I competed in Congressional Debate in Illinois and on the National Circuit between 2011 and 2015. Since then, I have had the pleasure of judging, primarily for Congress and PF.

In Congress, I want to hear solid arguments AND witness flawless speaking styles. Avoid filler words, repeating the same phrase, etc. My biggest pet peeve is rehash/redundant arguments. If you are speaking after the 4th speech, I should hear new arguments AND clash. If you are crystallizing, I want more than a summary. Tell me exactly why your side wins and turn every untouched argument effectively. Please be professional and cordial. If you are a great speaker but don't respect others in the chamber, I am not going to rank you as high. It is very possible to be a good debater and concurrently lead the chamber in a respectful manner, so show me both. Use your question time effectively!

I am new to judging LD, but I am doing all the research that I can to make sure that I understand all of the intricacies of LD. In order for me to understand your arguments, please slow down and avoid LD-specific jargon.:)

About me:

I have been coaching and judging PF for eleven years. I judge on local circuit tournaments and have also judged many national circuit tournaments, including the TOC. I am familiar with the topic, but that does not mean that you should not explain your arguments. As a coach I am very aware of all the nuances of Public Forum debate.

Put me on the email chain: nkroepel@district100.com and belviderenorthpf@gmail.com

Round specifics:

Tech>truth (I always try to be tabula rasa and not interject my knowledge into your round). I will vote on just about anything besides abusive, offensive arguments. I will take arguments as true, unless otherwise argued by your opponent for the scope of the round.

I can flow speed, but I prefer not to. I do not want you to use it as a way to exclude your opponents. In the end, Debate is about intelligible conversation, if you are going too fast, and don't do it well, it can get in the way of clarity of expression, which upsets me.

I do not flow cross-fire, but I do pay attention to it. However, if you make an excellent point in cross-fire, you will have to bring that information up in a subsequent speech. Also, DO NOT be rude, I will reduce your speaker points for it. It is inappropriate for teams to make their opponent's feel inferior or humiliate them in the round.

If you are speaking second, please address your opponent's responses to your case, especially turns. It does not have to be an even split, but make sure it is something that you do. Defense is not sticky, you need to extend it.

I expect that summary and final focus are cohesive to each other. First summary needs extend defense. Second summary needs to address responses on your case, especially in areas you are going to collapse on, and it should also respond to turns. I do expect that you collapse and not go for everything on the flow in summary. I WILL NOT vote on an issue if it is not brought up in summary. Please weigh in your final two speeches and clash your arguments to those provided by your opponent.

As I expect the summary and final focus to be consistent, that also means that the story/narrative coming from your partnership also be consistent. I may not give you a loss because of it, but it is harder to establish ethos. Defend a consistent worldview using your warrants and impacts.

Make it easy for me to fill out my ballot. Tell me where I should be voting and why. Be sure to be clear and sign-post throughout.

Extensions need to be clean and not just done through ink. In order for you to cleanly extend, you need to respond to responses, and develop your warrant(s). You cannot win an impact without warranting. In rebuttal, please make sure you are explaining implications of responses, not just card dumping. Explain how those responses interact with your opponents' case and what their place in the round means. DO NOT just extend card names in subsequent speeches.

The flow rules in my round for the most part, unless the weighing is non-existent. I will not call for evidence unless it is a huge deal, because I view it as interventionist.

DO NOT make blippy arguments-warranting matters!

DO NOT make the round a card battle, PLEASE. Explain the cards, explain why they outweigh. A card battle with no explanation or weighing gets you nowhere except to show me why I shouldn't vote on it.

And finally progressive debate-I'd strongly prefer you do not read atopical arguments. I think most kritikal positions are exceptionally unpersuasive on a truth level, but this should not explicitly influence how I evaluate them, except to say that I'm probably more willing than most to evaluate intelligent analytical defense to Ks even if your opponents have "cards" to make their claims. I am still learning when it comes to judging/evaluating theory. I need a slower debate with clear warranting-neither K or T are a big part of my judging experience either. You CAN run it in front of me but combining it with speed makes me even more confused. I can't promise that I will always make the right decision.

