed it in some manner to answer solvancy questions.   

                D. I do not enjoy debates where gendered/ableist/racist/exclusionary language is used. 

                E. CX: I flow it. Its binding but open to clarification.

IV. Topic Specific Notes:

 See above. 

 For your enjoyment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWM2joNb9NE

Thank you for the opportunity to judge you.

Having judged and watched rounds at multiple tournaments, I've developed some opinions that will help you be successful in front of me.  I've read the topic paper and have seen a wide range of rounds from traditional policy to performance debates on the topic.   I do have a good working knowledge and will weigh the overall pros and cons of your arguments to determine the winner. I am a Grad student, specializing in Computer Science from NYU. I've received an UNDERGRADUATE DEGREE in Engineering in Computer Science from India. This means that I have preference for well-reasoned arguments based in cogent logic that are tied to the topic. I am willing to listen to performance arguments but it will be to your advantage to explicitly justify

a) the benefits of your particular approach to affirmation

b) how it ties to the resolution if you feel it does and

c) how I should compare poetry, music, personal narratives or other elements of your scholarship to traditional academic research.  

Given my lack of exposure to rapid-fire speeches prior to this year, this burden should not be insurmountable.  But if you stand up and read a poem or a narrative for seven minutes without explanation or justification, there is substantial risk I won't get it. Since I did not participate in formal debate in high school or college, please do not rely on me to be that familiar with debate terminology or its in-round functions (although I have received multiple judge orientations). 

The most important element is that to be successful if you are fast, well-organized team, you will need to cut down your speed by about 20% when I judge you if you want me to be able to favorably process your arguments.  More explanation with detailed analysis is generally preferable to fewer cards.

I debated for CUNY for three and 1/2 years so I ran a decent amount of arguments dealing with policy but not so much in the critical aspect of debate rounds. I vote on anything as long as it is given to me in the rebuttals clear, concise and logical. Even though I am not profound in certain kritiks, as long as they are explained to me then I will most likely vote for it, unless I disagree with the viewpoint of that kritik. My viewpoint deals with race arguments and how it prevents certain impacts such as genocide. I am really patient so I will not take time for jumping files but please make sure that it doesn't prolong the round for too long. Please be sure to accommodate for the other team if all your files are on the computer and you flow on it as well.

I am a Ph.D. student in Political Science at West Virginia University. I have an MA in Foreign Languages and Literature from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, with a specialization in the rhetoric of Ghanaian presidential debates. I have no prior policy debate experience. However, I have had one year policy debate judging experience and have had the opportunity to panel with some experienced judges where in all cases I voted the same as them. I think debate is a competitive game that needs decency, fairness and decorous disposition.

When it comes to rounds, my preference is civility of speech and validity of argument. Please note that I value clarity over speed. Therefore, kindly take your time to read your Plan text and make sure that transitions between arguments are punctuated with appropriate speech art mechanisms. I also prefer coherent argument supported by specific EVIDENCE on which I place utmost value. Consequently, if the evidence does not support your argument, then it is just your argument and that will not help you much. Stylistically, I expect debaters to give a clear road map before each speech.

Below are some few thoughts:

TOPICALITY: Topicality is a very subjective concept thought it is a voting issue. I therefore, expect that the AFF is able to produce appropriate evidence in support of the topicality of their plan at the 1AC. Topicality only becomes an issue if the NEG brings it up but the AFF either drops it or if the negative wins the exchanges based on their framework. Note that I will be inclined to vote NEG on the grounds of education, fairness and predictability should topicality becomes a critical issue in a debate round.  COUNTERPLANS:

I’ll like the NEG team to hammer home the solvency of the counterplan and show how it’s mutually exclusive as well as net beneficial. Please, should you run counterplan theory, your best bet is brevity and vigor. When it comes to permutation of the counterplan, the burden of prove lies with the NEG team to show why the AFF cannot do her advocacy and that of the counterplan should the AFF select to perm. Again, AFF is also to prove that the counterplan is not mutually exclusive for instance.

DISADVANTAGES:

I think that running DAs is fine and can cause great havoc to the opposing team so try as much as possible to connect them bringing out the links, internal links and impacts in a coherent manner. Again, the opposing team has the burden to respond to all DAs ran against them which I prefer line-by-line address.

CRITICISMS:

I think that should the NEG team select to run a K shell, the NEG team needs to offer a cogent explanation how its particular criticism implicates the affirmative’s impacts. This implies that the NEG team must be prepared to pick evidences from the AFF’s argument and show how these arguments are inconsistent. For instance, the NEG team needs to explain why the AFF plan is a bad one. In this case the NEG needs to point out some impacts of the plan and explain why the plan’s assumptions cause that impact.

FRAMEWORK:

For framework, I believe that you’ll like me to judge the debate that way therefore, if a team initiates framework debate the burden of prove lies with that team to show that their advocacy is the best. The opposing team is also required to respond to the framework argument or take up the challenge and show that their advocacy is better than their opponent’s.  

Welcome aboard and Good luck.

I will prefer judging novice rounds now

I'm an open college debater with 4 years of highschool policy debate experience.

In general, I'll be your flow-bot. General preferences include total and consistent clarity, depth over breath, unconditional respect for everyone in the debate, and why not brighten my day with a smile?

Affs/Performance: Consistent roll of the ballot, please - whether that means defending your plan or resisting pseudo-speciation. I'll protect the 2nr from total 2ar recharictarization of the debate. Other than that, run whatever you want. 

Kritiks: I'm decently well read, and this means I'll tend to "do work for you" without even knowing that I'm doing so; that is, I understand the jargon. That being said, I will not do any work for teams failing to apply their K to the particularity of the aff. K debate is about framing the relationship of the impact and the link. 

CP/DA/case: I'm game. Despite that I read and deploy the K more often, I actually prefer this type of debate becasue it almost always inevitably involves more clash. Be creative. Impact calc is a must. I'll read your evidence. Brink threshold and internal link magnitude are important yet unfortunately often absent from rebuttals.

T/Procedural: I'll vote on "stock issues". But for the sake of your speaker points (unless you have topic specific evidence that specicifcation has a quantifiable solvency deficit or theoritcal disadvantage), don't run spec arguments. 

Hi, I'm John. I debated policy for the New School for 2 1/2 years, from fall of 2010 to fall of 2012. During my debate career I mostly argued kritiks, defended an advocacy rather than a topical plan, and refused to switch sides. Although there is nothing I totally refuse to vote on (so far), I probably vote for the kritik more often than most judges.

I tend to have a very high threshold on T and FW. On T, I default to resonability, and the neg will have to tell a clear abuse story to get my ballot. This means not just clearly identifying what the aff did wrong, but why it's important (with impacts). I tend to value education as a standard very highly in T debates.

On FW, if the 1AC includes a justification for their non-topical advocacy, then it's up to the neg to respond with offense against the aff's methodology and/or reasons to prefer topical affs for educational/political reasons. Arguing that the aff broke the rules, stole the neg's ground, or will always be able to defend that their principles are good is unlikely to get you far.

CP/DA debate: I'm more receptive than most judges to the argument that probability of impacts is at least as important as magnitude. I see very little value in debates where I end up weighing two far-fetched nuke war scenarios against each other. To paraphrase Boston College DoD John Katsulas, if you got up in front of Congress and argued that we must pass comprehensive immigration reform or humanity will go extinct, you would be thrown into a loony bin.

*2014*

Haven't judged this topic yet, Big Lex will be my first tournament on Oceans. All this means is go slower/don't expect super familiarity with the current topic lingo. I'll probably get it halfway through round, just be clear about what things mean (which frankly, should be happening in good debates anyway).

Open to any kind of argument, pending it's not blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist (Timecube came and went with the WGLF).

Comparative impact work in the last rebuttals makes my job much easier. My job being easier makes for high speaks and a better RFD. Turns case is a tag, maybe even a block articulation- explain how it actually turns case. Explain what value to life means in face of a nuclear war melting all our flesh off. Explain what all our flesh melting off from a nuclear war means in face (or lack thereof) of value to life being lost. Magnitude, Probability, Timeframe- simple, and not nexessarily ALWAYS the best, but pretty convenient and universally applicable. 

Arg Specifics:

T- Flesh out author qualifications of the interp debate. Explain your impact in context of the violation so it doesn't sound like a framework backfile. Don't really have a preference between reasonability or competing interps, but explain whichever one you go for. There's little chance I vote on "Running T means you should vote Aff" type turns, but don't get sloppy and drop these, or I'll be grumpy and probably have to write a silly ballot.

CPs- They're cool. Offense on the super teched out ones are hard, so kudos to those killer 2ACs. Press the Neg on solvency advocates, especially for additional planks. CP theory breakdown is (probably): Lean Neg on Agent Fiat. Lean Aff on Delay/International/Consult, because those are usually silly. These aren't set in stone, just a fair warning. I usually default to reject the argument, explain why their violation is so horrible that it means they auto lose

DAs- Lots of cool things can happen with DAs. Please make sure you read uniqueness in the right direction, make sure you have an impact to the link, and make sure your link is in context of your uniqueness warrants. Politics isn't much sillier than the rest of debate, and those debates can be fun too.

