Please add me to the email chain: lang901@gmail.com. I do not forward email chains from rounds I've judged (Is this a new thing? I never saw it in my day debating until like 2 months ago). 1. I don't generally keep chains after the round so I couldn't even if I wanted to and 2. I don't think it's my place to be sending other people's evidence to third parties without their knowledge or consent.

Affiliations and Qualifications:

Iowa City West High, Policy Debate, 2011-2017, 2023-, (Debating [til 2014], Coaching and Judging);

Hawken (Policy Debate and Congressional Debate, 2021-22, Judging);

A meme I made in 2012 was the cover photo for the High School Policy Debate Facebook page for like ~3-4 years.

I'm a lawyer in Iowa and also admitted (inactive status) in Ohio. To explain how I evaluate some arguments, check out this article about standards of proof in the legal context. Each section will have an analogous standard of proof for how likely I am to pull a trigger on a specific argument.

Policy

Feel free to ask any outstanding questions before the round. I debated in high school for 3 years and then judged in college for 2 years before I started judging again in law school. I've been involved with the activity for a decade but on and off so while I've picked up on some new community norms and trends, I might not be up on every one. In high school, I was incredibly policy oriented as West High wasn't a "K" team, though I dabbled a bit.

Specifics:

DAs/CPs (Preponderance of the Evidence):

I don't have any specific hang ups on DAs. Mostly the same for CPs, but please don't spread your plan text at me (CP text should also be in the speech doc). Especially if you're reading more than one. Consult and delay CPs have been on thin ice in terms of legitimacy since 2013 and I don't think that's changed. Process CPs are on slightly more stable ground, especially if you have a specific solvency advocate. I will not default to judge kick and you'll have a heck of a time convincing me to do judge kick. If you went for the CP, you're stuck with it. I'm not going to decide your "real" 2NR strategy for you. If this

T (Clear and Convincing):

I tend towards reasonability because I think CI trends towards a race to the bottom to find a technically excluding but overall terrible definition but I will use a different framework if you ask me and (obviously) win why that framework is better. Potential abuse is a voter but actual abuse is a stronger VI. Fairness is an impact and an internal link, I don't know where this trend away from fairness as an impact came from.

Kritik and K Affs (Clear and Convincing):

I may be a product of early 2010's Iowa debate I am not anti-K. I've voted on some weird ones before. That being said, I haven't even started to read a lot of the literature so err on the side of over-explaining rather than under-explaining. Being 100% honest, the K's that have the most familiarity with are K's like Cap, Security, and some anarchist literature (Virillio is probably the most "out there" K I am familiar with and that's only because of the transportation topic). If your K/K Aff is named after a or there's like one key author for your K, I guarantee I am not familiar with that lit. If that is your kind of K, you either should not pref me or do a comically large amount of explanation for the terms your using. If you don't do this explanation, I will try my best but I only have a limited amount of time to read cards and make my decision. If you're a k aff team that somehow got stuck with me as a judge after reading that paragraph, I'm sorry. I'm crying too.

For policy aff v k rounds, I will generally default to weighing the aff against the alt. Any other framework/role of the ballot arguments seem to boil down to "The role of the ballot is to vote neg" which seems arbitrary and isn't super convincing in a vacuum. However, you can read a different framework and I'll evaluate that argument.

Also this may be a new development in debate but I do not get the argument that "fairness is not an impact". If you want more extrapolation on why fairness is an impact, David Heidt's paradigm gives a far more eloquent explanation of fairness as an impact than I could type here.

Theory (Clear and convincing):

Condo becomes bad somewhere after 3 advocacies. Probably okay with one (1) CP and one (1) K. International Fiat is also bad, though I don't think that's relevant for this topic. 50 States Fiat is on thin-ish ice, fiating the NGA is on thinner ice. Speed bad (for reasons other than ableism) or "You can't tell jokes in a debate round" (real arguments from the same round I judged) are on the thinnest ice. I don't love resolving theory debates but I will definitely vote on it if enough time is dedicated to it. I have a highish bar for voting on theory. If you're going for reject the team, it should be like at least 40% of your last speech. If you're going for reject the argument, there should be at least a substantial time dedication on the respective flow. Please don't spread your blocks at me. Theory debates should not be at full speed.

ASPEC (Beyond a Reasonable Doubt):

Yes, this has its own heading. Please don't. I have never seen someone unironically, actually, wholeheartedly go for ASPEC. Save time and just don't. The aff is allowed to spend 10% of the time you spent reading ASPEC to respond to ASPEC.

Speed:

I am "fine with speed" however this comes with caveats. You should have three speeds. From fastest to slowest: Text, Tag, and Theory (and perms/plan texts). If you decide to do theory at card text speed, I will 100% miss something and you likely won't love my RFD. K debates should also be slower. It is hard to flow paragraph length tags at full speed. I barely understand a majority of philosophy at a conversational pace, I will not understand it better at 350 wpm.

Odds & Ends:

1. Tech over truth but that doesn't mean the truth is irrelevant. (i.e. "No" is a complete and probably winning answer to arguments like "warming not real" or "federalism solves electricity grid security." [this backfired a bit. You still have to actually give an argument with warrants. The phrasing of this was for rhetorical effect]).

2. I feel like a well-crafted and to the point overview was an underutilized tool in my day and since I've been back judging. Don't cut your line-by-line for to do an overview but contextualization of your L-by-L is incredibly useful especially with my limited knowledge of the topic or your K.

3. I am not a huge fan of 5+ off strategies. I get their usefulness but they usually lead to late breaking and sub-par debates. I'm not going to take points off or anything if you go 6 off but I personally believe the debate will be better with fewer positions. THIS IS NOT A VOTING ISSUE JUST A PREFERENCE/OBSERVATION ABOUT DEBATE. TRYING TO MAKE THIS A THEORY ARGUMENT WILL NOT WORK.

4. Is a 28.5 still a pretty good score or is that the new 27.5? Have we moved entirely out of 27? If point inflation really is that bad, I apologize if I'm still in a 2014 mindset. I was by no means stingy with points back in the day (I probably averaged somewhere around like 28.2-4) but heck if I know what stingy even is these days. Back in the day, I had a point floor somewhere around 27.5 and a ceiling somewhere around 29.7. These weren't hard lines though.

5. Don't read too much into how long it takes me to decide. I've judged debates that were incredibly close but decided immediately and lopsided debates that took 10 minutes to formulate an RFD.

6. If you start the evidence comparison or impact calc in the 2xR, don't get mad at me when that debate isn't fully fleshed out and I have to do some amount of intervention. I try to take the path of least resistance to my decisions and limit any intervention or bias but sometimes that's easier said than done.

7. Somewhat along the same lines as #6, I generally won't read evidence sua sponte. I generally read evidence in one of three scenarios, I can't resolve the debate otherwise, you explicitly tell me too, and/or something about your evidence piques my interest (i.e. I know it makes a claim that is interesting, objectively untrue, and/or you very clearly power tagged a card. These generally won't affect the outcome of the debate unless it's critical or I have to resolve that specific question and it's necessary).

Congress (old, mostly irrelevant):

Apparently I judge Congress now. If you're here because you're a congressional debater, you can ignore the above. Coming from a policy debate background I really like good and effective argumentation. However, I realize that the constraints of the Congressional Debate format can put up barriers to that. Recognizing that I try to weigh speaking skills along with argumentation skills somewhat equally but, good argumentation can help a speech with speaking issues while good speaking skills can't save a speech with flawed argumentation.

I debated for Iowa City West High for 4 years graduating in 2016. I was a policy/Cap debater for all four of those years. I am going to be a good judge for policy and a bad one for kritikal arguments.

Put me on the email chain:daleev01@luther.edu

T – I’m fine with this. Please explain why your interp better than your opponents and what the impacts are on the flow.

DA’s – These are also cool. Links need to be specific to the aff, I don’t really know the technical terms for this topic so you probably need to talk in a little more layman’s terms for me.

K’s – I have very little knowledge of Identity and Postmodern K’s. You will need to do allot of explanation on these to win, and to explain it without jargon. I would like to see specific links to the aff, and aff specific answers to the K. I tend to dislike K Affs, and tend to buy common framework arguments made against them, I feel that you should read a plan text/advocacy statement/ect. that is topical. The long and short is that I am not going to be a good K judge

CP’s – This are fine as well. A well executed counterplan is one of my favorite debates.

Case – a good case debate is the best debate that can be had. In-depth work with cards on both side and good analytics were, and remain my favorite part of debate.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Henderson%2C+Travis

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.