Updated 9-26-2013

Kevin McCaffrey

Assistant Debate Coach Glenbrook North 2014-
Assistant Debate Coach Berkeley Preparatory School 2010-2014
Assistant Debate Coach University of Miami 2007-2009
Assistant Debate Coach Gulliver Preparatory School 2005-2010

I feel strongly about both my role as an impartial adjudicator and as an educator – situations where these roles come into conflict are often where I find that I have intervened. I try to restrain myself from intervening in a debate, but I make mistakes, and sometimes find myself presented with two options which seem comparably interventionary in different ways, often due to underarticulated argumentation. This effort represents a systematic effort to identify the conditions under which I am more or less likely to intervene unconsciously. I try to keep a beginner’s mind and approach every debate round as a new learning opportunity, and I do usually learn at least one new thing every round – this is what I like most about the activity, and I’m at my best when I remember this and at my worst when I forget it.

My default paradigm is that of a policy analyst – arguments which assume a different role (vote no, performance) probably require more effort to communicate this role clearly enough for me to understand and feel comfortable voting for you. I don’t really have a very consistent record voting for or against any particular positions, although identity- and psychology-based arguments are probably the genres I have the least experience with and I’m not a good judge for either.

Rather, I think you’re most interested in the situations in which I’m likely to intervene – and what you can do to prevent it – this has much less to do with what arguments you’re making than it does with how you’re making them:

Make fewer arguments, and explain their nature and implication more thoroughly:

My unconscious mind carries out the overwhelming majority of the grunt work of my decisions – as I listen to a debate, a mental map forms of the debate round as a cohesive whole, and once I lose that map, I don’t usually get it back. This has two primary implications for you: 1) it’s in your interest for me to understand the nuances of an argument when first presented, so that I can see why arguments would be more or less responsive as or before they are made in response 2) debates with a lot of moving parts and conditional outcomes overload my ability to hold the round in my mind at once, and I lose confidence in my ability to effectively adjudicate, having to move argument by argument through each flow after the debate – this increases the chances that I miss an important connection or get stuck on a particular argument by second-guessing my intuition, increasing the chances that I intervene.

I frequently make decisions very quickly, which signals that you have done an effective job communicating and that I feel I understand all relevant arguments in the debate. I don’t believe in reconstructing debates from evidence, and I try to listen to and evaluate evidence as it's being read, so if I am taking a long time to make a decision, it’s probably because I doubt my ability to command the relevant arguments and feel compelled to second-guess my understanding of arguments or their interactions, a signal that you have not done an effective job communicating, or that you have inadvertently constructed an irresolveable decision calculus through failure to commit to a single path to victory.

In short, I make much better decisions when you reduce the size of the debate at every opportunity, when you take strategic approaches to the debate which are characterized by internally consistent logic and assumptions, and when you take time to explain the reasoning behind the strategic decisions you are making, and the meta-context for your arguments. If your approach to debate strategy depends upon overloading the opponent’s technical capabilities, then you will also likely overload my own, and if your arguments aren't broadly compatible with one another, then I may have difficulty processing them when constructing the big picture. I tend to disproportionately reward gutsy all-in strategic decisions. As a side note, I probably won’t kick a counterplan for you if the other team says just about anything in response, you need to make a decision.

Value proof higher than rejoinder:

I am a sucker for a clearly articulated, nuanced story, supported by thorough discussion of why I should believe it, especially when supported by high-quality evidence, even in the face of a diversity of poorly articulated or weak arguments which are only implicitly answered. Some people will refer to this as truth over tech – but it’s more precisely proof over rejoinder – the distinction being that I don’t as often reward people who say things that I believe, but rather reward fully developed arguments over shallowly developed or incomplete arguments. There have been exceptions – a dropped argument is definitely a true argument – but a claim without data and a warrant is not an argument. Similarly, explicit clash and signposting are merely things which help me prevent myself from intervening, not hard requirements. Arguments which clash still clash whether a debater explains it or not, although I would strongly prefer that you take the time to explain it, as I may not understand that they clash or why they clash in the same way that you do.