Condo- 1 position is obviously fine. 2 is as well, though the theory debates could start happening here. 3 is iffy, acceptable but you should spend a good amount of time covering yourself on condo. 4 or more is probably abusive- run more T or DAs or Case instead. Contradicting Positions are different from regular Condo- answer it differently or you're gonna lose.

Ks- I run them often, but I'm still somewhat skeptical of the alt debate. I don't love "You didn't talk about x" links because they're vague and annoying, and usually generic "You use the state" links aren't fantastic either. You could easily win on either, I'd just prefer the inevitable stronger 2NC link to be the 2NR link. The framework and alt debate are often hand in hand- if you don't win this, you probably can't win the K, unless you can REALLY explain how the Aff is so substantially worse than the squo. 

FW- It's not my favorite strat, especially if it's against a directionally topical team engaging from their social location, but I've voted for it before. Don't get sloppy, contextualize the standards to a single voter (that outweighs any other voter hopefully), and remember that topical version of Aff is sadly persuasive, though also a reason why I'm not sure why you didn't run that as the CP instead of FW.

Case- The most fun. Presses teams the closest to home, shows the best research, and usually brings out warrants the best. I love good case debates, and often a good block can make a 1AR living hell. If case turns are dropped, shallow extensions are probably acceptable because you now control the spin/direction, and this will probably significantly boost the off case you're going for. Do more case debate, people.

You’re better off doing what you’re good at.

I judge rounds by the flow first and only after that will I look at cards. If I call for too many cards your probably didn't do your job as a debater.

Specifics

Comparison – When both sides make good comparisons between evidence and arguments the debate becomes really good. Good debaters should discuss the warrants of cards, have impact comparisons, discuss dates (especially in a politics debate), and author qualifications. If you do these things your speaks will be good and you probably will win the round.

Topicality-Go for it. I really consider the interpretation and reasonable limits debate. Make sure to weigh your standards such as does education matter more than fairness?

Theory- I’ll vote for it, but please don’t read something like multiple perms or k’s bad. Instead, spend your time answering the argument. I don’t like intrinsic and severance perms. I will never vote for your consult cp or timeframe fiat arguments. Condo and Agent CP’s are fine. I would much rather reject the argument and not the team. 

Framework- I’ll vote for it, but if you are a aff and say I should vote down a k I'm probably not going to listen to you. Honestly just weigh your aff.

CP’s- go for it as long as it isn’t a Consult CP

DA- explain the link and do impact comparison

Critique- Go for it. I would actually prefer to watch a good critique debate than a policy debate. I would prefer to have a role of the ballot. Explain the link. I don’t care if you don’t have an alt. like just about every critique except for Bauldrillard. Make sure to apply the k to the aff, don't be generic. I love it when someone takes a sentence from the aff and says this is what we criticize and why we criticize it.


Case- I love a good case debate.

If you have any other questions just ask me.

Affiliation: University of Houston

I’ve been judging since 2011. As of January 2nd, 2022 I am the third most prolific college policy judge in the era of Tabroom. Ahead of me are Jackie Poapst and Armands Revelins, behind me are Kurt Fifelski and Becca Steiner. Take this how you will.

Yes, I want to be on the E-mail chain. Send docs to: robglassdebate [at] the google mail service . I don’t read the docs during the round except in unusual circumstances or when I think someone is clipping cards.

The short version of my philosophy, or “My Coach preffed this Rando, what do I need to know five minutes before the round starts?”:

1. Debate should be a welcoming and open space to all who would try to participate. If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible.

2. Have a fundamental respect for the other team and the activity. Insulting either or both, or making a debater feel uncomfortable, is not acceptable.

3. Debate is for the debaters. My job, in total, is to watch what you do and act according to how y’all want me. So do you and I’ll follow along.

4. Respond to the other team. If you ignore the other team or try to set the bounds so that their thoughts and ideas can have no access to debate I will be very leery of endorsing you. Find an argument, be a better debater.

5. Offense over Defense. I tend to prefer substantive impacts. That said I will explicitly state here that I am more and more comfortable voting on terminal defense, especially complete solvency takeouts. If I am reasonably convinced your aff does nothing I'm not voting for it.

6. With full credit to Justin Green: When the debate is over I'm going to applaud. I love debate and I love debaters and I plan on enjoying the round.

Nukes thoughts:

The amount of time, reading, discussion, and even writing I have dedicated to American and International nuclear strategy is hard to overstate. Please treat this topic with respect.

The standard argumentative thoughts list:

Debate is for the debaters - Everything below is up for debate, and I will adapt to what the debaters want me to do in the round.

Aff relationship to the topic - I think affirmatives should have a positive relationship to the topic. The topic remains a center point of debate, and I am disinclined to think it should be completely disregarded.

"USFG" framework: Is an argument I will vote on, but I am not inclined to think it is a model that best suits all debates, and I think overly rigid visions of debate are both ahistorical and unstrategic. I tend to think these arguments are better deployed as methodological case turns. TVAs are very helpful.

Counter-plan theory: Condo is like alcohol, alright if used in moderation but excess necessitates appropriate timing. Consultation is usually suspect in my book, alternative international actors more so, alternative USFG actors much less so. Beyond that, flesh out your vision of debate. My only particularly strong feeling about this is judge kick, which is explained at the bottom of this paradigm.

Disads: I have historically been loathe to ascribe 0% risk of a link, and tended to fall very hard into the cult of offense. I am self-consciously trying to check back more against this inclination. Impact comparison is a must.

PTX DAs: For years I beat my chest about my disdain for them, but I have softened since. I still don't like them, and think intrinsicness theory and basic questions of inherency loom large over their legitimacy as argumentation, but I also recognize the role they play in debate rounds and will shelve my personal beliefs on them when making my decision. That said, I do not think "we lose politics DAs" is a compelling ground argument on framework or T.

Critiques: I find myself yearning for more methodological explanation of alternatives these days. In a related thought, I also think Neg teams have been too shy about kicking alts and going for the "link" and "impact" (if that DA based terminology ought be applied one-to-one to the K) as independent reasons to reject the Affirmative advocacy. One of the most common ways that other judges and I dissent in round is that I tend to give more credit to perm solvency in a messy perm debate.

Case debate: Please. They are some of my favorite debates to watch, and I particularly enjoy when two teams go really deep on a nerdish question of either policy analysis or critical theory. If you're going down a particularly deep esoteric rabbit hole it is useful to slow down and explain the nuance to me, especially when using chains of acronyms that I may or may not have been exposed to.

Policy T: I spend a fair chunk of my free time thinking about T and the limits of the topic. I used to be very concerned with notions of lost ground, my views now are almost the opposite. Statistical analysis of round results leads me to believe that good negative teams will usually find someway to win on substance, and I think overly dramatic concerns about lost ground somewhat fly in the face of the cut-throat ethos of Policy Debate re: research, namely that innovative teams should be competitively rewarded. While framework debates are very much about visions of the debate world if both teams accept that debate rounds should be mediated through a relationship to policy action the more important questions for me is how well does debate actually embody and then educate students (and judges) about the real world questions of policy. Put differently, my impulse is that Framework debates should be inward facing whereas T debates should be outward facing. All of that should be taken with the gigantic caveat that is "you do you," whatever my beliefs I will still evaluate warranted ground arguments and Affirmative teams cannot simply point at this paradigm to get out of answering them.

Judge Kick: Judge kick is an abomination and forces 2ARs to debate multiple worlds based on their interpretation of how the judge will understand the 2NR and then intervene in the debate. It produces a dearth of depth, and makes all of the '70s-'80s hand-wringing about Condo come true. My compromise with judge kick is this: If the 2NR advocates for judge kick the 2A at the start of 2AR prep is allowed to call for a flip. I will then flip a coin. If it comes up heads the advocacy is kicked, if it comes up tails it isn't. I will announce the result of the flip and then 2AR prep will commence. If the 2A does this I will not vote on any theoretical issues regarding judge kick. If the 2A does not call for a flip I will listen and evaluate theory arguments about judge kick as is appropriate.

Online Debate Thoughts:

1. Please slow down a little. I will have high quality headsets, but microphone compression, online compression, and then decompression on my end will almost certainly effect just how much I hear of your speeches. I do not open speech docs and will not flow off of them which means I need to be able to understand what you’re saying, so please slow down. Not much, ~80% of top speed will probably be enough. If a team tries to outspread a team that has slowed down per this paradigm I will penalize the team that tried for said advantage.

1A. If you're going too fast and/or I cannot understand you due to microphone quality I will shout 'clear'. If after multiple calls of clear you do nothing I will simply stop flowing. If you try to adapt I will do the best I can to work with you to make sure I get every argument you're trying to make.

2. I come from the era of debate when we debated paper but flowed on computers, which means when I’m judging I will have the majority of my screen dominated by an excel sheet. If you need me to see a performance please flag it for me and I’ll rearrange my screen to account for your performance.

