JUDGE PHILOSOPHY BOOK NOTES: All philosophies appear below alphabetically. Using control-F you can search and will probably find the names faster. If hard returns appear in strange places try changing the text size in your browser ('view-text size' in Explorer). You can save this by selecting 'File-Save As' from your browser. If given the choice, you might want 'HTML only' rather than 'web page complete.' Once saved, you do not have to be on-line to view the philosophies.
| * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sam Allen
Sam Allen
University of Wyoming
First year of judging
Debated for Whitman College and the University of Wyoming.
I will try to make my proclivities as little a part of the debate as I can. I have an okay flow and I will attempt to decide primarily from that resource. This means that even if I read evidence after a round I will attempt to rely more on the way that I interpreted your description and application of that evidence during speeches and cross-examination.
Don’t expect me to have a background in what you are discussing. This applies to any argument you read. Arguments should have at least a warrant for their claims
“Offense-defense. Obviously without offense there’s “always a risk. Obviously good defensive args can reduce that risk to the point where it’s not a relevant consideration.” -- Jeff Buntin
You do not need evidence to point out the logical gaps of many disadvantages and advantages. You should have evidence to substantiate your claims. However, if a team wins that your evidence is from sources that have no expertise it will have as much weight (if not less) as an analytic argument.
Topicality
Not an RVI. Not genocide. Always a strategic option. Consideration of the fairness of the interpretation as well as the educational merit are likely important. Weighing those within a specific framework will help. Plan flaws and typos (both in plan and counterplans) are not solved by clarification. ASPEC et al are likely a stretch and expect that I will find flippant 2AC arguments compelling in these instances.
Counterplans
Textual competition is a good standard. I am, likely, not a good judge for a consultation or condition counterplan. I am likely to find theoretical objections and Perm: Do CP persuasive. Conditionality is good. Multiple conditional counterplans are probably good (if you can line item planks of your counterplan you should make that explicit if asked about the status of the counterplan, please). You are more likely to persuade me that the counterplan is abusive and should be rejected for another reason. Theoretical objections should take into consideration the fairness and educational significance of including or excluding a particular argument. Theoretical objections are almost always a reason to reject arguments not teams.
Kritiks
Explaining key concepts in terms of the affirmative is probably the best way to convince me that moving from a liberal policy making framework is preferable. Be clear in the explanation of your position in cross-x and speeches because it may be likely that I am understanding your position the way the other team is describing it if I don’t know what you are saying. Be explicit about the role of the ballot. In general, the most flesh you can give to your ideas the better I will appreciate them. Reading evidence that a team may be able to kritik is not absolute in undermining the entirety of the case. A competitive alternative likely will not include the passage of plan.
Cross-x
I think this is the best part of debate. Arguments clarified in cross-x should be consistently held throughout debate. Speaker points.
Notes
Paperless transition of evidence will NOT be timed.
Alternative use time if all debaters want.
Cutting cards during the debate is okay.
Receiving coaching is not. Or clipping cards. Or stealing an obnoxious amount of prep.
Be Nice.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Nick Bormann
My philosophy in three words: do what wins. My goal as a critic is to
have my biases affect your strategy as little as possible. I want to
see what you?re good at, not what you think I?d like. Personally, I?m
quite a bit more conservative than most of the debate community, but I
ran a lot of arguments I disagreed with. Feel free to do the same.
General beliefs about debate: good arguments win most often. By ?good?
I mean that they are supported by recent, well-qualified evidence
and/or logical reasoning. Cards are helpful but not always necessary,
especially when common sense is sufficient to show your opponent is
wrong. In an ideal world, I wouldn?t have to read any cards after the
debate because the final rebuttals would have done the work already.
If necessary, I?ll read evidence to resolve what it says or to figure
out a close round. However, the phrases ?more evidence?? or ?call for
this after the round, it?s sweet? won?t get you very far. Debate is a
persuasive activity and I?m not here to judge your research effort?
just how well you deployed it.
Topicality: I don?t know much about the topic so I have no idea what
sorts of limits are desirable. In general I am more persuaded by
competing interpretations, but affs can win reasonability against
arbitrary neg interpretations. Having clear examples for what affs
are/aren?t topical as well as the important ground you lost is most
helpful to win T.
Disads / CP: I?m always excited to hear tricky / specific strategies
against an aff. I?m less excited to hear an agent CP + politics
debate, but if that?s your bread and butter, go ahead. If the DA is
stupid, I think an aff can win on ?zero risk? arguments if their
defensive claims are totalizing enough (but that?s hard to
accomplish). I?m not excited to resolve a UQ debate which involves
both sides stacking up cards then handing them to me, so rely on
warrants not just quantity of cards.
Critiques: You may think that because I ran these, I?m just dying to
hear your neo-Postmodern interpretation of Lacanian anti-capitalism,
and you?d be wrong. The K is at its best when it directly undermines
an assumption of the aff team and is specifically applied to counter
the claims of the 1AC. I dislike teams which use critiques to avoid
doing work all year. Affs can beat generic, poorly-deployed criticisms
on ?we still solve? and ?perm?. Impact-turning the K with modernism
good, cap good, etc. I think results in the most interesting rounds.
Framework typically is just a waste of time which does nothing for
either team. If you?re going to invest heavily in the FW, make sure to
explain the implications on how I judge if you win the argument (and
that means more than ?it?s a voter?).
Theory: I?m a fan of negative flexibility, which I think makes it easy
to win that a conditional CP/alt is legit. Once you enter the realm of
multiple CP?s with distinct conditional planks that can be re-written
in the 2NC, the aff has a much more compelling argument for abuse. To
win theory is a voter, it will take specific examples of abuse and how
the neg strategy made competition impossible. A quick note on
contradictions ? conditionality means the neg can kick their advocacy,
not the truth claims they made to support it. For example, if you run
a CP with econ net benefit and then the cap K, kicking the CP gets you
out of that advocacy, but the other team can still cross-apply ?econ
downturn causes war? to your K.
Cheap-shots: If you?re convinced that the other team conceded a
voter-level argument, go all in on it. I WILL vote on a one minute 2NR
which is exclusively ?severance perms bad? if the aff didn?t cover it.
