Policy Debate Paradigm is on top and PF on bottom.

Policy Debate Paradigm

Experienced with spreading. Clarity should be emphasized over speed.

I want to be on the email chain. I feel its been best for me to immerse myself in the literature with you.

Aff

I would prefer a plan text or at least an advocacy statement for disclosure/fairness/clarity reasons.

Fine with policy or critical advantages, just make sure to do impact calc i.e. magnitudes, timeframes, and turning the other teams impacts.

Utilize plan text specific solvency/advantages. For example, if your plan text states the USFG should implement a Top Runner Revenue Neutral Carbon Tax (TRRNCT), I want your solvency and advantages to reference the TRRNCT. This shows that you have done your research, thus a better quality and higher speaker points for you. An underutilized negative strategy looking at Aff's evidence and showing that their own pieces of evidence doesn't comport when it comes to the plan text. Obviously Aff should do the same type of plan specific analysis when looking at the da link or cp evidence of the neg strat.

T

Strategic T violations that have been researched are going to be more persuasive than a general T. For example, If the neg runs a T that defines decrease as 40% or some other number they need to show why that 40% is so key to this subject matter or better yet to that plan. The neg also needs to take time to connect the dots between violations standards and voters. Potential abuse can work but needs to be explained clearly and really impacted out. Unless their is a very convincing argument, RVI's are generally a reason to reject the argument rather than the team.

DA

As stated earlier, specific links are more persuasive then general links. Impact analysis should be included as well. See supra AFF impact calc.

CP

Specific Evidence is more persuasive than the generic solvency answers. Aff should go through POST ie Perm Offense Solvency Theory.

Consult and Conditions CP's are a bit abusive but the aff needs to win that theory for me to not evaluate the CP.

K

If a theme has been established, it is that the more specific evidence you have to the aff the better position the neg will be in. The alt is the most important part of the K debate and needs to be clearly explained ie what happens in world of alt and why perm doesn't work. With FWK, I generally default to weighing the advantages against the critique.

Theory

Depends on the situation.

PF Paradigm

I will look towards the impacts at the end of the round. Both teams need to show how the topic goes to the impact. In terms of Framework, if a team wins doesn't automatically give the ballot to that team. It's just the way I view the round. So even if the other team losses their fwk interp, if they do a better job of impacts under your definition then I will vote on the impacts that best represent the interp.

More to follow at a later time but here is the jist:

I think that the affirmative should do something and have an interpretation that gives both sides equal opporunity to win based on pre round preperation and in round execution. I think negatives should respond to the affirmative and tell me why they are wrong. 

K- I probably haven't read the literature base but I have done debate long enough to see most K's. I think an aff's best opportunity for offense is the alternative and generally find rejection alt's to be unpersuasive, the negative needs to go a step further and say what I'm rejecting in favor of and how that occurs from my ballot.

Theory- For me to vote on it I think the argument must be made coherently originally (Link, warrant, impact) then expanded upon and developed by later speechs. Half sentence theory arg that are shadow extended won't cut it . Conditionality is probably fine to an extent but can be done abusively. I generally don't think perf con is a reason to reject the team rather an excuse for the aff to go wild on the perm debate. Agent CP's are okay. Delay/Consult /Review cp's I'm less a fan of but have run/voted for them. 

DA's- yes please, politics, tradeoff etc. I like them.

Case- Case debate is under utalized and a good block can really do some damage by investing time here.

I don’t have a judging philosophy. I’ve been out of debate for six years (?); let this piece of information guide you in three ways:

1) I am not familiar with major arguments on this topic 

2) Slow down and be clear

3) Do impact analysis

And, like P. Waldinger says:

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making.  

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

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

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

Policy aff v Core DA - Even

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a judge, I assess the round based on the clarity and persuasiveness of the arguments presented by each team. That means that the ideas used in round should be:

(a) logical. Present me with a clear explanation of potential harms and ways to view the debate. 

(b) convincing. This is where evidence comes into play, but use your cards wisely. Warrants are important.

(c) relevant. The plan presented by the affirmative is the starting point for discussion. If any of the sides decides to go for a critical argument, it must create a significant in-round impact (i.e. I should be able to understand the substance of your kritik and the way my ballot can help to resolve the issue). If it is a policy argument, it should be linked to the plan.