My tendency to intervene in this context is magnified when encountering unfamiliar arguments, and also when encountering familiar arguments which are misrepresented, intentionally or unintentionally. As an example, I am far more familiar with positivist studies of international relations than I am with post-positivist theorizing, so debaters who can command the distinctions between various schools of IR thought have an inherent advantage, and I am comparably unlikely to understand the nuances of the distinctions between one ethical philosopher and another. I am interested in learning these distinctions, however, and this only means you should err on the side of explaining too much rather than not enough.

A corollary is that I do believe that various arguments can by their nature provide zero risk of a link (yes/no questions, empirically denied), as well as effectively reduce a unique risk to zero by making the risk equivalent to chance or within the margin of error provided by the warrant. I am a sucker for conjunctive/disjunctive probability analysis, although I think assigning numerical probabilities is almost never warranted.

Incomprehensible value systems:

One special note is that I have a moderate presumption against violence, whether physical or verbal or imaginary – luckily for me, this has yet to seriously present itself in a debate I have judged. But I don’t think I have ever ended up voting for a pro-death advocacy, whether because there are more aliens than humans in the universe, or because a thought experiment about extinction could change the way I feel about life, or because it’s the only path to liberation from oppression. While I’d like to think I can evaluate these arguments objectively, I’m not entirely sure that I really can, and if advocating violence is part of your argument, I am probably a bad judge for you, even though I do believe that if you can’t articulate the good reasons that violence and death are bad, then you haven’t adequately prepared and should probably lose.

Email me:

I like the growing practice of emailing flows and debriefing at the end of a day or after a tournament – feel free to email me: kmmccaffrey at gmail dot com. It sometimes takes me a while to fully process what has happened in a debate round and to understand why I voted the way I did, and particularly in rounds with two very technical, skilled opponents, even when I do have a good grasp of what happened and feel confident in my decision, I do not always do a very good job of communicating my reasoning, not having time to write everything out, and I do a much better job of explaining my thinking after letting my decision sit for a few hours. As such, I am very happy to discuss any decision with anyone in person or by email – I genuinely enjoy being challenged – but I am much more capable and comfortable with written communication than verbal.

I have been a debate judge for approximately a decade, but only in Illinois.

Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".

I value style as well as substance equally.

I flow through out the debate and I like to see teams address their opponent’s contentions point by point. Additionally, It does not matter to me if a team is stating something in their case that is knowingly false or untrue. If the opposing team does not contest these statement…then power to the other team. I also like to see teams specify impacts along with their contentions.

Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Being aggressive is not necessarily a no-no if done properly. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior will not be tolerated.

Aaron Vinson

Debate Coach, New Trier High School, Illinois

Formerly, Head Coach, Princeton High School, Ohio

Glenbrook North Alum, Miami University of Ohio Alum

email = vinsona@newtrier.k12.il.us

==Updated 8/1/23==

Overarching philosophy of debate/judging (scroll down for thoughts on arguments)

I used to judge a good amount. That has not been the case. I taught at Michigan this summer and probably judged about 15 debates there .

Debate is about having fun - you should read arguments that you enjoy regardless of my past debate background or what arguments my students may or may not read.

Debate is about communication, response, and oral argumentation - if it wasn't in the debate or if it was not clear to me in a debate, it's not a thing. All arguments should have some level of engagement with what the opposing team is saying or they are just floating statements. I try to judge all debates through a lens of, how will I explain to the losing team why they did not win and how can I explain how they could have won.

Debate should be a safe space - be respectful to your partner and opponents; if your "thought experiment" includes trivializing genocide, suicide, x identity, you should consider the impact that that argument might have on your opponents and anyone watching the debate. I understand that discomfort in engaging new areas of literature can be beneficial but there is a line between that and making people feel uncomfortable talking about their own identity (literally referring to CX exchanges with this example). If this is egregious I will feel compelled to intervene.