Cover your bases on 2AR cross-applications then sit down. My flow is
pretty good so if they really dropped it you?ll win. Spending 30
seconds on a cheap-shot then going for substance is basically a waste
of time unless the 2AR manages to drop it too.
Performance: I?ll listen to what you have to say, but don?t count on
my being emotionally engaged in the same thing you happen to be. You
don?t need a traditional plan text, but some kind of clear advocacy
out of the 1AC is a must. Teams which rely on obfuscation are annoying
and should lose on theory. If you want me to not flow your arguments,
that?s fine, but don?t expect me to extend that to your opponents?
speeches. I won?t evaluate evidence you didn?t read ? it?s a burden
for both teams to get their cards into the speeches, not just
?summarize? them. I?m probably more sympathetic to the impact turns to
performance type arguments, so be sure you have a substantive impact
and can defend it. I?ll vote neg on presumption if the aff can?t
demonstrate they change something in a meaningful way.
Default speaker points = 27.5
Things that will lower your points:
- Being overly generic or making boring arguments I?ve heard every
topic the last 8 years (e.g. A-spec)
- Rudeness to your partner or opponents, which includes prep stealing
- Lack of presence or confidence in your arguments
Things that will improve your points:
- Bold moves, like strategic concessions or unconventional arguments I
haven?t heard before
- Being funny in a tasteful fashion
- Mastery of the flow
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Jamie Cheek
Jamie Cheek
University of Wyoming
First Year Judging
0 Rounds on the topic
Jamie Cheek = Jamie Piechura. I was married a year ago and finally got my name changed on debateresults; just in time to judge and have no one know me.
General Issues:
1. Impact assessment and comparative analysis of the debate are necessary if you don’t want me to evaluate the debate my way, and that may not come to the result you wanted.
2. I think one smart analytical argument can take out several crappy cards.
3. I am totally crazy over prep time. I will keep track of it, and I will get cranky about prep stealing.
Specifics:
Theory – I have few biases about theory. I think all theory is debatable, except probably dispo bad; I will vote every time that dispo is not bad by itself. I’d prefer if you’d just say it’s conditional. If you want to go all in on a theory argument there are a couple things you need to have: 1) a link 2) an impact 3) a justification that is both a reason why you should win but also a reason why what they did is enough to cost them the round. Also, Ben Warner once told me, “Everytime I see someone go all in on theory because they think they have to, they usually didn’t.” So keep that in mind, I think it’s sound advice.
Topicality – Everyone always says they love a good T debate; I also fall into that category. I will tell you right now I have very little knowledge or preference about the topic. I’m game for any interpretation, as long as you win an impact. This section will probably change drastically after Gonzaga.
Framework – My whole debate career I was definitely on one side of this debate, but that doesn’t mean I’m not willing to listen to the other side. I think the most important part of this debate is that there needs to be an interpretation, but also an impact. Not just link arguments or “fairness important,” but what your framework means for my ballot. I think framework debates often boil down to a card war with no analysis as to how I’m supposed to evaluate the round based on the framework that “wins”.
K’s – Here is an area that I am very unfamiliar with. I’m not saying “don’t read the K in front of me.” I’m more saying “I probably don’t know exactly what X author says or what X author advocates or how that author feels about the aff.” That is work you’re going to have to do, and if you don’t want to do it, I wouldn’t blame you. I also think that K affirmatives are very strategic, and you shouldn’t be afraid to read them in front of me because you think my knee-jerk reaction is “that’s not topical.” I think that’s a debate to be had, refer above.
CP’s – you got them, read them. I think consult cp’s are okay, I think cp’s that result in the plan no matter what are abusive. I think tricky cp’s shouldn’t be too tricky that I don’t get it.
DA’s – a little bit of a lost art. I think there should be more disads in debate. However, as much as I read politix in college, you should not be fooled. I will not be up on the newest scenario, so maybe a little overview in the 2nc would be nice. I also think the impact turn is a bit of a lost art, aff’s should do this more often to disads.
Non-Traditional/Performance – I won’t lie, if you’re doing this I probably won’t get it. I definitely do not outright reject it; I just probably lack some of the prerequisite knowledge to get what you’re doing. If you’re willing to take the time to explain it, I am willing to take the time to listen.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Izak Dunn
izak dunn
experience: Four years debate at Idaho State, one year coaching at Idaho State
A lot of people have pegged me as a certain kind of judge—crazy, in other words. While I may be crazy in the head, I don’t think that I judge rounds in a particularly different way than other critics. I, like other judges, vote for which team did the better debating. How I come to this conclusion is much the same as other critics: I allow myself to be persuaded by the rhetorical force of one or another team’s arguments (and I believe that the source of this force, be it truth or technical proficiency, is not important).
So, I’ll let you in on some of the methods to my madness:
First, I believe in the principle of noncontradiction, if only because I have to. I’m not so sure about the law of the excluded middle, but I can’t seem to think without the first, in any case. This is to say that I believe in the truth—I believe, for example, that “true” or well-articulated defense is enough to win Topicality (the eternal return of the “we meet”), and even a disad or kritik (though I do think that the CP has the advantage, for the negative, of forcing the debate into an offense/defense paradigm). On the other hand, I feel that the arguments as to why Competing Interpretations are Good are persuasive, but articulating these reasons as “weigh T as a disad” is not smart in front of me, since I weigh good defense on disads conclusively. In other words, I believe in the principle of noncontradiction, not the offense/defense paradigm (though there are many situations where it certainly applies, if only for providing a clear and simple way for evaluating certain rounds).