The more you link off-case and case, the better. Engage in the dialogue with the other team, that’s the only way to test the validity of their arguments.

Topicality:

I’m pretty strict when it comes to topicality. That is, I assume that the affirmative should defend the resolution and the real-life consequences of the plan, unless you convince me otherwise. If you tell me that the state is evil, go for it, but you have to prove that any way of upholding the resolution is impossible and/or wrong. In general, the affirmative should have a counter-interpretation and be reasonable.

Theory:

In order to win on theory, the team will have to prove that the round was unfair. Condo is fine, but can become a problem if you kick an argument in the block. If the negative reads a CP and a K that contradict each other (and the aff points it out), I am more likely to question the solvency of the alternative and will be more willing to vote on the perm.

DAs:

The two parts of a DA that matter for me are the impact story and the link story. Both should be present in each of your speeches if you want to win the argument. This especially applies to politics: I want to know why the plan will use political capital, switch votes, etc.

CPs:

Just don’t cheat. The aff is bound by the resolution and by fiat, so super-specific PICs and delay CPs are unfair. Other than that, the neg does have a right to test the solvency mechanism of the plan, but you should have a solvency advocate and a reasonable net benefit to the CP.

Kritiks:

It can be a great argument if it is (1) specific to the plan and (2) run well. Questioning the philosophical assumptions of the plan is important, but only if you can show an alternative way to view reality. It applies to all Ks, from Cap to Race/Identity arguments. Simply labeling the plan as a lie that perpetuates eternal injustice is not enough to reject it – you have to prove that the aff specifically causes the harms. As long as you do that, you can retain the alt or use the K as a reason to reject the plan.

General comments:

I think that debate is a great educational opportunity. Non-traditional arguments are more than welcome, if it keeps the debate interesting and fair.

An aside from me as a science major: each of your arguments should be falsifiable. That is, if you say there are invisible unicorns in the room and only you can see them, no one can prove you wrong – but that’s probably not a type of argument you want to use. In the context of the debate space, if you say capitalism is the root of all evil/your 1AC performance enlightened the debate community, there should be a theoretical way for the other team to disprove your claim.

Ethos:

Words are powerful. Do not use arguments in an offensive way. If you make a personal attack on your opponents, you hurt their chances to participate and learn, which gives me a separate reason to vote you down. Be respectful and nice, and don’t forget to have fun!

For Policy Debate:

I started my debate career probably long before your parents met, much less before you were born. I was a Prosecuting Attorney under Janet Reno and still practice occasionally when I'm not teaching or at debate tournaments. I prefer and my expertise is in policy round argumentation but I can be convinced to vote for critical argumentation when done correctly. Barring tournament rules, Flash time is not prep. Email speech docs. Points are between 28-30, barring bizzarro argumentation, presentation or decorum (This does not include personal narratives or performance arguments with a purpose - they are fine). If you speak (debate) worse than the other debaters in a Round, you will get lower points. Quick and clear is OK. Unclear is not. I will let you know at least once - then it's up to you. I will read evidence in a close debate when I think it is at issue because cards exceedingly often don't prove what they are being offered to prove. You have to point it out unless I think the claim is outlandish.

For LD:

See the above. I was a policy debater. So LD theory which deviates from policy may be lost on me. You've been warned. Critiks and CPs are ok. So are theory args against them. Standard frameworks which stifle all critical debate won't fly. Tell me why your framework should be applied in this debate.

I debate for the University of Miami. Here are somethings you want to keep in mind when I am your judge:

1). I hate untopical bullshit affs. Those affs are just cheating strategies, intolerable.

2). I have a high threshold for voting on theory. But if you completely drop the conditionality argument, for example, I will vote you down.

3). Make sure during your speech you tell me a coherent story, and that includes Uniqueness, link, internal link and impact.

4). If you are doing a Kritik, make sure you explain the link and the alternative very well.

5). Framework debate is important in clashing debates (policy vs critical).

As a judge, my philosophy is quite simple. I like policy oriented debates but theory is fine. K's, if ran well, and given a clear alternative are great. I will only vote on topicality or conditionality if the debators can show apporiate standards, violations, and prove clear voting issue. 

Spreading is preferred for constructed speeches and 1 NR/AR. For final rebuttals, spreading is acceptable, but taking time to outline voting issues, impact calculation and clear lines of argumentation are more likely to earn higher speaker points.

