David Henning—LD Debate Judging Philosophy

2024 NCFL National Debate Tournament Edition

School Affiliation: Director of Debate at Sheboygan South

School Email: dhenning@sasd.net

LD/PF/Policy Rounds judged this season: 53/1/1

Lifetime (LD/PF/Policy): 460/76/2101

Years Judging: 40

IMPORTANT—READ FIRST. Over the course of the last few years, I have noticed several disturbing developments in LD. Stuff I never thought I’d have to discuss. I have that at the end of this philosophy, after the always relevant quotes. Given that we're at nationals, I hope that none of these comments are necessary. Please read allof my paradigm before preferencing or debating in front of me.

My experience with academic debate: I began my debate career during the Carter Administration. I was a policy debater in high school and college during the 1980s. I was an independent (mostly high school) policy debate judge for many years. This is my fourteenth year as Sheboygan South's debate coach, and I was a college policy debate coach for four years. This is my seventh year of coaching L-D debate. I've had some success both as a debater and as a coach. And I have many funny debate stories.

My Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, but please don’t insult my intelligence or agency. Don't tell me I "have to" do or vote for something. Ignore my philosophy at your own peril. Ask if you are unsure. I’m coming closer to Bill Batterman’s Critique of Argument paradigm as applied to LD, since some policy debate paradigms make little sense in LD, although hypothesis testing has some appeal. I like original, unusual or counter-intuitive arguments when done well. Do not assume that anything is inherently good or bad. Far too many debaters assume that things like wasting money, destroying the Constitution or climate change are inherently bad and fail to read impacts to them. I don’t care about “wasted money” and want you to put the bodies on the flow. Hopefully all of them. Provide impacts and analysis if you’re not doing so. And be aware that I oppose "common sense," especially in a debate round.

Technology Time: For this tournament there is 10 minutes allotted to deal with technological issues that may affect the round. If you think you might have tech issues, say something so we can get it resolved. See tournament rules for more information.

Argumentation: A well-written, structured and reasoned case is essential for both debaters. That includes substructure. Be aware that evidence matters, so does evidence quality. Provide qualifications, when possible, for the sources you use and tell me why your evidence is of high quality and/or better than the evidence used by your opponent. Clash directly with the arguments your opponent makes. That means the line-by-line rather than just an argument dump or an overview. Tell me specifically why you achieve your value as defined by your value criterion (or achieve your opponent’s) and why that means you should win the round. Do impact calculus, telling me why the impacts of your case are worse than or outweigh that of your opponent. This is probably the most important thing you can do in the round. Provide a few clearly explained voting issues near the end of your last rebuttal and make a convincing call for the ballot.

Policy Debate or “National-Style” Arguments: I debated and coached both high school and college policy debate, and judged policy debate for 30 plus years. I like policy debate. I am open to pretty much anything you can throw at me. That said, I don’t think LD is a particularly good forum or format for many of the policy arguments. Kritiks, counterplans and disadvantages are necessary, but in LD they are nebulous since there isn’t an agent of change in the resolution, affirmatives usually do not offer a specific plan, and whether there is fiat in LD is another issue altogether. How can the K, CP or DA link if there isn’t a plan? Those running such arguments will want to keep that in mind and explain very clearly how their arguments are linked to the aff or the resolution. Likewise, an affirmative claiming solvency or advantages must meet that same burden. The same holds for kritiks, at least those based on policy action.

The format issue may be even more important. In policy debate, you have more speeches with which to refute and extend arguments. Ks, CPs and DAs introduced in the policy 1NC mean that both aff and neg can get to third line arguments. Fewer speeches means less developed arguments. You physically cannot get past first and sometimes second line argumentation in LD. Speeches are shorter than in policy, which means less time to develop such arguments and read cards. The end result is that debaters just read their argument, the opponent reads their first line answers, and that’s it. For complex (or really cool) arguments, this is unsatisfying and shallow. I really don’t have a solution to any of these issues, and I don’t reject policy arguments in LD, but this is something to keep in mind.