Second, I believe that vegetarians are barbaric because they eat their prey while it is still alive. In other words, I am amenable to critical wipeout arguments. In fact, this is what I ran for a good portion of the end of my career. Thusly, I also believe in psychologically tricking opponents into snatching defeat from the jaws of victory—hey, I come from D9 where a good cheap shot is worth its weight in narcotics. I guess what I’m trying to say is that I do not prefer either “traditional” or “non-traditional” debates, on the one hand, and neither do I prefer either “straight-up” or “kritik” debates on the other hand. Certainly, I am more qualified to judge kritik debates—it’s the literature I’ve been focusing both my debate and academic careers on for years—but I don’t necessarily enjoy them more than straight-up debates. The same goes for presentation—traditional versus non-traditional is an empty preference as well (non-traditional straight-up debate would be sweet, though—no evidence, no theory!...I think…). Truly, I will simply come out and say it: I like good debates where everyone is charitable to each other (nota bene: I love charitable trash talk). I think that this is the case with most critics, despite their ideologies. Verily, I hate bad kritik debates more than I hate bad straight-up debates, and bad non-traditional debates are the worst of them all (in other words, for kritik debaters and non-traditional debaters, there is no excuse). I also hate Zizek. I’m just joking (am I?).
Third, I don’t believe in a clash of civilizations. I think that fairness is an illusion, but an important one to maintain. I think that framework is an amazing argument, and I prefer it to be articulated in the most banal of terms: “The affirmative wins if….the negative wins if…” I think a framework of evaluation is present in every debate, and I think that it is precisely what has been missing from the kritik for years. I find “real” impacts the most important aspect of the framework debate—“we should evaluate debates like this because…” of the education the framework provides and the impact of that type of education. Also, I don’t think you are allowed to have a framework that makes it impossible for the other team to win (though, I think, it is the point of having any framework, to make it harder for the other team to win).
Fourth, I believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I believe it occurs. A note on my method: I put sufficiently different arguments on different sheets of paper. However, I don’t even try to line everything up in the debate—I just flow from the top down on each sheet of paper, titling your arguments with catchy headers as you go through the debate (you say, “group the link debate” and I don’t draw a line next to the whole link debate, wherever it may be, but instead draw a circle around an L and flow all of your link arguments under it). If you provide me with these catchy headers, all the better—just don’t go overboard like Murillo. Also, I tend to weigh dropped arguments more heavily than answered arguments, but the drop has to be more than a mere technicality (it has to be a functional drop or a complete drop, not just missing ink next to something on the flow…as I said above, I’m not concerned about ink next to ink, just the ink in general). It’s a bit tougher, however, to actually drop something completely when I’m judging, simply because I don’t try to line things up.
Fifth, I don’t want to call for evidence. Ever. When I do call for evidence, 99.9% of the time, I’m just stealing your cites. If there is some sort of irresolvable dispute about what the evidence says, I’ll call for it (though I won’t like it). Otherwise, I’m probably not going to call for evidence at the end of the round. You should tell me what it says. In fact, I think that one only needs evidence to establish uniqueness scenarios, and everything else is merely bound to the scrutiny of argument (or logic, if you will, but see the First, above). Bottom, line, though, if you say, “extend Hardy evidence, read it after the round,” you will have only wasted precious time. Granted, in more straight-up debates, I tend to call for more evidence because I am not as familiar with the literature base, but that really means that you should explain things to me as thoroughly as possible because I am likely to interject my own thought processes into my reading of the evidence (and this usually tends to make nobody happy, especially myself). Finally, this means that if you’re the kind of debater who goes nice and slow on the tag and cite and blazes through the evidence like a Ukrainian virus attacking Microsoft Outlook, you’ll just be wasting breath. I actually listen to the card and try to write down the warrants—what would be the point in not calling for ev if I wasn’t listening to it in the first place? This is different from how I used to judge—I wouldn’t flow the evidence at all and wait for the debaters to explain it to me, but these days I feel that if you’re going to use your time to spew it, I may as well use my time to write it down. At the end of the day, however, I tend to regard all the words coming out of your mouth as your own, not some experts’.
Anyways, just a glimpse into the madness.
izak dunn
P.S. I think I’m over my 30’s addiction, so please stop asking. I have found a new addiction to 26.0. I’m sure this will all balance out in the end.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
James Donald Durkee
Since most of you will stop reading this after I speak to the question of critiques, I guess I’ll start there. This probably isn’t a very good idea if you aren’t very good at debate. Be honest with yourself about this. If you wonder if you fall into this category, feel free to ask me and I’ll tell you. If you know how debate works, like understand that you need offense and that the alternative has to both compete and probably solve at least some of the case, then you might be ok. I actually am pretty familiar with most of the various academic currents that show up in K debates, and I used to only go for the K, but then I stopped being a lazy sack of shit that just throws around buzzwords. You have to make full arguments – claim, warrant, and impact. What this really means is you can probably pref me if you debate the K like a disad/cp and you are good at it, and you probably shouldn’t if you are doing performance/being intentionally vague in the hopes that I’ll turn your 1nc fisting performance into a totally slayer impact turn to the aff in the post round. I assure you I won’t. More likely I’ll tell you that you can save a lot of money on airline tickets if you just stay home and fist yourself.
Outside of that, I will do my best to judge debates based on the arguments presented to me by the debaters in the debate, and will work as much as possible to shelve my ideological positions. In this vein, I think that a full arg consists of a claim, warrant, and impact, and that a dropped argument is probably true. However, if you said “no spillover” in the 2ac, and the block dropped it, you can’t just say “extend no spillover, they dropped it” and think I will give them zero risk of the disad. You have to explain why the impact of your no spillover argument is zero risk. The flipside is that if no spillover wasn’t fully developed in the 2ac, the 2nr gets to answer the 1ar impact calc. I will try to be as consistent with this approach as possible. I won’t vote on stupid cheap shots, and I find that to be entirely consistent with an argument-theory based approach to judging.
However, that is only partially possible for anyone, and so I will now list the tendencies that I have when thinking about debate, with the caveat that my perspective could change on some of these after judging debates –
1. CP Theory – Probably not the best 2ar choice as long as the neg executes. I think almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the counterplan not the team, and that the neg doesn’t need an explicit counter-interpretation, just a reasonable standard for why their counterplan is sweet. I personally find most arguments against multi-actors/prongs/international actors/etc. to ultimately buckle to “the counterplan isn’t fair because it solves the case” – in order to win any theory argument the Aff needs to explain why this is not the case.