3. This is an echo of point 1, but it's touchy and I think bears repeating. The series of audio compressions (and decompressions) that online debate imposes on us has the consequence of distorting the high and low ends of human speech. This means that clarity will be lost for people with particularly high and low pitches when they spread. There is, realistically speaking, no way around this until we're all back in rooms with each other. I will work as hard as I can to infer and fill in the gaps to make it so that loss is minimized as much as possible, but there is a limit to what I can do. If you think this could affect you please make sure you are slowing down like I asked in point 1 or try to adapt in another way.

4. E-mail chains, please. Not only does this mean we don't have to delay by futzing around with other forms of technology but it also gives us a way to contact participants if (when) connections splutter out.

5. The Fluffy Tax. If during prep or time between speeches a non-human animal should make an appearance on your webcam and I see it, time will stop, they will be introduced to the debaters and myself, and we shall marvel at their existence and cuteness together. In the world of online debate we must find and make the joy that we can. Number of times the fluffy tax has been imposed: 3.

6. Be kind. This year is unbelievably tiring, and it is so easy to both get frustrated with opponents and lose an empathetic connection towards our peers when our only point of contact is a Brady Bunch screen of faces. All I ask is that you make a conscious effort to be kind to others in the activity. We are part of an odd, cloistered, community and in it all we have is our shared love of the activity. Love is an active process, we must choose to make it happen. Try to make it happen a little when you are in front of me.

Samantha Godbey, PhD

Director of Debate

West Virginia University

Debaters please send speech docs here: wvucoaches@gmail.com I only check this email at debate tournaments.

If you would like to contact me, not during a debate tournament please email at SamanthaEGodbey@gmail.com.

A note about my education-I started as a novice in 2004 (fossil fuels)- debated through college mostly in CEDA Northeast. My PhD is in Political Science, in particular my dissertatation is on the American public policy process in the area of human trafficking policy. I also have comped in International Relations and Comparative Politics- I have never taken a communications class in my life. All of that means literally nothing except that there are pretty good odds I have not read whatever it is you are reading (policy or k lit). It is your job to explain it to me and pursuade me, not assume that I already know what you are talking about.

How I feel about arguments

I want you all to do whatever it is you do best/ enjoy the most. There is nothing I won’t listen to/ vote on. I really like offense. It is very persuasive to me. I feel as if that is what I look for when I am making my decision at the end of the round, I also like when debaters tell me how they won. I don't like having to look for those reasons/ decide which is most important myself.

Im not crazy about judge intervention, I do my best to come in to every round as tabula rasa as possible. It is your responsibility to persuade me in one way or another to get my ballot.

I believe that I am extremely flow centric (unless you tell me not to be), also seems like I should note that I flow what you say not what is in your speech doc. I wont have your speech doc open at any time unless I am reading cards at the end of the debate. So, if its said in the round, it'll be on my paper. The round is therefore decided by my flow (again, unless told otherwise).

I vote for who wins the debate, I find all types of arguments persuasive from critical to straight up policy. I don't care what you do, just do what you do best (and impact it).

I also think it is worth noting in framework debates that though I have, and I'm sure will in the future, vote on fairness being an impact to framework, I do not find it very persuasive. I am much more into topic education, roleplaying government good, TVAs, switch side education good, etc being a reason why debate should conform to certain guidelines (i.e. framework).

Cecilia Hagen

What is important to me:

Clarity is important to me. If I cannot understand you I won't be able to flow you. Be knowledgeable about your arguments and be ready to defend your links and impacts.

Novices* Flow the debate so you don't drop important arguments or miss key details.

J.V. and Varsity* Please explain things for me, I am not always up to date on the topic and it is better to cover all your bases and have a nice clean and clear debate.

For Performance, critical teams and any others* In general I have voted for many arguments. The most important aspect of the debate for me are clarity- being clear and concise, also taking the time to explain arguments for me.

Feel free to ask me specifics before your round if you have any more questions.

Heather Holter Hall

Hallheather8@gmail.com

Salem and Tallwood High School Debater 1990-93

Liberty University Debater 1993-96

Liberty University Assistant Debate Coach 20+ years

I love this activity and I look forward to meeting you.

For novices:

Congratulations on being at a debate tournament! I like debates with a few pieces of quality research that you can explain well plus some smart logical arguments. You should focus on good explanation of arguments and on getting better at flowing.  Putting lots of extra pieces of research that you have never read before into your speech is a waste of your time. I would much rather hear you explain research that you understand, compare that research to your opponent’s research and arguments, and tell me why the plan is either a good or bad idea.  The most important comparison in the debate you can make is to tell me whose impacts are bigger, come first, or are more likely. 

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, not the speech document. You should highlight and read complete sentences. I do not count sentence fragments as arguments.

If it is an online debate, please make sure you SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech. Please say out loud when you are done with prep time and post how much you have left in the chat. When you say prep time is done, you should be ready to email the speech document immediately. 

For everyone else:

I have spent the majority of the last 20 years coaching novice debate.  I also judge a lot of novice and jv debates. This means that I am not deep into the lit base for most arguments. My days are full of explaining and re-explaining basic debate theory. You should view me as someone who loves learning something new and the debate as your opportunity to teach me. If you want me to assess arguments based upon previous in-depth knowledge of a particular lit base, you will probably be very disappointed. I love the strategic use of each student’s scholarship but get me on the same page first.

Likewise, the theory debates I am used to judging are pretty basic. I would love to hear a well-developed theory debate at a high level, but you will need to slow down, give full warrants, and not assume that “lit checks” means the same to me as it does to you.

About preferred types of arguments—smart strategy with good support that is clearly communicated usually wins. I prefer consistent, thoughtful strategies with a few well developed arguments, but, sadly, I have voted for negatives who won simply by overwhelming the 2AC with skimpy highlighting of 7 off case positions.

I have voted for everything, but I do not judge alternate formats of debates often so you will probably want to slow down, make well developed arguments, and assume I do not know. As long as I am judging and there is a win to assign, my main assumption is that every team is playing the game, maybe in different ways, but still just playing the game. I can only make decisions based on words or actions in a particular debate. I will not begin to speculate about another person’s motive or intentions--that is a job for someone else.

I will flow what is spoken in the debate, including cx.  I will reference the speech doc, BUT if I can’t understand your words or if the words you say do not make grammatically complete sentences, they won’t make it on my flow and only my flow counts. Likewise, if you are hedging the debate on a warrant buried three sentences deep in the fourth card by Smith, you will need to say more than “extend Smith here.”  The more concrete and specific your warrants are, the more likely you are to persuade me.

If it is an online debate, you need to SEE or HEAR me on the camera before you begin your speech.  Yes, this has happened more than once lol.  Don’t steal prep—it is obvious and annoying.

Feel free to strike me. I am not offended at all if you think I am not a good judge for you. Hopefully, I still get a chance to meet you at a tournament and chat.

Finally, I hope you all have a great tournament, learn new things, think deeply, speak well, meet fascinating people, and win lots of debates (unless you are debating my teams)! Have fun and please say hi in between debates!

I have no preset preferences on kritical affs or unusual debate style. 

Clarity over speed is always preferable. 

Updated March 2019

New School Debater 2007-2010 / New School Coach 2010-2014 / WVU Coach 2014-2019

Please feel free to do what you are most comfortable with. I have a reputation for being very critically oriented, but I feel as if I vote for policy arguments more and more. I am still pretty far left of center, but not as far left as I was when I first started. I will not, however vote for arguments that I find morally repugnant. If you don't know what those things might be, then "better safe than sorry" might be a good strat.

Some general comments that will help you understand how I feel about certain parts of the debate. I think that a compelling, developed argument without cards will often beat a highly carded, poorly explained argument in almost every case. If you can make smart arguments and analytics, then I am probably going to be persuaded by you. I don't think that every arguments needs to have a card to be true, and I don't think an unwarranted card makes a bad argument true.

A few technical things: I vote more and more on my flow than on my overall perception of a debate. If I don't know what you're saying, then you should probably be clearer or slow down. I don't want to read a lot of cards after the round, but I will read important ones that you tell me to if you explain why I have to read that card. Tell me that it directly answers their important cards, or that it is the best piece of evidence that shows why you win, or that it's written by an author I like, and then I'll probably read it. When it comes to the end of the debate, give me specific ways to vote for you. The easier you make it on me, the more likely I'll be to vote for you.

T- I used to be very biased towards T arguments, but I am less so now. I think that T arguments can devolve into blippy extensions of a three word definition. Those are the kinds of T debates I dislike. If there is a specific reason why an interpretation changes the way an aff functions, then I am open to that debate. I think that an argument over "how much is substaintial" is not particularly useful. I am completely fine with non-topical affs, in fact I like them a lot. With that having been said, with great power comes great responsibility and that responsibility is often answering T and FW. For me, “T is fascist” is not enough. You need to explain why you need to be non-topical and why a topical version of your plan is a bad idea. I am more likely to buy abuse stories that involve education in a coherent way, saying non-topical plans kill education is not enough, explain how that type of education is bad, and why a topical version might work better, or just a modified version. If you are going for the "topical version" argument, then you should probably have an example of what a topical version would be.