Topicality: Don’t, unless it is particularly egregious. I dislike topicality. Unless you can show me actual, in-round abuse I’m not interested. Don’t tell me that the aff reduces education when you’re doing just that by running lousy topicality arguments.

Framework: Framework is usually so poorly argued I rarely see the point. A framework is an integral part of Lincoln-Douglas debate. By this I am referring to the value and value criterion for the round and/or the role of the ballot. You must specifically define and explain your value, hopefully something better than an ill-defined “morality.” That’s subjective and pretty much every social or cultural group has their own morality. The Nazis had their own “morality”--horrible, but defined. The word "ought" does not imply morality. Define and explain your value criterion. Tell me how your case will best achieve your value as defined by your value criterion. You may attack the framework and case of your opponent or demonstrate how your case better achieves your opponent’s value as defined by their value criterion. Argue the superiority of your value/value criterion to that of your opponent. Be clear with your analysis. If there is a Role of the Ballot you must explain that also. If there are policy arguments, you must say why you outweigh your opponent’s arguments.

Debate Theory: Theory has its place, somewhere, but it is never argued well in LD rounds. Don’t read cards from some debate coach at me. Why is that coach more qualified than you, me or someone judging in the next room? OK, why are they more qualified than me? Explain your theory positions and tell me why they matter in this round. What are the in-round impacts to your theory argument? Are there impacts on the activity itself? Does my ballot have a role in your theory argument? If you are claiming some kind of “abuse” of theory, show me the actual in-round abuse—potential abuse is not enough—and tell me why it should be voted against. I can’t remember the last time I voted on an abuse argument.

Quotes Related to my Judging Philosophy (ask if you have questions)

“It’s a basic truth of life that we tend to give more credence to the opinions of people who know what they are talking about.”---Kel McClanahan.

“Add it up, it all spells duh.”---Buffy Summers

“Yankee detective are always on the TV, ‘cause killers in America work seven days a week.”—Joe Strummer (The Clash)

“They tell lots of lies about me. They say I killed six or seven men for snoring. Well, it ain’t true. I only killed one man for snoring.”---John Wesley Hardin

"Twenty years of schoolin' and they put you on the day shift."---Bob Dylan

“Facts are stupid things.”---Ronald Reagan

"Sometimes I think this job is too much for me."---Warren Harding, on the Presidency

“People say Bob, what do you do with the money we send you? We spend it.”--- Pastor Robert Tilton

“The most popular songs are always the worst.”---Natalie Maines

“Without freedom of speech I might be in the swamp.”---Bob Dylan

"The numbers don't lie. . . I got a hundred forty-three and a thirds percents of winning."---Big Poppa Pump Scott Steiner, and reprised by Maxwell Jacob Friedman

"That was the equation! Existence! Survival must cancel out programming."---Ruk, planet Exo III

"You talk about your Olympic gold medal--big whup. I was all-county in the triple jump."---AJ Styles, to Kurt Angle

"The judge's jokes are always funny."---Dan Hansen

"She's a monster of staggering charmlessness and monumental lack of humor."---Richard Burton on Lucille Ball

“A stitch in time gets the worm.”---Buffy Summers

“History doesn’t repeat itself, but it rhymes.”---Mark Twain

“The Good Earth—we could have saved it, but we were too damn cheap and lazy.”—Kurt Vonnegut

"Wrong thinking is punishable; right thinking is as quickly rewarded."—The Keeper, planet Talos IV

". . . there are no truths outside the gates of Eden.”—Bob Dylan

"What is truth, if you know what I mean?”—Lionel Hutz

"When Stalin says dance, a wise man dances."—Nikita Khrushchev

"Nothing really matters much, it’s doom alone that counts."—Bob Dylan

and

“You know, it actually can happen. I mean, the chances of it happening are very rare, but it can happen actually. Which is crazy. Not that it—the chances of it are, like, you know, it's like probably “pigs could fly.” Like, I don't think pigs could fly, but actually sharks could be stuck in tornados. There could be a sharknado."---Tara Reid

LD General Issues

This is not English class or forensics. Do not write your case as if it were an assignment that you are going to turn in to your teacher. It’s not an essay. Nor is it an oratory or persuasive speech. Do not “preview” the names of all of your contentions, and then go back and read them. Start with the first contention. Then go to the second contention (if you have one). Provide me with some substructure. I don’t want a preview like you would do in a school paper or presentation or a forensics speech. Previewing messes up my flow. And note that you must use evidence in your case.