2. Topicality – my hunch is that I kinda lean Aff on topicality in most situations. I am not really a fan of stupid contrived topicality arguments. Brett Wallace would win exactly zero debates if I judged him on the neg 100 times. That said, this topic is fucking massive and I could easily be convinced that many of the Affs on the Gonzaga/UNI caselist are untopical.
3. Counterplan competition – I’m not really sure where I fall on this, and I feel like I could be persuaded about most reasonable things (functional, textual, both?) and not by stupid shit like planplan. I think that this means you should assume that I don’t really understand very well why the consult counterplan does/does not compete, and should budget a little extra speech time if you are running one of these counterplans or if you forgot to cut say no cards and have to go for a permutation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Skippy Flinn
Skippy Flinn
KCKCC
Rounds on topic--50+
I have judged 50+ rounds on this topic. I am open to hear whatever style of debate that you prefer, however I am more comfortable with a counterplan/disad type of debate. Don't get me wrong, I vote on the K all the time. The teams that spend the most time on the alternative/impact level of their arguments tend to pick up my ballot more frequently.
Your affirmative case should be tied to the resolution in some way. I am not a fan of the "resolution is bad" argument. I will vote on procedurals if they are developed and impacted out. If you are going for topicality in the 2nr that should be the main focus of your speech.
More than anything, I like to hear good debates. I don't want to discourage alternative approaches to the topic and this activity.
Have fun, do what you do, be nice and tell some jokes.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
John Foy
John Foy
Idaho State University
7 years of judging rounds
30+ Round son the topic
1.) Look, at this point I don’t really care what you do. I’ve coached straight-up teams and k teams and crazy teams. Its probably be best for you to do what you do best.
2.) I like the funny. I really do. If you’re funny you’ll do better than if you aren’t. Please don’t make anybody cry. Trying to be funny and failing is probably worse than just not being funny.
3.) I’m interested in interesting shit. Movies, books, history. I find all of these more interesting than technical debates over IPRs or the best way to defeat capitalism.
4.) Please slow down on tags and theory debates. If you don’t I might miss the shit you go for and you’ll lose.
5.) In general if you’re really fast, you might be too fast. The third time I yell clear, it might mean slow down.
6.) I try not to read too many cards, like maybe four or five tops. If you want me to read a ton of cards I’ll be angry and then make a decision.
7.) I vote on cheap shots.
8.) I almost always look bored and pissed off. It’s not you.
9.) My politics might not be yours, so don’t expect me to be feeling you.
10.) If you have questions you should ask me.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Glen Frappier
PHILOSOPHY
Frappier, Glen
Gonzaga University
Number of YEARS Judging:
College: 10
Number of TOURNAMENTS Judged
College: 3
Number of ROUNDS Judged (This Year's Topic):
College: 12
General Information: I'm probably a good judge for teams that engage in traditional policy debate (CPs, DAs, T, Case). Contrary to popular belief i'll also listen and vote on K args, although i'm much less familiar with the literature and terminology in those debates. Probably the best way to get me to vote on a K is to read it as a net benefit to a CP. Be warned: If you are a team that doesn't want to defend anything, that believes T is genocide, or that hopes to win because you "performed" (whatever that means) then you should not under any circumstances pref me. Things can only go wrong for in that situation.
Theory: I lean neg on almost all CP theory questions. Although I generally don't vote on Spec questions, I believe the aff should answer the question when asked in CX. Generall vagueness just to avoid CP competition doesn't really impress me. Pick an agent and defend it.
Topicality: I've voted on T a couple of times this year. I'm more of a competing interp guy than a reasonability guy. T is always a voter.
Evidence: I like evidence that is a) not excessively underlined as to make it almost incomprehensible b) well qualified
Debaters should extend evidence by cite and tag/arg, especially in the final rebuttals. If you just say "extend our uniqueness evidence" in the 2AR do not be shocked when i don't call for it.
Things I really like in the final rebuttals: impact comparison, evidence comparison, explanation. I just don't think a 2NR should sound like a 2NC. If you don't know what i mean by that you probably shouldn't take me.
Go Rockets
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Brent Hamilton
I will not award speaker points for what I perceive to be lazy (proliferation of cheap shots) or sloppy (3 conditional cps) debate.
Decision Calculus
I think that this is one of the most underdeveloped arguments in debates. What should we consider to be the most important impact and why? This question is relevant for theory, disads, kritiks, and clash of civs debates. Absent any discussion of what counts as an impact, I will default to: universal destruction < human extinction < economic growth/prosperity < bare life.
Similarly, saying nuclear war will occur is often not enough since I don’t think that Mead and Kagan carry the same probability, magnitude or timeframe. I think that link probability and timeframe are often ignored to the detriment of both sides.
Disads
I am willing to assign zero risk of a disad. If an internal link doesn’t make sense, if a link or impact takeout is dropped and explained by the affirmative, I will not give the neg the benefit assigning a marginal risk.
Kritiks
I am most persuaded by ethics-based kritiks or epistemology kritiks that are coupled with framework arguments (in the 2nc is fine unless the affirmative has framework args in the 1ac) about the role of the ballot. I generally think that these have a better chance at winning link probability and minimizing affirmative impact magnitude than other kinds of Ks.
Next, I think that material Ks like the old-school cap k or state k have some rhetorical power from the wealth of literature about them. I do not think they are strategic debate arguments, however, since the solvency deficits/takeouts to the alternative and permutations are slayers. In order to win these Ks I think you need specific links, probable impacts that can be causally explained and an alternative which does something to change the status quo for the better. If your alternative is refuse to act, I think that is the same as the status quo.
Ontology Ks (Heidegger and the like) – this is one of my favorite areas of academic philosophy. In school, I really enjoyed phenomenology. Unfortunately, I think these aren’t strategic debate arguments. I do not think that the alternative to ‘just be’ does anything tangible to make the world better. I think that mental tranquility is a low magnitude impact since it only affects me and changes as soon as I leave the debate.
Performance / deferral / random other stuff: if you’re not making arguments I will award low speaker points and a loss. If you play videos or music instead of talking, you will receive less speaker points for not filling your speech time.