FW- I default to the framework of the aff unless the neg on face challenges it, but the aff also has to defend their framework and answer the other team’s objections with substantive answers, “aff choice” isn’t enough. If they want to use USFG policy to do something, then so be it. If they want to use themselves as agents, then that is good too. You have to defend which option you choose. I feel that debates about debate can be important and useful, but only if they are substantive and meaningful (I don’t find the Shively “Euthanasia” card falls into those categories).

DA’s- As a debater, I never read DAs, but I am becoming more comfortable with them. I don't do tons of policy research every day, so I may not know every scenario currently being read. That only means that it is the neg's responsibility to explain the story of the disad and the warrants of the cards. This is the bare minimum for any argument. I am sympathetic to K’s of DA’s, so be warned. That doesn't mean that I have an aff bias on disads, but that I am more familiar with the literature critiquing them than the uniqueness card you cut last night. Just one thing that might help you out, I am pretty willing to buy a “try or die” situation against a DA if there is not enough impact work done. This is especially true absent a CP. If it comes to Plan v. DA, I’m probably going to pick plan unless you explain to me why I can’t. If you make it seem like the plan action will certainly lead to the demise of the entire world then there should be some seemingly factual warrants to why this is the case (remember this doesn't have to be a card, see above).

CP’s- Competition is key. Explaining it is even better. There needs to be a clear discussion to how the CP competes and is net beneficial to the aff. I need a clear net benefit and why that is more important than plan action. I also need clear explanation on the Perm debate. Each Perm should be answered individually or group for some logical reason. Do not make a Perm argument on one perm, drop the others and then pretend you answered them all. I flow your answers on the specific Perm you mention. Be clear and be precise on the Perm debate. I will get to theory below.

K’s- I said at the top I was a K debater, so if you are a K team, this is a blessing and a curse. I will be automatically more attracted to these arguments, but will also hold them to a higher standard. Don’t expect that I know what you’re talking about even if I do. I try my best to only evaluate the arguments made, not what I know about the philosopher/philosophies you are citing. You will win easily if you explain how your arguments function in relation to the other team’s arguments. You will lose easily if you throw out high theory jargon and expect me to connect the dots.

Theory- I don’t particularly like it because it always seems to be lacking. Are multiple perms really that detrimental to anybody? Does it really skew your time that much to answer “do both” and “do the plan, then the alt?” I’ve never seen a really good theory debate and I don’t want to see a lot of bad ones to find a good one. If it’s something you like to do, then do it, but you’re really going to have to sell me on why your scripted block beats their scripted block. One way to do this is give specific examples to the debate you're in. I will be much more likely to buy your theory argument if you make it seem like X thing is bad always, but in this round it is just egregious.

Non-Topical Affs- These are the affs I have the most experience with and what I am used to judging. If you are the team that is looking for the straight up policy debate judge that just finished spending his Friday night cutting politics updates, I am not the judge for you. If you are the K team that is looking for the person that won't automatically vote them down for not being topical, then I am the judge for you.

I think that debate should be much more of an open space than it is. Just because something isn't what you do, doesn't make it automatically wrong and if you debate in front of me with that mentality, you will probably lose. Engaging arguments is the most important part of debate for me.

My masters is in literature and translation studies, so I can be compelled by performance or discourse centric proposals, but I naturally gravitate to more traditional solvency / impact calculations, and I am particularly compelled by strong analytical arguments unless it is an issue of data or other expertise. 

Updated for the 2022-2023

I debated at Texas in the late nineties/early aughts. I coach at Boston College; but I'm also a full time attorney and was recently elected to serve in the Maine House of Representatives (so yes, I'm quite literally a policy maker, but keep reading). I like smart and strategic debates. I feel like many debaters are focused too heavily on the trees to the detriment of their ability to focus on the forest, and others are so focused on the forest that they end up losing sight of the trees. I really enjoy debates in which your granular and deep knowledge of the trees allows you to explain the state of the forest. 2NRs and 2ARs who are willing to cut one or some of their trees down to benefit the overall health of the forest, are often most credible and will be rewarded. I've officially tortured the metaphor, so let's move on.

Online debate: I'm adjusting to it. My threshold for verbal clarity is higher, simply because the quality of sound that comes through the mic is worse than it is than if we were in person. Be clear. As always, but more acutely in the online context, it is helpful if you start slower and work your way up. During cross-examination, interrupting each other is super annoying because I can't hear anyone. Even more annoying is filibustering your answer to a question knowing that it's difficult for the other person to interrupt you. I have my eye on speaker points if that happens. I understand that internet quality sometimes precludes you from turning your camera on. I am trying to control for my bias that I'd prefer you turn your camera on so I can visually process what I'm hearing. But I acknowledge that bias exists.

General Stuff: I flow well and on paper. I want to be on your email chain, but I'm not going to look at it until the end of the round. That it exists in a document and on my laptop doesn't mean I will necessarily read it. My flow, not the speech document, will determine what arguments are in the debate. I find that, when debating in front of me, debaters who don't flow have very little idea how to effectively compete against those who do.

Your evidence will only be given weight if it was sufficiently explained and debated.

Spewing through pre-canned overviews or explanations at the rate you would card text is a waste of your time -- nobody is flowing it.

None of this is as an endorsement of one substantive type of debate over another. I have seen T debates, theory debates, K debates, C/P D/A Debates, and case debates I have loved. I have seen T debates, theory debates, K debates, C/P D/A debates, and case debates I have hated. Accordingly, my preference is that you make no adjustments to your preferred method or choice of argument and that I adjudicate the round based on you justifying why that it is preferable to any other proposed by the other team. The key to this is that YOU MUST WIN, which is best done through impact analysis. Absent impact analysis, I will unfortunately be forced to see things my way. If your 2NR or 2AR lacks a moment (or many) in which you talk about why you win, you will likely lose. So, the remainder of this is my way of informing you about my defaults, all of which only come into play if you have not effectively done the above.

The Arguments

Topicality: Competing interpretations makes the most sense to me. However, interpretations that are not meaningfully grounded in the words of the resolution are not, to me, T interpretations. Your interpretation should have net benefits; I feel that the limits debate (either way) usually makes a pretty good one. My senior year (now 17 years ago, I am old) I went for T in about 50% of my 2NRs. I think that “kritikal affs” that say you don’t have to be topical are being lazy. (preface: this next sentence may come off with a certain “back in my day tone" because as we have established, I am old) My partner and I ran an ironic affirmative on the Africa Topic, of course many people went for T, we beat the vast majority of those teams because we had a smart counter-interpretation. The topic does not constrain creativity, being topical doesn’t either. If the neg’s interpretation precludes creativity, doesn’t that seem like an argument against their interpretation rather than the notion that one should be topical? To presume that your aff is already excluded by the resolution is silly. The resolution is a meaningless text only given meaning by being debated. Topicality debates are the opportunity to do that. Consider the rant over, but what you should take away is I love good T debates as rare as they are.

Theory: I’ll vote on it (see Topicality above to see how best to frame it), but would prefer not to. I tend to err negative on counterplan theory, but can be convinced otherwise particularly with the proliferation of multiple counterplan 1NCs.

"Framework": I understand the strategic convenience of calling these arguments "framework" and dealing with them on one flow. Nevertheless, I find it remarkably sad that we are not (after several decades now) capable of recognizing that there is value in the discussion of what happens in the hypothetical circumstances that the Federal Government passes plan and value in the discussion that there are problematic presuppositions that may inform the formation of that plan. I can understand that there is no such thing as fiat, neither I nor anyone else is mistaking you for the President, Congress, or the Supreme Court; however, that does not mean that there is no reason to evaluate the consequences of what happens if the Federal Government does something. Conversely, this does not mean that the ethical ramifications of ideas or words should not also be discussed. In essence, if made in the realm of fairness, ground, and limits, these are better housed under the banner of Topicality. If these are arguments as to how I should evaluate different types of impacts, well it's seldom that anyone wins a 100% victory on that question, and you should just have the debate -- one you will hopefully be having anyway -- about how I should weigh impacts.

Disads: Love em, Uniqueness is important, but not determinative. Yes, it’s hard to win zero risk of the disad, but propensity is as important (your job to debate this) if not more important (again, I’ll leave that to you all in the debate) than magnitude.

Counterplans: Wonderful. But I benefit from a discussion early on of what the neg considers to be the net benefits to the Counterplan. It usually turns out to be the Aff who should be forcing this discussion in cross-ex to protect themselves from late-breaking 2NR claims. It's hard for me to fault the negative for it being late-breaking when the Aff doesn't initiate the discussion. I find multiple counter-plan strategies are more confusing that strategically beneficial, but hey, if you think you're good at it, have at it. I find that Counterplan theory is a lost art form. Yes, I coach Boston College. No, I'm not Katsulas, I'm not anti-Conditionality. But, I find debaters bizarrely unwilling to use hybrid theory arguments (e.g. multiple conditional alts bad/conditional agent counterplans bad/conditional pics bad, etc.) to hedge or theoretically justify some creativity in your permutations.

Kritiks: Went for them very frequently as a Debater and coached and coach them frequently as well. That said, I think far too much time is spent discussing esoteric academic discussion than is done applying it to what we're debating. At the end of the day, your self-satisfaction in being able to talk abstractly about what your authors say will be substantially less useful than your ability to apply what they say directly to the resolution or the aff. Accordingly, I prefer when you make your links specific to the aff (sometimes well done by making arguments on the case debate) and articulate more than just some ethereal concept as the alternative (however i will vote negative for a well articulated reason that the kritik argument turns case). When you do not do this, the Permutation often looks very attractive to me. In addition, it pays to read “disads” to the permutation and for the aff to read “disads” to the alt that do not link to the permutation. See above regarding counterplans as to the absence of theory arguments against alternatives.

Kritikal affs should engage the resolution. My default is that they should be Topical. Again, I am quite open to compelling arguments to the contrary and as to what constitutes a topical engagement of the resolution. As with anything, the debate is going to come down to you telling me compelling reasons why your ideas are better than the other team's. I'm not really cool with, I read a poem…it was about potato bugs of the East Antilles, poems are good, I win. I do not think that because you read something before the other team does, you win. Debate is about debating ideas; I do not care HOW you debate those ideas so long as you do so and do so better than the other team.

Case Debate: No excuse not to have something to say on case. Make what you say interacts well with your off-case strategy. Be able to distinguish between the separate case arguments you make, but also be able to understand their interaction with other case arguments and off case positions.

Other stuff

Do not be a jerk to the other team or your partner, I love a little well placed trash talk especially if it's funny, but don't be a jerk (it's your job to figure out where the line between these two is). Do not steal prep time. I'm pretty nice, so if you have any questions ask me.

Finally, halfway through the year, copying my philosophy over from last year. I will say, there are a few big additions are up at the top. Those of you that pref me regularly probably know about them already.

1. I'm flowing on paper again. This means you have to spend time on the arguments you want ink on. This was a deliberate choice. It's meant to make you exlain things. Teams that think they can say a word (statistics, scholarly consensus, winners win, bioptix good are frequent ones I hear) and think it's a full argument will suffer. Sorry, life ain't kind.

This also means I'll, more than likely, show up to the round looking for a pen and paper. Sorry.

2. Lately, if you remind me, I'll give you a movie to make references to for extra speaker points. More often than not, it will be Good Will Hunting. 

3. paperless debating -- I don't know why anyone would make you kids use prep to flash. paperless debate seems to be one of the few things our community has managed to get right about practicing what we preach, so I'm willing to put up with the extra few minutes of waiting. I'll more than likely use the time you folks are flashing things and make bad jokes, and silly puns like "all the cards they're jumping you are so stupid, they might as well call that thing a 'JUNK drive!'" and then dock your speaks when you don't laugh.

4. I've been thinking more and more about deleting all of this crap and just posting one line as my paradigm: I'm a banana. 

I dream of the debates I would see. I envision young, smart, indifferent people all preffing me highly -- like at every D8 tournament there's a secret room somewhere where intensely smart performance debates are happening, but they only allow the craziest, snarkiest, least socially adjusted in the pool to judge it. 

Then I think about the other possibility -- I don't get preffed at all. That idea doesn't bother me either, really. The only thing that really deters me from doing it is not being able to say "just look up my paradigm" to people when I walk into a room and debaters, frustrated that another judge pulled the trigger on limits in their last round and wanting to know if I care that they're not topical, ask my "do you have any preferences?"

I mean, I would prefer not to, I guess. I'm not sure I can tell them that though. I prefer that debates happen where there is significant impact analysis, a point of stasis about the issues being discussed (srsly, in these deleuze v zizek debates, it'd be helpful if you could help me resolve what capitalism even is)  and depth on a few key issues.

*****

So, I debated at Vermont from the ag topic to immigration. I didn’t really run a plan my last few years debating, so those of you who are looking just to see if I'll listen to your business even though you don't have one, I will -- but that doesn’t mean I’m not going to vote on framework , either. make sure you’ve got a legitimate answer to it that’s a little more nuanced than an impact turn -- some topic specific defense is generally clutch in a situation like that. 

Everyone who's rolling their eyes now because you think I'm a k hack, hold up before you take out your heg impact and substitute in some security k advantage you 

a) aren't familiar with or 
b) don't really feel like running. 

I’d rather hear you do what you feel comfortable with. 

It occurs to me I should begin by telling you what types of debates I enjoy watching. I’d say I probably enjoy watching what more and more people are calling “non-traditional” debates best -- no offense to those running the EU counterplan, it’s just slightly boring to me. That doesn’t mean that I don’t think a beautifully run terror disadvantage isn’t fun to watch -- but when it’s not done really well, it can be agonizing. 

So, because I ran more critical args, I’m more familiar with them. I also think knowing your bias and admitting it is better than pretending I don’t have one and then not really understanding a teams arguments when you’re in round because you expect me to be deep into the realism lit -- so, you may have to slow down and be a little more explanatory. On the flip side, don’t expect me to know what’s going on with your k just because I ran a couple of them. 

Now we’re hitting the part of the judging philosophy where people list types of arguments and people say “I like them!” or “ehh, I’ll listen to it, but whatevs” -- since I’m assuming as a coach my first year out I’ll be hearing a lot of novice debate, I’m going to do you one better and tell you what to do with each of these args to get my ballot, or at least higher speaks than you’d have gotten. I’m operating under the (maybe faulty) assumption you’re a novice reading this, and not just a coach trying to decide to pref me or not. 

topicality -- think of T as a disad. just because you can prove their business doesn’t fit your definition of substantial doesn’t mean you get my ballot. your interpretation is an example of how the resolution should be interpreted in not just this particular debate round, but every debate round. People lose sight of this I think, and because of that, impact analysis can fall to the wayside. Admittedly, this is what would happen with me, at least. If you’re going to go for T, make sure you outline what args are permissible and impermissible under your interpretation, and what this means for the negative. It helps to have contextual examples specific to this topic, and as the year goes on, it becomes more important. 

Theory -- I probably have an abnormally low threshold for voting on theory, to be honest. If you are going for it in front of me, make the same impact analysis I’m calling for in a T debate, please. Lay out the worlds of debate, which is better, which is worse, and why. 

Case -- Not sure what to say here. Put something on. It’s easier to pull the trigger on a k or d/a if there’s a solvency deficit arg that’s persuasive on case. 

Kritiks --zero point of the holocaust is not an impact. It’s cool if you want to go conceptual, I’m down, but you want to 

a) have specific examples of the way your impacts play out that have some bearing on the topic, and what that means for people, and 

b) a clear idea of what the alt is, and how to explain it in simple terms. Be careful about assigning a role of the ballot, because that can get confusing fast. 

Other than that, this year it’s going to be easy for k debates to get stale, because the topic seems to lend itself to stale/generic links. Points for creativity. 

When answering a K with a straight up aff, the link turn is key -- use your 1ac please -- I won't be persuaded by a block of cards and then a brand new 2ar that articulates the link turn. It also helps your partner out when he/she is giving the 1ar, and helping your partner out is a good thing. 

D/A’s, CP’s -- These are way less conceptual, just make the smart argument and justify your business. Aff people who are answering these, remember to isolate the parts of case the cp can’t possibly solve for, and make that the most important thing in round, be it an ethic, an ontology, or a gw advantage. If you’re going for the d/a in the 2nr, make sure you’re weighing the impacts, and probability and magnitude are probably most important in the end. that doesn’t mean drop timeframe though. 

performance -- I don’t think I really have separate advise for this because I don’t think of it as a different category of argument from the above per se. Make sure you’re making those basic arguments about what your performance does to disrupt x problem. Do me one favor though, don’t use your performance as a reason why you don’t answer obviously important business because of your speed is exclusionary, going multiple off is bad, or whatever other generic arg you’re making is. Plenty of good teams are slow and don’t brush off important arguments. That also doesn’t mean I’m not persuaded by speed is exclusionary, it just means you’re going to have to be smart with your time. 

That being said, there are things people will tank your speaks for doing but in good humor, I think you should totally do them in front of me as long as you’re not being serious -- I’ll give you an extra speaker point or two, just because. They include, but are not limited to: 

1. using the phrase “jack taco.” 
2. saying “don’t do the work for them” 
3. stating “this was cold conceded” -- bonus points if it was not conceded. 
4. calling a piece of evidence “on fire.” 
5. saying “I don’t get a 3nr” 

But, in all seriousness, you should be respectful to those you are debating, and your partner as well. And have fun! Debate is hard, might as well enjoy yourself while you’re doing it.

I was a policy debater and I love to hear cases that present those real world scenarios.  My Aff philosophy places the burden of proof on the affirmative case for solvency and impacts.  Many times you can win because the Neg does not address case advantages and impacts.  Good impact calculus in the rebuttals is all that is required.

I like an aggressive cross-X and I will not chastise anyone for being snarky unless you get personal.  I like speed, but I need to clearly hear tags and cites.  Don't rush through these or I will stop flowing.  Analysis is critical.  It is not possible for me to read all of the evidence, so you need to tell me how it pertains to your case.

NEG Philosophy -- I am pretty happy with anything you want to put forth.  Disadvantages and CounterPlans can often beat the 1AC.  On K's, I really like to hear a real world impact in the alternative.  I can easily vote for that.  Otherwise, I will give more weight to the AFF impacts.  Don't say I didn't warn you.