With that being said, the team who can prove that they have won the debate and why, usually has done a better job of arguing their position against their opponents arguments, 

carrollton sacred heart '17

university of michigan '21

yes, i want speech docs – allison.m.pujol@gmail.com

2024 update for college debate

I'm currently a grad student at UT-Austin studying English and Information Studies. I did almost exclusively policy things when I debated, but I read a fair amount of critical theory/study poetry/think about art + literature a lot these days, if that means anything.

I'm a fairly technical judge, and I reward debaters that are clear, efficient, and deliberate in their speed (tags/theory should be slower than text of card, for example).

It benefits nobody when debaters are hostile or overly aggressive to each other. Please be courteous to your opponents. It goes without saying that if you are verbally harassing, physically threatening or in any way being a real jerk to the other team, I will stop the debate.

affs without plans/framework debates

Definitely better for the neg than the aff, but I have been persuaded otherwise in the past more than a few times. Ultimately my technical proclivities determine where I end up far more than my ideological biases / policy background does (i.e., I will vote for the team that does the better debating).

I often think about framework debates the same way I think about topicality/competing interpretations: what does debate look like in a world of the aff vs the neg? This means, regardless of whether you are aff or neg, you need to robustly defend whatever your interpretation of debate is. I do think procedural fairness is a thing. I also think debate as it exists now certainly isn't perfect.

topicality:

Please for the love of everything good slow down

Evidence quality matters a lot to me in T debates, and the better your interp ev is the better your chances are.

it's a voting issue, no RVIs, this isn't LD

counterplans:

My own bias is to be aff leaning with process CPs – If your CP tries to “compete” based on immediacy or certainty, it probably doesn’t compete. Additionally, if your CP leads to whatever the plan mandates, does it in some arbitrary way, or adds a part to the plan, I am likely to be sympathetic when the aff goes for the perm.

If you are extending a permutation in the 1ar, it should be explained way beyond three words for me to evaluate it – what it does and how it shields the link, etc. Otherwise, I'll likely protect the 2nr from 2ar extrapolation.

If you have aff-specific or topic-specific ev to support the CP, I'll likely err neg on competition/theory.

Aff – winning a credible solvency deficit is important. Ideally, there should be evidentiary support or an internal link chain from which you can base the solvency deficit.

kritiks:

You read death good = you get 20-21 points (whoever said it first gets 20) and a fat L

Other than the death good stuff, I'm probably better for most K debates than people think.

Identity args - Given the breadth and diversity of argumentation in critical theory, I am a little bit hesitant to assign a universal political and/or social identity to an entire population. I can be persuaded alternatively, although it seems important to note that I am rather uncomfortable in debates where non-black debaters make Wilderson's argument about all black people experiencing social death or anything analogous to that.

disads:

Theory arguments vs the link are usually not winners for me

Block/2nr impact calc is one of the most important things that determine my decision. My decision will be the easiest if you win that the disadvantage outweighs and controls a larger internal link to solving the aff impacts/advantages than the aff actually does.

There can be 0% risk of an impact – don’t underestimate defense.

theory:

Again, aff-specific ev is a gamechanger for competition and theory questions - but these are my defaults:

Condo – probably good ... within limits -- 2 condo is not 5 condo

PICs – good

Word PICs – depends on ev, but when the ev is decent these are awesome to judge

International / 50 state fiat – usually good

Agent CPs – good

Floating PIKs – bad

SPEC – set it up in cross-ex, or I won’t vote on these

If it’s not conditionality, I’ll probably default to rejecting the argument, not the team. But, that's just a default - I can be persuaded otherwise.

Best of luck and have fun!

I am a pretty open-minded judge. Analysis, framing, and a hint of ethos will win you the debate. A few general comments and then onto my specific feelings about arguments.

General

-CX is important and binding, use it well

-One well highlighted and warranted card is better than three low quality one liners

-Flashing does not count as prep time

DA

-The more specific the better, explain how the link works

-Defend the impact well, the affirmative can often subsume a DA with their impacts

-If you can please read something which is not a Politics DA

CP

-Give me a good solvency debate, why is this a preferable idea?

-Make them clever, I will entertain all manner of odd solutions

-Constitutional Conventions will increase speaker points

K

-I like these arguments

-That being said please explain your arguments, don't read a bunch of postmodern philosophy and expect me to make sense of it

-Run a cap K with a reject alt and you will probably loose

-Run a cap K with a historical materialist alternative and you might win

-I am not persuaded by ridiculous alternatives, I will usually view the alternative as vote for the status quo because the K is a prior question to policymaking

-Do good link work and impact framing and you will be able to sell me on the alternative better

-Winning a prior question framework is important

T

-I generally default affirmative if they are reasonably topical

-If there is a blatant violation which is well explained I could be persuaded to vote negative

Framework

-Negative's best weapon against advocacy and no plan affirmatives

-If framework is questioned it becomes very important for me. A question of what we are debating about comes before the debate itself.

Theory

-Condo is probably not a voter as long as there is not blatant contradiction or extreme abuse of multiple worlds

-PIKs might be cheating

-Floating PIKs are definately cheating

Performance 

-Not a huge fan, but I will evaulate it how you tell me to

-If your strategy is to make the other team uncomfortable by using offensive or loaded terms please do not do this. Debate is a location where everyone should be able to participate and learn, don't make the other team feel inferior or threatened. 

Any questions just ask me!

Patrick Waldinger 

Assistant Director of Debate at the University of Miami

Assistant Debate Coach at the Pine Crest School 

10+ years judging 

Yes, please put me on the speech doc: dinger AT gmail

Updated 9.2.14

Here are the two things you care about when you are looking to do the prefs so I’ll get right to them:

1. Conditionality: I think rampant conditionality is destroying the educational aspects of debate slowly but surely. You should not run more than one conditional argument in front of me.

Reading a K without an alternative and claiming it is a “gateway” issue doesn’t count. First, it likely contradicts with your CP, which is a reason that conditionality is both not educational and unfair. Second, there are no arbitrary “gateway” issues – there are the stock issues but methodology, for example, is not one of them the last time I read Steinberg’s book.

I also think there is a big difference between saying the CP is “conditional” versus “the status quo is always an option for the judge”. Conditional implies you can kick it at any time, however, if you choose not to kick it in the 2NR then that was your choice. You are stuck with that world. If the “status quo is always an option” for me, then the negative is saying that I, as the judge, have the option to kick the CP for them. You may think this is a mere semantic difference. That’s fine – but I DON’T. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The notion that I (or any judge) can just kick the CP for the negative team seems absurd in the vein of extreme judge intervention. Can I make permutation arguments for the aff too? That being said, if the affirmative lets the negative have their cake and eat it too, then I’ll kick CPs left and right. However, it seems extremely silly to let the negative argue that the judge has the ability to kick the CP. In addition, if the negative never explicitly states that I can kick the CP in the 2NR then don’t be surprised when I do not kick it post-round (3NR?).

Finally, I want to note the sad irony when I read judge philosophies of some young coaches. Phrases similar to “conditionality is probably getting out of hand”, while true, show the sad state of affairs where the same people who benefited from the terrible practice of rampant conditionality are the same ones who realize how bad it is when they are on the other side.

2. Kritiks: In many respects going for a kritik is an uphill battle with me as the judge. I don’t read the literature and I’m not well versed in it. I view myself as a policymaker and thus I am interested in pragmatics. That being said, I think it is silly to dismiss entirely philosophical underpinnings of any policy.

Sometimes I really enjoy topic specific kritiks, for example, on the immigration topic I found the idea about whether or not the US should have any limits on migration a fascinating debate. However, kritiks that are not specific to the topic I will view with much more skepticism. In particular, kritiks that have no relation to pragmatic policymaking will have slim chance when I am judging (think Baudrillard).

If you are going for a K, you need to explain why the PLAN is bad. It’s good that you talk about the impact of your kritik but you need to explain why the plan’s assumptions justify that impact. Framing the debate is important and the frame that I am evaluating is surrounding the plan.

I am not a fan of kritiks that are based off of advantages rather than the plan, however, if you run them please don’t contradict yourself. If you say rhetoric is important and then use that same bad rhetoric, it will almost be impossible for you to win. If the 1AC is a speech act then the 1NC is one too.

I believe that the affirmative should defend a plan that is an example of the current high school or CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative should defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States or United States federal government were to actually enact your proposal.

The remainder:

“Truth over tech”? I mull this over a lot. This issue is probably the area that most judges grapple with, even if they seem confident on which side they take. I err of the side of "truth over tech" but that being said, debate is a game and how you perform matter for the outcome. While it is obviously true that in debate an argument that goes unanswered is considered “true”, that doesn’t mean there doesn’t have to be a logical reason behind the argument to begin with. That being said, I will be sensitive to new 2AR arguments as I think the argument, if logical, should have been in the debate earlier.

Topicality: Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I default to reasonability on topicality. It makes no sense to me that I should vote for the best interpretation, when the affirmative’s burden is only to be good. The affirmative would never lose if the negative said there is better solvency evidence the affirmative should have read. That being said, I understand that what “good’ means differs for people but that’s also true for what “better” is: both are subjective. I will vote on competing interpretations if the negative wins that is the best way to frame the debate (usually because the affirmative doesn’t defend reasonability).

The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical. Specific examples of what cases would be/won’t be allowed under an interpretation are important.

People think “topical version of the aff” is the be all end all of topicality, however, it begs the question: is the aff topical? If the aff is topical then just saying “topical version of the aff” means nothing – you have presented A topical version of the aff in which the affirmative plan is also one.

Basically I look at the debate from the perspective of a policy debate coach from a medium sized school: is this something my team should be prepared to debate?

As a side note – often times the shell for topicality is read so quickly that it is very unclear exactly what your interpretation of the topic is. Given that, there are many times going into the block (and sometimes afterwards) that I don’t understand what argument you are making as to why the affirmative is not topical. It will be hard for me to embrace your argument if I don’t know what it is.

Counterplans: It is a lot easier to win that your counterplan is theoretically legitimate if you have a piece of evidence that is specific to the plan. And I mean SPECIFIC to the plan, not “NATO likes to talk about energy stuff” or the “50 states did this thing about energy one time”. Counterplans that include all of the plan are the most theoretically dubious. If your counterplan competes based on fiat, such as certainty or timeframe, that is also theoretically dubious. Agent counterplans and PICS (yes, I believe they are distinct) are in a grey area.  The bottom line: the counterplan should not be treated as some throw away argument – if you are going to read one then you should defend it.

Theory: I already talked a lot about it above but I wanted to mention that the only theoretical arguments that I believe are “voting issues” are conditionality and topicality. The rest are just reasons to reject the argument and/or allow the other side to advocate similar shenanigans. This is true even if the other side drops the argument in a speech.

Other stuff you may care about if you are still reading:

Aspec: If you don’t ask then cross-examination then I’ll assume that it wasn’t critical to your strategy. I understand “pre-round prep” and all but I’m not sure that’s enough of a reason to vote the affirmative down. If the affirmative fails to specify in cross-examination then you may have an argument. I'm not a huge fan of Agent CPs so if this is your reasong to vote against the aff, then you're probably barking up the wrong tree. 

**Addendum to ASPEC for "United States"**: I do think it is important for the aff to specify in cross-ex what "United States" means on the college topic. The nature of disads and solvency arguments (and potentially topicality) depend on what the aff means by "United States". I understand these are similiar arguments made by teams reading ASPEC on USFG but I feel that "United States" is so unique and can mean so many different things that a negative team should be able to know what the affirmative is advocating for. 

Evidence: I put a large emphasis on evidence quality. I read a lot of evidence at the end of the debate. I believe that you have to have evidence that actually says what you claim it says. Not just hint at it. Not just imply it. Not just infer it. You should just read good evidence. Also, you should default to reading more of the evidence in a debate. Not more evidence. More OF THE evidence. Don't give me a fortune cookie and expect me to give the full credit for the card's warrants. Bad, one sentence evidence is a symptom of rampant conditionality and antithetical to good policy making. 

Paperless: I only ask that you don’t take too much time and have integrity with the process, e.g., don’t steal prep, don’t give the other team egregious amounts of evidence you don’t intend to read, maintain your computers and jump drives so they are easy to use and don’t have viruses, etc.

Integrity: Read good arguments, make honest arguments, be nice and don’t cheat. Win because you are better and not because you resort to cheap tricks.

Civility: Be nice. Debate is supposed to be fun. You should be someone that people enjoy debating with and against – win or lose. Bad language is not necessary to convey an argument.