Counterplans
Theory disclaimer – I will vote on dropped theory arguments like PICs bad or Agent CPs bad. However, I think it takes minimal answers (2-ish as long as they are warranted) for negatives to answer these arguments so don’t waste too much time reading blocks.
Conditional CPs are fine. In some instances, multiple conditional cps are fine though I would say that this is sloppy debate. If the strategy is something like a word pic and an agent cp, I think that’s probably fine. I think the affirmative has a good shot at winning a theory argument about why multiple conditional cps are bad when the negative can go for combinations of CPs in the 2nr. This includes conditional CP planks. If your CP has planks, it is fair to go for all or none of them, not to pick and choose.
K Affirmatives:
I think that all affirmatives must have some kind of unconditional advocacy statement – call it a plan or a statement or whatever. This must be defended throughout the debate.
Also, I think that the affirmative gets some deal of flexibility about how the plan can be viewed or implemented in terms of framework so long as they can theoretically justify it. That being said, I do think that if affirmatives write that the USFG should do something in a plan, they should be prepared to defend their interaction with the federal government or potentially even consequences for that policy (potentially – depending on framework arguments). If affirmatives don’t write that, “the USFG should do something” in their plan text, I think the negative should have an easy time winning on topicality USFG.
Framework
I don’t think that framework is a strong offensive negative argument. I think that the purpose of framework is to determine the perspective from which the debate should be evaluated: a policymaker, a citizen, an academic, something else. This is a strategic tool for affirmatives to get out of certain links or impacts. It is the negative burden to engage the aff from within that framework or win an alternate framework AND disads or kritiks.
Often, I think that theory arguments are labeled framework arguments which should not be. If there is a topicality argument to be had – the affirmative doesn’t have a ‘resolved’ advocacy, make a ‘should’ statement, use the federal government – framework is not the place to make these arguments. Moreover, I think that conflating framework and topicality often advantage the affirmative to impact turn
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Aaron Hardy
Aaron Hardy
Whitman College
Gonzaga 2009
Recap:
1) Hard work should be a standard metric. I appreciate when that’s reflected in your choices about debate.
2) Technique over truth, but truth makes me happy inside. It’s why I don’t think I’ve ever voted aff against a Consult CP, but was grumpy every time.
3) Offense/Defense – I try hard to be as consistent in my approach with this as possible. Sometimes, conceded arguments by both teams make it more subjective than I’d like. It’s to your benefit to guide my decision with explicit frameworks for evaluating these questions.
4) Alternate use time if debaters ask unanimously
5) Impact defense is severely underrated, especially against particularly silly impacts. I’m also sympathetic to arguments related to relative impact evidence quality – there’s something to be said for reading more than 6 warrantless words.
6) Critiques – I prefer when they’re not used as a shortcut to avoid topic-specific education. I don’t think winning the affirmative is “flawed” means the neg wins – I think you need offense for why voting aff is bad in order for the critique to be a “voting issue.” And, the offense needs to outweigh the aff…
7) In general, I am unpersuaded by the (usually analytic) argument that the existence of a net benefit for a CP means it must link to the aff’s K.
8) Aspec and all derivatives are stupid and should be dismissed by 2AC’s with maximum flippancy. Going for one of these arguments in the 2NR will result in low speaker points.
Counterplans:
Q: “Can I read Consult yet?”
A: Yes, but don’t bother if you value speaker points above “very, very low.” As always, I’ll still vote for you if you care more about the win.
Q: “But it’s a foreign policy topic, and there are actually specific consult cards in the context of the aff!”
A: This is tiresome. The existence of some solvency cards for the CP doesn’t make it net fair for debate (they’re also never about “binding, genuine” consultation). The prevalence of “we should talk to allies” cards is just proof that it’s probably normal means for the aff. There is NOT a deep, comparative literature base on the value of making massive nuclear arsenal modifications on a completely unilateral basis. Have you cut a card yet that we SHOULDN’T bother to talk to NATO before disarming? This is especially true when “Say No” forces the aff to give up the link to the biggest DA on the topic. If your cards on consultation are truly great, you can go for the relations DA with “lack of consultation” links.
Q: “But, this topic is really big!”
A: Somehow, we voted for it. You should either work harder, find a different counterplan, or learn to defend the status quo.
Q: “Are there other CP’s which result in automatic speaker point loss?”
A: No. Even if I think your counterplan isn’t competitive, I won’t actively dock your speaker points for reading it. Consult is a narrow issue where the jury is entirely out on its educational and competitive value. Other CP’s might be just as stupid, but they’re not part of my attempt to hopefully influence argument norms…
Q: “What do you think about conditions CP’s?”
A: It depends on what type of condition it is, how they’re written, etc…My rough brightline is that if the CP contains a world where the entirety of the plan could happen (functionally or textually), then it probably doesn’t compete. At least some of the conditions CP’s I’ve judged have easily passed this test – just tread carefully...
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Eric Maag
I have been judging now for about 7 years. In that time I have judged hundreds of debate rounds from all different styles and levels. I coached/judged at Long Beach State during my Grad school and now I am a full-time tenured professor at Southwestern Community College.
I believe myself to be a competent judge who would like to evaluate the debate based on whatever paradigm you tell me to. I enjoy fast policy rounds that are clear and well organized or critical debates that challenge normal debate practice. I am not extremely fond of tons of debate theory all over the flow but if thats your thing I will do my best. All things considered, one of my big things is that I want the 2nr/2ar to give me a clear strategy and not just a shotgun list of things I can vote for. One other thing is that I prefer arguments to be developed during a debate if your planning on going for it.
CPs are cool
Ks are cool
DAs are cool
Cases that solve are cool
Perms are cool
Framework is cool
T is ok I guess
Theory is a little boring
Hope this helps
Eric Maag
Eric Maag
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mike Meredith
GENERAL Debated for Whitman College for my whole career, Graduated in
2008. Since then, however, I've been a little out of touch the
community and seen very few debates on the ag topic so you might have
to better explain the intricacies of our subsidies policy than you
otherwise might to a judge that's been researching it all season.