I coached and judged CEDA, NDT, BP, IPDA in my 20 year coaching career. Aside from some online coaching during the pandemic, it has been 8 years since my day to day involvement with a debate topic. I have judged CARD for the last few years and enjoy the format immensely. I really have no argument or style preference anymore. I want to hear well constructed arguments about the topic. I will be clear when I see them and will not hesitate to explain why I didn't feel they were well constructed or about the topic. I will take good notes about the debate but I will not transcribe the debate. If it is not in my notes it is usually because I didn't feel you made it seem important or relevant. Please ask me any questions before or after the debate .

I started in the activity in 2003 as a debater and haven't left. Please note that over the past couple of years, I've judge a lot less, and have spent much more time in the tabroom. As such, my ability to handle unintelligible speed has probably diminished. 

Etiquette: Debate is a fun activity; if you don’t enjoy it, you probably shouldn’t be doing it. Don’t make it miserable for others. Be polite, answer cx questions (tag team is ok, just don’t take over your partner’s cx time). Extremely offensive language will probably be reflected in lower speaker points (unless of course, it’s an actual argument). Most importantly, have fun!!

Pet Peeves: Don't steal prep time, it's unfair and it causes the whole tournament to run slower.  For paperless teams, prep time ends when you remove the flash drive from your computer to hand to your opponents.

Speed: Speed is fine IF you’re clear. Slower is better when it comes to T, theory, and framework. Don’t sacrifice good analysis and argumentation for speed. I’ll shout “clear” if I can’t understand you, but I won’t do that more than two or three times. While I will call for important cards at the end of the round, I won’t call for so many that I’m reading everything you read on the position you go for at the end of the round.  

Do what you’re comfortable with doing. I will listen to what you say, flow it (unless you tell me not to), and vote for it; but there are certain types of debate that I’m much more comfortable with adjudicating.

Topicality: T is about competing interpretations. Provide a sound interpretation, a clear violation, and impact it. T exists to establish fair ground. It’s ok to take a different perspective and/or use a different style of argument, but I believe that you should have to affirm the resolution to provide some predictable neg ground. I believe switch-side debate is good. While I’m open to the argument, it will take some work to convince me that T is genocidal and/or shouldn’t come first when evaluating the round.

CP/DAs: I love good CP/DA rounds. Make sure your DAs have good uniqueness, links, internal links, and impacts. Weigh the impacts against the aff impacts! Magnitude, probability, timeframe: they’re all good things to analyze. What are the solvency deficits or DAs to the CP? 

Kritiks: I’m open to listening to kritiks, but keep in mind that I don’t spend the little free time I have reading Zizek, Derrida, etc. Clearly explain the link and implications. Have a well-articulated alternative. Reject the aff is not usually a good alternative. Articulate how the aff can’t solve or how the K solves the aff better if that’s what you’re going for. What are the disadvantages to the perm? A lot of analysis and good explanation will go much farther than reading a few extra cards.

Performance: If you are going to perform, have a framework that allows for fair debate. Make an argument. Respond to your opponents’ arguments (yes, you may have to respond to a DA; you don’t have to read cards, but you do have to answer it). This is not the type of debate I’m most comfortable judging, but I will listen to you. I just may be easily convinced that you aren’t topical and/or don’t provide a fair framework for debate. If you do those things, go for it!

Theory:  Conditionality is fine, however running multiple contradictory conditional positions is probably abusive.  Don't just read blocks.  Draw distinctions, have a clear interpretation.  Show in round abuse, or explain why potential abuse should be a voting issue.  Impact analysis is important. 

Please include me in your speech doc thread. My email is johnfnagy@gmail.com

If I am judging you online, you MUST slow down. I will not get all of your arguments, particularly analytics, on the flow. You have been warned.

I enjoy coaching and judging novice debates. I think the novice division is the most important and representative of what is good in our community. That being said, I opposed and still oppose the ADA Novice Curriculum Packet. It's an attempt by some in the community, who don't even have novice programs, to use the novice division to further their vision of what debate "should" look like. I don't like that.

I really like judging debates where the debaters speak clearly, make topic specific arguments, make smart analytic arguments, attack their opponent’s evidence, and debate passionately. I cut a lot of cards so I know a lot about the topic. I don’t know much about critical literature.

Framework debates: I don’t enjoy judging them. Everyone claims their educational. Everyone claims their being excluded. It’s extremely difficult to make any sense of it. I would rather you find a reason why the 1AC is a bad idea. There’s got to be something. I can vote for a no plan-text 1AC, if you’re winning your arguments. With that being said, am not your ideal judge for such 1AC’s because I don’t think there’s any out of round spill-over or “solvency.”

Topicality: Am ok with topicality. Competing interpretations is my standard for evaluation. Proving in-round abuse is helpful but not a pre-requisite. If am judging in novice at an ADA packet tournament, it will be very difficult to convince me to vote on topicality. Because there are only 2-3 1AC's to begin with, there's no predictability or limits arguments that make any sense.

Disadvantages: Like them. The more topic specific the better.

Counterplans: Like them. The more specific to the 1AC the better. Please slow down a little for the CP text.

Kritiks: ok with them. I don’t know a lot about any critical literature, so know that.

Rate of Delivery: If I can’t flow the argument, then it’s not going on my flow. And please slow down a little bit for tags.

Likes: Ohio State, Soft Power DA’s, case debates

Dislikes: Michigan, debaters that are not comprehensible, District 7 schools that cut and paste evidence from other schools and present it as their own without alteration. Do that in front of me and I might vote against you automatically.

Joe Patrice

USMA

Paperless Policy:I'm at joepatrice@gmail.com. Or I can do the situational dropbox thing. Whatever. Regale me with your evidence. I don't read it during the round, I just want it all for post-round evaluation and caselist obligations. I still flow based on what you SAY so don't cut corners on clarity just because I have your speech docs in my inbox.

Flowing: Seriously, I’m not reading your evidence during your speech. Why doesn’t anyone ever trust me on this? Did I do something in a past life that makes debaters pathologically incapable of believing me? Anyway, if you’re not articulating your distinct arguments, you’re taking your chances that I’m not getting what you’re trying to put out there. I consider debate to be a contest between teams to communicate to me what should be on my flow and where, so orient your argumentation accordingly.

Everything Else: I characterize myself as a critic of argument, which is the pretentiousway of saying that I listen to everything, but that, all else equal, certain things are more compelling than others.

NOTE: Do not necessarily interpret any of my preferences as bans on any kind of arguments, or even guides to how to select down. It's a threshold of believability issue.

Policy Debates: Compare your impacts, weigh them, and tell me a story of the world of voting Aff vs. voting Neg. I’ll choose the one that’s comparatively advantageous.

I prefer fewer positions withlonger evidence, clearer scenarios, and more analysis of impact probability ratherthan harping on the massive scale of the impacts. If I hear that a slight increase in spending collapses the world economy triggering a nuclear war, you may as well tell me aliens are invading. Don’t get me wrong, I’ll vote on it, but I’ll die a little inside and there’s frighteningly little of my soul left to kill – I’m a lawyer.

I’m not particularly excited about the world of flinging 4 CPs at the Aff and just playing the coverage game. It’s just not the makings of a compelling debate, you know? Pick a lane! And it doesn’t seem especially cool on a topic featuring legal scholars proposing almost infinite specific counter-proposals to research. I’ve got no preferences on CP/Perm theory arguments other than it bugs me that people don't feel compelled to explain the abuse story like they would on T. I do not think the blip "the Perm is severance" is enough to get the job done and if I’m going to vote on it, I’d really prefer if, before the round is over, I can comfortably explain why it severs and preferably a reason why that is uniquely disadvantageous. But given that caveat, I'm more than willing to vote on these args because people all too often don't answer them well enough, probably because they don't know how to flow anymore. NOTICE A TREND!

In other words, if you're going the policy route, you’ll make me so happy teeing off with specific arguments tied to the real academic/policy debate over the subject.

And if you’re reading this harsh criticism of policy debate with a smug look on your face, slow your roll there Kdebater...

Kritik Debates: Kritiks challenge the advocacy of the other team in salient ways that could be lost in a pure utilitarian analysis. Issues of exclusion and oppression ingrained in the heart of a policy proposal or the representations of the other team can be called out with kritiks ranging from simple “-ism” args to a postmodern cavalcade.

It is NOT an excuse to say random pomo garbage that sounds cool but doesn’t bear upon what’s happening in the round. Esoteric ramblings from some dead French or German thinker can – and often do – have as little to do with the debate round as the hypothetical global nuclear wars that have killed us a million times over in this activity. Look, I actually KNOW what most of that garbage means, but that's not a reason for you to not make sense. Make the K relevant to the specific policy/issue discussion we’re having and I’ll be very happy.

Again, I vote on this stuff, but see above about killing me inside.

When it comes to K/Performance Affs, I’m pretty open to however you justify the Aff (metaphorically, as activism, as some kind of parable), so long as deep down you’re advocating that all things equal, “giving rights or duties to the things listed in the topic would be good.” Faint in the direction of the topic and you’re in good shape.

With that caveat, if you outright refuse to "affirm" anything in the "topic," that's all well and good, just be a really good T/Framework debater. I'll vote for a compelling justification — I’ve recently been told that according to Tabroom, I’m almost exactly .500 in K v. Framework debates over the last few years. I don’t know if that’s true, but it sounds right. Frankly, I'd rather hear "we can't be Aff because the resolution is broken and we'll win the T/Framework debate" than some squirrely "we're not topical, but kind of topical, but really not" thing.

But who am I to judge! Oh right... I'm the judge. Kinda my job.

An honest pet peeve (that I can be talked out of, round-by-round) is that I don't think “performance” means acting out the argument in-round. For example, Dadaism is an argument, not a reason to answer every question with “Fishbulbs!" You job is to sell me that people answering questions with “Fishbulbs” would be good – if you’re doing it in-round you’ve skipped the foundational part.

Topicality: I feel like I've told enough people in enough rounds about this that I'm comfortable putting it here: if you're running this Scalia evidence as a definition of "vest" despite the fact that it is EXPLICITLY not about rights and duties and solely about Article II power or if you're running the "rights are 15 things" from a definition about how the Indian legal system makes distinctions between constitutional rights and statutory legal rights, you're engaged in an act of such intellectual dishonesty that I think I'm willing to vote on that alone if the other team mentions it.

Every time you steal prep time will also kill me a little more inside. But you’re going to do it anyway.

my email for email chains is arevelins@gmail.com

Quick update 2018 - some years ago I drafted the rubric for speaker points that you see below. Since then I have monitored developments in the debate community on typical speaker point distribution across all judges/tournaments, as discussed online by people who keep track of such things. I don't really dwell on this data much, but I do try to be mindful of community tendencies. Also, I notice how my own debaters read judge philosophies in crunch-time right before a round, and realize debaters reading this want a tl:dr.

Therefore, note that I probably now give speaker points that inch higher than what I initially suggested. This means in most cases I'm giving 28 and above, for debaters who seem to be doing elim-level debate it's usually 28.5 and above, and for especially impressive debate it's 29 and above. I do still dip into the mid-to-high 27's in occasional instances where I want to make it clear that I think the particular speeches really could use some work. At the time of writing (Jan 2018) my average speaker points are about a 28.5.

*******Paradigm Edited 11/10/13, prior to Wake Forest 2013 *******

** Scroll past speaker point scale to get a shorter philosophy explanation **

Speaker point scale:

0 = the debater committed some sort of ethics violation during the round (e.g. clipping cards)

26 to 26.9 = one or both of the following things happened: a) the debater made some kind of major tactical mistake in the debate, such as a completely dropped off-case position, without any attempt to address how they might still win the debate even if that argument is charitably given the full weight that the opposing team prefers. (more leeway on this is given to novice debates) b) the debater was hostile or rude towards competitors in the debate such that opportunities for respectful discourse concerning different ideas devolved into a breakdown of communication. Debaters have different personalities and approaches and I encourage you to explore ways of comporting yourself that express these personalities and approaches (be proud, indignant, cunning, provocative, etc), but please at all times also communicate with each other as students from different schools who respect each other for taking the time to have a lengthy debate round, in whatever part of the U.S. where you may presently have journeyed for such an encounter.

27 to 27.4 = the debater's overall strategy made sense, but various parts of the debate could have used more depth when instead those parts were fairly 'paint by numbers' (e.g. addressing certain arguments with generic/block answers instead of dealing with them more specifically). Evidence comparisons were fairly sparse, but the basic story on a given sheet of flow paper was clear enough.

27.5 to 27.9 = the debater did a solid job of debating. A coherent strategy was executed well. For certain key issues, initial clash advanced into higher forms of assessment, including a charitable understanding of why your opponent's arguments might be good yet your argument is ultimately more important/relevant.

28 to 28.4 = the debater did a solid job of debating across all the flows that were alive in the round. The debater focused on what mattered, was able to swiftly discount what did not ('closing doors' along the way), and took initial clash on key points to highly advanced levels. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this advanced to early elimination debates (e.g. double octo's)

28.5 to 28.9 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but was also able to do this with incredible organization: the most important things were in rank order, the crucial arguments were made without repetition/with cogent word economy, and I felt that the debater's communication seemed to guide my flow along with me. If cards/evidence are in question, you're able to speak of the overall ideologies or motivations driving a certain scholarship/movement, thus "getting behind" the card, in some sense. If a point is made without evidence or without a traditional claim/warrant structure, the debater does so in way that requires translation/interpretation on my part, yet the manner in which I should translate/interpret is also elicited from me/taught to me over the course of the debate. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if a debater with points like this could advance past early elimination debates.

29.0 to 29.4 = the debater did everything from the previous scale, but approached a sort of fluency that amazed me. The debater not only did what they needed to in order to match or outclass their opponents, but I furthermore felt that the debater was connecting with me in such a way where your arguments trigger understanding almost as a gestalt phenomenological experience. Given what I just witnessed, I would not be surprised if you did well in any of your other debates, prelim or elim.

29.5 to 30 = If memory serves, I have rarely if ever given speaker points that inch this close to 30. This is because 30 is perfection, without any umms, ahhs, odd turns of phrase, instances where you just lost me or where, given a rebuttal redo, you yourself would probably have done that part of your speech differently. If you are this close to 30 then you have perfect command of your opponent's position, of whatever gap you have to bridge in order for things to 'click' with me, and you are able to talk about your research and core arguments in a way where you yourself are clearly ready to push the scholarship/performance that you draw upon to its next heights, if you are not doing so already.

Objectivity and consistency is an elusive ideal: the reality is that subjectivity and some variability is inevitable. I think a good judge should be attentive in debates and vigiliant with self-assessments, not solipsistically but in light of evolving encounters with others. One of the biggest lessons I got out of my philosophy work was the extent to which all humans are prone to habits of self-deception, on many levels.

***** Debate experience

- Debated policy 4 years in high school (won the TOC)

- Debated policy 4 years at University of Southern California (4-time NDT qualifier, elims in my senior year)

- I was away from debate while in graduate school for philosophy

- I have coached Policy and PF debate at two high schools (Notre Dame and Millburn)

- I have coached Policy debate at two universities (Binghamton and Cornell)

- I am currently Assistant Director of Forensics/head debate coach at Cornell University

***** Some views on certain arguments

Any kind of argument is fine by me: I wait to see how debaters respond to what happens in the round and try not to import any predispositions concerning the default way that I should evaluate things. There are various harms/impacts that can orient a given side’s concern, plus various meta/framing/sequencing arguments that grant, reorient, or block my access to consideration of those harms/impacts, depending on how these issues play out in a debate.

Various kinds of challenges to the resolution and norms of the community are fine by me.

Kritiks: I ran them often in high school/college. I studied philosophy in graduate school.

Counterplans can take various forms: bring it on. See below about having full cp/permutation text for the entire round (to check against ‘morphing advocacies’).

Topicality debates: if an affirmative is trying to present a topical example of the resolution being true, but the negative thinks the aff is not topical then it is the negative’s right to go ‘all in’ on such an argument.

I debated policy advantage/da/impact debates almost as often as kritiks. Any politics link and link turn debates need to be laid out pretty clearly for me - mind your jargon please. The same goes for impact scenarios: who, what, against what country, etc.

For any asserted advocacy or test of competition, the plan text, permutation, etc needs to be clearly articulated in the round and written down so that it can be evaluated. For any card that you want me to read in last rebuttals, you should be telling me what I will find when I read that card and why it matters for the debate. I won't sift through a series of cards if you have just mentioned them/rattled off the citations without making use of them.

***** final notes

I have an aversion towards 'cloud clash', i.e. rattling off 2-3 minutes of overview and then basically hoping that the judge plucks out whatever applies towards some later part of the debate. Line-by-line debate and the elegance of organization that it offers is in decline lately. This has a lot to do with recent norms and computer-debating. This is at the cost of clash and direct refutation, and can come across as being aloof/wanting the judge to do the work for you. So, overviews should be short and then get on with actually responding to individual arguments.

I prefer the email chain over jumping flash drives, when possible. One click of ‘send’ and there is no longer the agonizing wait of flash drive driver installation, throwing jump drives around, etc.

Please communicate with each other, instead of yelling at each other (see my speaker point scale above for the under 27 range).

At the end of any round, I will vote for one team over the other and indicate this with my written ballot. This will be the case for any debate round that I can presently imagine.

That is all I can think of. Feel free to ask me more questions in person.

Adam Scher

USMA

My thoughts on Why Debate is important are best explained here: http://havokjournal.com/nation/can-college-debate-improve-the-civil-military-divide/

COMBAT TROOPS ARE PRESENCE (this is my basic assumption unless it goes completely dropped in the round to the contrary)

Philosophy: I started intercollegiate debate as a novice in 2000 and left the activity in 2004 to begin my career as an Infantry officer in the United States Army.

I returned to the activity as judge/coach in 2012 when the Army returned me to West Point to teach American politics and government.

I believe my experience as a debater helped me become a better thinker, a better leader, and a better defense intellectual than I otherwise would have been without debate. 

I find it hard to operate on any other assumption than debate is about education in the round, in the broader community, and in society writ large. 

I believe we access this education through our discourse, our performance, our policy analysis of potential actions by the United States Federal Government and other state and non-state actors, as well as our understanding of ontology, epistemology, and our preconceived notions constructed by the society we live in.

I don’t think that it is possible for me (or any judge for that matter) to ever make a WRONG decision at the end of the debate round.  We have designed an activity that is subjective – we have rules and guidelines (that are open for debate themselves) to help create objective standards, but at the end of the debate we quantify success by a decision made by the human being in the back of the room. 

That being said there are plenty of BAD decisions in our activity that are/will be made and I am sure that I do/will make more BAD decisions than most other judges in our activity. 

I believe, however, such BAD decisions happen when debaters fail to realize their ultimate goal in the round.  The job of each debater is to convince, compel, persuade the person in the back of the room to cast a vote, sign a ballot, endorse the advocacy, or affirm/negate a resolution.  Explain to me how you think my decision should be made.  Define my calculation process or articulate a framework that can guide my method of thinking.

Mechanics: I dislike intervening in debate rounds. I would much rather apply the criteria the debaters supply and work things out that way. As a result the final rebuttals should provide me with a clean story and a weighing mechanism. If only one side provides this I will default to their standards. If neither side does this, I’ll use my own opinions and evaluations of the round.

I think it is the debater’s responsibility to explain the analysis of their cards, particularly on complex positions. I do not like to read piles of cards and being forced to apply my analysis to them.

As a side note, I have not embraced “paperless” debate since I am just recently returning to the activity.  I flow on paper and I rarely flow author names so don’t just extend the author’s name- also be clear to which argument the card applies to. 

I don’t appreciate sly or clever attempts to steal prep time.

I am not sympathetic to technologic difficulties.

I like to vote on the easy way out of a round- I don’t try to divine the ultimate truth of what the debaters are saying. I’m just adjudicating a fun activity that has been a very important part of my growth and development- but still an activity that is abstract and disconnected in many ways from much of society and many other aspects of our lives.

I hope you enjoy your time as a debater and your round with me as your judge regardless of the final ballot decision - do your job and I will do mine.

*Include me in the e-mail chain: dhruvsehgal@utexas.edu*

Hey, I'm Dhruv. I have been out of the activity for two years, and live very much outside the bubble of traditional academia. I run a global merchandising company and teach English in Asia (currently living and working out of China).

experience: 4 years debating at Binghamton (2012-2016), 2 years coaching at UT Austin (2016-2018), competed in the NDT 3x in college (2014, 2015, 2016). I graduated with a BA in English. I coached and debated mostly K arguments during my time in the activity, but I am open to policy-oriented arguments as well.

On Flowing:

- I will be flowing on paper since it helps me feel more actively involved in the debate and ensures I retain more information throughout the round.

- I promise you that you will have my full attention and engagement throughout the round. I will flow on paper during the speeches, write notes during CX and offer a detailed RFD after the round with my thoughts on how each team can improve.

Rules (updated for online debates):

- "I stopped prep at" versus "stop prep." I want to hear the latter, not the former. The former requires me to take your word about how much prep you used and I don't want to do that. This is especially true since I will be keeping track of prep time during the debate so I need to know when you stop prep (rule adopted from Matt Liu).

- Zero-tolerance policy when it comes to ad-hominem attacks or personal insults either at the opposing debaters or your partner. I will severely lower your speaker points and contact your coaches after the round if I hear this happening.

- Given this *new* online format, please slow down and pause between different arguments. I will tell you to slow down in the first few speeches if I can't understand you, but if speed continues to be an issue I will no longer remind you after the first few constructive speeches.

- I tend to be very verbally expressive during rounds, so be sure to look out for that throughout the round.

Preferences (updated for online debates):

- EFFICIENCY/EFFECTIVENESS: Being efficient and effective in your argumentation throughout the debate highlights to me a degree of professionalism and confidence in what you are saying and your understanding of the round. Focusing on clarity and the development of your arguments in the context of what the opposing team is saying (i.e clash) is something I care a lot about and increases the likelihood of both high speaker points and my vote. Be clear about your arguments from the outset, focus on being as efficient and effective with your flow (as possible) and we will all have a much better time in the debate.

- IMPACTS THAT MATTER: 'Why does what you are saying really matter?' is a question I will pose to myself throughout the debate (i.e what is the impact?). When you raise the stakes of the debate not only does it make you a better advocate for what you are discussing, it also helps me as a judge figure out what to prioritize when deciding my ballot. Doing this type of Impact Framing / Calculus really matters, especially in close debates.

- CASE DEBATE: This applies more if you are negative in front of me. Having a specific and well-thought-out debate about the contents of the Affirmative's case is always better and more persuasive than having a generic link story you could have read against any Affirmative on the topic.

If you have any questions either before or after the round, please e-mail me and I will get back to you in a timely manner. We are still learning the set of best practices during this time of transition to online debating, and as such I will update my paradigm as the year progresses based on new information. If you have any suggestions or would like to see anything else included in my paradigm, please do not hesitate to reach out.

I see the activity of debate as an opportunity for students to develop their ability to deploy and engage individual arguments.  But ultimately, debaters must deliver by bringing arguments together to generate a bigger picture that provides a compelling case for voting for them.  Explaining link stories effectively is a compelling way to create this picture.  Articulating a clear impact analysis is another way to do it.  Showing how individual arguments on the flow or across flows interrelate is yet another way to create this picture.  

I like debates with a lot of clash, in which both sides are maximally required to put a set of opposing arguments in dialogue with their own. The team that is able to provide argumentative depth and sophistication in how they compare arguments and evidence will get my ballot. 

This should probably go without saying, but the task of deploying arguments and framing them effectively and persuasively is the burden of the debaters.   What I might personally believe about the truth or falsity of the argument is of little to no consequence; what matters is what the debaters on each side have to say about it.  No matter whether what is being promoted is the advocacy of a plan, or that consciousness needs to be raised about a particular issue, the onus is on the debaters to convey how their arguments show why they should win the round.

Refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names.

Add me to the chain: thoma.austin@gmail.com

I've noticed that as a judge I tend to close my eyes while I'm thinking. Some debaters have assumed that I was sleeping during their speeches. I assure you that this is not the case.

Fifth year judging college debate. Director of Debate at Wyoming. Previously coached for Cornell. Judged and coached high school in the past.

Philosophy:

I do not reject any argument on its face. Everything I say here is preliminary - these ideas can be changed by arguments in-round. However, in the interest of full disclosure, I do have predispositions that will influence my decisions - as we all do. I will try to highlight critical points here, but will clarify anything at tournaments or via email - contact me at thoma.austin@gmail.com. This is not an exhaustive list, nor is it in any particular order.

It takes an awful lot for me to call for cards. If you aren't explaining it, it doesn't really matter. The arguments you make about the cards are more important than the evidence itself.

One good argument is better than lots of bad arguments. I have noticed that my theory threshold is not as low as it once was, but I believe that it is still lower than average. Theory debates are my favorite, but only if teams engage instead of just reading blocks.

My presumption is neg - aff should propose a change from the status quo.

Aff should be in the direction of the topic. This is a fairly ambiguous concept, but I feel like you'll know it when it happens. Does your aff want more executive control? If so, I probably won't be predisposed to vote for it, but I can be convinced otherwise.

Engaging "the system" (political, social, whatever power structure you want to talk about) is productive (perhaps with negative consequences).

Rhetoric choices matter - and come before evaluation of plan action.

Aff severence of 1AC rhetoric / assumptions is illegitimate.

Conditionality on neg is good for debate.

Condo does not let you no link rhetoric/reps arguments.

2NR condo is illegitimate.

Fiat is good for debate.

Performative argumentation is good for debate.

Fairness is of at least as much importance as education in the context of debate.

Narratives - personal or otherwise - need to be applied to broader, more generalized arguments to make sense in the context of the round.

"100% no link" is real and possible, but difficult.

Politics DAs are pretty silly.

Debate rounds are not particularly good forums for starting social change.

"Traditional policy" framework is a legitimate strategy better served with fewer arguments that are better developed than a multitude of arguments that are less developed. To get my ballot here, I suggest focusing on skills development.

Preferences:

Try to refer to arguments/cards by their ideas/tags, not exclusively the author names. I rarely write all of these down. This is obviously less true when attacking cites or comparing evidence, but it is certainly true in extensions. "Extend the Johnson evidence" doesn't do much for me.

Prep stops when you tell me it stops. Prep starts when speeches end. Don't prep during evidence flashing/emailing. I will punish it.

I debated Policy in the national circuit for Science Park High School for three years and Public Forum for the remaining year. Since then I have judged for LD, Public Forum, Parliamentary and Policy.

As a judge I feel that my only obligation is to give both sides an equal opportunity to present and defend their arguments. I will not do any work for either side, what is not said is not assumed and will not be considered. I will vote on any winning argument. (theory, K, etc.)