Put the citation first, before you read your card, not after. Many judges try to get the tag and the cite. I won’t know it’s a card if you read the cite after your evidence, and then where should I put the cite? You’re already on to the next argument or card. Read the tag line, name and date, then the body of the card. Provide the complete citation in a small font size (8)—that means qualifications, source, the link if it’s an on-line source, date of evidence, date you accessed the evidence and your initials. If you fail to provide a complete cite, or even a partial one, then all I have is some writing by someone with a last name and a date. I can’t treat that as evidence if I can’t see the full cite should it be necessary for me to do so. This does not mean a list of internet links at the end of your speech. That’s useless for debate (and academic) purposes.

Provide the Correct Date. This is the date the article or book was published, not the day you accessed it online. Virtually every online article lists the date the article was first published. Use that date. If the article was updated, and you are accessing the updated article, use that date.

Do Not Use Ellipses ( . . . ). In academic writing it is acceptable to cut out chunks of text you do not want to use. That is not OK in debate. You must keep all the text of the card. If you do not, judges and debaters don’t know if you cut out something important, like “not” or “never.” That’s taking a card out of context. Shrink the text you are not reading to a small font size (8). Both Paperless Debate and the Google Debate Add-on have a shrink feature. Use it. If your opponent notices ellipses in the body of your card and points it out in the round, then it is no longer a card. If ellipses are in the original, indicate that.

Do Use Brackets [ ] sparingly. Brackets are appropriate for brief explanatory or clarifying text. A few words, maybe a sentence. Use sparingly and only when essential. If you’re adding multiple sentences to your card, you are altering the card itself, and that is inappropriate. Adding a lot of text is akin to taking a card out of context or fabricating it altogether.

Delivery Style: Speak loudly and be clear. That is the most important thing. I work hard to try to get down as much of each speech as possible on my flow. Speak toward me, not your opponent. If it is especially noisy then speak louder. Your points may suffer and I may miss arguments if I can’t hear you clearly. I don't care if you sit or stand. Don't walk around. I don’t care about eye contact or gestures or a forensics-style polished or memorized speech. That stuff is meaningless in a debate round.

Do not expect 30 speaker points. The magical speaker point pixies have been very active the last few years. I have never seen so many 30s given out by judges. No one I have seen this year has warranted a 30. I have not given a 30 in fifteen years. 29s are relatively rare, but I do give them. I gave a 29.5 and seven 29s this season. And remember (coaches and judges take note of this) that there are tenths (or halves) of a point, and I use them regularly. The strangest thing is that I have not changed the way I award speaker points. I was once one of the highest speaker point judges, and now I am one of the lowest. But don't worry, I haven't given less than a 25 in seventeen years.

Heed my “louder” and “clear” warnings. Many debaters ask me if I am OK with speed. I answer yes. I seriously doubt if you're fast enough to give me trouble. But clarity is much more important than rate. Often it goes like this: I answer yes, the debater then proceeds to speak at a much faster than normal (conversational) rate, but is unclear. I shout “clear.” No change in delivery. A little while later I again shout “clear.” No change. In my previous philosophy I said I may deduct a speaker point after repeated “clear” warnings. I will now deduct a half speaker point if I have to give a “clear” warning after three. At some point I will give up shouting “clear” and your speaker points will suffer a little more. You have been warned, because clarity is key.

Have a way for your opponent to see your case and evidence. Use NSDA File Share in the competition room. You can also put the document in the chat. Use email chains if that fails. Include the judge in the chain. Should evidence be challenged in the round, judges and competitors must have access to this.

No New Arguments in Rebuttals. New arguments in rebuttals diminish or eliminate the opportunity for your opponent to respond. I will not vote on or consider new arguments in rebuttals, whether your opponent points this out or not.

Other issues. A roadmap is short, just the order, like aff, then neg, or the other way. Don’t tell me every argument you plan to make, or all the things you plan to refute. And you refute or rebut opponents' arguments, not "rebuttal" them. Don’t read a bunch of definitions at me—it’s usually pointless and is difficult to get down on the flow. Use all your prep time. Even if you don’t think you need it (you do), I need it to write comments. I will be unhappy if you don’t use all your prep time. I disclose and provide comments, and I encourage you to ask questions after my decision and comments.

Kahn, Mujeeb  Edit 1… Experience: This is my second year judging for Milwaukee Public School. I have never debated as a high school student.

Paradigm: Tabula Rasa, and, no, I don't default to a policy ballot if not asked in the beginning of the round.

Topicality: Give me good, logical reasons why I should or should not vote on Topicality. I will vote on topicality, but you must present me with a clear story of the abuse and explain why I should vote against that abuse.

Counterplans: C.P. are fine with me, but must be mutually exclusive with the affirmative plan.

AD/DA: in policy debate, I would like to know both AD and DA. Then, let me decide which side is able to persuade in their direction.

Kritiks: these must be explained to i.e. I need reasons, explanations, and logical evidence from quality sources.

Delivery styles: please be loud and clear. Speed not considered a strategy to me. Use at your own desire.

Framework: framework is fine with me, as long as your able to explain it throughly.

If I was asked to define a good debate round, I will make sure to include clash, analytics and evidence as clearly as possible, such that, the ballot will flow in my favor.

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to arguments (unless they are ontologically violent), and it also means that you need to tell me how to vote by the end of the round. If neither teams give me a role of the ballot/how to vote then I will default to one of my choosing, and it may not be to your preference. This means I will probably end up doing work for one or both teams... which will make me upset.

Speed- this is fine under one condition- be CLEAR. I will cue for you to be clear only twice. After that whatever I don't get isn't my fault. I will always try my best but... eh...

Topicality- there needs to be voters here if I'm going to vote T. If potential abuse is your voter then you will need to do a really good job on why that's an effective voter. All in all, even after the affirmative team is found to be untopical, there must be a reason for me to vote negative. Topicality is one of those things that teams need to be doing work on. For example, if both teams have opposite interpretations, it's up to each team to do the work and evidence analysis on why one definition is better than the other.

Kritiks- these are fine, but please do not just assume that I know what you're talking about. That being said, the following things need to be crystal clear: the link, impact and alternative. Not only do these need to be clear, but the negs need to explain how the alternative functions with the aff and why I should vote for it in context of the round. For example, don't just tell me the alternative works because it can solve capitalism, but explain how solving capitalism is the best decision in the round. That being said, even IF I know what you're talking about I'm not going to do the work for you on the flow - this is your job.

Counterplans- negs need to be able to prove solvency and must explain why the counterplan is a better option than the aff. The net benefit must also be very apparent.

Affirmative Case- I did not think that I needed to mention this, but after judging a lot I think this does need to be said: the affs need to win their case in order to win the debate. For example, if the affs lose all their advantages but beat the negative's DA, that just means that the impact of the DA won't happen. However you still do not have an affirmative case, and all the negatives have to do is prove that the aff is a bad idea.

Updated:10/17/18

I don't get to judge much due to helping run tournaments in the state. Did 4 years HS policy, 2.5 years at Georgia State. Came back to coach in the Milwaukee Urban Debate League, at Rufus King for 2.5 years, and now starting my 2nd year coaching at Marquette University HS. I am in my 9th year of coaching and judging. I have seen and have heard alot of args.

I love policy debate overall.

My threshold for voting on T and if you are claiming potential abuse is low to none. It hasn't happened in the last year or so.

Any questions, just ask.

Short Version:

Yes, put me on the email chain: jtierneyiv@yahoo.com.

Background: I am a former CX debater and head coach at Marquette High. I also was a lab leader and instructor for a number of years at Michigan National Debate Institute.

Paradigm: I vote for the team that wins their arguments in the round. I can handle any speed so long as you are moderately understandable.

Theory/Framework/Topicality: Raw Theory arguments. I do not love them, but if they are applicable, I will vote on them.

Counterplans: I like a good counterplan. I do believe it must meet its burdens of topicality and competitiveness, however.

K: I will support a good K. Like any set of arguments, I expect strong warrants.

Disadvantages: I enjoy a good disad debate. I have no problem with extinction level impacts, but I like a good internal link story.

In Round Character: I do not like offensive language, treating your partner or the opponent with disrespect, or other similar behavior. I also do not have a problem with prompting, calling out time or even assisting with C-X. However, there is a limit. If you are giving your speech or C-X for your partner, I won't really enjoy it.

My ideal debate is a good, fast policy debate with lots of clash.

My preferred form of address is "Warchief!"

Thank you!

LONG VERSION

General Paradigm

I am a former debater and head coach at Marquette High. I also was a lab leader and instructor for a number of years at Michigan National Debate Institute. I had multiple bids to TOC in multiple years. It was fun. I recommend it.

I'm open to any type of debate except those that mock the debate form. My favorite debates to judge are fast policy debates with clash. I will attempt to limit my in round intervention, but if there's little explanation, I will consider intervening. Don't make me do it.

Everything in this paradigm is a predisposition, not something I will absolutely hold to. I try to limit the application of my pre-conceptions in the debate round. I am not a fan of judges importing their politics or worldview into a decision. In other words, I might vote for an argument I personally loathe if the debater won it and won its weight in the round. You should win because you're a good debater, not because you made me feel good about my life choices.

Disads

Like I said, I love a good DA debate. Immigration bad DAs are okay with me if they are based in evidence. If you think that's objectionable, then why are we even debating immigration policy? Tell me why immigration is bad in a thoughtful manner, though. Racist or political tripe from either direction on the spectrum will given the weight it deserves--almost none. My threshold for explaining the story of a DA is pretty low. As long as you extend all the levels of the DA, I'm likely to understand it, new DA or old. On case turns- refer to what I said above regarding immigration bad.

Counterplans

Unlike my son, I do think counterplans should be competitive and non-topical. A counterplan which is not competitive does not argue against the resolution. I will accept advantage level cps, but you will have to work hard on net benefits. ...and I expect actual research and solvency.

Condo is good up to 1-2 CP and 1K. Condo's fine/debatable at 2CPs and 1K. After that, I become open to abuse arguments. I'll vote for condo, don't be afraid to go for it in front of me.

International or state fiat can be ok. Tell me why it works. Process is fine. Just have a solvency advocate please. This applies to Aff teams as well.

T

I like a good to debate, but I prefer policy analysis. Don't run silly T arguments. Tell me why your interpretation is important. If you are presenting a limiting argument, be prepared to support your limits with specificity. Don't assume your limit is good, tell me why! I am more in favor of a looking at T from a clash or neg ground perspective.

Ks

I like well-developed, clear link stories that clash with the affirmative and turn the case. If you can give me impacts that make me evaluate the actual consequences of hypothetical implementation of the Aff's policy action, I like it. I like a solid ALT.

K Affs

I generally think that topic education and clash are intrinsically good things. But the Aff can win by showing the resolution debate is bad---it just might be a fairly high threshold.

Speaks

Obviously 27-30 because kids now get grade inflation. I like clarity and speed. If you can't be clear, dont speed. Don't be a mush mouth.

Overall, Have fun.

Former Policy debater. Make sure you're technically sound and you should be fine.

Tabs judge. Debated for 3 years and judged for a couple as well. I’m fine with any style of argumentation. Please be polite. I haven’t judged with this resolution before so please explain acronyms before using them.

Judge Name: Andrew M Yep

School: Waukesha South High School

Experience

Yep was never a member of debate in high school. He does appreciate judging and debate. He is usually a policy judge but on occasion does get absorbed into the LD and Public Forum realms. Yep is not up to date on Debate lingo. So be sure to explain things and go slow.

Philosophy

Yep has been called Policy, Stocks and Tabs. Thus he does not know exactly where he fits. Persuasion is important and is enhanced by clarity. He will take into consideration all things he understands in the round that are not dropped. Yep does not like it when a team kicks arguments unless there exists a contradiction a speaker cannot explain away. Personally Yep does not like speed and spread. He prefers quality over quantity. If a speaker feels it is necessary to do a line by line analysis give it the time and do not speed over it.

Topicality - Yep is not against topicality. Words are important in the world. But Yep needs definitions, standards and voters. Also provide analogies and examples of what plans work under the definition and what does not. This helps Yep figure out if there exist a Topicality violation.

Counterplans - Counterplans need to be clear. If the counterplan is not mutually exclusive then a net benefit must be clearly achieved.

Kritiks - Yep is not a philosophy major. Yep does not vote on these often. A speaker may use one but at the risk of Yep being very confused. Be sure to explain the link thoroughly and provide an alternative.

Disadvantages - If Yep misses the link he will be very confused. Clarity is a must. When a DA is introduced Yep firmly believes that minimally it should be linked and impacts discussed in the 1NC.

Structure of the Round and Speaking

Yep likes signposts and likes very clear and slow tags. Yep prefers cross examinations to be closed so that he can judge your organization and understanding of arguments which will reflect into speaker points. If a speaker turns into a parrot that will reflect poorly in speaker points.

Rebuttals

Speakers should summarize the round pull through their arguments. Weigh the round through magnitude, timeframe and probability. Yep likes probability he is a statistics teacher. Obviously certain percentages cannot always be given but we can use word like “certain” or “uncertain”. He enjoys it when speakers question the validity of studies and experiments. Analogies and examples are not only welcomed but encouraged.

Timing & Technology

Yep’s timer is final. He is a little slow in starting it. He tries to let a team know when he is starting it. He will on occasion tell you how much you have left. In regards to technology the prep time will only end when the portable storage device is physically removed from the port of entry and is one its way to the other team or if the the teams opt for an email chain then prep time will end when the opposing team confirms they received the message

PF: It's all about logic and a foundation. If you wish to make an argument it needs both evidence and the impact to back it up. While I don't mind arguments based on theories I do need something viable to be able to think it is possible. 

 

Policy: I'm a policy judge. I know, very fitting. I try to look at the round as a policymaker; however, I am not the president. The easiest way to get my ballot is to apply impact to each argument and to how they can affect the real world. While I do prefer to look at the round within the role playing policymaking method of applying AFF and NEG strat, that does not mean I will not vote on Kritiks. I prefer something to find applications to the real world and there are a number of K's that do so. Though a kritik that does not have a viable alt, for example, "reject the AFF," is probably on its own not going to do much to make me look at it as a way to solve the issues of the kritik, pushing for a shift in how policymaking should work or how I should look in the round are viable options for me to look at as they are decisions I can make and adapt to within that round. When it comes to a K-AFF I will most often prefer an actual plan text, or at least something close to that, otherwise I am going to be very open to the T debate. Speaking of which as I want to know that before I vote on a plan whether or not it is topical to solve the problem, if it is run well enough or undercovered I will vote on T. Just make sure you really go for it. In the end keeping the round as policy oriented as possible will get me to be more likely to vote on it, and within that same respect the place I prioritize the most is Solvency. No matter what the questions brought up in the debate come up to, in the end I will vote for whoever shows what solves the issues at hand the most. You can give me a list of issues, but in the end if you can't show me how your side will solve the most problems I will not vote for you (whether it be a K, CP, or just the status squo). Also if you advocate for the Status quo I'll give you bonus points for saying,"don't mess with the flow, stick to the status quo."