It probably goes without saying but I'll adjudicate the round in any
framework that is set up in the debate absent that I'll default to a
policy-making paradigm and keep my decision as closely tied to the flow
as possible.
KRITIKS
I've debated as a one off K team and a eight off policy team. As a
debater I preferred policy debate but and as a judge find K rounds far
more interesting. That said, for some of literature I haven't read as
deep as a should - so while I'll likely be able to follow and have some
familiarity with any terminology that you put in front of me - you
might have to remind me what the difference is between the molar and
the molecular for your D&G arg to work out for you.
THEORY I have a strong neg bias in terms of theory but here are my
prejudices : pics are good, dispositionality is better than
conditionality, perms are rarely voting issues, and intrinsic perms are
probably not as bad as most people think they are.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Paul Montreuil
3 Years debating at Idaho State 1 Year at UNI
1st Year Judging
My favorite debaters (in no particular order)- Michael Klinger, Jessica Yeats and Kade Olsen
My favorite judges (in no particular order)- Steve Pointer, Mike Hester, Adam Symonds and Aimi Hamraie
My favorite strategy for pretty much any argument is impact turning. You should probably do what you do best though.
I’m very strict about clarity and the highlighting of evidence. If you have an off case arg or advantage that takes less than a minute to read you should probably save it for another critic.
Topicality- Explanations of aff and neg ground under your interpretation goes a long way. I’m persuaded more than most by reasonability arguments.
DA’s- Defense is underrated. Please highlight enough of your ev to make an actual argument. Remember what I said about impact turning.
CP’s- I lean affirmative on most theory questions.
K’s- The key to winning these debates, regardless of side, is to talk about the aff. Don’t assume I’ve read the same literature you have so keep the jargon to a minimum. In most K debates I’ve seen there isn’t enough discussion of the alternative for my liking.
Framework- I’m one of the sick few that enjoy these arguments. A clear framework for evaluating impacts is a necessity for any argument. Whether you’re down with traditional or non-traditional frameworks you should make these arguments in front of me.
I’m not sure I can be offended and I respect boldness. I’m confused by the widespread belief that people somehow have a right to not be offended.
Good luck to all. Any questions please ask.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Scott Odekirk
Judge Philosophy: Scott Odekirk
Affiliation: Idaho State
Fall 2006
The main thing I want to say is that I really like judging. I want to judge you. No matter what you say or how you say it I will do my best to be fair and fully engage your round.
I thought that the best way to express my views about debate was to get Jessica Yeats to write my philosophy. I have been coaching her a while now and I think she has a good perspective on my predilections:
Scott Odekirk’s favorite debaters to watch were Andy Ryan and Michael Klinger. I think this is instructive.
Scott likes good arguments that are offensive and compete (he’s a sucker for the perm). In general, he’d probably rather you engage the aff than complain about it, but if you don’t have ground you don’t have ground and if you’re smart, you can probably figure out a way to make that interact with their offense. Disads and counterplans are good – specific case strats will impress him. The one caveat is that he doesn’t regularly read that that literature so you have a slightly higher burden to coherently explain the internal links/competition scenario/etc. He’s unlikely to vote on theory if its highly technical and scantily warranted but if you spend the time explaining, impacting and drawing distinctions about the central abuse claim youre probably in good shape.
Criticisms: If it is either your most strategic option or what you feel most comfortable debating, you should go for it. If not, don’t. Case specific links/analogies/”examples” are crucial. It is also important that you justify why your competition scenario is theoretically consistent with the thesis of your argument. If you are aff, point out why its not. Defending your aff (even analytically) will go much farther than the “A/T: the K” block. Identity politics are not really his flavor academically but he will certainly listen to and evaluate your argument. Scott knows (despite sometimes not admitting) that debate is about winning. That doesn’t mean he dislikes cheating – it just means he knows why youre doing it.
He doesn’t flow like most people do – but neither do I really and in a lot of ways it kinda seems like its irrelevant whether you flow in columns or in paragraphs. He knows what youre saying and he’s cognizant of dropped arguments. The only tangible consequence of his flow is that he’s more likely to evaluate the debate according to “fundamental premises” which should stress the importance of strategic vision and moments of clarity in the last rebuttles.
Debate smart. Make intuitive arguments. Be persuasive.
-Jessica Yeats
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steve Pointer
Steve Pointer
Gonzaga University
I just want to add a couple of updates for those who haven’t read this in a while:
First, I’m aware that everybody else’s speaker points are inflated. I don’t give out 29s and 29.5s like you’re entitled to them. To earn them, you have to impress me with a combination of being a good speaker (yes, ethos is important for your points) technically proficient and smart. Good arguments help too. If neither your performance nor its content is exceptional, don’t count on exceptional points.
Second is the counterplan: Not that I hear many in-depth CP debates anymore (too many clash of civilizations debates to sit through) but I would much rather hear a specific CP than your toolbox advantage CPs, especially on this topic. There’s enough comparative literature on nuclear posture to make this possible. That being said, I’m pretty sympathetic to aff theory arguments about things like multiple international actors that include both the agent and action of plan being a bad thing. Not that you can’t win defenses of these, but my default reaction is to think that most toolbox CPs don’t allow much debate about the literature. (Especially the idea of independently conditional actions, I think these are really problematic.) I’m also not entirely sold that if conditionality is good in one instance (which it is) that it’s good in an unlimited number of instances.
Finally, the K on this topic. My general thought is that most kritik literature on this topic is a call for reduction/abolition of nuclear weapons. If your K is based on the premise that the aff doesn’t go far enough (they’re not disarm) or that they use the state or IR, you’ve got some work to do in order to beat the permutation. My initial reaction is that I will vote aff on the perm more this year than I have in the past, because the alt in the simplest terms is going to be plan-plus, and certainly not a justification for keeping nuclear weapons.
I’d probably really enjoy getting to hear some actual deterrence debates this year, but I suspect that I’ll only see more framework debates.