Thoughts on specific arguments

Topicality - it's fine. Probably hard to win in front of me. What I would call a "low probability victory" because I think most debates fall down into infinitely regressive limits debates that are easily resolved - for me - with reasonable interpretations (that means the aff would have to extend a reasonable interpretation!). To be successful in front of me I think that debating topicality more like a DA (link explanation + impact) and then debating interpretations like a CP (what the debates under each interpretation would be like and why they are good).

Counterplans - they're good. Consult CP's are fine. Condition CP's are fine. Process CP's are mostly fine. Delay CP's are mostly fine. Advantage CP's are good. Agent CP's are good. International Actor CP's are fine. States CP's are good. 2NC CP's are questionable. Offsets CP's can be fine. Affs can be most successful in front of me by explaining what is different between the plan and counterplan and then explaining why that difference is impacted by a specific aff advantage / internal link scenario). Final thought is that the aff often forgets to point out that the billion plank advantage cp prolly links to politics.

Counterplan theory - conditionality is probably good because the alternatives create worse debates. I evaluate these debates technically, which often gives a slight advantage to the neg, and look for impact calculus that never materializes (which is also good for the neg). Also, most things just don't make sense as voting issues except conditionality. If you want to be successful with counterplan theory in front of me, see my notes about topicality. And be very clear about what you want me to do and why (reject the argument, stick them with it, they lose, etc).

Disadvantages - they're good. Politics DA's are good. Elections DA's are okay. Rider DA's are so-so. Tradeoff DA's are good. Economy DA's are good. Spending DA's are so-so. I think intrinsicness is interesting, turns case is a big deal, contextualizing size of DA vs size of case is helpful for all. Negs who make their DA's bigger in the block (impact wise) are often successful in front of me.

Kritiks - they're good. I believe my voting record skews neg because of most aff teams' inability to generate offense. Aff perm strategies are okay but should be contextualized with offense, solvency deficits, etc. I default to fiat meaning "imagine" so sure we arent going to start a world revolution but I could certainly imagine that or we could talk about if that's a good thought experience. I would give myself a "B" for K literacy fluency.

T USFG/Framework - it's good. But ... I believe my voting record skews the other way. I've had the pleasure of many coaches angrily asking me about arguments that weren't in the debate. I view debate as a communication activity and I only consider the arguments presented in the debate. Coaches get upset when this emphasis on technical execution seems to "hurt" their framework team. I think the data bears out that I am winnable for either side. I will say that affs that don't read a plan AND are not in the same direction as the resolution OR don't read a plan AND are not related to the resolution have a low win rate in front of me. See notes about debating topicality in front of me.

Ethics - clipping is bad. Miscutting evidence is bad. Misrepresenting evidence is bad. Misdisclosing is bad. Are any of these things auto-losses in-front of me? Probably not. Context matters. If one piece of evidence is miscut or misrepresented, it seems reasonable to just imagine that card wasn't read. If someone does want to stake the debate on one of these things that can be verified, I can be persuaded. If team A asserts that team B has clipped or miscut evidence, and stakes the debate on it, and is wrong, team A would lose. That's what it means to stake the debate on something.

Speaker points - I know I look 16 but I'm much older. So are my points. I'm trying to be better to represent changing norms but that's a thing. If you lose you're probably getting a 28 something if you were reasonable. If you weren't reasonable you're probably getting a high 27. If you win I try to think about if I would expect the team to break at the tournament. If so they're probably getting a 29. Then relative comparisons to other people in the debate kick in. Things that bump your points up: clarity, cx, respecting your opponent, judge instruction, evaluation and assessment based arguments at the end. Things that can bump your points down: being hard to understand/follow, being mean, not kicking arguments correctly, not attempting line by line, only reading cards, not answering / not letting your partner answer in cx, not disclosing to your opponent before I get there, tech incompetence, prep shenaningans.