Now that I’ve convinced everybody to move me down in their ordinal rankings, my overall judging philosophy is pretty simple: You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. Debating well is vastly more important to me than debating a certain set of arguments or a certain style. A couple of caveats: I have a pretty high standard for what constitutes an argument, especially in theory debates. If your theory blocks consist of 6-10 word blips and you read these at me, we’re going to have a problem. Please explain yourselves, if the argument is important. Also, just reading theory blocks at each other (or any blocks, for that matter) is really uninteresting to me. Actually engaging the other team’s arguments helps. If you make a theory debate messy, I can’t guarantee that the decision will make any sense.
Framework debates are much like theory debates to me. If you’re blippy or unclear, you’re going to be in trouble. As important as the technical line-by-line aspects of framework debates are, the explanation of your position on what debate should be, and the consequences to debate of a particular practice or position is just as important. If you want to debate about debate, then you need to articulate an impact statement about what debate should be. That being said, I’ve voted both ways on most framework debates, so you should defend the debate practices that you feel most comfortable defending, and not worry about my views of debate practices.
Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. This is generally a problem in K debates, where people assume that terms are packed with implicit meaning. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself. I prefer quality of evidence to quantity. Two or three good cards will almost always beat ten bad ones. Even politics and econ uniqueness cards should (ideally) have warrants/reasons in them. Don’t highlight out the warrants of your cards, you should read the parts of the text that are important to the argument. Don’t expect me to reconstruct the parts of the card you didn’t read.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ross Richendrfer
I will try to judge each debate with two goals in mind:
First, to preserve the pedagogical value I place on the activity. I am highly optimistic about the educational value of research and argument and believe there’s intrinsic value in engaging in an open and fair communicative process. Particular aspects of debate that I value are things like fairness, topic-specific education, clash and rejoinder. For many of you these may sound like code words for “he votes on the framework,” but I don’t think it needs to be. I just want to see both sides clashing over something that was linked up to the topic, be it Orientalism or the Israel Backlash DA. At the time of this judge philosophy I’ve voted for the K three times and the Framework zero times. While it seems to me that some critical arguments circumvent or hijack the communicative process, my opinion alone won’t make me pull the trigger. Too often the policy-oriented team is thrown off their game and loses strategic vision.
Second, to reward the team that wins the most offense or the most important offense. I understand that there are situations where offense/defense melts away and some defense wins out, but any evaluative method that doesn’t start from the position of offense/defense is incoherent to me. The one caveat I have is that good cards are always better then bad cards. If your offense is truly that bad and if the other side’s cards are really that good, I can be persuaded to vote on very little risk of an argument. Another place where defense goes a long way is on the impact level. I’ve been a part of a lot of debates where the difference in the debate was dropped impact defense. Just because I like offensive arguments, doesn’t mean I don’t really urge both teams to whittle away the magnitude of that offense. I think uniqueness is the most underrated aspect of offense in a debate. Whether it is issue-specific uniqueness v. generic uniqueness on a politics disad or the impact uniqueness to a heg advantage, I think controlling the uniqueness is vital to determining offense.
Two Other Things:
Impacts – I’d like to see more discussion of impact cards in the debate. Like everyone else I really like impact calculus, but I wish that more people would discuss the nature of specific cards. As a debater I was as guilty of this as anyone else, but I really think that some impact cards (at least as highlighted) aren’t even cards. I would find it refreshing if debaters stopped taking Khalilizad or Beardon for granted and challenged the quality and length of these cards. That being said, I was among the biggest offenders of this when I debated, so I get that sometimes you have to do what you have to do.
Theory/Topicality – I’m amenable to voting on both of these things. My best suggestion to you is to debate these things like a DA. I’ve seen a lot of teams solidly win a link to theory arguments and maybe even an internal link, but too often there’s no terminal impact to any of these arguments. My default is towards the negative on things like conditionality, PICS, etc., but I can be persuaded otherwise. I would prefer if your A game in a debate isn’t conditionality is bad, but I’ll vote on it if I have to. I also default to competing interpretations being good, but I’m not as firmly in this camp as I used to be. **I don’t like cheap shots and will be loathe to vote on them**
Things You Should Definitely Know:
Consult CP’s - I’m suspicious of the pedagogical and educational value of these cps. I won’t dismiss them out of hand or punish your speaker points for reading them, but I am willing to be persuaded by theoretical objections to reading them. Having cards specifically about the aff helps make these cps more legitimate in my eyes, but still borderline.
Personal Politics – I’m highly uncomfortable evaluating any debate that forces me to make a decision based on qualities or experiences of people involved. If someone doesn’t want to talk about themselves, they shouldn’t have to. I don’t want to judge any debate that makes me feel like my decision is a value judgment on any person’s experiences or existence. More than anything else in debate, I feel that these types of debates are not what debate is supposed to be about. Sorry to impose my biases, but I think it would be better for everyone involved if I wasn’t part of these debates.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Matt Stannard
Matt Stannard University of Wyoming 12 years judging
My own framework: Academic debate is a life-saving and life-affirming activity that is both intrinsically and extrinsically valuable. All approaches, strategies and frameworks contribute to that value, provided there is clear and fair ground for both sides. Contrary to recent declarations by certain debate theorists, I believe that switch-side debate, rather than dangerously divorcing us from our own personal agency, actually serves to teach us to transcend the often simplistic and violent dichotomies we tend to embrace when we fetishize our own agency. The alternative to being forced to look at things from multiple sides is far from liberating: The refusal to engage multiple sides will result in an ideological balkanization that will surrender discursive (and probably material) power to those whose interests lie in stifling, rather than facilitating, public discussion and debate.
Pragmatics: I judge all kinds of debates in all kinds of frameworks, and I’m fine with that. Here are some fairly consistent preferences:
1. Speak clearly. Speak very clearly. I love very fast, very clear debates.
2. Tell me what to write down about particular arguments and evidence.
3. Aff, you needn’t necessarily have a plan (although your opponents might convince me otherwise) but you need a clear statement of advocacy. Neg, your advocacy must compete.
4. I don’t like to read a huge amount of evidence after debates, so the more you tell me during the debate, the less chance I’ll reconstruct arguments afterward in ways you might neither predict nor agree with.
5. Treat co-participants in this activity with respect both inside and outside of rounds. Everyone works extremely hard and even the most unpleasant person in debate is probably cooler than the boss you'll have in five years, or many of your professors, or that crazy dude across the street. Cut people some slack…including yourself.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Eric Suni
Eric Suni
Whitman College
Rounds on topic: 10-15
The ballot: My ballot is used to answer the question “should the United States The United States Supreme Court overrule one or more of the following decisions: Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Ex parte Quirin, U.S. v. Morrison, Milliken v. Bradley?” To answer that question, I will ask “is the topical plan better than the status quo or an alternative policy option competitive with the plan?” For me a _policy_ option is one that relies on governmental fiat.
This is not up for debate. If your arguments do not disprove that the plan would be better than the status quo or a counterplan, then they may be very interesting or compelling, but in terms of my ballot, they are a complete non-sequitur. This also applies to any K that attempts to garner uniqueness through an alternative that is not the status quo or a policy using governmental fiat. In other words, if you’re not going to defend your plan, the status quo, or a counterplan, you should strike me.
My only exception to this is if both teams agree that the framework for the debate should be something different, in which case I will judge their competing arguments and framework claims to the best of my ability.
Topicality: A general note to 1NCs and 2ACs: PLEASE slow down a bit on your T arguments or at least make them more easily flowable at high speed. I will be hesitant to allow the 1AR to resurrect arguments that were unintelligible to me in the 2AC, so be wary.
In terms of voting on T, I’ve always leaned aff on topicality issues. If you’re trying to convince me that a very middle of the road aff (CAFE or permits on the energy topic; IPR or currency on China) isn’t topical, you’re probably going to lose. However, I will have no hesitation voting for T against cases that are either blatantly non-topical or assume plan mechanisms that usurp core negative ground (like affs last year that offered China an incentive). In most T debates, I find evidence to be much less compelling than clearly articulated arguments about what ground is lost and why that ground is vital to the neg.
DAs: Always be reading disads.
CPs: I like almost all CPs with a few exceptions: consultation CPs, utopian CPs (anarchy, for example), delay CPs. I’m not totally biased against these, and I understand that especially early in the year or against new affs they can be the negative’s fallback, but I don’t like these arguments much and will lean slightly aff on theory questions about their legitimacy (note: this does not mean you should automatically go for “consult bad” if you’re aff—see section on theory).
Ks: Mostly explained by section on the ballot above. I’m not totally unwilling to listen to all “critical” arguments, however. I’m definitely receptive to using link arguments about epistemology as indicts of affirmative evidence (eg, your terror talk cards indict the truth of the 1AC terrorism advantage), I just won’t vote for an alternative and you’ll have a hard time winning uniqueness for most of those arguments, so you’ll still need some other external offense.
Theory: I generally lean negative on theory issues. I think most 1ARs would be better spent making strategic choices and reading more ev on the substance of the debate than trying to keep theory alive. However, I evaluate theory args in an offense/defense paradigm, so if the neg isn’t making offensive arguments to justify what they’re doing, the smartest strategic choice may very well be continuing the theory debate. Long story short: Though hesitant, I’ll vote on theory but would much prefer (and will give much higher speaker points) to teams that go for substance.
Pet peeves: People who are mean to other debaters, people who steal prep, people who ask to go to the bathroom before they give their speech, people who don’t submit to the caselist. If you didn’t submit your intel, I will consider it a reason to lower your speaker points.
Will earn you extra speaker points: ad homs about the Denver Broncos, funny jokes referring to most classic action films (think Die Hard or T2) or classic comedy films (think Tommy Boy and Billy Madison). Please do not try force jokes about these issues; bad jokes get you lower speaker points.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Anjali Vats
Anjali Vats
Puget Sound
6ish Years of Coaching
I am open to all arguments, be they policy or K based. By “open” I mean that I consistently vote on all types of arguments – from performance style Ks to specific PICs and DAs, so don’t let my MSU and Whitman past fool you. That being said, technique over truth.
I do love a specific PIC and disad debate… For the negative, I think that the disad turns the case but only if explained with more than five words. However, if you utter those more than five words, the risk of a negative ballot increases dramatically. As for the affirmative, I’m a sucker for well-executed try or die arguments. I also think that analytics and impact defense, on the case and disads, are for some inexplicable reason, a dying breed. You can generally get a lot of mileage on them in front of me.
Beyond that, I will vote for the team that wins based on my flow, which is generally very accurate, and the quality of evidence. I read a lot of cards after the debate but I will defer more to the arguments on my flow when one team is engaging in more evidence comparison than another. However, I reserve the right to determine if evidence actually says what it’s claimed to say. I am also less in the “dropped means true” camp than I used to be. Arguments must have a link and an impact and if they’re not extended as such, they’re unlikely to be “true” for the purposes of the debate. I will also look back at my flow and trace arguments back to the 1AR – so you are unlikely to be successful at “extending” new arguments.
The best way to lose in front of me is to drop arguments or fail to clash (especially against K teams). I generally evaluate arguments in an offense/defense paradigm but can conceive of situations in which a disad might have zero risk. I have high standards for answering the K, be it on the aff or the neg.
T debates are neither my strength nor my favorite thing in the world. My threshold for neg explanation of the interpretation and resulting ground and/or abuse is probably higher than most. I won’t try to dissuade you from going for T but consider yourself forewarned.
I lean heavily negative on most theory (PICs, dispositionality, neg fiat, multi-actor fiat and international fiat). In fact, I hadn’t even seriously entertained the thought that international counterplans with multiple actions combined with US actions might be theoretically illegitimate until three weeks ago (I’m not kidding about the three weeks thing). Nonetheless, everything is up for debate. I know I probably shouldn’t publicly admit this but I like really good, specific, in-depth theory debates. Please note the number of qualifiers there – I’ve only seen approximately one such debate in my five years of judging.
Other than that, I love debate, and the people in it, and I enjoy judging (I’m no longer just starting my coaching career so I can honestly say those things). I think this ought to be an educational activity and, to that end, I’ll do my best to provide you with helpful feedback. As always, if you have any questions, before or after the debate, please feel free to ask.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *