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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mark Arnold

Debated at Richmond for four years. Open to all arguments.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nate Baldis

Quick background:

I've debated for 3 and 1/2 years for Liberty. In that time, I've run and gone for anything from Kritiks, T, many different theory positions, 4 Cps and a K (in one round), Counterplan-Politics, purely DA and case debate, and just about every other non-performance position available. Presidential elections was probably my favorite DA of all time because of its sheer size. I also wrote and ran Heidegger as an affirmative on the energy topic.

Some general info:

I won't pretend to be a blank slate. I'll try as hard as I can to make sure my biases won't influence my decision, but I'm still only human. If you run run four conditional CPs/Ks that screw over an affirmative, and for some reason the aff doesn't go for conditionality, I'll likely look for ways to vote affirmative at the end of the round--especially when its close. This is also true of the more ridiculous or morally questionable arguments.

I tend to be very line-by-line inclined in terms of dropped arguments, but I am very open to accepting articulations as to why something is justified or really only a new extrapolation or cross-application instead of just brand new. This is especially true for 1ARs--it shouldn't be too diffucult to justify new arguments here after all the new arguments that have likely been made in the block. If in one of the last three rebuttals you think there is a distinct possibility you may lose an argument because its just too new, then do some explaining. If the 2AR cleverly discos (or some such thing) using only new analysis of the previously made arguments in the debate, I evaluate it as if the neg had an opportunity to answer said analysis in the opposite direction. Some may consider this to be slightly interventionist, but this way the aff doesn't get screwed by blanket rejection of the seeming newness and the neg doesn't get screwed by the complete strategy shift of the aff.

That being said, arguments have a threshold for acceptibility. If you make a random analytic as to why Bush has no political capital that makes no sense to me and the other team completely drops it, I won't give it to you. Arguments must be both claim and warrant--I won't penalize anyone for ignoring a warrantless claim (though I prefer it if they pointed out that it was a warrantless claim). Of course, my threshold for what constitutes a warrant is not unreasonably high.

Debate comes first. By this, I mean that if you think anything else in the round is more important than preserving the activity, then I'm the wrong judge for you. This generally means that questions of topicality, theory, and ethical conduct come first in any debate. If you want to beat these arguments, your best bet is to win the argument that A) in this particular situation (or in every situation), whichever of those questions at issue isn't so important for the activity, B) you don't violate them, or C) you somehow maintain/improve the activity of debate in a redeeming/overwhelming way.

At the heart of all my preferences and predispositions lies the belief that they are true/best for debate. This means that if you can persuade me otherwise (or persuade me to make exceptions), I could theoretically vote on anything.

Evidence:
Evidence is something I generally look at as something debaters provide simply to establish the facts behind their arguments; it does not constitute the argument itself. Qualifications only matter when evaluating competing claims about the facts. A good analytic can easily beat a bad piece of evidence. Cutting evidence from a person on a blog without ANY qualifications is no better than making a claim about the facts yourself (but only if the other team points it out). I'll only call for and evaluate evidence if its explicitly cited or contested somewhere in the last two speeches (unless, of course, I'm simply curious about it, in which case it probably won't affect my decision).

C-X:
Its binding, if I remember what was said. The interactive nature of cx makes it a good place to earn speaker points if you can look competent and confident without appearing arrogant. Don't lie about your evidence, and don't feel bad about saying "I don't know" if you don't think it's a question to which you should be expected to know the answer. I'm relatively open to what you can do, so take advantage of teams who ask you questions about something you didn't address by reading new evidence to answer them. Frankly, while I try to pay attention to cx, I frequently find my attention drifting if little of interest is said. Generally speaking, the team that can control the characterization of their opponents position in cx will probably gain more credence in the rebuttals when attempting to do the same.

Topicality and theory:
I enjoy a good T/theory debate, and I won't feel dirty about voting on (for example) a seemingly silly spec argument if its run well (this does not extend to such things as reverse voters on T). That said, a bad T/theory debate makes me want to shoot myself and does horrible things to your speaker points. It is extremely difficult to sway me from viewing topicality as a matter of competing interpretations--not that it can't be done. For theory, I am more inclined to look for abuse on the flow, but again, it is not necessary for me to pull the trigger. For those defending against theory or topicality, I do not require offense on a flow to win the debate (though it is much, much preferred)--unlike other parts of debate, there is such a thing as a 100% defensive takeout that is still contested. Reasonability, I think, is an acceptable affirmative response on Topicality; though I think a competent negative team will never lose to it.
Keep in mind that I may have a hard time flowing if you go too fast on any T or theory debate.

Though I am not predisposed to vote in any particular way on theoretical arguments, I do think that when fully developed on both sides, the arguments tend to follow this pattern (assuming the appropriate counterinterpretations are made):
-Conditionality=aff
-Dispositionality (in most of its various interpretations)=neg
-PICs=neg, as long as there is sufficient evidentiary support to expect the aff to be prepared for it
-Multiple actor CPs=depends on the scale and number of actors, but likely neg
-Consultation CPs=aff
-Performative contradictions=aff, though a "reject the argument not the team" would seem to be more reasonable than a voter
-Vagueness=neutral, though against K alternatives it would seem to function best as a solvency takeout, and for plan texts it seems to function best as a "this justifies our links," but I'll pull the trigger either way if persuaded to do so

Actually, my comments on the last two positions applies most everywhere on theory debates--weaker impacts are more likely to be granted than voting issues. Make the issue come down to me sticking them to the CP, forcing a link to your offcase position, or rejecting a specific set/type of arguments outright as opposed to voting against the other team, and I'm more likely to give it to you.

As for the question of needing to spend six minutes in the 2R before getting voted on, I don't think it's necessary to win the debate, but there is a perceptual and strategic advantage to doing so. For example, if I happen to completely disagree with you on a certain argument, even though you're arguing it well, I may be more inclined to find some reason to disregard it if you go for the substance of the debate as well, so that I can look and decide the round there. In other words, depending on the argument, you may need to force my hand--don't let me get distracted with anything else. Second, if you go all in on one violation, I'm likely to give you more credit as being fully confident in that position, whereas splitting your strategy may indicate a lack of belief on your part of your ability to win it. Of course, such a perception may not exist at all when splitting your strategy (you very well could be winning everything), and, if present, it will likely not influence my vote, but it will probably affect your speaker points.

Disadvantages:
I like them. The more specific, the better. That said, I really, really enjoy a good politics debate (key word: "good"), with layered uniqueness and link arguments and well articulated impact scenarios. I think that the generic nature of any disad can be made up for by researching hyper-specific link stories. 2NC/1NR impact analysis (preferably at the top) is highly desirable. You should probably know that I'm not very open to intrinsicness arguments against politics or other DAs, and negatives should drop a violation in the block if they hear what sounds like one.

Counterplans:
I like them. I've already discussed my position on their theoretical nature, and beyond that, the only rules that apply are "specific is better" and "competition is essential." If the affirmative has no solvency deficit to the CP and only defense to the net benefit in the 2AC, they will likely lose (theory aside). I think that functional competition is a much better standard than textual competition for counterplans, though I can see the merit of both. For the affirmatives, it is most strategic to keep your permutations as vague as they can be until the 2AR, so if there is no theory or any real flushing out by the negative of what the perm actually is, you're probably in good shape. On that note, negatives should make sure to clarify what the perm is very early on so it is answered effectively, and if you're nervous about where it may go or what it may turn into, get them to write it down or read some theory.

Kritiks:
I like them--(though if they're run poorly, they're probably less enjoyable than most other positions run poorly, with the possible exception of T). Make sure your evidence supports your claims, and make sure that you can appropriately explain how the criticism should be applied in the context of a policy advocacy (or whether I should evaluate the policy advocacy at all). For the aff, don't let the case become irrelevent in evaluating the K--there is no reason your policy implications are less important than the implications of the Kritik (the notion of arbitrary "pre-fiat" is crap, label it as such). The only way the K impacts can be evaluted first is if the neg has evidence saying they should be (i.e. representations have to be decided before policy, ontology before ethics, etc.). The best Kritiks can function in a framework where I as a policymaker would vote for them. I don't generally prefer arguments about framework (by "framework" I refer to the distinction between policy and non-policy) that run to the exclusionary side of the issue (which seems to be the case for most teams who initiate the discussion). It shouldn't be too difficult to win in front of me that inclusion of both K and policy frameworks would be best.

As for permutations, my comments in the Counterplans section applies in full force. The same principle (keeping it vague until the 2R) applies to alternatives as well. Affirmatives, be creative with your permutations. If they say "reject all of X," then perm, reject all of X except the plan, with the net benefit of totalizing alternatives being bad. If they say "embrace the aff harms," then perm, embrace the symbolic representation of those harms while voting to prevent them via the plan. Or perm, grant some defense on that advantage to embrace the aff's harms, then go for your other advantages. whatever you do, don't just limit yourself to "do both."

There are certain Kritiks (or ways of running Kritiks) that I do not prefer (notice I didn't say I'd reject them), and they are as follows:
-Ks that involve calling the other team racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. (except in cases where its blatantly true, or when countering a strategy where the other team is being similarly critical)
-links of omission (e.g. you don't deal with the native americans before you talk about the Middle East)
-generic Ks that the neg does not at least try to apply specifically (i.e. statism)
-Ks that depend on Zizek as a primary author (its not that I won't vote on it, its just that I won't like it)

Critical (or activist) affirmatives are fine in front of me as long as you defend the resolution (which includes the advocacy of state action)--the notion in the forefront of my mind is predictable negative ground.

Impact analysis:
Everyone seems to be aware of the importance of impact analysis, which is why I find it surprising that so many debaters deprioritize it.

Timeframe analysis is not remarkably persuasive when placed directly against the other two major standards, though it is quite useful as a tiebreaker argument. The exception to this lies at the extremes because the further away (chronologically) the nuclear war predicted by your evidence is supposed to happen, the less likely it is that it will ever happen, and you and your author lose credibility on that point--another e.g. is that if you think your "global warming will destroy the earth in 200 years" impact outweighs, think again, because there are thousands of possible intervening forces which can make your impact meaningless (who knows, maybe we'll be living on Mars by then)

Comparing the importance of magnitude to the importance of probability is like comparing water to oxygen in their respective importance for the human body, but comparing a impact with a huge magnitude and near zero probability will probably lose to an impact with weak magnitude and certain probability for the simple reason that even a very weak impact can still be significant (i.e. 36 people dying = not so big in debate, yet still worth voting for) while big impacts with probabilities of near zero are virtually limitless (i.e. Russia might nuke us tomorrow, global warming could spike tenfold, the U.S. might invade China, oil could instantaneously deplete, etc.) and thus impossible to recognize as a threat to which we should respond.

One very effective tactic is to point out different ways you can access your opponents' impacts, from general catch-alls (e.g. our economic decline leading to war impact outweighs their racism because economic decline both hits minorities harder and sparks greater societal racism in the downswing) to more specific scenarios (e.g. our Japanese prolif scenario outweighs their Indian prolif scenario because we spark both Chinese and Russian prolif, causing Indian prolif anyway, whereas they only access Chinese prolif, which the Russians aren't perturbed by). This kind of analysis can be made in almost any situation in various different ways, all it requires is a little creativity. Many positions lose their perceptive credibility simply because they don't seem like they would ever really happen, which is why I very much enjoy when debaters turn their impact analysis into a realistic story.

Performance:
Not my personal preference. I respect it, I can understand why people do it, and I'll vote for it, but its not going to get you anywhere in front of me unless you make actual arguments within your performance.

Personal advocacies:
Wrong forum. This is a game, not a place to start a movement. Not that I'm not sympathetic, but with the whole "game" thing in mind, its just not fair to expect the boring white dude from Indiana (refering to a former co-debater) with no background or experience with any particular oppression or whatever to have to provide some competing personal story to win a round. Your arguments are not your children, don't get offended when someone attacks them.

I'm not sure how I view bringing personal experiences as evidence into a debate--there may potentially some unfairness involved, but then again, it could just be a different type of research. Persuade me.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Stefan Bauschard

100 point scale. I'll likely give between 80 and 100 points.

Paperless. I'll give teams that debate paperless the benefit of the doubt in terms of set-up, etc not coming out of prep time. IF BOTH TEAMS DEBATE PAPERLESS, I'LL LIKELY ASK FOR ELECTRONIC COPIES OF THE SPEECHES AS THE DEBATE PROGRESSES.

I don’t have any real substantive argument preferences. I do my best to let those play out in the debate as they do.
Unless topicality, a theory issue, or a kritik is involved, I attempt to determine the desirability of the plan relative to the status quo or a specific alternative. This is the “framework” that I feel most comfortable judging in.

I’m honestly somewhat skeptical of arguments that require one to move the decision-making calculus away from this framework, but I will not dismiss such alternative frameworks out of hand. I just don’t think the new frameworks introduced to date are very good/better than the old. The presumption is just honestly against those advocating the alternative framework. Note that this presumption only applies to the framework and never the argument.

Link v. Uniqueness. I don’t think that uniqueness is ever absolute and that the direction of the link *usually* has a lot bigger role to play in the debate that most people give it credit for. Certainly proposals can make things worse or better, and that increment, be it large or small, always deserves some calculus in the assessment.

Offense v. Defense. Offense helps, and it is USUALLY impossible to reduce the risk of an argument to zero. However, unlike many others, I do not think it is impossible. I’d say in 1 of every 10 debates I judge I conclude that there is no risk at all of a link, no risk of an internal link, and maybe even no solvency at all (though the latter I have only concluded that once).

Topicality. I’m old. I thing things have gone way too far in terms of “competing interpretations.” I think that in order for “competing interpretations” to be relevant that both sides need to have a reasonable interpretation that is grounded in a definition/contextual card. Basically, I think most Affs are topical unless they are unreasonable.

Theory. I think theory blocks have somewhat ruined theory debates. People can’t win theory debates because the debates are dry, stale, old and not very interesting. If you want to win a specific theory debate explain why the particular argument practice at hand significantly undermines your ability to win the debate and then convince me that I should vote against the other team for having engaged in that practice. Both of those are possible, whereas reading your great “conditionality bad” file is not.

Voting issues. I think if you do a good job explaining why a theory argument other than topicality is a voting issue that you can win that it is. HOWEVER, I will IGNORE the random “independent voting issue” consequence.

I think functional competition makes more sense than textual competition.

I am certainly not going to treat any answers to an argument as
“new” until I have fully understood what the argument is in the first place.

Acting on the following is more likely to tip the balance in your favor:


Short-term big impacts. Short-term impacts that are quite large usually prevail in my mind against larger impacts that are farther down the road.


Wars & death. I think these things are worse than most other things that affirmatives have sought to avoid over the last twenty years.

Communication. I think that in order for the other side to have a reasonable chance of answering your argument, I have to basically require that you communicate it reasonably well DURING THE COURSE OF THE DEBATE. Debaters don’t have an hour of prep time to read every card and figure it all out. If I don’t think the opposing side has a reasonable chance to understand your argument, I won’t consider it. THIS STILL HOLDS TRUE IN A WORLD WHERE I LOOK THROUGH PAPERLESS SPEECHES DURING THE DEBATE.

New args. I think new args in rebuttals are illegal. Obvious it is question what a new argument is, but I think new args are like porn – you know them when you see them. I think rebuttals should be about choice, synthesis, and evidence comparison, not reading new advantages and disadvantages.

Debate is good because....


1. People have to debate both sides of the topic.

2. We agree to debate a topic that when reasonably interpreted provides an opportunity for everyone to prepare in advance.

3. If you work hard you have a good chance of doing well. Inequality arguments, while obviously of some merit, are over-claimed. This is true in debate and real life.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Joe Bellon

Fall 2009

Years in debate: Can I just say "over 20," so you don't realize how old I am?

SUMMARY: I try to let the debaters decide what the round is about, and what debate should be like. I will vote on whatever arguments win, which means I may vote on anything -- Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan, or even some kind of performance. The worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot is fail to explain your arguments.

THE SPECIFICS:

I try to have no substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. Basically, this means you get to argue why you should win. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you convince me that the other team should lose because they have no fashion sense, I'll pull the trigger. This puts a huge onus on all of you to explain why you should win. If you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you to make things up.

THIS DOES NOT MEAN I LIKE STUPID ARGUMENTS. It means that I want to let debaters debate, and I have some humility about my own ability to decide ahead of time what arguments are good or educational or whatever. In this vein, let me say that debaters often do not explain things like how the counterplan wins/loses the round, how the kritik relates to the counterplan, whether topicality trumps the kritik, and so on. Don't be like those debaters. Explain the hierarchy of decisions in the round.

TOPICALITY: If you’re good at it, I am a lot better for you than some of these jokers who seem to think T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, I will vote for you even if all the cool kids think the aff is topical. However, I have also voted on arguments like T is genocidal and whatnot. The point is not that I'm eager, but that I'm willing.

COUNTERPLANS: I love me some tricky counterplans. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. In my experience, most of those kind of theory debates get unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve. Every once in a while, though, I do like to see someone get decapitated on CP theory.

KRITIKS: I know them, I write them, I have read a lot of so-called postmodern stuff. This means that if you are a team that relies on the judge being mystified by big words, you don’t want me. However, some of y’all read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like fast debate, but if you read the overview to your torturously complex kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, feel free to punch it. For those of you that hate the K, don’t worry. I will vote on framework or the perm or your turns too, as long as you win them.

PERFORMANCE: I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. I also want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). Is that too much to ask? If it is, you don’t want me. If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me. If you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine for you. If you answer performance arguments with well thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you want me, too.

DECORUM: AGGRESSION IS FINE, BUT DON’T BE AN ASSHOLE. Do be entertaining. Please, please be entertaining. I'm a sucker for funny debate, friendly smack talk, or anything that gets the blood going. As long as you're not being pointlessly hostile, intolerant, or a jerk, almost anything goes. POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS SUCK. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if it's making a point -- and even then you'd better be able to handle your high. Hey, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the one you have to go back to the hotel with.

100-POINT SCALE. For the time being, here's how I'm assigning points:
100: I can't imagine how you could have been better. So far, no takers.
90-99: Damn, you're good. Overall, you were great and there was at least one "wow" moment in your speeches.
80-89: Nice job. Solid work.
70-79: Not up to par. There were some *major* flaws in your performance.
60-69: Really poor. Either I didn't think you were trying hard or you were annoying.
Below 60: You did something to really piss me off, and after my critique you will have no question as to what it was.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Matthew Bigelow

He is a new judge on the debate circuit as of this year. He knows the rules to the activity and has been around people who have been in debate for over five years. He evaluates arguments based upon opportunity costs and risk factors, so no risk of a DA and a small chance of plan solving means an aff ballot for him. Top speed may be an issue for him but he naturally talks fast and is quick to process information. Argue whatever you like in front of him, just make sure you explain why he should vote for you in the end.

I studied chemistry as an undergrad and am an aspiring med student so I enjoy science. I think my science background is pretty rare amongst the debate community so I think my judging perspective is probably different from what you’re used to. I tend to think I know a lot more than you do about science so don’t base your argument on sketchy science. I also don’t like when you just barrage me with a bunch of evidence. It’s not a numbers game for me. Read me one card, explain to me why it is important to your argument, and show me why your author is credible. I can’t emphasize enough, how important it is that you connect your card to the over-arching storyline of your argument. If I don’t understand what your card has to do with your argument I'll get confused and bored and probably won’t vote for you. I like when evidence is explained well instead of letting the tag lines do it all.

I like Ks, especially if I feel like I’ve learned something during the round. I studied chemistry as an undergrad though so I’m probably not familiar with who you’re reading. Without having some prior knowledge I think it’s next to impossible to digest some wordy crticial argument at typical debate speeds. You’re going to either have to slow it down A LOT in the 1AC or simplify the language to make it more understandable to a lay person. I find myself getting into situations where you’re making big claims but the warrant for those claims was flown through during the 1AC, and I’m left having to take your claims at face value. I don’t think it’s fair to your opponents if I vote for your argument when I don’t even fully understand it myself. I think that other judges who are more familiar with your critical args tend to vote based on what you’re saying in addition to their previous knowledge. If you want my vote though, it’s going to be more of an uphill battle.

I’ll default to a traditional framework, but I have a lot more fun with alternatives. Obviously you’ll have to provide some warrant for the alternative framework but I’m pretty open. Sometimes I try to get an outsiders perspective of policy debate and the whole thing seems pretty ridiculous. Especially at the novice level, a lot of times I think you’re just reading cards and have no idea what they really mean. I don’t think that is genuinely educational and this is probably a good place to start when arguing for an alternative framework.

I’m a pretty laid back person so I don’t like it when debaters get hot headed and confrontational with each other. Keep your cool with you’re opponents, your partner, and especially with me. If I think you’re being disrespectful to anyone in the round (and I have a very low threshold here) I’ll heavily dock your speaker points. That said, some good humored jiving is acceptable and even desired- just make sure it’s funny!


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Scott Bonneau

I start as a policy-maker. If you want me to be something else, by all means go for it. Make sure, of course, that you’re clear about how it is you believe I ought to decide the round if you prefer me to evaluate the round in another way. My advice would be to begin that process as early in the round as possible.

This means that I’m fine with kritiks, but if you want me to act in some way other than as a policy-maker you must address that. I don’t mean to preclude any argument the affirmative may have in response to kritiks, however. This is true beyond kritiks as well.

I work hard to keep my personal argumentative preferences out of how I approach judging. That means that any argument you want to make, you should feel free. I do however put a heavy emphasis on development of arguments. That’s true both of arguments that are heavily supported with cards, and those that aren’t much supported with cards or have no cards at all. Debates where warrants and analysis of the evidence are teased out and explained are much more pleasant to me than when evidence is referenced, but not discussed in any meaningful way. I will ask to see evidence if I must in order to make a decision. If one team is doing a far superior job of evaluating and explaining evidence, however, that will be reflected in how I evaluate the debate. This may result in my either not calling for cards, or reading evidence in a different light. The same is true (perhaps even more) when the arguments aren’t reliant on evidence. My point is that I very much prefer developed analytic debate, regardless of the arguments.

As mentioned, I’m open to all arguments, as well as all answers to those arguments. I do have a few tendencies however.

Topicality/procedurals: I will vote on them, I’ve never been persuaded that T wasn’t a voting issue.

Counterplans: I like them. Affirmative is welcome to argue any theory they want. I’d warn that my threshold on a lot of generics theory arguments (PICs/conditionality/whatever) is high, but I also think it has something to do with the way that theory is argued and that it often ends up fairly irresolvable. I think there is always room for new theory arguments, and ways to argue theory. Please don’t hide a bunch of voters or reverse-voters all over these debates however.

Overall, I’d say my biggest preference is that arguments feel as specific as possible. Good arguments/analysis can go a long way, even if you don’t have the card support you would like.

Be nice and remember to have fun. Ask away if you have any questions.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Pamela Bowman

Pam Bowman – George Mason University
# years judged college : 7
# tournaments so far this year: 5
# rounds judged this year: 30+

Off the top of my head I can’t think of any argument or style of debate that I will refuse to listen to or vote on, except if there is a clear objection that is voiced during the debate about an argument that is particularly offensive. That being said, you should say what you want to, and I will not dismiss any genre of argument based on my own predispositions.

Other important things to know:

--Every argument has a counter argument, and if you don’t want me to default to my own opinion of “that makes sense to me” then you need to be clear about defending and weighing those two choices.
--I appreciate good case debate and/or strategic CP’s, and in my opinion those are the best and most enjoyable debates to listen to.
--Theory arguments need to be explained beyond a string of 50, 3-word blips that don’t get hashed out until the last two rebuttals. As far as I’m concerned, until theoretical objections are made to intrinsicness arguments, multiple conditional CP’s etc then I don’t assume there’s anything wrong with these things. I tend to lean towards allowing these things unless it's crystal clear otherwise.
--I want to know how my ballot functions in terms of how to evaluate your arguments at the end of the debate – what am I voting for/against? What is the question we’re trying to answer in this debate?
--I read cards after the debate if I absolutely need to, but I won’t use the warrants in the cards to make arguments or connections for you. That is your job. If I’m put in a position where I have to (re)construct your argument based on a list of authors from the 2NR/2AR that doesn’t bode well for you. The more evidence I read the less connected my decision is to the debate, so I try not to do it. Quality over quantity, less cards and more arguments, challenge author qualifications. Yes, evidence is needed in many cases to make some arguments, but sometimes the best arguments don’t require evidence and the comparisons and distinctions you make in the debate are what end up winning you that argument.
--I will vote on critical arguments, and I read them frequently when I was debating. But know that the past few years I have been working in the policy/legislative world in Washington DC and judging in a district where I have heard very few of them. I have not personally read/heard any of the new literature on these issues, and my work in politics has kept me focused on researching a more “policy oriented” view of the past 4-5 topics. If I don’t understand your K and it’s too abstract for me at the end of the debate, I’m not going to vote on something just because I think you might be winning “something.” Jargon doesn’t mean a lot to me, I want specifics.
--A good CX is a factor in assigning speaker points. It’s a part of the debate for a reason and that reason is not locating your evidence.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Adrienne Brovero

Adrienne Brovero, Debate Coach, University of Mary Washington, 13 years coaching

Updated 10-27-8

MACRO-ISSUES
Communication: I like it. I appreciate teams that recognize communication failures and try to correct them. If I am not flowing, it usually means communication is breaking down. If I am confused or have missed an argument, I will frequently look up and give you a confused look – you should read this as an indication that the argument, at minimum, needs to be repeated, and may need to be re-explained. I am more than willing to discount a team’s arguments if I didn’t understand or get their arguments on my flow.

Speaker points: Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I have grown uncomfortable with the amount of profanity used during debates – do not expect high points if you use profanity.

Flowing:
• I flow.
• Unless both teams instruct me otherwise, I will flow both teams.
• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.
• I frequently flow CX. I carefully check the 2AR for new arguments, and will not hold the 2NR accountable for unpredictable explanations or cross applications.
• I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. This doesn’t mean I always do. I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date, so do not expect me to always know what you’re talking about when you solely refer to your “Henry 4” evidence.
• I reward those who make flowing easier by reading in a flowable fashion (road-mapping & signposting, direct refutation/clash, clarity, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.).

Evidence:
• I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.
• I pay attention to quals and prefer they are actually read in the debate. I am extremely dismayed by the decline in quality of evidence (thank you, Internets) and the lack of teams’ capitalization on questionable sources.
• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument it makes has been communicated to me (e.g. the card was mumbled in the 2AC, or only extended by cite, or accompanied by a warrantless explanation, etc.).
• I also don’t like reading the un-highlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team.
• I should not have to read the un-highlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument and a coherent thought. If you only read a claim, you only have a claim – you don’t get credit for portions of the evidence you don’t reference or read. If you only read a non-grammatical fragment, you are running the risk of me deciding I can’t coherently interpret that as an arg.
• I don’t like anonymous pronouns or referents in evidence like “she says” without an identification of who “she” is – identify “she” in your speech or “she” won’t get much weight in my decision.
• If you hand me evidence to read, please make clear which portions were actually read.

Decision calculus: Procedural determinations usually precede substantive determinations. First, I evaluate fairness questions to determine if actions by either team fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the aff or neg. Then, I evaluate substantive questions. Typically, the aff must prove their plan is net beneficial over the status quo and/or a counterplan in order to win.

MICRO-ISSUES
Topicality & plan-related issues:
• The aff needs to have a written plan text.
• It should be topical.
• T is a voter. “Kritiks” of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing.
• Anti-topical actions are neg ground.
• Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how “projects” or “demands” are meaningfully different from “plans”, other than they are usually either vague and/or non-topical.
• On a related note, I don’t get why calling one’s advocacy a “project” or “demand” renders a team immune from being held responsible for the consequences of their advocacy.
• In relation to plans and permutations, I value specificity over vagueness – specificity is necessary for meaningful debate about policies. However, please do not consider this an invitation to run dumb spec arguments as voting issues – absent a glaring evasiveness/lack of specificity, these are typically more strategic as solvency args.

Kritiks/Performance: I don’t really like deciding kritik or performance debates.

Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read advanced political philosophy or performance studies. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a kritikal or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are kritiking/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the kritik turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the kritik means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the kritik to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the kritik indict, with what impact on these harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the kritik turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

I strongly urge you to re-read my thoughts above on “Communication” before debating these arguments in front of me.

Counterplans: I generally lean negative on CP theory: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional/dispositional, international fiat, agent, etc. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels – if the negative has to fend off multiple reasons the CP is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. “Do both” is typically meaningless to me – specify how. Absent clarification, the status quo remains a logical negative option at the end of the debate.

Other: I like DAs. I’m willing to vote on stock issue arguments like inherency or “zero risk of solvency”. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Whitney Brown

Whitney’s Philosophy

I have been debating for the last 7 years in high school and college, and last year primarily judged and coached for the Coalition.

On the affirmative, I love when teams run arguments that they are very passionate about, and I do know when you are passionate about something.

On the negative, I love kritiks. I have run kritiks my entire debate career, but you need to explain them very well in order for me to vote on them. The story needs to be very clear and precise. The alternative has to be explained very clearly.

I do like disadvantages, counterplans, and topicality but you need to explain each extremely well. Specific preferences include:

Disads: I'm cool with, but I like specific links to plan actions.

Counterplans: I love when they have a separate net-benefit.

Topicality: This argument is important, but you need to explain very well.

I do not like when partners interrupt each others' cross examination. You should get passionate, but in the process do not be rude.

At the end of the day, you should have fun.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tabetha Bryant

No judge philosophy submitted.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Cynthia Caballero

More to come, but in the meantime:

Cynthia is a senior at CUNY. This is her 3rd year of debate (last year, her 2nd year, she was on the CUNY team that qualled for the NDT at Districts but chose not to go). She judges a lot of novice practice debates and the occasional UDL, and I would say is flow centric with a critical leaning, but that just may be an exposure issue from debating in the Northeast.

She has actually looked at arguments on this year's topic.

When judging, no real argument prefs other than that it is explained well.

Having been a college novice herself, I would say she is very understanding of where the debaters are coming from. She is novice only at Richmond because she still has eligibility, but she has judged before, and functions as a coach for CUNY at the moment.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Kelly Congdon

Background: I debated at UT (94-99), and since then I have coached at UMKC, Georgetown (TX) High School, Pitt, and now Richmond. I teach rhetoric and debate classes at UR, and am finishing doctoral work at Pitt.

What kind of argument you make is much less important than how you make it. I will (and have) voted on just about anything and everything this side of ASPEC (no chance on that one but subsidies spec is a different matter). Politics and case can be just as persuasive and enjoyable to me as any K. What matters regardless of the type of arguments you run is that your arguments makes sense and are presented in a relatively complete manner from the start. I generally vote for teams that tell a compelling story, debate out the text of their ev and the other teams, and actually shows signs that they are listening to what the other team says. The more your arguments are rooted in the topic, the more I will enjoy what you have to say.

It is difficult to get me to vote on theory, at least as long as the debate seems like arbitrary and narcissistic navel gazing long on jargon and short on sense. I will rarely vote on theory; most often these arguments only make sense to me as a reason to reject the argument. On most theory issues I lean negative, but the affirmative has a good chance to convince me that various CP's that monkey with the implementation are artificially competitive (consult, delay, etc.). What you should not do: read a slew of jargon heavy tag phrases with little explanation at top speed. Excessive reliance on crutch phrases like "offense/defense" and "reasonability/competing interpretations" will go nowhere. Theory debates can be compelling for me if you speak in comprehensible paragraphs and can connect your arguments to the substance of the topic and what is in the debate.

Framework is unlikely to compel me to vote for you. You are much better off actually answering the other team's arg. Framework is much more compelling when it is rigged around an in-depth discussion of the conditions necessary for deliberative democracy (like the Shiveley cards) than when it is only explained in reference to debatability (fairness, predictability, etc.). I especially dislike

Cross-ex is important.

Good evidence makes me happy. Bad evidence is worse than no evidence. Why read a card that's less than 2 complete sentences or from some random hack's blog? Qualification debates and in-depth evidence comparison are the way to go, as long as you can take them beyond simple appeals to authority. Preference will be given to ev that I can understand the text of as you read it in your speeches.

Rarely does anyone win everything, yet that's almost the way rebuttalist attempt to spin the round. Rebuttalist that provide realistic assessments of the round that give the other team credit where credit is due and include alot of "even if" and "they will win this, but we will still win the round because" tend to be very persuasive to me.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Steve D'Amico

Judge Philosophy- Updated for Harvard 2009



In my previous judge philosophy two years ago I wrote:



"One of the things I enjoy the most about debate are the broad variety of arguments our community produces. I not only love a good T and politics throw down, but also enjoy an in depth critique debate. For better or worse, this means I'm also one of those judges who ends up judging "clash of civilization" debates, and I suspect it's because I try to be an extremely centrist judge."



I still find this true to this day. I love getting to judge a politics/cp throw down one debate, a K aff verse one-off another debate, and a clash of civs debate the next. It continues to make judging new, fun and educational for me.



In my previous judge philosophy two years ago I wrote:



“Personal Background: I work in politics as a researcher. This sometimes means I'll be more familiar with the inner workings of your politics DA, but this has rarely had an impact on the debate round. My work in politics also impacts my understanding of critiques. Critique debaters will do better in front of me, and get better speaks, when their argument addresses how we turn theory into practice. Some K debaters lament I'm too focused on the alternative, but a smart K debater will use this to your advantage.”



All of this is still true.



Answers to other questions:



What are your defaults?



"Unless told to otherwise, I default to you standard utilitarian policy making paradigm. On T and theory, I'll default to evaluating it as a debate of competing interpretations." Still the same in 09



Anything special we should know if we plan on rolling with disads and counterplans?



"Not really. The earlier in the debate impact discussion start, they better." Still the same in 09



Anything special we should know if we are running a critique?



"Do not be sloppy with your alternative. Explaining the world of the alternative is extremely important. Affs should use CX to interrogate poor alternatives."



New for 09: Again, The CX of the 1NC on the Alt is one of the most important thing for an aff to do effectively against a K. Those of you who do it well will be rewarded with higher speaker points.



I am very excited about the move among K debaters to explain their alternative is important because policy debaters become policy makers and therefore our fundamental assumptions in debate matter. It’s the first time “reject” has made any shred of sense in front of me. Of course what this means for Affs is that you better be impact turning the heck out of the K.



Anything special we should know if we are a "performance."



"Please make your argument clear. If the purpose of your performance is to have no argument make sure that I "get it." I generally do not like affs that say "the topic is bad" in the 1AC – but I've voted for them many times. My personal belief is that performance arguments are much more persuasive when negative."



Addition for 2009: I don't really get prefed by the "performance" teams anymore, I’m not sure why. Maybe it’s because of what I wrote above, or maybe those squads can’t get over the fact I coached a team that loved to go for theory against them (and won). Maybe it’s because I went for class before race as a debater. I have NO problem with performance debate, I just think it needs to be implemented carefully and creatively, and most important CLEARLY.



Anything special we should know if we are going for T?



"T and theory debates are debates about what's best for debate and how we should be debating. Treat it like plan-cp debates. I've never understood reasonability. The way I've seen this argument, reasonability is really an aff code word for stating the negs interpretation is an arbitrary limit, and that's bad – make that argument instead! The only way we can determine what is "reasonable" is by having a standards debate. I think critiques of T are much stronger when they critique a specific interpretation, rather than the overly broad and silly argument "T is exclusionary and that's bad judge!" Take a little more pride in your arguments!”



For 2009: I believe the above more than ever. If you’re not defending a plan, you have to go all in on their notions of “fairness” and “predictability” being bad and links to whatever your aff says.



Anything we should know about speaker points?



"I start all varsity debaters at a 27.5 and move you up or down from there based on criteria I have in my head. I use identical criteria in novice and JV but novice debaters starts at a 29, and JV debates start at a 28. I've found this system very useful in providing consistent speaker points. CX matters! A good CXer will be rewarded with points – a poor CX will be penalized."



For 2009: I must admit, I have had a hard time adapting to the 100-point scale. Starting at Harvard, 2009 I will use a new system. I will use the system above in my head, and then divide by 30, to get a result out of 100. Eventually I will be able to make distinctions within those ranges. What this means practically is that an average 27.5 point speech in front of me will be a 92 in front of me. Call me a point fairy, I don't care, this is the only way I can make sense of the 100-point scale.



I've also noticed I tend to tank a teams points when they don't engage in direct refutation. If I don't here the phrase "They say X, but..." in one of your speeches, you aren't debating, you are just giving a polemic speech. This is more important in novice debate, but it's an even greater travesty in JV and Varsity debate.



Anything we should know about paperless?



This is an important transition period in debate. The paperless move is inevitable and essential for budgetary reasons, but we need to take care to ensure things are done fairly. I feel a lot of the obligation is on us, the judges, to make it go smoothly with as few hurt feelings as possible. A few things to expect from me:

A) If you are "just jumping" or "transferring" files, after you are done prepping, I expect both sides to REALLY stop prepping. To ensure this happens you can expect me to play obnoxious lounge music as loud as I can on my laptop during this down time. Dancing is allowed.

B) The burden is on the paperless team to accommodate the non-paperless teams, NOT vice-versa. I expect a paperless team to take all the time necessary to ensure the other team has what they need. Don't be a jerk about it, I will not be happy, and will make my feelings known.



Anything specific about the nuclear weapons topic?



Yes. The Nuclear Weapons is a bad word PIC is only strategic (very much so) against K affs. So a note to d8 (ceda east) teams: (I'm looking at you UVM, Cornell, Rochester, Bard, New School, CUNY and NYU) stop running it against "policy affs." Also, consult CPs bore me, and only demonstrate you are lazy. I vote for them all the time, but it doesn't help your speaker points much (but I don't tank them like Hardy would).



Anything else we should know about you?



Apparently, debating in front of me is a bit different than in front of some other judges. The length of this philosophy is evidence. A lot of this is due to the fact I enjoy judging, and I find debate tournaments fun, and I like feeling engaged in the debates I watch. I've been called a "Dallas-in-training" by some of my friends because of my tendency to sometimes say something (or make a joke) during a CX or speech. (I'm much more likely to do this in poorer debates where there is little clash.)



I also am incredibly easy to read (only further evidence of why my Wake Poker tournament victory years ago was nothing but luck) and you should try to pay attention to my non-verbals.



I also see judging as a pedagogical responsibility. What this means is that I have all my flows saved on my laptop, and I'm more than happy to answer questions even months later. I'm not the type of judge who will hold out a suggestion because I want my team to exploit the fundamental flaw in your aff first. Hell, if you want to use me for a rebuttal redo, I'd probably be willing. I just want everyone to get better at debate

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dan English

Debated 4 years at UR, 1st year out, open to all arguments--just ask. Have had very few rounds on the topic--explain yourselves.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Rashad Evans

These statements reflect my views on several debate arguments. Ultimately, I think debaters should debate and pick the arguments they are most comfortable advancing and in a manner they are most comfortable advancing them because that is most likely to put you in a position to win. Also, I can probably be convinced to vote on most arguments, but the following reflects the easiest path to get there.

General
1. I like strategy. I think every part of the debate is strategy from the moment the pairing is released. I think each team should do whatever they can get away with from topicality to plan specification to everything. I also think that each team should capitalize on any strategic decision made by the other team. Every decision and choice made by one team is likely to create ground or an argument for the other team.

2. I don't think evidence is that important. Usually, the best answer is an analytical. It's a mistake to overlook these.

3. I think it is very important to listen. It is important to pay attention to the ways in which an argument can morph and I think it is as important to listen to how a team is spinning their argument. Many times you may not be winning until the 1AR or 2NR says something that opens a window. Listen!

4. I think in linear and compact terms. I think every argument has a specific impact and I am reluctant to make inferences. I will respond well to teams that can identify holes in the other team's arguments. I think each team has the burden of proving their argument and the other team need only point out what is missing and not necessarily disprove any part of the other team's argument.

5. I do not like multiple conditional arguments on the negative, especially if they are contradictory. It's unpersuasive and not strategic. I notice that teams do it more now mainly because judges refuse to vote on conditionality bad. Specifically, I do not find any of the following arguments persuasive: negation theory (it's made up and not responsive); reject the argument, not the team (doesn't even make sense in this context); real world (everything and nothing is real world); offset aff side bias (don't think there is one). In other words, if you should so choose to introduce a conditional CP, be prepared to defend conditionality. It can and has been done. Don't be lazy about it and expect my help. Make args as to why conditionality is okay/good, not why it's hard to be negative and you should be able to do what you want. That being said, if the Aff can't win that conditionality is bad, I won't have too much sympathy.

6. Debate with a purpose and realize that I am watching you. Bad things I see: road maps that include statements like "I might get to x argument," ending a speech with "oh fuck," not understanding an argument and making no effort to understand it, talking bad about your own arguments or performance and there are so many others. Why go to a debate tournament if you are not going to debate to win? I don't want to listen to you talk outload, don't want to listen to you talk into your computer, and I really don't want to listen to you drop arguments because you don't care or don't flow. I ask that you have respect for yourself, your arguments, your university, your coaches and your judge. Trust me when I say that if you don't care, I don't care. Put in some effort.


Specifics:

Theory: I think there are two impact arguments really: competitive equity/fairness and education (topic specific and generic/substantive). I think that one team usually wins one impact and the other team wins the other. You gotta compare. I think the bright line between what is fair and what is strategic is reciprocity. If one team can prove that their argument is justified as reciprocal to some power or argument made by the other team or proves that their argument is not problematic because the other team has a reciprocal power or option then I think its and absolute defense to fairness arguments. Similarly, I think it is usually a better argument that some problematic act of the other team justifies some otherwise problematic act on your part than arguing a straight up voting issue impact.

Permutations: I think that this is the heart of debate. Most debates involve either a CP or a K. I believe that most Ks are simply a DA and a uniqueness CP. Therefore permutations are important. I think that permutation debates need to move beyond Do both, do the cp, severance is a voting issue and intrinsicness permutations are illegitimate. I think you need generic and specific permutations. I think you need legitimate and illegitimate permutations. Most importantly, I think that in many instances some form of an intrinsicness permutation is defensible and desirable, but you have to make them and you have to know why they are defensible and desirable. Discuss net benefits of permutations in real specific terms, especially when debating Kritiks.

DAs: I think they are best as net benefits to CPs. I think there is a minimal threshold for a disadvantage and do not like shells read with gaping holes. I also think the best DA answers are analytical internal link takeouts. I think there can be zero risk of a DA, except for those instances where the DA is a net benefit to CP and the Aff has no offense.

Kritiks: They are best when they are NB to CPs. If you are going to Kritik I suggest your critique! Get real deep and get real specific and let the other team have it. extra points if you do it with a neck roll and snap. Kidding, but my point is that I think the K is fierce when done right, but when it's usually done wrong. The 2AR should be talking about their Aff. If the 2AR is talking about the K and not the plan it usually means the negative will win. The answer to every K is in your 1AC. Everything else is for fun. Oh, and I have no critical background. I only hear the argument you tell me. If my ability to fully understand your Aff or K requires that I understand more generally the views of author X, you, my friend are screwed!!! Explain it all!

Planless/topicless Affs: It's not right, but it's okay (bless Whitney's heart). I think it's a strategic flaw if the negative decides to debate the Aff on whatever subject they have decided they want to discuss. It's a trap, if you walk into the trap you deserve to lose. I am not saying that the Aff has to have a plan or has to be topical; I am, however, saying that the negative has to be able to win that the Aff has to have a plan or has to be topical.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Casey Fleischmann

Casey Seidel Fleischmann. Debated at UR, competed at the NDT.

Casey Fleischmann, judge philosophy: When looking at a debate round, I think that the most important thing is how each team responds to the other team's actual arguments. Don't just run down your "Answers To" sheet -- explain how the different args interact. Explain the warrants in your evidence, and make an argument. I like to see people actually thinking during a round! That being said, I'm not a huge fan of topicality, but will listen to it if there is an issue of fairness or ground. Likewise, I am not a super fan of politics or disads, but again, will listen to them if I have to!! When I debated, I was big into the Kritik debate, so would love to see some of that. Also, anything fun or funky is acceptable (assuming that the fun or funky team leaves some ground to the opposing side). If you've been wanting to try out a new argument or tactic, go ahead and run it in front of me, I'm pretty open-minded.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Todd Frobish

No judge philosophy submitted.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Ryan Galloway

Ryan Galloway
Samford University
15 years judging
I think about debate a lot, I re-write my judging philosophy frequently. The basic rule I try to abide by is that I can be persuaded to vote on any argument, and that teams are best left to “doing their own thing” in front of me. I have several pre-dispositions and biases, but generally teams are best left to trying to execute the strategies they are most comfortable with and modify them to my expectations and standards, rather than start wholesale.
Topicality/Theory: Probably my strongest bias is that an affirmative must be topical. This is honestly an issue I’m growing more and more committed to over time. I can be convinced that broad interpretations of the topic are acceptable, but honestly metaphorical and symbolic interpretations stretch the limits too far.
With that said, in terms of evaluating T, I am more in the reasonability camp than competing interpretations. I think an affirmative that is well grounded in the literature, that uses contextual evidence to prove its topicality claim, and that illustrates why any loss of ground is either trivial or unimportant, should win on topicality. On theory, I am troubled by the prevailing paradigm that judges should err negative on every theory question.
I am not a fan of plan flaw arguments premised on misspelled words or incorrect grammatical structure of sentences. I prefer substantive debate when it is clear what each side is defending.
Counterplans: I frankly think the negative has gotten away with far, far too much in the world of Counterplans. I do not think being affirmative binds the aff team to: immediate plan implementation, guaranteed plan enforcement, or counterplans that change the agency or method by which plans are currently implemented. The exception to the rule is if the plan mandates one of these, or if the affirmative specifies this in the cross-examination. I am torn on the idea of whether or not unmodified plan action is an affirmative requirement (i.e. consult and/or condition counterplans). Negative teams are best served by winning a T debate that a certain word in the resolution requires some of the above action. The notion that “resolved,” “should,” or “substantially” does so is suspect at best.
I am not 100% sold yet, but I am becoming more and more convinced by the day that counterplans that do the entirety of the affirmative plan are bad for debate. Too much time is spent trying to figure out the next way to "do the whole aff" instead of finding answers to the aff to begin with. It risks redundant, repetitive debates no matter what the affirmative is, and it stifles education because we don't learn about the aff's on the topic, just the next manifestation of how we can do the whole AFF without debating it.
I am unsure if this makes me a textual or functional competition theorist. I think these buzz-words have caused more confusion than the simple concept that competition is the answer to “why not do both?” The old answers of “you can’t” or “it would be a bad idea too” work better than the supposed text/function divide. I can be sold that a counterplan is artificially competitive even absent a permutation. While I don’t think the affirmative should be bound to defend anything it doesn’t implement, I do think cross-examination can clarify what the words in the plan mean, and I am uncertain that neg’s should get to FIAT the same action of the plan with different words.
A common thread for me on both topicality and theory is that I prefer debates about “evidenced clash” and interpretations that lead to that result are superior. Counterplans that seek to avoid "evidenced clash" or that turn every debate into an uber-generic comparison unrelated to the specific plan action are suspect. A case specific counterplan with disads and turns specific to the aff would be a welcome treat.
All this said, I vote for "suspect" counterplans every weekend, and usually the Negative can muster enough answers in the block to make these counterplans work for them. I’m open to the debate.
Kritiks/Performance: I am an excellent judge for critical teams, and not a very good judge for performance teams. If you attack the underlying assumptions or discourse of an affirmative case with strong evidence and a clearly articulated alternative, you will do well in front of me. I am not a big fan of “framework” as an affirmative answer to kritiks, at least the ways I have seen it argued. Philosophical and discursive questions seem important to understanding policymaking, and trying to divorce the two seems counterproductive. At the same time, teams that challenge flowing, the use of evidence, and/or structural inequities tend to do very poorly in front of me. In addition, I am troubled by teams that attack other debaters personally. Much like counterplans, I would highly prefer a case specific kritik with specific philosophical reasons to reject the affirmative’s methodology or discourse. Alas, the days of Texas EG seem long gone.
Civility: I strongly prefer debates and post-round discussions handled in a mature, respectful, and polite manner. Some level of being frustrated with a decision is inevitable and tolerable, but debaters should treat each other and their judges with kindness and maturity.
Paperless: I don't get why this is a controversy at all. As long as both sides are respectful, neither side preps during the paperless team's effort to "jump" you the evidence, and each side recognizes there might be a brief "tech delay," I think paperless is fine. I do highly prefer "Whitman's norms" of jumping the evidence before the speech. If the paper team wants to print the evidence, I think they should be allowed to at no cost to prep time. I think the paperless team should obviously point out what evidence they read to the other team, "mark" it if possible, and not try and give the team a huge file of cards you have no intention of reading. Frankly, I think all this fits under the "civility" clause--be nice, respectful, do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If you have other questions, please ask. I am pro-paperless, even though I coach a "paper" squad.
100 Point Scale: I believe in norms. I will try to abide by the norm created on the ballot or by the tournament. If one is not specified, I will follow the "Georgia State" norm of 87 as average. I feel like coaches learn a lot from when their debaters exceed or fall well below the norm. It helps me determine when debaters should re-do speeches, which tournaments they should go to, and how to pair partners. When judges "go rogue" to create their own scale, it distorts all that information that helps me learn how to help my students.
Explicit Performances: This section was added upon Sherry’s request to the recent discussion about explicit material in debates. Although I am quite unfamiliar with the circumstances from which this scenario has arisen, I feel strongly that we should create non-hostile environments in debate. I realize a balancing act needs to be played, and I feel the overwhelming majority of debates I have seen of all kinds do so. However, if your goal is to cause extreme discomfort to your opponents via the use of explicit sexual acts or references in debates, I feel I can be fairly easily persuaded that you can use another method to achieve your goal. The old judging philosophy had a line that “I feel that there are questions better left to outside the competitive debate framework to be resolved.” I feel many of these arguments fall into this category.
Risk Analysis: The strength of the link is often the most important factor in evaluating debates to me. I tend to think we overvalue both uniqueness and tend to race toward hyperbolic impacts, causing a decreased emphasis on more tangible, real world concerns. That said, most debaters have given up challenging links and internal links, so I frequently default to the magnitude/time-frame end of the paradigm. When this occurs, the negative wins a tremendous amount of the time.
Last Thoughts: Despite some of the above commentary, I am not nearly as pessimistic about the future of debate as many seem to be. I’m excited to debate the nuclear weapons topic, and am extremely interested in this question at the dawn of the 21st century. The vast majority of debaters work hard and fight hard to create a fair, fun, equitable competitive environment. I look forward to the upcoming season, and if you have any questions feel free to ask. I promise to try hard and to treat you and your arguments with respect. I take my judging obligations very seriously and try my best to follow Scott Harris’ rule that because I assume you work hard to be here, I will work hard to judge you.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Matt Gayetsky

Matt Gayetsky
University of Pittsburgh
When discussing my judging philosophy with people who don’t really know me, I typically get one of two responses. Either "I was concerned about our team running kritiks with you in the back of the room” or, "If we have you again, our strategy should be much more critical, right?" Neither assumption is correct. While in my own academic work I have a preference for the theoretical, I also end up being the person who volunteers to do politics updates. With this being the case, it is likely in your best interest to make arguments that you enjoy debating, and give me a compelling reason why this means that you win. Unless, of course, your argument is “persuasion bad,” in which case, I will try not to be persuaded. I think. Anyways -- here are a couple of things that I normally do when evaluating a round. Note that this is a "normally" and is by no means binding. If you tell me to do something else, I'll do it -- but if you don't, then this is what you get.

Theory/Topicality: On any theory argument, I think that it is the burden of the team who initiated the debate to decisively win the debate. What that means for you is I'm more likely to err aff on topicality and perms good, and more likely to err neg on conditionality good. This doesn't mean I won't vote the other way. However I should note that I've been judging, I have become more persuaded that conditionality is probably good for debate, and to win that conditionality is bad, you should probably couch your objections in specific scenarios of what the negative did to skew your strategy, rather than the potentiality of what abuse could have occurred.

Disad's/CP's/Case: I think that they are valuable negative tools. An oft made K aff argument that "There is no reason why the neg should get disad ground" is probably a bad argument. With that said, this is the bread and butter of typical debates. I tend to insist on clearer impact calculus than others. Don’t assume that “…and nuke war turns the case…” is sufficient analysis. I want you to extrapolate the warrants from your evidence to make your argument, and not simply refer me to a piece of evidence. I’ll read cards after the round, but I try to keep the total amount down. Consult counterplans are probably cheating. With that said, I vote on them a lot, and while I feel dirty about it, am more than willing to punish unprepared affirmative teams. Please understand the difference between textual and functional competition when debating CP theory.

Kritiks: I think that these add another strategic dimension to the debate that ought to be exploited. However I think that this often makes it more difficult for the Neg, because I expect a framework to be clearly set up about how I am supposed to evaluate the kritik. This does not mean that you read a policy-making bad framework in the 1NC, but I need to know what it means to endorse the kritik, and how the kritik interacts with the claims made by the affirmative. Answering these questions is a good start: What in the aff am I rejecting? All or part of it? Can they leverage the case against the impacts of the K? What does the ballot do? Who am I and what agency do I have as a policymaker, activist, person with illusory power in the back of the room?
These questions are gateway questions, because without answers, I don’t know how to evaluate the substance. By all means run them, I'm likely at least somewhat familiar with the substance of the argument so long drawn out explanations aren't always necessary. But if you are running something a bit newer or not as common, don't assume that I know what you mean. Conversely, I'm okay being that gatekeeper that Kafka was talking about, but I need a warrant why it’s good to exclude their positions in favor of something else.

My view on performance is akin to my view on kritiks. I always enjoyed the rounds where I debated against performance teams, and our strategy was normally to try to out-left the performing team. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. Because of the nature of these rounds, the framework questions I outlined above are even more important because of the discursive theories surrounding performative acts. I will be more than happy to vote for a team that performs, assuming that these questions have answers. I will also be more than happy to drop a team that performs if these questions are not answered, if it's unclear what I would be voting in favor of.

Debate is all about story telling. Whether it's how the disad turns the case and the EU CP avoids the link, or why your experiences with prejudice informs your understanding of policymaking, the story is what is important. All forms of knowledge have implications and could justify rejection of your opponent. But you need to give me a reason why this is the case. Why does your story justify rejection of the other team? Answer that question, and you'll win the debate, no matter what kind of debate you are in.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mike Girouard

Mike Girouard

Baylor University

Rounds Judged on the Topic: 30+

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like, they don’t have to have a net benefit or be advocated. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advoacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism is the end all be all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or you starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate you K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which initerpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so flogo-centric and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now, why should it be prefered and what are the larger implications on the debate community. Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Judy Goss

Judging Philosophy for Judy Goss

Debate Background: I’ve been in the debate community for eight years now— three years as a member of the University of Mary Washington debate team and five years judging and coaching for various debate teams in District 7. This year I am currently working with John Carroll University.

My view of debate: I view debate as a game, first and foremost. It is also a valuable educational activity. I look myself as a policymaker, not an advocate. Please be aware of this. I will approach debate from the perspective of a policymaker unless I am told, in- round, that I should not.

Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. That does not mean I will always vote on T. You need to appropriately argue a definition, violation, and standards. You don’t have to prove actual in-round abuse to secure my ballot (although that’s nice); I will vote on a clearly articulated potential abuse standard as well.

Disadvantages: Weigh the impacts of your disadvantages against the case!!! The easiest way to get my ballot (or at least awesome speaks!) is to spend time making impact assessments. Sure, you need to have uniqueness and links going for you, but if there’s a risk of either of these things and you’ve spent time making the assessment, then you have a decent chance of getting my ballot.

Kritiks: I avoided philosophy classes in college. Most of what I learned about philosophy, I’m ashamed to say, has come from debate rounds. If you are going for a typical kritik argument like CLS or some type of feminism, then I can follow you. If it’s some type of wacky argument that deviates from the norm, chances are you will have to walk me through it..

That being said, I’ve gotten more liberal in my voting. I’m more inclined to vote for kritikal arguments than I once was (that’s not say my threshold isn’t still high). I like kritiks to have a clearly articulated alternative, spelled out by the Negative. Also, please don’t use phrases like pre and post-fiat. They mean absolutely nothing to me.

Counterplans: The counterplan must be proven to be competitive with the plan and have clear net benefits. If I feel like the CP solves better than the case, it will probably be a Negative ballot.

Theory: I was raised in a world where conditionality and dispositionality are the same thing. I like debate theory argued out and impacted—I hate watching teams read competing blocks at me, without engaging each other. Please explain what the impact is for debate if I accept your view of debate theory. And if a team makes a critical theory drop, explain to me why I should vote on it (Not just: Ha ha! They dropped it!).

Evidence: I do NOT like to read stacks of evidence after the debate. I find that it is lazy debating to say “read the evidence after the round.” It is your job as a debater to draw clear distinctions between your evidence and your opponents. I will only read evidence if it is disputed or it is unclear in my mind. When this happens, both teams leave things up to my interpretation of their evidence. As a note, I do read the un-underlined parts of the evidence.

Atmosphere of the round: Also, I think the round is much more pleasant people play nice during the debate and cross-ex. So, try to get along and be nice, ok? That will definitely inflate everyone’s speaker points.

Any specific questions about my judging preferences, feel free to ask me. I’ll elaborate.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Allison Hahn

Allison Hahn (Pitt)
Debated – 1 year middle school, 4 years in HS, 4 years at Pitt.
Coaching – 5 years US High School Teams, 3 years Mongolian HS Worlds Team
Education – BA in PoliSci, Anthro, and Africana Studies, MID in Development Planning and Environmental Sustainability / Asian Studies, Fulbright to Mongolia, presently Com PhD program at Pitt.
Overview- I want to watch and learn from your friendly debate about the resolution. If you present a clear debate (with a voting criteria and explanation of how you win within that framework) I’ll vote for you. I would rather watch you in a good debate, be it about Stock Issues or non-topical performance, then suffer through a bad attempt at judge adaptation.
If no-one presents a clear voting criteria, these are my fallbacks…
Analytics – with few exceptions, your explanations are better than a stack of overcut cards.
DA’s – I refuse to cut updates or read corporate media. If you run one, you’ll need to explain a good link and non-generic impact scenario. I don’t think North Korea is evil, I do believe in aliens.
Education – Above all, debate is educational. I am unimpressed by attempts to suppress, silence, or inhibit your opponents. I’d default to Gordon Mitchell’s debate good cards.
K’s – My favorite when done well. I’m partial to de-dev, anarcho-primativism, nanotech goos, anthropocentrism, and social ecology. However, please don’t assume that I’ve read the same authors that you have. Save time to explain the voters.
Moral Imperatives – Please don’t assume my morals are the same as yours. I don’t think I have the capability or authority to decide between two genocides. If you do, please explain it very slowly.
Performance – Excellent when well done, but you need to tell me and the other team what it means.
Plans and Counter Plans –You can run as many as you want so long as they are well explained; though, it’s easiest to vote on just one.
Stock Issues / Theory I’ve voted for everyone of the shits and given low point wins for boringness.
Speaker Points I follow directions on the ballot but usually stay between 20 and 30.
Speed – I like it. I loved to be faster than the other team, then I debated against a team that was faster than me and I learned that sometimes speed destroys the debate and education.
Spreading – this is different than speaking quickly. It’s annoying to flow, wastes paper, and just sad to watch the other team cope. This is a nasty trick that might be fun but should be used sparingly.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Michael Hall

Michael Hall Judging for Liberty
13 Years coaching

The comments below reflect preferences (some of which are strong), but they are fluid in the context of any given debate.

Theory: I am not tabula-rosa. Minimally, each argument should contain a claim, some support (evidentiary or otherwise), and an impact. In other words, just because you utter the words “voting issue” doesn’t make it one. That said, I do my best to minimize my substantive preferences and therefore find myself voting for positions I don’t particularly like. I attempt to use the decision calculus most persuasively advocated by the debaters.

Topicality: I tend to see topicality as a contest of competing interpretations. I probably vote on T more often than most judges and have no problem voting against "core affirmatives" when the negative has a superior interpretation of the topic. "Overrule" and "decision" are important limiting terms, but I'm sympathetic to affirmative objections to interpretations that leave only four topical cases. I strongly prefer that the negative team develop arguments based on a comparison of ground offered under each interpretation of the resolution. In round abuse is not necessary or usually persuasive. I am usually persuaded by arguments over the types and numbers of cases allowed by each interpretation than I am with the fact that you can’t win a link to your favorite disad. Topicality is by nature exclusionary. If your affirmative forces you to argue that topicality is bad, I'm not the judge for you.

Counterplans: My default positions for acceptable counterplans are generally liberal. I like creative plan-inclusive counterplans and I tend to think the status quo remains an option for the negative. In spite of those leaning, I do on occasion vote against a team for running a dispostional or conditional counterplan. If the negative justifies the conditional nature of the counterplan, other theory arguments are reasons to reject the counterplan not the team. The text of the counterplan and all permutations should be written out. Trying to win a perm that doesn’t include all of the plan or that contains action not contained in the plan or counterplan is nearly impossible.

Kritiks: Given my preference for debates over competing policies, I find arguments that link to the action of the plan more compelling than arguments over the discourse of the 1AC. Like any other part of the negative strategy, the more you tailor your link arguments to the affirmative in question, the more likely I am to find your arguments persuasive. Likewise, an overview that details how the kritik turns the affirmative’s solvency, outweighs the case, etc. would be more helpful than several more impact cards.

Performance: While I am willing to evaluate your critical performance in a debate, I believe strongly that all arguments should be grounded in a plan text that represents topical action. If you want to use poetry, music, and dance to advocate a plan, go for it.

Style: Honestly, this is probably the most important section of my philosophy. Things you should know in descending order of importance: (1) I am a better critic for those who collapse the debate in the block and 2NR than for those who extend all of their 1NC arguments. (2) I am a better critic for debaters who emphasize clarity over speed. (3) I can't overemphasize the importance of the 2NR/2AR to my decision. If your final rebuttal style resembles your 2AC/2NC style, you risk losing me. (4) I have come to the conclusion that the more evidence I read, the less my decisions have reflected the arguments made by the debaters. As a result, I try to read fewer cards after a debate and am more easily persuaded to see a debate through the lens that allows me to do so. (5) If you think an argument is important, find a way to set it apart from the rest of the debate.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Heather Hall

Heather Holter Hall
Liberty University
2008-2009

I prefer a policy making framework but I will be fair in assessing who wins the framework of the debate regardless of what framework is advocated. That said, I have very strong feelings about preserving the fundamentals of debate as it exists. I believe things like responsiveness, time limits, "fiat", plan texts, and even speed have enourmous educational value and teach skills not available in other forums. I am in favor of making debate more inclusive and including other types of evidence but not by destroying debate or decreasing substantive clash or education in the round. Most importantly, I like consistent, creative, well thought out arguments. There are no arguments that I will off-hand reject but there are definitely some that are harder sells.

Topicality requires well-explained, specific examples of ground loss. I am not a huge fan of spec arguments.

Kritiks require very specific and concrete links. The more you explain the K in non-philosphical terms, the more persuaded I will be. You must have a active alternative. There are only a few instances in which the "resist the aff" alternative is remotely persuasive. Fiat is imaginary for both the aff AND the neg. You don't get magical powers to pretend that resistance will immediately reshape the entire world's perspective on critical issues. Be real about how reistance works and I might vote for you. I think kritiks of epistemology are circular in the context of debate.

Performance: I have yet to see a performance debate that enhanced either the education or critical thinking skills of any of the participants. Unless it proves that the plan is a good or bad idea, it is fun but worthless.

Counterplans can be conditional and plan-inclusive but I can also be persuaded they are abusive given the right explanation. I also really love a good case debate.

I give good speaker points to debaters who are clear, smart, and kind. I will not read a lot
of evidence in order to recreate the round because it was so unclear that I couldn’t get it the first time. The more concrete explanations offered to me, especially in the last two speeches, the better off you are.

I love the activity of debate and especially the people I am blessed to know through the activity. Whatever arguments you run, just remember that each individual debate is about more than just that round. There have been thousands who have debated before you and many more will follow so respect the activity and all the people involved. It is not just about your own ego or simply winning a ballot.

Have fun!
Heather

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Sherry Hall


Sherry Hall, Harvard, Judging Philosophy, East Region
Judged at GA State, Vermont, KY, Wake,

Recently, when judging at a high school tournament, one of the debaters asked me about my judge paradigm. I said that I viewed my role as a critic of argument. He looked puzzled and asked, "Does that mean you are good for the kritik or bad?" Unfortunately, for more and more debaters the answer to this question seems to be the only one that matters in assessing judge quality.

To say that I view my role as a debate judge as a "critic of argument" means that I think the closest analogy to what I do when I judge rounds, is act as an educator grading a class presentation. But Collegiate debate is not just an educational activity, it is also a competitive activity. Therefore, the judge has the additional role of acting as a "referee" or official who keeps time, and resolves disputes over the "rules". In resolving debates that focus on the "rules" - is topicality a voting issue, are PICs legitimate, must the negative provide an alternative - I tend to evaluate those questions based on the impact that they have on education and competitive equity.

I consider clash against the opponent’s ideas as one of the most important standards by which to evaluate whether or not a particular argument or practice is “good” or “bad” for debate. I do think that for the activity to continue to progress, creativity in arguments and debating styles is a good thing that should be encouraged. I do think that teams which are attempting innovations, such as the “performance is all that matters” strategy, will do better with me if the debaters can isolate what standards I should use to evaluate rounds in this new way, and/or what ground is left to the other team. A strategy or performance that leaves nothing for the other team to respond to undermines the goal of competitive equity.

I have a few theoretical preferences, though none is so strong that I cannot be convinced to set it aside despite the arguments in the round. I will list some of these preferences, but the debaters should keep in mind, that these issues still need to be argued, and the side that plays into my preferences, still needs to articulate the reasons why a particular argument should be accepted or rejected.
1. I strongly believe that if asked, the affirmative must specify who does the plan. The fact that the topic does not lock the affirmative into a particular actor, means that the affirmative gets to choose. The whole purpose of having a debate where the negative can clash meaningfully with the affirmative case is lost, if the affirmative can say what their plan does after they have heard the negative strategy.
2. I think that plan inclusive counterplans are bad for the goal of promoting meaningful clash. I coach my teams to run them. I write them. I vote for them every weekend. I am partial to the arguments against them though, and will vote on them.
3. Almost all negative teams these days reflexively declare that the counterplan is conditional. I have seen many rounds this year where that unthinking choice has cost the neg the round. If you have a legitimate reason for your arguments to be conditional and you are prepared to defend it, go for it, but I think it is a bad idea to say that your arguments are conditional when they don’t need to be – you just open yourself up to more ways to lose. My preference is against conditionality. For the same reason that I think the affirmative has to say what their plan does for the negative to meaningfully clash with that plan, the affirmative needs to know what their plan and case is being compared to, in order to effectively clash with the negative’s arguments. It is not enough that the negative will pick one strategy by the end of the round, because too much time has been wasted on arguments that are irrelevant. More importantly, the presence of a counterplan in the round changes how the affirmative answers disadvantages and case arguments. If the negative can drop the counterplan later in the round, the affirmative cannot go back and re-give the 2AC. I think that the debate is better if both sides clearly stake out their ground and their positions from the beginning and the rest of the debate focuses on which is better.

In addition to the theoretical preferences, I do have some views regarding decorum in the round.
1. As I mentioned above, I view myself as an educator and consider the debate round to be a “learning environment”. I believe that both basic civil rights law, as articulated in the 1964 Civil Rights Act and subsequent state laws, as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment. I am inclined to disallow language and performances that would be considered harassment in a regular class-room setting. I have no problem with discussions that include sexual issues, but if the incorporation of pornography, sexual simulation, sexual threats against the other team, nudity, etc., creates a hostile environment for the other participants in the round, then it should not be presented. If you think your debate performance potentially crosses the line and could constitute sexual and/or racial harassment, your safest bet is to warn the other team before the round and ask if they have any objections. I consider a request from the opposing team or me to not use explicit language/material/performance to be a signal of their/my discomfort and deserving of your respect. I view the intentional decision to create a hostile environment without respecting the feelings of the opposing team to be an unethical practice that will be treated the same way as other ethical violations such as fabricating evidence – loss and zero speaker points.
2. I detest rudeness, especially in cross-examination, or in comments directed at one’s opponents.
3. Anytime that someone refers to a male debater’s arguments as “she said” or a female’s arguments as “he said” I notice it, and it distracts me from the substance of the argument. I am not sure that I could be convinced that this is a voting issue. I usually will shout out the correction. If the practice seems flagrant, I will give lower speaker points. I am also sensitive to use of the generic “he”, especially when debaters are speaking about what “the judge” should do with a specific argument in the round. Whether or not a particular round is judged by a male or a female, I take offense at having “the debate judge” referred to as “he.” Again, I am not sure that I would be convinced that this is a voting issue, since I have never heard a round in which anyone has attempted to do that. I do think that some people may be taking this concern to an extreme. I do not think that a debater who reads a card with the word “blackmail” in it, or reads cards from Kant, is automatically branded a racist or sexist and should therefore be punished with a loss or lower points.





* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Garrett Halydier

Garrett Halydier – Judging Philosophy

General Philosophy: Debate is a game and arguments are tools to win. Everything is debatable. Plans should be topical, and topicality is rarely (if ever) a reverse voting issue. Kritik’s are a useful debate tool as well, but I am not the best judge for a performance or personal advocacy which I feel harm the “game” aspect of debate, and under my interpretation of debate, potentially trivialize the advocacy by making it simply a tool to win.

Argument Preferences: T, DA’s, CP’s, Case, and K’s
T and Theory: It must have an interpretation, and reasonability requires a counter-interpretation so I know what to be reasonable about. T is not a reverse voting issue, it is not genocidal, and ground could probably access all of the other standards.

DA’s: Run them, but please not stupid ones that don’t link.
Politics and Biz-con are well received.

CP’s: Conditional, unconditional, PIC, whatever – and as long as the CP is competitive – i.e. answer the perm – the CP is usually theoretically safe.
CP’s should be debated on their net-benefits and solvency potential.
Perms, especially clever perms, are good arguments – unless they are amorphous, unexplainable and turn out to be Do the CP.
CP and DA is a great strategy for the 2NR

Case: Case defense and case turns can be an integral part of every debate, and winning a DA and case turns can definitely be a reason to vote neg. Affs: Ans case – it is your most vital property

K’s: Critical arguments that undermine or question the assumptions of the plan are good. They should probably have a policy alternative that requires an action different from the plan. I am not inclined to like amorphous alternatives and can be persuaded that the aff still gets to weigh the plan. In my opinion K debates are won on the impact analysis and explanation - I do not assume that structural violence is automatically the worst thing ever or that advantage scenarios are necessarily improbable - it is the K debaters job to prove both of these things, and if you do you have a real good chance of winning.
Performance debaters and personal advocates: policy debate is good, debate bad arguments are counterintuitive, fiat does not actually exist but it is an exercise of our imagination that allows us to argue intelligently about possible futures.

Other tidbits:

Organization is great: the line-by-line only helps
Analyze the cards for me: I may read them after round but I don’t believe I should have to




* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Bary Hausrath

NDT STANDARD JUDGE PHILOSOPHY FORM Name: Bary Hausrath Institution: University of Richmond Position: Assistant Coach Years coaching: 3 Number or tournaments judged this year: 8 Here are some predispositions I have, as well as a few tips for earning better speaker points (if that’s your aim). Do what you want to do. This is your debate, not mine (don’t let the fact that I’m from d-7 fool you). This is an activity that can be educational and fun. Being an asshole tends to defeat both purposes, so play nice. It is possible to be an effective advocate and a courteous, good-humored competitor. Framework: The false dichotomy between policy and criticism is an unfortunate development over the past several years, and debaters who tell me how to bridge the gap get better speaks. I am not fond of pre/post-fiat distinctions that artificially separate thought, speech, and action. I’ve grown very tired of debates resolving to fiat good-bad: an aff can be a good idea and a bad idea on multiple levels at the same time. You need to have a well-articulated framework. However, this is only one piece of the puzzle – I prefer to vote on substance. Theory: I do not think that I have any particular predisposition toward or against any particular brand of cp or theoretical objection, but beware – a proliferation of voting issues will result in sympathetic leeway on the line-by-line for the other team. A coherent, impacted interpretation/story is better than a bunch of line-by-line wins that don’t mean much in the big picture. On the other hand, I’m somewhat flowgocentric, so don’t be lazy on the line-by-line: if you drop a clearly labeled, articulated voter without excuse, you will (in almost all likelihood) lose. Evidence: It’s good, but not necessary. I don’t read cards unless you make me. I only read evidence to determine the weight I will give it (and the dependent argument) in the round. On the other hand, evidence comparison will get you better speaker points, and can make or break a round-winning argument. I won’t do a bunch of cross-application and other work the work for you just because you told me to read a card that happens to answer an argument you also happened to repeatedly drop (so don’t get lazy and just tell me that I “have to read” “all your ___ cards”). If you have a lot of evidence from one author, clearly delineate which one you mean. Topicality: I wish more teams went for it. Don’t do it half-assed, and don’t do it just because I wrote that I like it. If you don’t meet the threshold, I won’t “pull the trigger” even if they really aren’t topical. It doesn’t require much convincing to win that topicality, much less a plan, is key to fair debate. I think it’s reasonable to ask have for a plan or some textual/stable reduction of your advocacy. Topic-specific and Stylistic crap: Do what you do. These are the same debates we’ve been having for years. Hint: I like good surprises in the form of creative arguments.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mike Hester

Hester
D6/SE Region
17th year judging


Comments on in-round argumentation:

1) stop complaining about the wording of the rez - this topic is AWESOME. if you can't find something you want to debate written by folks discussing that position within the context of nuclear weapons, then you should give up the activity and find something else to do with your life. seriously.

2) segueing off #1, i will not be sympathetic to teams who claim they just can't talk about nuclear weapons because there is something more important discuss. having done extensive research, i can say without equivocation that there is not a single subject that hasn't either a) been discussed in the context of nuclear weapons policy or b)for which an author discussing that subject hasn't used nuclear weapons/war as an example to make their point. in other words, i don't care what you want to advocate, you don't have to forego discussions of nuclear weapons to do it.

3) smart teams will be rewarded, ignorant teams will be mocked. i don't require that you *read* evidence to make you arguments, but your speech should be chock full of warrants substantiated with historical examples, factoids, etc. outside of the class-gender-race triad, there is not a single subject which has been debated by full-time scholars/experts as much as nuclear weapons. read some damn books and USE what you learned in the debate.

4) i'm excited to hear some T debates. and no, i don't think any particular aff case has earned the "right" to be assumed topical (certainly no PLAN has). this doesn't mean teams running No First Use should strike me; it just means i don't think "but obviously _____________ is topical - so-and-so ran this case on the such-and-such topic 5/10 years ago and those were really good debates" is actually a warrant for that case being topical. again, the nuclear weapons literature is waist-deep and chock full of great debates - cut some cards defining terms in the resolution AND defending why those interpretations would be good for us to use in our debates.

5) i'm even MORE excited to judge some sweet CP and K debates. i have no predispositions on which CPs are illegit or whether anyone (aff or neg) has to advocate a government-enacted policy. as #1-#3 should make clear, i DO have a predisposition toward topic specific evidence.




6) and as a final comment, i'm not convinced any of the following sources have ever contributed a useful (i.e., coherent, persuasive, original and not patently false or absurd) argument to ANY debate round:

Deleuze & Guattari

Zizek

Mearsheimer

this list will be updated as needed. as of now, any evidence from these sources is presumed guilty until proven insightful.


Comments on the 100 point scale:

6) my 100 point scale will look like this:

27-27.5: 70-74

27.5-28: 75-82
--> these two have large ranges b/c they are the
_-> areas i want to distinguish the most
28-28.5: 83-89

> 28.5: 90-100



Coments on Prep Time:

WAAAAY too much prep time is being used and not accounted for. here's the policy i will enforce:

1) prep time runs until you are ready to give your speech. and "ready" means you've already set up whatever temporary podium you have erect and upon giving the order will begin talking immediately. prep time includes getting your papers/laptop documents in order, making last minute comments to your partner, getting a drink of water, etc.

2) for "paperless" debaters: the time it takes to 'jump your speech' to the other team counts as your prep time OR you can choose to not jump them the speech and reciprocally lose the privileges of seeing their evidence before their speeches have concluded.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Lee Hoyle

Lee attend UR law School and debated 4 years for UR. Has debated multiple genres of argument.
I will vote on anything. All I need is to understand what I am voting for and why I am voting for it. Make sure that you spend enough time explaining what your argument is, how it applies to the round and why you should win on it.

That being said, I am open to any argument that is well explained. I will vote for kritiks, but I need to understand what it is that I am voting for. You may have a devastating argument but if I do not get it I will not vote for it. Clarity is crucial for these types of arguments.

As far as arguments such as topicality, I am open to them but need you to show me exactly why the other team should be voted down. I prefer not to vote on these issues, but if you can show in-round abuse then I am willing to pull the trigger.

Overall, I prefer not to have to figure out where I will decide the debate on my own. Tell me where on the flow I should go after the round and why I should vote on the issue.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jay Igiel

I have judged the exact number of debates in the past 4+ years that you think you have lost this year. That is Zero. No need to worry, I will make you feel comfortable by doing what every judge does. I will pretend to know more about the topic than you. My large ego tells me I probably know more than you anyways. Here are some things to keep in mind:

1. TF(x)+Magnitude(y)+Probability (z) = impact and none of those impacts are froofy crap because if you are not dead it just does not count. I do not mean that literally but I know how to count bodies; I do not know how to count froofy crap like hurt feelings or rights so tell me.

2. If CP solves 100% and Aff has no offense against the Net Benefit then unless Neg are morons they should win. I can be persuaded to evaluate the Net Benefit differently but tell me why. Impact assessment should start in the 1NC and continue through the entire debate.

3. I like the flow. It is my security blanket so I will not put it down or stop being flow centric. And by flow I mean pen & paper. I just don’t get you crazy kids and your paperless debate (I like things made from trees like whiskey barrels, clogs, ping pong paddles and paper so the more dead trees the happier I am). Drop arguments at your own risk.

4. Any CP (including a 2NC Conditional, Exclusionary, Multiple International Actor, TF CP (yes that is one counter plan)) or Perm can be justified (I have never heard a good argument justifying subject-object). They can also be abusive. I will vote either way. Tell me why and weigh the impact of theory arguments. I like a good theory debate, and will vote on theory.

5. The Golden Rule of Doug Frye
A) GO FAST B) READ CARDS C) MAKE ARGUMENTS
(Doing it in that order worked for me)

6. Since I am no longer vested in the activity, I think it would be inappropriate for me to adopt a hard-line stance on the K or performance debate and refuse to vote on, listen or flow them. Instead I am going to cut and paste a section from an old judging philosophy and say Caveat Emptor: “I will no longer listen to or flow critiques of the system, the resolution, or debate itself. Statism, Fem IR, Threat Construction that means you. I like the system, I am the system, I want to keep the system. If you dance don’t expect a dollar expect a loss. Music is not an argument and bad music just reflects badly on you. Using the word “Brinkmanship” does not make you sexist, it just means that you know a basic term of international relations You can still argue that action X is immoral but it must be because ACTION X is immoral not because it supports an immoral system, is part of an immoral system or does not change an immoral system. For me to flow or listen to a critique it must be unique, have a specific link, an internal link, and an impact. Adopting an alternative is not an impact. I just do not care about your unique discourse in the round and I never will. No Plan: No Vote.”

7. I do not care about you, but I have to listen to you for two hours so BE FUNNY. Procedure, decorum, manners and niceties all pale in comparison to a good laugh. Try extra hard and I will reward you with .25 speaker points because that is just the type of guy I am.

8. I like big, fast, technical, debates with lots offense. Case specific turns, counterplans and stratagies are sweet, but a gold old fashion CP/Politics debate is not bad either. Funky counterplans and impact turns (malthus, prolif, trade, etc. are always fun to listen to.

9. The interaction between arguments and impacts should be discussed earlier on and throughout the debate. Which impact occurs quicker? Why does the impact of case destroy the unquiness of the impact of the DA? How does the turn of the DA impact the link to the other DA?

10. I reserve the right to arbitrarily change my judging philosophy without notice at any time I deem appropriate even if it is just out of mean spirited spite.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

John Katsulas

John Katsulas, Director of Debate, Boston College
20+ years coaching, judged at 9 tournaments, 48 rounds
19 aff wins, 29 neg wins--


Here are the rules for debate:
1) The affirmative side must advocate a plan of action by the United States Federal Government. If you merely read poetry, dance, or play music, you will lose.
2) The negative side must defend a consistent policy position in the debate. The negative may choose to defend the status quo, or the negative may advocate an unconditional counterplan.
3) Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue.
4) Conditionality is prohibited.
5) The resolution is worded as a policy proposition, which means that policy making is the focus of debate.
6) Kritiques are not welcome.
7) Performance-style debate belongs in theatre productions.
.
Here are suggestions for debating in front of me:
1) The affirmative side has huge presumption on topicality if they can produce contextual evidence to prove their plan is topical.
2) Agent counterplans are fine. Don’t waste your time arguing PICS bad arguments against them. The legitimacy of international fiat is debatable, but I definitely believe there are far stronger arguments favoring limiting fiat to U.S. governmental actors.
3) Politics disadvantages are welcome. I like to hear them. Affirmatives should attack the internal link stories on many of these disadvantages. This is frequently a more viable strategy than just going for impact turns.
4) Both sides should argue solvency against affirmative plans and negative counterplans. Both sides should attack the links and internal links of impacts.
5) If you are incomprehensible, I won’t re-read all of your evidence after the debate to figure out your arguments.
6) Negative can win my ballot on zero risk of affirmative case solvency. Many affirmatives cases are so tragically flawed that they can be beaten by an effective cross-examination and/or analytical case presses.
7) I am very strict on 1ARs making new answers to fully developed disadvantages which don’t change from the 1NC.
8) Cross-examination answers are binding.
9) ASPEC: I won’t vote on it UNLESS you ask in cross-ex and they refuse to specify an agent.
10) Too late to add new links and impacts to your disadvantages during the first negative rebuttal.

I have a low threshold for dismissing non-real world arguments like nuclear war good and wipe-out.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Vik Keenan

Vik Keenan – CUNY/NYU (aka CuNYu - fighting public/private access barriers one campus at a time)
College Judge - Decade +

Judging Philosophy v4.5: (skip to bottom for immediate thoughts on T,CP, theory, K, DA, points stuff)


OVERVIEW:
I took a road trip this summer and my traveling companion had asked my music preferences for the 30 hours in the car. Now, there are things I definitely like better – punk, good kritiks – versus things I’m not as fond of – country-western, politics da’s – however; in general I’m pretty open to hearing anything. But as I told my friend, when in doubt, if you really just want to make me happy, go for the Clash.

(And this is pretty much exactly how my post-round decisions will explained: meandering narrative ending in debate idea. You’ve been warned.)

LINE BY LINE:
1) I tend to be excitable. I live in New York and drink a lot of caffeine. Don’t take it personally. I’m not annoyed – I’m just not a morning person. I tend to really like novices though and try to be especially supportive of them.

2) I debated in the NE and coach in NY, which is WHY I tend towards the critical end of things - familiarity. If you love DA’s and “Policy” debate, also don’t take it personally. I’ve just been disillusioned with internal links to nuclear war ever since that BJP/Pakistan prolif scenario didn’t launch immediately in 1999. But it would help if your cards had actual warrants, your impacts had comparisons, and you didn’t try to interest me in a 15 card uniqueness war that I will never care about. Phil Samuels spent a long evening convincing me as a young judge that I don't dislike disads, I just dislike poorly run disads. Don't squander the good will he has built for you, and if you are a DA debater, you should go buy him something.

3) Just because I’m okay with critical, doesn’t mean I will default to it if you are losing the debate. (I tend to flow the text of ev, so don’t lie too obviously). Try to follow the advice for the Disad folks. [For example, if you want me to vote on cap bad, at some point you actually need to articulate a warrant of some kind that cap is bad for some reason.)

4) As most coaches have been known to say to their debaters about having me judge, “Tell her a story.” I like a good story. I like a big picture. (I was a lit major). I like when you fill in the internal links in a logical way so I can cohesively explain to the other team why I vote for a position, or when you explain how everything happening in a round interacts for my ballot.

5) An overview on steroids which messes up the line-by-line is not necessarily a “story” by the way. Overview prolif is far more real world than nuclear prolif. At least try to make your prewritten overview SOUND like it’s from the round. [In fact, this whole philosophy is a mini-model: short overview, enumerated points.] Stories often will tell me how arguments will interact in rounds, otherwise, I'm making up my own interpretation of things.

6) Performance:
a. Critical is not necessarily performative. Conflating the two is one of my pet peeves in debate. Edit framework blocks accordingly.

b. My masters is in Educational Theater. Don’t BS performance theory – I will not be impressed. Also, if you use the term “role-play” and don’t specify debate or simulation, I’m asking for a safety word. And if you plan to perform, um, be good. Rehearse. And tell me why this warrants a BALLOT, not an academy award.

c. If you plan to incorporate a lack of clothing into your performance: 1) please make sure you don’t violate any legal indecency or health code laws (generally avoid things that result in arrest in the public sphere as a matter of course), 2) have a point and make it interesting. I’m friends with a lot of performers in the NY Burlesque scene and I’ve painted Karen Finley, so let’s just say I have high standards for quality and content.

7) People should be respectful, they should learn, they should try to have fun, and they should not impede those things for others in the round. If we do that, we’ll all be fine. If not, I might make you hug. (And if you're having a bad day, and just need a hug, that's okay to ask for too.)

8) Any other questions, just ask (y’all know how to do that right? It IS cross-ex debate.)



Quick other observations about my leanings on theory/args:
T – Yeah, okay. Good if strategic, bad if irrelevant. You can argue it’s not a voter or it’s prima facie. Just have warrants. This is a good place to be good at line by line and sign-posting. This is a bad place to be blippy and forget I flow on paper and can’t see your blocks. T is not framework. Framework is framework. Framework can tell me where/when to evaluate T. Framework is also overused.

Counterplans - are awesome if competitive or clever. I’m okay with theory debates, but blips are bad to be voted on. If you are ADVOCATING action or the BALLOT IS A SYMBOL, please, for the love of a patriarchal-diety, rewrite your perm blocks (on CP’s and K’s) or figure out the space/time implications of two things being “first”. If you haven’t thought this through, there is no reason for me to do the work for you.

Kritiks – are fine. I’ve never understood why in a world where disads don’t need counterplans necessarily we assume K’s need alts, but go ahead and argue it you like, but if your plan is a bad idea . . . it’s a bad idea. Especially if the K acts as a case turn. Or, we can chat about how alts in the shell are a pre-empt of the floating PIC args that were run as a response to the “real world example” being used as offense in the rebuttal after being a neg block answer to the 2AC “utopian” arg, back in the day . . . yeah, I’m an OLD k debater. Stop whining and debate.

Although, some k's actually require an alt of some kind (even "reject"), so know your arg's and evaluate what the best way to actually deploy the argument is.

Disads – The probability of winning on a disad in front of me increases with better evidence. The magnitude of by how much you crush your opponent with this arg is increased with a clear story supported by this ev, or their lack of allocating a proper timeframe in their speeches to respond to you. I find disads often need good story-tellers for internal-links and better debaters who can actually articulate evidence comparisons rather than hoping for me to call for cards after the debate. It is BAD when we have to call for cards, got it? It means your speaking was insufficient AND you think it's okay to debate in such a way that it takes me longer to make a decision, making the day longer for everyone.

Prep Time: Don't steal it. If you need the restroom, go DURING prep (yours, someone else's, the 2nc if you're the 1NR). Your free potty breaks make rounds take longer. I'm starting your prep whether you are or not. Talking to your partner is prep. Stacking tubs is not, so do it quickly.

Paperless: Use common sense. I will intervene when you seem to have lost your senses.

Speaker Points:
Dress as a dancing nuclear missile high-kicking to Europe's "Final Countdown", and you will get a 30/100. Nuclear missile costume must be high quality. High-kicks must be on tempo. Larger apocalyptic set materials not necessary.

Incorporating "99 Red Balloons" with DeAlerting will only receive similar credit if both German and English lyrics are involved.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Joe Keeton

Judging Philosophy
Update January 2010.

For the past year I have been managing a private company in preparation to assume full ownership and the experience has given me a greater respect for certainty of outcome and how these philosophies relate.

My background: I starting debating as a college novice on the SE Asia topic (1997) and have been involved with a HS or College Rez ever since. My high school never had a policy debate program but debate has been a part of my life ever since I found out it existed. I left academics after receiving my bachelors because I wanted to get out of the bubble that characterized my experience and so debate was something I did outside of the 9-5 corporate hours.

For the record (because people have requested it): I debated for the University of Richmond 1997-2001 (Lisa Heller & Jason Stone each for 2 years as head coaches). I’ve coached high school debate at Miami Beach FL High 2001-2002, The Bronx High School of Science 2003-2005 and Jenkintown PA High 2006. I’ve coached college debate with the New York Coalition 2006-2009, and I now work with West GA 2009 – present.

Approach to the round: I come into each round expecting to flow as best I can both sides. I want to make my decision on what was said during the speeches and will often default to how cards are characterized and impacted during the speech instead of reading them after. I do pay attention and try to spot inconsistencies in arguments made between positions during the round. The single most important thing for you to constantly explain is why whatever argument you go for should win you the round, if I had to pick one thing to say.

Aff: I’m looking to be able to draw a straight line from the 2ac-1ar-2ar, and dislike a 1ar that goes off the reservation set up by the 2ac. I reserve the right to unilaterally protect the 2nr by excluding “new” 2ar argumentation but I can appreciate a well articulated 2ar. Beyond a failure to constantly extend argumentation I find an aff will lose because they often concede way too much, often by way of non-response, and/or they don’t maximize any concessions the neg has given them.

You run a straight up policy aff/k aff with plan text: Remember I debated in the D7/ADA in the late 90s when T is a voter and the K must be unique were in the rules. I may not have agreed with all these rules but it certainly gives me experience in dealing with affs that claim extinction scenarios, have to defend topicality, and value consequentalism as a core value. If both sides default to policy argumentation and neither side gives me a criteria to evaluate the round I will probably default to an offense/defense mentality but would much rather use criteria introduced by the teams during the round. I’m also a big fan of a well timed impact turn and affs that can make strategic concessions and still outweigh.

You read a K aff without plan text/do other stuff: I would say that the more your project relates to the topic the more confident you should feel in front of me. I happen to really enjoy nuclear weapons as a topic and believe they can be a focal point for a lot of criticism that has a literature base. If many of the cards you do read in both constructives reference nukes or some aspect of their being then I’m likely to be more receptive then if you project moves toward other topics and your responses become very specific for what you are doing but generic in relation to the topic. I think the aff gets a chance to explain what they are doing before I vote. So for example if there is no plan text, sock puppets, musical instruments, k’s of debate or something else project you want to engage in while you are aff whether I vote for you depends on how directly you handle the negatives attacks and explain how and why your project should wins you the round.

Evidence vs. Analytics: This is very much contingent on the round. I’ve judged rounds where I thought the 2ac would need to read 50+ cards to beat the 1nc, and I’ve listened to negative positions where, imo, a couple of on-point analytics with historical examples, well developed logic, or well articulated clarification would be enough. Often how much weight I put into analytics in deciding the round is a function of how well it’s extended, explained, and defended from any opposition refutation in final rebuttals. I’m very favorable to someone who can explain why the evidence says what it says.

Reading cards in the round: There is definitely a point of diminishing returns for teams that just read evidence. I only need so much evidence to establish an argument and would caution against just reading cards and providing no context for how it relates to the debate at hand.

Asking me to read cards after the round: I will call for cards but my pre-disposition is to do so as sparingly as possible. I prefer to default to the debaters to explain what the card says and how it relates to the debate and will default to that analysis if it’s provided. Keep in mind, if I do call for evidence at the end of the round I’m either looking to accept it or reject it and I reserve the right to look at the card in its entire context. I have voted against teams because their arguments were not supported by their evidence before.

Negative: Overall I’d recommend you tailor your strategy as specifically as possible to the affirmative. Beyond that I’ll listen to any argumentation you offer and how well you extend and explain why your positions should win the round will form my opinion of the round.

Disads: I can assign a disad zero risk. Some things that can lead to that outcome: if an argument is just extended in the 2nr without any impact calculus, if you drop aff responses, or if the argument is just incomprehensible.

I am part of the cult of uniqueness, as I’ve found it to be called.

Also I will vote on disads that do not end in extinction. That’s not to say if the aff sets the framework to impact level and solves multiple extinction scenarios that I’m going to vote on your single, less then extinction, argument but I think plenty of reasons exist for why a policy should be rejected that don’t end in extinction that can be articulated.

T: I really view T more like an evidentiary hearing in a civil or criminal case. I’m interested in the aff at hand and not as interested in how an interpretation might affect debate as a whole. To evaluate T I will likely call for any definitions read, plan text, and my flow. I would generally say that I side aff as the year develops. I’m more likely to vote on a violation that is specific to the affirmative instead of a generic violation applied to the affirmative.

Theory: People will probably say I don’t vote on theory nor am I a big fan and they are right. If you want me to vote on it I’d suggest two things. 1. Tailor your theory arguments as specifically to the round at hand as possible. 2. If you think the theory arg should be a reason the other team loses the round, as opposed to a reason to reject a position in the round, you should be upfront about that from the start with warrants.

I’ve had conversations where someone has defended the idea that there is no distinction between 1 conditional argument and 6 (random #) conditional argument(s), I disagree. A negative that runs 3 conditional cps a k and impact turns case is much different than a negative that runs and cp and k in the 1nc.

Lastly I must confess that I am 3-0 including being on the bottom of two out-round panels in the following scenario. Team A makes theory argument and predicts what team b will do in the next speech. In that next speech team b does exactly what team A says obviously to being called out in the prior speech.

Aspec/Ospec – You should know I have a pretty high threshold for the following logic – Because the of affirmative plan text we can’t read an argument (which we may not even have) because the affirmative could make a clarification denying us the ability to ever get a link. There used to be a time when negatives would read their argument, wait for the aff to re-clarify out of the links, and then respond in the block.

Vagueness/Plan flaws – Much more receptive when the affirmative attempts to avoid taking positions or has written their plan with an obvious flaw.

K: In a conversation earlier this year I heard the following quote “I can take in and appreciate a k round, esp. a good k round, but that doesn’t mean I want season tickets nor does it mean that I want to see the wildest and most eccentric because I don’t always know what to do.”

If you do want to run a K I would say the more specific you can tailor your arguments to the affirmative the better you’ll be. That said I’ve seen a number of very good debaters respond very poorly to critical argumentation. I have spent time reading K literature in an attempt to better understand it on its terms but don’t assume I support everything I’ve read. I have coached a number of k teams and will vote on the arguments. How the other team links and why the argument should win the round are the two most important questions to be answered.

Two scenarios I’ve observed 1) I’ve seen a number of debaters who will drop a lot of buzzwords and shallow explanations and expect the judge to fill in a lot of assumed by unstated assumptions about arguments and 2) teams will run ridiculously complicated theories figuring that the judge will go along with them because people fear having to say they just don’t comprehend certain arguments. I’m not looking to replicate either of those two scenarios.

Lastly speaker points. I’ve found formulating a process to assign speaker points arbitrary and inconsistent and believe that debaters are the guinea pigs in experiments between 30 & 100 point scales with other variations depending on the tournament. I’ll say that I’m willing to consider input given by debaters during the round when I formulate speaker points. Let’s be clear I’m probably looking for more then you telling me to give you perfect speaks because it would be great for you, but if you want to provide a range or offer an honest assessment of your performance in the round and how I should rank you, I’ll consider what you say when forming my opinion. You don’t have to if you don’t want to I’ll continue to generate points on my own but consider the invitation open.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Amber Kelsie

Amber Kelsie
Debated at Oak Ridge High School, Dartmouth College
2 years as Director of Debate, New School University / Coach at Columbia
Currently Assistant Coach for Pitt

I don’t like writing philosophies. The way I see debate varies from moment to moment. I probably see it as a game of strategy mixed with ethical (or not ethical) implications. I believe that one potential value of debate is that political strategies or non-strategies can be explored and “tested” by pushing their logical limits, and at the end of the round I endorse one. I don’t even know what that actually means – you tell me. Like everyone else, I enjoy really clever debates. I value boldness. I’m open to just about whatever argument as long as you have a reason for it and it’s not grossly disrespectful. Just tell me what I’m voting for and why.

FLOWING/STYLES - I flow pretty well, but generally I judge debates according to the holistic interaction of arguments rather than purely line by line, especially when it seems that one side has intentionally broken away from a line by line debate style. I am open to arguments about why speed or line by line debate is bad and should be rejected, but that doesn’t mean I’ll automatically vote for this. It just seems to me that everyone should be able to defend what they do in debate and why. You can do whatever you do however you do it. I appreciate passion.

EVIDENCE/ARGUMENTS - I think arguments need to be clearly warranted. Extending evidence alone is not warranting. Defense can win, and sometimes there just is no link. I place a great deal of value on analytic arguments. That is, I believe it’s possible to win a debate without any carded evidence (that said, some things require evidence, especially if you are making claims of facticity). I prefer one good long card to a bunch of short crappy cards. If you use other types of evidence, such as music, narratives, etc. I will actually flow the content of your evidence as I would a card. It bothers me that other judges don’t see the importance of this. By the same token, it bothers me when teams don’t “extend” these forms of evidence, or impact them or explain their warrants. Why’d you read it then and why get upset when no one in debate values it?

AFFIRMATIVES – I don’t care what kind of AFF you have, other than that I believe AFF’s should be topical. I ran a lot of “performance” or “critical” style AFFs when I debated and am very amenable to them. That is to say, I do not think you have to have a plan text, or that your advocacy has to be read/interpreted normatively, but I generally believe you should talk about the topic. If you don’t, or you decide to be “anti-topical” I’m more than welcome to hear why that’s the case, but you should know that smart responsive arguments (example– frameworks structured as disads to performances) as to why it’s probably preferable to engage the topic in some way are very persuasive to me. Other than that I don’t think I have too much to say about the AFF, you can do whatever you want, how you want.

TOPICALITY – I’ll listen to and vote on T. But I tend to get annoyed by how it’s run, especially when people are just running it to do so. Probably if you’re running tons of T’s you could be doing something else like debating. I don’t think ground is a good standard to evaluate T because what we consider valuable ground depends on how you interpret the topic. Limits are better because it pertains to who and why we allow certain arguments or forms of arguments and not others, in which questions of predictable ground make sense. I vote on Kritiks of T, but I need a clear impact analysis as to why it’s more important to avoid the impacts you outline, than the unfairness, blagh, blagh argued by the neg. The AFF probably needs to actively engage the substance of the T in order to win that type of impact calculus.

FRAMEWORK – I cannot imagine myself voting for framework which totally excluded either policy or kritiks (especially on the neg). Kritik alternatives imply particular frameworks that are beyond just the alternative text. In so-called Clash of Civilization debates I tend to see framework as a disad to the performance, whereas T’s are usually more procedural. In the CoC’s, debaters often fail to explain how to evaluate framework. You would do well to explain this to me.

KRITIKS – I have a high burden for kritik explanation probably because kritiks are usually ambiguous and not mutually agreed upon, and because I debated them a lot. I do understand a lot of kritik literature, and really really enjoy good kritik debates. I view kritiks as disads with “counter-plans” attached, so not all kritiks require an alternative, but if not I need clear reasons (impacts) to “reject.” I don’t think Kritiks have to have clear written alternative texts.

CPs/Disads/Theory – CPs/DAs are totally fine and I like them a lot. You should spend time explaining your internal links. Stories are important for me. Counterplans have to be competitive. PIC’s are probably good. Consult CP’s are probably not. I generally don’t like theory. If you debate it I need you to slow down. I’m hard pressed to vote against a team on a perm voter. I don’t think A-spec, vagueness arguments, moving target arguments, are generally worthwhile, unless a team doesn’t have a stable plan/advocacy text.

EXTRA STUFF – I think the “clash of civilizations” thing could for the most part be overcome if both sides thought more deeply about the logics our jargon is supposed to represent and how arguments interact.

It bothers me when people mis-appropriate/-represent stories of slavery or the civil rights movement.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

John Koch

Name: John Koch

Current School Affiliation: Wayne State University (Graduate Teaching Assistant)

CEDA/NDT Experience: Debated for 4 years (Capital University)
Assistant Coach for 2 years (Capital University)

Number of Years Judging: 3

***Updated for John Carroll University Tournament 12/3/2009***

Even though I am still relatively young, I somehow picked up the reputation last year as being an “old school” judge. If given a choice, it is true that I would prefer to judge a case versus CP/DA debate. However, this does not mean that I am unwilling to vote for a Kritik.

What it does mean though is that in order to win your K you will need to be able to clearly explain it. It would help your cause if your K functioned like a CP/DA. Since I enjoy debate about competing policy options, I am most likely to be persuaded by a K that links to the specific action of the plan. In short, if you are a good K debater, you can explain your K, your K has specific links, and it functions like a CP/DA; you will be fine with me in the back of the room. If not, and be brutally honest with yourself here, then you should probably strike me or run something else in the round.

In theory, I try my best to keep my biases out of the round. Basically, I think debate theory is up for debate as long as you can clearly explain the violation, what standards I should use to evaluate the argument, and why it warrants a ballot for your team. I would say that if you are going for a T/theory argument in front of me, you should dedicate a considerable amount of time to it in your final speech.

Finally, and this may be most important, I cannot overemphasis the importance of the 2NR and 2AR. If you execute these speeches well, then you make it very easy for me to evaluate the round. If your 2R style is the same as your 2C style, and you are not collapsing the debate down to the arguments you are winning and comparing them to the arguments that your opponent is winning, then you run the risk of having your opponent steal the round from you, or even worse, having me sort out the round for you. Bottom line, it is in your best interest in your final rebuttal to tell me what you are winning and why it outweighs what your opponent is winning. If I have to read cards after the round and sort out the relative importance of arguments, one side will ultimately be unhappy with how I decide to do it, so do the decision calculus for me and make all of our lives easier.


Likes:

Well-constructed Affirmatives, CP's, DA's, case debate, K debates that are clearly explained to me and I can understand without reading tons of cards after the round, debaters who understand and can explain their arguments, strategic CX questions, those who treat their partner and the other team with respect, well-timed humor, pop culture references that are funny and help clarify an argument

Dislikes:

CP's that are not competitive, CP’s, K’s, and DA's that defy logic, debaters who do not understand the importance of timing in the art of humor, people who are disrespectful to their partner and the other team

This philosophy is a work in progress, so if you have any questions please feel free to ask me before rounds.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Pete Krein

peter krein James Madison University
Volenteer Coach Years Coaching 5ish
5 tournaments this year
I will do my best to adjudicate any type of debate that unfolds in front of me. However, I
dont make any promises.
No, really. Thats the important part. I was a 'contain china' kind of debater. I like
depression good, prolif good and a good PIC. I dont understand all of the critical
arguments that are out there, but Ill try my best to understand them. Help me help you
and explain your link and framework arguments and IMPACT them.
Dont be rude, dont interrupt your partner and dont assume I know what you mean,
because we all know what that makes you and me. Be funny, be engaging and don’t
forget this is a learning activity and a communication activity.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Kevin Kuswa

Argumentation over repetition. Explanation over jargon. This is not a judge philosophy as much as it is a place to preface the beginning of a debate. I thought about dividing my comments into various positions: counterplans, topicality, case debate, etc. That type of division will not help to explain the three things I want to emphasize. 1. Qualifications on authors and evidence are fruitful locations for debate—what constitutes a qualification is, like everything else, open to debate—so let’s hear it. We know all evidence is not the same, yet much of the time in the speeches is devoted to reading it. What are the distinctions and why do they matter? 2. I do not read many cards after the round—often none. If there is a card or three that warrants another look, specify what and why. Excessive highlighting cannot always be ignored…objectivity is a utopian practice so you should expect subjective, yet hopefully balanced, evaluation of the arguments. 3. I do not have a preference for or against speed, although I do have a preference in favor of comprehensibility. Examples and warrants are usually more compelling than tags and crypticism. Enjoy—humor never hurts. Kevin

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Adam R. Lee

Adam "ARLee" Lee

Rounds on the topic: 13 as of march 09
Former debater at the University of Texas, former coach at the University of Rochester, currently coaching at the University of Richmond.

I’ve done some minor editing of the same judging philosophy I’ve used for years and years.

General Warnings

I hate writing judging philosophies, because invariably debaters scan
them, focus on one or two seeming idiosyncrasies, and unfortunately
deviate from what they would normally do in an attempt to satisfy the
judge. The result is usually that you debate worse and I am more unhappy
than I would have been if you had just been yourself and not tried to
please me (which oddly tends to be the same thing that happens in
romantic relationships but I digress). The essence of my judging
philosophy is that my personal preferences be reduced to nothing and I
adjudicate the round as you would like me to, justifying why that it is
a preferable method to any other method proposed by the other team. The
pimento in that proverbial loaf of bologna (I have no idea, it just came
to me) is that YOU MUST WIN, which is best done through impact analysis.
Absent impact analysis, I will unfortunately be forced to see things the
way I do rather than how you would prefer me to see them.

Personal Warnings

I've judged about 30 rounds in the last four years. I coach and judge very rarely, when I’m not being an attorney in Maine. I can still flow. However, my time not being involved full-time
in the activity provides me a level of comfort in admitting that I (and
I'd venture to say EVERY judge whether they'd admit or not) miss
arguments from time to time. My distance from the activity has also
made me understand that putting your head down and giving a 2nr or 2ar
that sounds like a 1ar is a pretty bad idea in front of me.

I know a lot about agricultural and environmental tax subsidies, I worked for the Environmental Tax Policy Institute while in Law School. I do not, however, know that much about what the community has chosen to do about the topic. This means you should not assume I know an acronym you’re talking about. It means also that you should be working your hardest, as I told you above, to make me see things the way you want me to see them, because I do have formed opinions and knowledge of the things you’ll be yapping about.


The Arguments

Topicality: It is about competing interpretations unless you convince me
why I should see otherwise. Your interpretation should have net
benefits; I feel that the limits debate (either way) usually makes a
pretty good one. My senior year I went for T in about 50% of my 2NR's,
of course that was Indian Country and no affs were topical. Also, I
think that "kritikal affs" that say you don't have to be topical or
criticize Topicality as genocidal are being lazy. (preface: this next
sentence may come off with a certain "back in my day tone) My partner
and I ran an ironic affirmative on the Africa Topic, of course many
people went for T, we beat the vast majority of those teams because we
had a smart counter-interpretation. The topic does not constrain
creativity, being topical doesn't either. If the neg's interpretation
precludes creativity...doesn't that seem like an argument against their
interpretation rather than the notion that one should be topical? To
presume that your aff is already excluded by the resolution is
silly...the resolution is a meaningless text only given meaning by being
debated...topicality debates are the opportunity to do that. Consider
the rant over, but what you should take away is I love good T debates as
rare as they are.

Theory: Sure, but I'd default to rejecting the argument and not the team
and tend to err negative on counterplan theory.


"Framework": I still do not get why people suddenly put this on a
separate sheet of paper. In essence, these turn into Extra-Topicality
arguments and/or a reason why your impacts outweigh the other team's. I
can understand that there is no such thing as fiat, neither I nor anyone
else is mistaking you for Harry Reid; however, that does not mean that there is no reason
to evaluate the consequences of what happens if the Federal Government
does something. Conversely, this does not mean that the ethical
ramifications or problematic presuppositions of ideas should not also be
discussed. I do not understand why in a debate round you cannot debate
both of them. When my friends and I are sitting around actualizing our
agency and whatnot, we talk about what congress is doing and what
effects their actions will have, while at the same time being aware that
we're not capable of immediately affecting it and that in the process we
may be deluding ourselves to some negative end. Nevertheless, whatever
you wanna do, do (hehe I just said doodoo) it, I'm more than willing to
vote for you if you win the argument.

Disads: I went for a lot of kritik arguments when I was a debater, don’t be fooled, I really enjoy and understand Disad debates. Uniqueness is important, but not determinative. Yes,
it's hard to win zero risk of the disad, but propensity is as important
(your job to debate this) if not more important (again, I'll leave that
to you all in the debate) than magnitude. I hope to see elections disads this week, I hope they’re creative, interesting, well though out and well debated, I hope the turns are as well.

Counterplans: They're great.

Kritiks: Great, this was the other 50% of my senior year 2nrs. I love it
when you make your links specific to the aff (sometimes well done by
making arguments on the case debate) and articulate more than just some
ethereal concept as the alternative (however i will vote negative for a
well articulated reason that the kritik argument turns case). When you
do not do this, the Permutation often looks very attractive to me. In
addition, it pays to read "disads" to the permutation and for the aff to
read "disads" to the alt that do not link to the permutation. These are
things I remember that used to end up deciding most kritik debates for
me.

Performance: Sure, but as with anything tell me why your ideas are
better than the other team's. I'm not really cool with, I read a
poem...it was about potato bugs of the East Antilles...poems are
good...I win. I think that diversity of both people and argument are
good things, but I do not think that because you read something before
the other team does, you win. Debate is about debating ideas; I do not
care HOW you debate those ideas so long as you do so and do so better
than the other team.

Case Debate: If I had my way, this is, particularly on this year’s topic, all that there would be, but I
understand that it would put you, as the negative, at a great
disadvantage. There's no excuse for not at least having something
specific to case.

Other stuff

Do not be a jerk to the other team or your partner, I love a little well
placed trash talking or humor, but do not be a jerk.
Do not steal prep time.
DO NOT under ANY circumstances, hand me evidence for which I have not
asked! You WILL lose speaker points and I reserve the right to eat,
pee-on or crumple your evidence.


Most of the time i'm pretty nice, so ask me any questions you may have.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Joel Lemuel


General Philosophy

I debated for 4 years at Georgia State University, and this will be my second year judging in college. When I debated I went for all sorts of arguments, straight up and critical. Earlier I went for more disads and later I went for more kritiks. My debate choices were made for strategic reasons and not ideological ones, so feel free to do your thing.

Topicality/Framework Issues

I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are IMPOSSIBLE to research.”

Kritiks

That said, I would say I am more friendly to critical arguments than most judges, but that also means I require a higher level of explanation and depth for those arguments. For instance, it is not sufficient to argue that the aff’s reps/epistemology/ontology/whatever is bad and these questions come first. You have to tell me in what way the aff’s methodology is flawed and how exactly would this result in flawed thinking/policy/ect. Unlike disads, individual links to kritiks have to have impacts to be meaningful. In general, I think people read too many cards when running kritiks at the expense of doing a lot textual and comparative work.

Theory

I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. In general, I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it.

I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 27.

Disads and all that jazz

I find that in too many debates people read a lot of disads with a lot of impacts thinking the quantity of arguments will win them debate. I think your time would be better spent reading a few less impacts and giving a more deep and warranted (maybe even evidenced) comparison of your impacts to the ones you think the other team is winning. That’s not to say that I hate judging big debates, they just tend to be messier and careful comparison of arguments is sacrificed for coverage. Quality beats quantity any day of the week.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Janice Li

Janice Li - NYU/CUNY/NY Coalition/etc.

Judging Philosophy (Oct 09)

09-10 Nuclear Topic: If you are reading this and I am judging you at Richmond, keep in mind that I haven't watched/participated in a single debate in eight months. Pretend like I have little to no knowledge of this topic. Explain your affirmatives clearly (what does it DO). Don't just use catchphrases ("No First Use!") and expect me to understand them the way you do.

- - -

I debated NYU for the last two years (Middle East and ag subsidies topics), mostly JV level. I will flow. No. I LIKE to flow.

I like almost everything (performance to policy and everything that falls outside/inside of that). I have a great respect for debate itself, so be nice, especially in c-x. Just explain your arguments well and with logical steps. Don't assume that I'll follow your line of logic. Like everyone else, I don't like judge intervention, so if there's a dropped arg in the 1AR, it's the 2NR's job to point that out and say why it matters, not for me to do the work and vote on it because it might've been dropped.

I don't have a "soft spot" for any particular arg (not like I'd tell you anyway!). Please don't make any assumptions (e.g. explain why topicality is important, don't just say "extend voter's for fairness and education" in 2NR and expect me to vote on that). If you're down, I looove clever ways that people find when they get spread out. Bonus speaker points right there. In the end, make good arguments and have fun.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Scott Luchetti

Name: Scott Luchetti
Affiliation: University of Richmond
Position: Asst. Coach
Years Coaching: 6

There are those judges out there that are critical-friendly in front of whom you know it is not only safe, but maybe even a good idea to be critical. There are also judges out there that you know are policy oriented, in front of whom you generally want to avoid being critical. I would consider myself mostly in this second category. I wouldn't say that I am predisposed against critiques, and critical affirmatives, but my default framework is that of a policy-maker. Now, that said, I'm more than happy to listen to a completely critical affirmative as long as your debating takes me out of that default framework and explains why I should evaluate you in an alternative critical framework. Without that I would have no idea how to evaluate the round - it's only fair to me, I think.

Style and Speed:

I'm not the greatest flow in the world, so if you are really fast, I'm not going to get it all unless you are extremely clear. I feel it's only fair for me to be up front about that so if you need to adjust, you can. Additionally if you choose to be critical in front of me, I generally think it's better to be a little slower and clearer on what can sometimes be complex issues. Of course if you think you can go full speed and still be effective in persuading me, more power to you. Just keep in mind it is YOUR job to convince me, not my job to figure out what you are talking about.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mike Maffie

Judge Philosophy: Mike Maffie
Debated 3 years at Miami of Ohio,
Second year judging.
1. I believe debate is a game, and it is easy to persuade me that the game should be fair. This should not dissuade debaters from making critical arguments when I’m judging, however, I will evaluate them as arguments to win a game, not as a life-changing event.
2. If I cannot flow an argument, I will give the other team significant amount of leeway when answering this argument later in the debate. Being clear will prevent this from being an issue.
Although I realize this may be impossible, I will attempt to judge every debate without any influence of my personal preferences. Run what you are comfortable with, but there are some important things to consider: 

Theory – Dispositionalty is probably good, conditionality less so. Contextualizing the reasons why these arguments are important in a debate (is there a reason why conditionality was worse in this debate than just a generic “conditionality bad” block?) will help you win these debates. 

Kritiks – I think the negative gets away with a lot of questionable argumentation just because they say some bumper-sticker phrases during K debates. Here are some things to consider if you want to go for a K when I'm judging:
1. "Do nothing" is not a very persuasive alternative. I don't much understand how I can endorse "doing nothing" and most likely think the negative is being shady in the debate. It's like offering a counter plan that says, "do something".
2. If the negative does not start making specific link arguments early and often, it is going to be tough for them to win the debate. Without reference to 1AC cards or claim will most likely result in the negative losing the debate. "You dropped root cause" is not an argument unless you have a coherent explanation of why you turn the aff.
3. The negative has to prove the alternative, at least, creates uniqueness for the link. I view an alternative much like a counter plan, if there is no explanation of why the counter plan solves the case, then I presume that it does not.
After a year of judging, I think I'm harder on the negative than I used to be regarding K debates, and probably more lenient regarding affirmative claims that "The case outweighs" when comparing the aff to the alternative.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Brian Manuel

My feelings about judging debates are pretty simple. I will not interject my own opinions about arguments into the debate. Feel free to run whatever you'd like, and I will give it an impartial viewing. I will, however, flag new 2ar arguments; I feel that there is only so much that can be allowed in the 2ar that hasn't been said early in the round.

Topicality- is always a voting issue. I believe that Topicality comes before everything in the debate. If left to intervene, I tend to vote that way first. Interpretations should be realistic and grounded in the literature. I think out debating a team on Topicality isn’t as beneficial as being on the right side of a ground/abuse debate. I usually err affirmative when deciding these debates and that should be taken into account when debating in front of me.

Counterplans- I think they are great to judge the desirability of the affirmative plan. I believe that it is the affirmatives burden to prove that their plan is better than the status quo and any and all competitive policy options. Conditionality is always good, but I haven't heard many good theory debates; that does not mean that I won't vote on why theory issues are "bad" or "good". I will assume that presumption on these issues lies with the negative. I truly enjoy listening to PICS, as I think they are the strategic way to run counterplans. I don't like Consult CPs, as most negatives are unable to prove competitiveness. However, affirmatives rarely make that argument, so feel free to run Consult CPs.

DA's- Love them. I believe they must be unique and have a SPECIFIC link. I am not interested in hearing DA's that have general links irrelevant to the specificity of the debate happening in front of me. At this level of debate - links that are specific to affirmatives should be a priority in front of me. Running generic link stories open you up for numerous cheap shot answers on the uniqueness level, such as Aid Now and Influence Now. For the aff I am also of the school of thought that uniqueness overwhelms the link answers only destroy the uniqueness for your link turns while still giving them uniqueness for their DA. I tend to be more interested in politics debates than most people. Every week I tend to have the responsibility of cutting the politics updates for my team so I am up on nearly every issue. This could be detrimental since I know what is going on it is a lot harder to win with some of the link stories that teams try to run. Basically I can smell the bullsh**t.

CRITIQUES- There must be a reason to reject the affirmative. Negatives can't simply say that they did something good; they must prove the affirmative definitively prohibits that from occurring. Also you must prove that the impacts of the criticism outweigh the impacts of the case. Even though you inform me that plan never passes it still doesn't make the good things of the case disappear. I always believe even in the world simulations - the affirmative usually gets to weigh the case at all time. When running a criticism you should give the affirmative the benefit that they at least get the beneficial result they want. I think the more grounded your link arguments are within the affirmative are better to make your point than general states/development link categories that are resolutionally bound. Finally, I believe all criticisms should have some sort of stable alternative, not necessarily that it is a policy option, but something concrete enough for an affirmative to be able to garner offense against. If they so choose to. I have found myself judging a lot of critical debates this year and tend to vote negative in these debates more due to lack of affirmative refutation against these arguments rather than the strength of the negative position itself.

Impact Analysis - Should start early and often. I believe the affirmative should start their impact analysis in the 2AC describing how the case impacts outweigh DA's for X reason. The negative should start their analysis in the 2NC. It should be included in an overview somewhere. Many times I have seen teams leave it till they get to the impact level of the argument and then brush over it or never cover it. As you wait longer in the round to start your impact analysis the less weight I begin to give to your arguments when I'm making my decision. If your waiting till the 2AR to start I would suggest not doing it since maybe you might get me to think you said something, but if you make a big deal about it in the 2AR I will tend to recognize that and will not evaluate it. A side note on this - more and more I have tended to notice that impact comparisons within the debate are very superficial in terms of magnitude, timeframe, probability...these words mean nothing to me. I'd like to hear in depth discussions of how impacts interact with each other in debates. Every time a neg wins a DA they assume that the Aff has gone away...this is not true. I'd like to hear a lot more "even if" statements than statements of fact on the impact level. I'd advise you to assume a world that the aff/neg will win a minimal risk of their impact and start the debate there than to start the impact debate thinking it exists as all or nothing.

Miscellaneous- I am a very laid back judge. I will read very limited evidence in the round. I tend to base my decisions heavily on argument construction based on the debate in front of me, rather than the argumentation specific pieces of evidence make for you. I know I don't seem to go with the current trend in debate, which is to read as much evidence as possible and just let the judges sort it out afterwards. I'm pretty meticulous on the arguments I call for and mainly they are asked for to allow me to make distinctions between competing claims. Besides that I enjoy humor, I think with the stress that goes on during a tournament their needs to be some laughter in the rounds to release some of that tension. For the most part I want all the debaters to have fun and enjoy their debating experience. I expect the highest level of professionalism in debates while at the same time trying to stay relaxed. I love winning as much as the next person, but realize it shouldn’t be your only goal in the activity.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

David Marquardt

David Marquardt debated for Richmond for 4 years.

"I have personal biases on a number of arguments and theoretical positions, but am open to a wide range of styles, arguments and strategies. As a debated I always preferred critical argument however if you use them make sure the explanations are clear (I haven’t read a ton of critical theory, so don’t assume I understand it). Be especially careful with vocabulary or philosophical terms (e.g. the word “subject” means different things in different contexts). I won’t vote on anything I can’t understand, but if you can get me to understand, by all means go for it.

Important Exception: Don't rely on cards and evidence to win the round; debate is an act of processing and linking different argument/thoughts/ideas in a logical way. Therefore, I will always weigh well articulated insights more favorably than a debater who tells me to extend cards but doesn't elaborate on why I should care about them.

Despite my critical leanings I will default to policymaking and/or stock issues if that seems to be the assumption the teams I’m watching are making. I will vote on Topicality if and only if I'm persuaded in round abuse exists.

I depend on my flow to evaluate debates. I don’t get every cite initially when I flow, but I listen carefully for references to specific cites, especially in the rebuttals. That said, I don’t think “cross apply Marquardt ’09” is an argument. “Marquardt ’09 says fertility is high now so the turns aren’t unique” is much better. I do like debates about evidence qualifications, and don’t see enough of them.

I pay attention to CX. I don’t flow it, per se, but if you say something in CX I will hold you to it unless there was a misunderstanding or something. It’s OK if there are more than two participants in CX, but not at the same time, and please don’t marginalize your partner.

I like clear debates (fast or slow)—though maybe you should slow down a little for analytical/theory/critical arguments as those can be harder to flow."



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mylinda McDaniel

When judging a debate my philosophy is fairly straight forward, however, there are a few things that teams should keep in mind if I am the judge.

•I hate generic topicality arguments. For instance, if the negative runs a definitional argument that states the affirmative does not fully overrule based on some definition found in a dictionary, in my mind all that the affirmative has to do is either read a card or an analytic with a counter definition, topicality will probably go in favor of the affirmative. I understand that some teams like to run topicality; I just ask you try to limit it to when there is an actual violation or at the very least do your best to tailor it to the affirmatives arguments.

•Because I am still fairly new at this clear explanations, and clear speaking is very important. Speed reading is fine so long as the taglines and authors are read at an audible speed. If I can’t understand what you are saying I probably won’t flow it which means I probably won’t take it into account in my evaluation. If you can keep the flow clean, its all the better. Moreover, I don’t care what kind of arguments you run so long as your links and stories are absolutely clear.

•If you make any derogatory comments or are rude to me or your opponents your speaker points will take a ubstantial drop.

Ultimately, be clear, be nice and have fun.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nathanael Milton

I debated for 4 years in high school and 3 years at Liberty University. Generally speaking, I leans more towards a policy oriented philosophy, but do my best to allow the debaters to persuade me how I should evaluate the round. I try to be as open as possible to alternative argument styles, but admit that I do not find things such as dancing around and reading poetry to be overly persuasive. If no other criteria is presented for me to evaluate the round with, I will default policy maker, meaning I will weigh the impacts that the case solves for against the risk of any impacts the case might cause. In front of me, it is helpful for debaters to make every argument
I have included my some of my thoughts on some specific types of arguments to help as much as possible. I use "generally" alot because while this is what I think, I do my best to not allow my personal opinion on these arguments influence my decisions in rounds. However, if the right arguments are made, I "generally" find these to be the most persuasive.
Topicality: I generally believe that competing interpretations is the best way to evaluate topicality, but am open to other arguements. I believe that topicality is a voting issue to preserve fairness in the debate round, and that it is NOT a reverse voting issue.

Counter Plans: CP's are fine with me. Conditional, dispositional, whatever, as long as you're able to defend the theory. Generally, for me to vote on Aff. on theory, there needs to be some pretty clear abuse (which I would say would be easier to do with conditional cp's, dispo is pretty fair in my opinion)

Dispo- for clarification, to me, a dispo CP means you can kick the CP only if the Aff makes a PERM or makes a theoretical objection to it.

Kritiks: You can run a K in front of me, I will warn you, however, I don't find many of them very persuasive. Also, you should know what you're talking about if you run one. Impact analysis is still needed.

When in doubt: "Make with the good debating, not the bad debating."

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

John Nagy

John Nagy—Judging Philosophy

About me—Assistant Director of Debate @ Liberty University
Background—debated at University of Mary Washington

Debates judged on this topic—43

What you really need to know—I like policy debate. By this, I mean evaluating a topical affirmative against a competitive counterplan or the status quo. I like all disadvantages and most counterplans. Plans must be topical and topicality is never a reverse voting issue. The affirmative must read a plan text that they will defend. Case debates are awesome and greatly encouraged. Kritiks, performances of any type, or personal advocacy statements are not the best idea in front of me, on the affirmative or negative. “Not the best idea” = high probability that you will lose. I am a very expressive judge, so if you see me sighing, scowling, or listening to music while your speaking, that could be a hint that am not buying what your selling. And don’t even try to be funny. 99.9 % of in round humor totally flops. Just debate and maybe you’ll make me laugh inadvertently.

The Affirmative—you have to read a plan text that promotes a topical action, using the actor specified in the resolution. And you should defend the actions specified in the plan text.

Kritiks/Performance—not a fan of it. I agree that there are some aspects of the game that need to be reformed, but that doesn’t require taking a wrecking ball to the whole activity. Yes, I know that fiat doesn’t exist, and I don’t care. Policy debate is an intellectual game that prepares us for many endeavors in the real world. Please don’t waste your or my time by making “policy debate bad” arguments, because I think they are misguided, to put it politely. If you still insist on running a critical argument, then at least have a real world policy alternative to the criticism. And “moving away from X,” or “reevaluating Y,” or “imagining away Z,” is not such an alternative. And I wouldn’t recommend morphing the alternative into something totally different in the 2NC. All the affirmative would have to utter is “floating PIC’s bad,” and you’re probably dead in the water.

Topicality—it’s always a voting issue and is never a reverse voting issue. Topicality is not genocidal, homicidal, or suicidal. The affirmative need not have to present an alternate interpretation if they can prove that the negative’s interpretation alone is undesirable.

Counterplans—I am quite biased towards the negative on CP theory. Conditionality and plan inclusive CP’s are fine and encouraged. But the negative only gets one CP. It’s better to spend your precious speech time beating the CP/net benefits instead of whining to me about how “unfair” the CP is. And articulating nebulous permutations that morph into “do the CP” in the 1AR.

General Notes—

--I try and go off the flow as much as possible. If it wasn’t in the 2NR/2AR, I won’t evaluate it. New 2NR/2AR arguments will be identified and ignored.

--I really disdain asking for cards after a debate. Most debaters have substituted evidence analysis for “read the card after the round.” Analyzing the quality and accuracy of the evidence in the round in your job, not mine. But if you make if my job, chances are you may not like the results. If there is a genuine debate over the meaning/quality of a piece of evidence, then I will probably evaluate the accuracy of either side’s claims.

--Try and keep the debate as organized on the flow as possible. For example, don’t read fifteen straight cards in the 2NC on the disadvantage and not tell me where to put them. It’s sloppy debating and promotes judging confusion. And judging confusion = decisions you probably really won’t like.

--Pause for a moment between cards. Or give me a verbal signal like “and” between cards. It also wouldn’t hurt to slow down a tad bit for the tags. Motoring through cards without pause or any hint of the tags or authors will not be good for your speaker points as well.

--Go as fast as you want, but if I have to yell “clear” more than once then your speaker points will suffer. It means nothing to get out 47 arguments if your judges could only flow 30 of them.


Ranting on the topic—

--I like capitalism and disdain cap bad arguments.

--If you have the capability to run a politics DA in front of me, you probably should.
--Case specific DA’s = really want to hear them.
--Just for the record—I will vote for a kritik if the 2AC puts three answers on it or really botches answering it, which seems to be happening quite often in front of me lately.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tim ODonnell

Name: Timothy M. O’Donnell Institution: University of Mary Washington


Position: Director of Debate Years coaching: a lot



Number of debates judged this year: 31 debates (GSU, Richmond, Cap Cities, Wake, GMU, Navy)




My philosophy of debate:



Any good judging philosophy ought to begin with the acknowledgement that one is NOT open to anything and that all judges intervene in a variety of ways. Quite frankly, I am sick and tired of judges who say: “I am open to anything.” A debate judge is never – has never been – and never should be – a neutral observer. Well, maybe in the 80’s (the good old days), when debate theory was relatively stable, one could claim to be “tabula rasa.” Right now, however, there is a war going on, we judges are on the frontlines, and the very future of policy debate as an educationally and competitively coherent activity hangs in the balance.



Does that mean judges aren’t capable of making decisions based upon the arguments that are made in debates? No, of course not. I’ll vote on the arguments that are made in debates. However, I am not tabula rasa (or at least increasingly less so) in the case of meta-arguments: arguments about arguments, or what we might call debate theory. Although I will have more to say about my increasingly nonnegotiable approach to debate theory below, the point I want to make here warrants a triple exclamation point!!! There is a real difference between the way I judge debates and the way some others seem to me to be judging debates recently. I am very unlikely to vote a particular way based upon: 1) my own political beliefs – whatever they may be, 2) the way my wife and I would resolve things around the dinner table, 3) the language that advocates use in debates (that is where speaker points come in), 4) etc.



I firmly believe that debate is one of the last places on earth where free and unfettered discourse is celebrated as an epistemological method. In my (now more mature/dogmatic) view, the critical/activist turn in competitive policy debate is a direct threat to this discursive laboratory. And so, the folks who say: “the ballot is a tool” are at least partially right. The ballot is a tool and I intend to use it to promote my view of what constitutes “good” debate. If we start debating about only things that we actually believe (i.e. that align with our sensibilities, attitudes, dispositions, convictions, and biases), the gig is up, the game is over, and debate—as a wonderful sphere of free and unfettered discourse—will forever vanish from this earth. At this point you might ask: “Tim, don’t you know that fiat is illusory!” My response, “Yeah, so what and no kidding! You aren’t telling me anything I don’t already know.” I never thought that the things that we talked about in debate had an impact beyond the discreet confines of a particular debate. I do, however, believe that the debate methodology has real value. And for that methodology to function properly, we need an agreed upon starting point. It is a simple fact that any social learning activity presumes that participants come to some agreement –in advance – about what they are going to talk about. The originating stasis point needs to be clear from the outset for both educational and competitive reasons. I have yet to hear a persuasive rejoinder to this claim from those that think that commensurability among the various approaches to debate is possible.



And thus—and this is the really key point—the question that I will answer at the end of the debate is: “Is the topical affirmative plan – the one presented in the 1AC – desirable relative to the status quo and/or any other competitive alternative?” If the answer is “yes,” I will vote affirmative. If the answer is “no,” I will vote negative. At this point, there isn’t much else to say—from my perspective, this should resolve most of the theoretical questions that you might like to ask me. However, (I am not shy about this) I want you to debate like I want you to debate. Hence, I continue…



How to debate theory in front of me: Theory debates revolve around two fundamental, and sometimes competing, values: education and competition. Debate is both an educational and a competitive game. Debaters who link their theory arguments to these values and assess the net gain or loss between these competing values are likely to be most successful in persuading me, in a particular instance, that I ought to error one way or another on a particular theoretical issue. Two (somewhat related) words of warning: 1) I can’t flow most theory debates very well; 2) I am very troubled by the proliferation of theory words with asserted voting issues that don’t rise to the level of an intelligible argument (see more about speaker points below). I am particularly frustrated by debates that eschew substantive discussion in favor of bad theory debates.



How to debate c/kritical arguments in front of me: Given what I said above, you might think that I don’t want to hear critiques. Maybe. I do think that most critical arguments miss their mark. Most of the time, they fail to prove that the plan is undesirable. This doesn’t mean that they aren’t useful as solvency arguments or disads. However, me sitting in the back of the room, the affirmative is only responsible for the unique increment of the link attributable to the plan. Thus, most of the time, for me at least, they don’t rise to the level of an offensive argument capable of proving that the plan is undesirable. Look, I have nothing against talking philosophy in debates. I was even a philosophy major as an undergraduate. It just seems to me that many critiquers want to “de-center” the question that we decided to talk about. Yes, we should examine our assumptions. However, for you and me to have a debate, we need to agree on a few things first. First and foremost, we need to agree on a topic for debate (that’s what is so cool about everyone voting for a debate topic at the beginning of the year, even if we don’t like the outcome). Second, we need to agree to bracket certain questions and agree about certain assumptions, so that we can have a debate. Once the question for debate starts to shift, the debate collapses. Finally, both sides need to defend some policy/course of action. The affirmative defends the plan (the topical one read in their 1AC). The negative defends the status quo or a competitive alternative. Kritik may be a verb, but it is not what I would consider a policy alternative that squares with my conception of competitive policy debate.



How to debate topicality in front of me: Is topicality a voting issue? YES, Of course it is!!! I am not interested in hearing debates about why topicality isn’t a voting issue and I cannot imagine myself voting for “T is not a voter.” However, that doesn’t mean I am not interested in hearing the negative explain why topicality is a voting issue. A series of words like “fairness, jurisdiction, ground, abuse, ADA rules, etc. is terribly unpersuasive.” Instead, I am more interested in tightly argued rationales like: “Topicality is a voting issue because if topicality weren’t a voting issue the affirmative would run whatever they want and the negative would be in debate hell.” What are topicality debates about? They are certainly not about in-round abuse. Whoever made that argument should have their license to debate topicality revoked. Topicality debates are about competing sets of affirmative cases. When we seek to answer the question “Is the affirmative plan topical?” we are asking if it is included in the set of cases that would produce the best sets of debates over a given year. A “best” set would be the set that maximizes (while balancing) the two fundamental debate values (see above).



How to debate counterplans in front of me: Plan-inclusive counterplans are the essence of “good” policy debate in my mind. I do not find the PICs bad arguments persuasive (funny how most of the affirmative’s examples of things that could happen, never do happen/don’t apply to the specific PIC in question). Conditional counterplans are fine. The negative’s job is to prove that the plan presented in the 1AC is undesirable. They can do this however many ways they want. However, the more ways they try to do this, the less I am likely to be persuaded that any one way does in fact prove that the plan is undesirable. Dispositionality means that the status quo is always a logical option for the judge. As a judge, I refuse to endorse a policy option that is less desirable than the status quo – which means that if the counterplan and the plan are both less desirable than the status quo – I am voting for the status quo. Presumption goes negative in the case of a tie. Permutations: I am open to most (although it seems like a severance permutation would violate the question (listed above) that I seek to answer at the end of the debate). Negative fiat: I am mostly persuaded that it ought to be limited to the agent specified in the resolution.



How to debate on the affirmative in front of me: I admit that I vote negative—a lot. I see no problem with voting negative. I have never understood why the negative seems to be held to a higher standard than the affirmative (i.e. one uniqueness argument beats a disad, while one solvency argument rarely beats a case). I think affirmatives should specify their agent. I don’t think they should write vague plans. I don’t think they should be able to hide behind “funding and enforcement guaranteed.” In my mind, those are critical questions that directly impact whether or not the plan is desirable. I do think they should know how much their plan will cost. I don’t think that most implementation mechanisms are “not/extra-topical.” If the affirmative wants to specify how and in what ways their plan is funded, that is fine with me.



Politics arguments: I am willing to say that we ought to continue with these arguments until we complete the transition to plan focused debate. However, I have in mind a future debate world in which we could agree to eschew these arguments. I will say that I am somewhat shocked at the affirmative’s seeming inability to beat these disads senseless by applying some of the critical thinking skills that debate ought to teach.




The role of evidence: I read fewer and fewer cards these days. I am likely to read cards that you flag as particularly important. Reading cards tends to be an interventionist activity. If I read your cards and they don’t say what you say they say, I am likely to consider that in my evaluation. I don’t get bent out of shape by debaters who paraphrase evidence. Heck – I wish people would paraphrase more. The last thing I need to hear is the Mead card read one more time. We could be more academic in our use of evidence sometimes. I am terribly annoyed by debaters who think that evidence is the time to turn on the jets. Good evidence should be read slower and clearer in a way that the warrants of the evidence can actually be flowed. I would like to hear more debates in which the quality of the evidence/authors is an issue. I don’t think you need evidence to make a lot of arguments – and debaters should do more of what Aristotle would call “invention.”



Some words about speaker points: 1) We judges need to develop a broad(er) range in our points. 2) Debaters ought to know what our points mean. 3) Speaker points ought to be adjusted for divisions. 4) .5 increments added for good debate citizenship. 5) .5 increments subtracted for lack of clarity, low ethos, overuse of the words: “voting issue.” 6) 1-2 points (based on the severity) subtracted for bad debate citizenship or offensive behavior/language. Thus (and I am still sorting this out a bit):



30 = The “best” debater that I expect to hear in a given year in a particular division (Similar to the A+ in my classes – rare, but not impossible. Such a speaker would make me say “WOW!”)



29.5 = The “best” debater that I expect to hear at a given tournament in a particular division – complete in all phases of the game.



29 = A very good debater who I expect to be among the top 10% in the field in a particular division (typically means high “insights per minute ratio” and crystal clear delivery which makes flowing them easy.



28.5 = A very good debater whose “insights per minute” put them in the top 25% of the field in a particular division at a particular tournament.



28 = A debater that I think has a shot of clearing at that particular tournament in that particular division (typically top 40% of a division).



27.5 = A technically sound debater with some strategic vision (likely to miss the cut on points) in that particular division.



27 = A technically sound debater, but one who lacks strategic vision relative to others in that particular division.



26.5 = A debater who needs work on the basics.



26 = A debater who is debating one (or more) divisions above where they ought to be.



Final note: I have a lot more to say about these issues. I just don’t have time to write anymore (and you probably don’t have time to read much more).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tom O'Gorman

Tom O’Gorman – D7 Update
Navy Debate Husband

Things you are very unlikely to win in front of me:
1. Aspec.
2. T is bad. T is a reverse voting issue. We don’t have to be topical.
3. Competing interpretations as a T standard. I don’t need to see in round abuse, but I do need to see how the aff interpretation could be used to abuse you – not merely that it could be slightly better.

Anything else you can probably win, and, therefore, you should probably go for your regular strategy rather than over-adapt to me.

Some things I would like:
1. More comparisons of arguments/scenarios/impacts. I see a lot debaters that are very good at explaining their arguments, but not good at explaining the other sides and why one is better than the other. Be realistic. Don’t pretend your opponents arguments are worse than they are. Don’t use ridiculous exaggerations of your impacts.
2. A better explanation of how to evaluate rounds when I am asked to use alternative frameworks. I understand what I am generally asked to do in old school rounds; e.g. weigh risks of body counts. I don’t intuitively understand what you are asking me to do as a “critic of argument” or “debate activist”. This problem is even trickier when I am told that the alternative framework allows for the weighing of old school arguments as I often don’t know how to weigh a risk of the Mead card against the use of a patriarchal methodology. I am open to these arguments, but need some direction.
3. Question terminal impacts. Stopping one patriarchal practice almost certainly does not stop all patriarchal practices. Likewise while it possible that an act of nuclear terrorism sparks WW III and extinction, its also very likely that cooler heads in the major powers prevail and while there is some war its more like Afghanistan + Iraq than WW III. This doesn’t mean I don’t like big impacts, it just means I am more likely to see them as increasing the risk of the terminal impact by a percent or two than directly causing then end of days, and, therefore more grounded systemic impacts can trump them. Also most big impact scenarios have chain links that are more grounded that they should be leveraging as well. Stopping hundreds of thousands of instances of spouse abuse won’t end all patriarchy and bring us into utopia, but it would still be a wonderful thing.
4. Make more use of common sense. A lot of debate scenarios, I am looking at you politics, are almost transparently ridiculous. A lot of debate cards are awful, either outright unqualified or quasi qualified hacks. Pointing out these weaknesses and mocking them probably doesn’t get you to zero risk (although it can), but its very helpful and will boost your speaker points.
5. If you are going to go for theory (and you should occasionally, everyone’s reluctance to go for theory has let the neg get away with murder) it would be immensely helpful if you would not read your standard X bad blocks, but instead use those principles to come up with reasons why this specific tactic is bad and make 2/3 good arguments about that rather than 5/8 blips with about as much substance as “they steal our ground” * which is meaningless and question begging. On theory questions the burden of persuasion is on the team asking for the voting issue.
6. Extend cards by something more than author and year. I cannot flow unfamiliar names at top speed and thus am likely to loose you if that is all you are giving me.
7. You have to be civil to your opponents and your partner. If you are excessively rude to any of them, I will aggressively dock your points.
8. Performance. I think its clearly permissible, but rarely helpful. You can certainly make an argument via poetry, dance, theater, or whatever. The question is can you make that argument more effectively, especially in light of the tight time limits, than had you stated the argument plainly. I am rarely persuaded by arguments that your opponents should lose and/or have their arguments discounted for failing to engage in a similar performance. Also, I have to understand your performance, which I may not.
9. Critiques – I am mainly looking for good specific links. The more generic the link the more likely I am to let the aff wriggle away with a perm. Your links need not be cards, but you need to detail specific practices by the other team rather than assert that they operate in X mindset.
10. Paperless – yay I like this move, but you need to be ready to go at it. I think I give people about 30 seconds to a minute to return cards in paper debates before I take prep off. I will do the same for paperless, after that it counts toward prep time.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Irvin Oliver

I teach International Relations at West Point and I have a good amount of knowledge about international and domestic politics.
I prefer policy...and am not well-versed on the various kritik arguments.
However, This is my first experience with debate and therefore I ask 3 things
1) Go slow....you may have great arguments, but if I don't hear or understand them...I can't evaluate them.
2) Avoid lots of technical debate jargon. I have the basic terms, but if you start going deep into debate theory on why counterplans are illegit or about instrinsicness...I won't follow
3) Be logical....

The quality of arguments will count more than just the sheer quantity.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Joe Packer


My default judging paradigm: is the topical plan presented in the 1AC more desirable then the status quo or a competitive policy alternative. If you are asking me to vote for you for another reason you should make it clear what that reason is and be prepared to answer theoretical objections. Ideally debate would comprised of case specific disads, case arguments and anti topical counter plans ( e.g. engagement on china topic, carbon sequestration on the energy topic). I realize that this is a fantasy and I prepared to offer lots of flexibility. A good guideline is that arguments that are specific to the resolution and/or the plan are desirable. Politics disads, agent counterplans and some kritiks are typically not grounded in the topic literature and are used to avoid discussion of the topic and the plan. However, that is not to say that there aren't rich debates to be had with these arguments if there is specific literature relating them to what the aff does. Some other basic presumptions (my standards absent a debate on the issue.)

1. Reject the argument not the team is my default on theory issues. This means that absent a clearly articulated reason as to why a team should lose the debate I will not vote on theory. (Note: Yes this means even if the other team drops a random voting issue I will not vote against them if you do not provide clear warrants as to why they should lose the debate). This also applies to "impact turning" arguments like topicality and framework.
2. The burden of rejecting an argument on theory is much lower than rejecting the other team.
3. Topicality is a voting issue.
4. My default T standard is reasonability. (see below)
5. I don't subscribe to an offense defense paradigm. Good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.
6. Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards, I encourage you to read Jim Lyle's article on doing just that in the medical assistance to Africa DRG (or just use some common sense).
7. Despite having coached at Wake I do not share their undying enthusiasm for conditionality and my skepticism to it grows the more suspect the counterplan or kritik alternative is.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make me hate you.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer cross ex questions. Seriously, answer the other team's questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status/framework of conterplans and kritiks.
4. Read incomprehensibly. Ross Smith offers useful advice in his judging philosophy "Assess your intelligibility by watching me and my flow. If I'm not writing much, you have a problem."
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence. (this will just make me hate you)

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

(Update)

I try to add things in my judging philosophy that indicate when I deviate significantly from mainstream thinking on issues. My previous iteration of the judging philosophy said I believe in reasonability on topicality questions which I think many people took as code for I don't believe in topicality. This is not the case. I enjoy a good T debate. I do, however, have a higher/different set of standards for T than I do for a disadvantage. If you want to win topicality in front of me, be prepared to

A. Explain a coherent connection between your violation and the resolution
B. Explain the cases that fit your interpretation. (Yes, even if asked in cx)
C. Explain why that caselist is better than a case list that would allow your opponent's affirmative.

Failure to do this probably means I will not be voting on T, no matter how many standards were dropped on your overlimiting better block/Aff has infinite prep time arguments.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Joe Patrice

Joe Patrice
USMA
Years Judging College: 11

I listen to everything, but I characterize myself as a critic of argument. Branson and Olney both wrote compelling edebate posts in May and June of 2007 that sum up my feelings on debate pretty well. I often worry that the "game" aspect of debate unjustly stamps out the focus on the substantive literature in the field we are debating. Staff writers for the Sacramento Bee can report what figures and experts have said, but if you want to convince me of the way of the world I'd rather hear from an author who works in that field. And I embrace nuance if it is available – if your evidence is less succinct than the other team’s but there are substantive reasons why your evidence better reflects the real world, go ahead and make that argument.

I’m a human being and not a machine. I catch almost everything but the only way to guarantee that I catch something AND give it the interpretation you want is to be explicit about it in the rebuttals. You need to be explaining the analysis of your cards or theory arguments, because I don’t want my initial understanding of the nuances of your argument to come from bunches of cards that I read after the round. When I read cards I’d like to be confirming and not learning because intervening makes me uncomfortable. If your strategy usually involves reading great amounts of evidence with snippets of analysis in the hopes that I read it all to fill in the blanks, that is the opposite of my ideal round.

With the caveat that I can vote on anything depending on how the round plays out, here’s some insight into how I think in some paradigmatic rounds that may help you.

In a “policy” debate, I will prefer fewer positions featuring longer evidence. Clear scenarios and analysis of the probability of the impacts not just the size of the impacts. If I hear that an increase in spending will collapse the world economy and trigger a nuclear war, you may as well tell me aliens are invading. Don’t get me wrong I’ll vote on it, but I’ll die a little inside. I’m much more concerned with internal links and uniqueness. I love specific case turns and interesting DA scenarios rather than generics. Counterplans are nifty. I don’t think I have a feeling either way on CP theory. Compare your impacts, weigh them, and tell me a story of the world of voting Aff vs. voting Neg.

When evaluating a “K” debate, I need clear explanations of how they interact with other impacts in the round, in particular other discursive or framework arguments. I’ve seen rounds where both sides argue kritiks in some form or another and their interplay is not clearly debated out. For most kritiks, the links and impacts are usually easy to argue, so I need the debate of the “alternative” or the “rejection” to be very clear. What am I voting for and how will it help? Some kritiks involve a lot of big, confusing words (usually in French or German), in which case you really need to be clear about what your advocacy means, because despite my reputation for being friendly to critical arguments, I don’t have a philosophy degree and those big words just prevent me from giving a clear decision.

The clash of civilizations. When a “policy” and “K” debate come together I think I’m more likely to vote on turns that people run against each other than any theory arguments about why either framework is better. I don’t particularly think a well-explained K is something that marginalizes the Aff, and I don’t think accepting the K is “key” to learning about some issue that is wildly tangential to the topic.

On topicality and theory, while I of course evaluate these on the flow, I feel that I’m more compelled by these arguments when there is a cohesive story because these debates often have so many short blippy answers on them that without a story I worry that blips are morphing into unpredictable answers by the end of the round. Recently I've been very harsh to CP/Perm theory arguments. I think these arguments are akin to T, yet unlike T people don't feel compelled to explain the abuse story. I do not think "the Perm is severance" is a link...I need to know why it severs and preferably a reason why that is uniquely disadvantageous.

I think evidence represents author advocacy of your argument. A compelling argument for me would be impeaching the author’s true advocacy, his/her biases, or political slants that may be affecting the logic of the position, or conflicting with other authors within the position. For that matter, I would enthusiastically welcome any level of evidence comparison.

The final rebuttals must provide me with a clear, coherent story. The final rebuttal for both sides should, in essence, hold my hand through the process of making a decision. I want to do the least work possible so your best bet is to give me the concise and easy way to vote for you.

Every time you steal prep time I die a little inside. But you’re going to do it anyway.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Dallas Perkins

Dallas Perkins (Harvard) Judge Philosophy
PHILOSOPHY
Perkins, Dallas Harvard College East Region Judged at GA. ST., KYRR, KY,
Cap City, Wake, USC, CSUF, W.GA, NU
The single most important piece of advice about debating for me is to be
comprehensible. While I read a fair amount of evidence after the round, I am
loath to reconstruct arguments that I did not understand when they were
presented. I am certainly not going to treat any answers to an argument as
“new” until I have fully understood what the argument is in the first place.
My theoretical proclivities definitely run towards policy making. I try to judge
a debate like I would decide how to vote in a town meeting. I care more for
the science of policy choice than the arts of rhetorical criticism.
This theoretical tendency is most pronounced in two specifics: Affirmatives
should have clear and specific plans, and both sides should eschew
hypothetical or conditional argumentation. Affirmatives may not be precisely
required to specify their agent, but they certainly have to say what the plan
is (legislation? Judicial ruling? Executive order?) which amounts to about the
same thing. If you don’t specify, the neg can definitely get me to “pull the
trigger.” Negatives should defend something, not rely on mere negation, or
try to hedge their bets with “dispositional” counterplans.
I think the affirmative must offer a topical plan or they lose. I have not
found topicality to be a very salient issue recently. I voted negative on
“enact” a couple of times early in the season, but not after the affs got their
act together. I think the genetic patenting arm of the topic is more limited
than some teams apparently believe.
I am not nearly as hostile to kritikal arguments as you may have been told,
especially policy-based kritiks of the way one side thinks. At my hypothetical
town meeting, I would hope that I would not get so mad at the rhetorical
excesses of some of the advocates that I would vote for something that I
really thought would be a bad idea. Thus, in a debate where one side wins
the “policy” arguments and the other side wins the “discursive” or “pre-fiat”
arguments, I tend to vote for the former unless somebody does a lot of work
to convince me the contrary outcome is justified, or the two sides agree. I
am especially suspicious of the impacts of so-called representational kritiks.
I think CX is binding. Tag team is ok with me, as long as everyone is
reasonably polite. I hate prep time thievery and people who take the other
team’s evidence before they are through reading it. You’ll do well to try to
watch me during the debate, I tend to give visible feedback. I’m always
willing to answer a question and try to be helpful, even during the debate.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Mike Pomorski

Objective:
Years coaching: ≈2
Rounds judged: 23 (Kings, Liberty, Cap Cities, Wake, and GMU)
Voting record (affirmative/negative): 11/12
Average speaker points given: 27.5

Subjective:
- Lots of things in debate are important. The way you speak and the language you use are important. The policy prescription of your plan (if you have one) is important. What you are trying to accomplish in the debate community is important. These priorities often conflict. When they do there needs to be a debate about which priority is most important. The answer to that question almost always determines who wins the debate. Please don’t be shy about this when I am judging. I will default to policy, but that is an easily altered default setting only.
- Critical debates are among the most enjoyable to watch because they are often the most substantive and applied. I tend to resolve those debates based on the efficacy of an alternative versus some permutation. The alternative of reject is not the same as the alternative of the status quo.
- In a policy debate the importance of formal analysis is hugely important. I enjoy debate about the appropriateness of different statistical models in resolving debate questions. For example, the projected impact of the Bush tax cuts depended almost entirely on whether dynamic or static scoring was used.
- Debaters read too much evidence and they make too many arguments. I probably won’t read very much of your evidence after the debate, so act accordingly. However, please keep in mind that I can call for evidence but I can’t really call for your flow (or at least I wouldn’t be comfortable doing so). Slow down.
- Unwarranted cards are not evidence.
- Extinction claims cheapen debate.
- Arguments like e-prime are a waste of everyone’s time.
- It is hard to win that artificially competitive counterplans (including consultation counterplans) are competitive.
- I vote on T and theory a lot, and cheap shots very infrequently. Make no mistake. The “policy” debate you are having probably doesn’t have much to do with reality either. I wish it did.

With all that being said, I am a firm believer that judges work for debaters, not the other way around. I am not asking that you radically change your debating style to conform to my preferences, but it is only fair for me to make those preferences known. If you have any questions which are not answered here feel free to ask them.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Daveria Providence

What Vik says:
4 year top HS debater in NYC, including National circuit travel.

Frequent judging of HS debate since attending college (where there was no real debate program).

Limited exposure to current college topic, but open minded to different arguments.

What Daveria says:
I've debated for 5 years. What I love to hear most are disadvantages. I'm not fond of T debate unless it's necessary. Kritiks are fine, but to me don't place a higher value than a DisAd. Prove your case and you win. Simple.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Shanara Reid

Shanara Reid-Brinkley
Assistant Professor of Communication
Director of Debate
University of Pittsburgh
Email: srb@pitt.edu

I was an Emory debater in the mid to late 90’s and achieved some national success. I was a grad assistant at Alabama. I have been away from the activity for the past five years, although I have occasionally hired out to judge a few tournaments in that time period.
That being said, yes I remember how to flow, yes speed is fine, no I’m not up on the topic in any depth (I’m a director and not a coach). That means you should pay attention to how well you explain anything that is topic specific and avoid using topic specific acronyms.
In college, my debate style was left of center, but I was trained at Emory which means as much as I lean toward critiques and performance debates as my personal preference, I am equally as qualified to judge straight up policy debates. In debates where the policy framework meets the critical framework I vote for the team with the better argument even if I find the opposing teams position more interesting or entertaining, I can reward that with speaker points.
I don’t have any preconceived ideas about debate theory, so I tend to vote directly on the flow. If you win the theory argument and it has implications that you explain, I’m more than willing to vote there.
I am open to and willing to engage alternative stylistic practices and choices for debates.
I hate reading evidence after a debate because it means that the debaters have been sloppy and inefficient in explaining and defending their arguments. Thus, I only read cards if you have not done your job. That being said, if there is evidence you would like to be a part of my consideration because if I need to read evidence, I will only call for what has been directly referenced by you.
Important things to know about debating in front of me. I like smart asses, in general, but I think to many people cross the line in debate. So be forceful and aggressive, but watch the rudeness factor with the other team. It gets under my skin. But, more importantly, watch your attitude with me. I am infamous for arguing with teams after a decision. I will be respectful toward you initially, the more disrespectful and confrontational you become, the more of the same you will get. I’m a 5ft 2in. black woman from inner-city Atlanta. I may be older and wiser, but I will still get at ‘cha. That being said, I’m always willing to calmly and rationally discuss a decision, you can often learn what is likely to win my ballot and that can be a serious advantage for you throughout the year. I can be very supportive and will offer suggestions both for improving debate skills, but also in improving arguments, and pointing to interesting directions for more evidence. If your research pertains to any of the following subject matters, I might be a particularly useful judge for you: feminist theories (particularly women of color), critical social theories of race, poststructural theories of race, gender, class, and sexuality; globalization; hip hop; cultural studies, etc.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Guy Risko

Pitt Debater for four years, currently assistant coach at Binghamton. My second year out, still adjusting to what I do/don't like.
Mini Update: I find myself almost never calling for cards. The reason is either 1. that card is not explained or 2. that card isn't responded to/in contention.

General: My default position is to choose between something like advocacy's. This can mean a range of things: that the policy given by the aff is better than the status quo or counterplan, or even something like the performance of the 1AC is a place where we can interrogate structural norms in order to alter hierarchies... whatever. These predilections can both become more refined (how I should evaluate policies, what part of my experience as a social creature should be part of my decision) and change (should test the truth value of the resolution rather than an 1AC advocacy in particular)
Particulars:
T- I like competing interpretations as the standard and I really like when that's done well (disadvantages to interpretations, etc). I also like impact turns to T… mostly for my own entertainment.
Theory- I err neg. Aff should probably win that there's some sort of "abuse" in order for me to reject the argument/team. That being said the neg does have to justify their actions as being legit. PICs are only good if you tell me they are. K theory is a little different to me and I'll probably give some leeway to the neg here to. The "no text to the alt" argument only flies, for example, when there's actually no text. If its "the text to X card" deal. Make other args. NOTE: I don’t see a real difference between theory and topicality. What this means is that formulating an interpretation of your theory position will probably go miles. Your increasing specificity is also important.
Framework- Justify it. Tell me how I should be deciding this round. Tell me why that way to evaluate it is a GOOD idea. Tell me why the other sides framework is BAD. I will probably weigh education arguments more heavily than most here because I think that debating about how debate happens is more than just a question of ground.
Disad's: Impact them, and I don’t mean “Terrorism” or “economic decline”- I mean something terminal and comparative. I’m not opposed to less “body count” disads, but you still need to make your impact comparative. Explain why uniqueness matters (or lack there off). I'm very willing to listen to "no brink" and "no internal link" arguments as long as they’re impacted. While I think that offense/defense is helpful, I’m compelled to believe that you can garner terminal defense on disads on both the link and uniqueness level.
K's: Admittedly most comfortable here. I need to understand, at least, the ways that the alternative interacts with case and implication (which also has to interact with the case). No, I don't think there always needs to be an "alternative" but at least tell me why what you want me to do is a good thing. For instance, the reject alternative is often not only a strategic one, its probably defended within the literature. You have to contextualize the function of the rejection in order to win the K is a reason to vote neg. K's are probably the part of debate that i'm going to be able to give you the best feedback (save potentially framework) on at the end of the round. Handle the Perm like you would a perm on a counterplan. Note: Timeframe perms are cheating, and I’m REALLLY unsure why “Perm do the Plan” is a perm at all. Note v.2.0: In K rounds, I find I do two things. 1. Call for too many cards. 2. Find it difficult to, in K v K rounds, articulate a decision in words used by the debaters. Many times I have tried to look for words to explain the decision and have felt like I come off as intervening. I think I've also got this reputation as "re-constructionist". This may be a flaw, and I'm going to call for less cards this year. Use that information to your own benefit.
Performance/non-traditional/somethingleftythatpeopledon'twanttocallak: debate doesn't have to be just a spewing of cards. Performance is one of the ways we can engage each other. Do it, just tell me why you're doing it, what should I be doing. If Framework is the only thing to defend against performance in your tub, you're probably going to be behind from the start.
Speaker Point Bonuses:
- Good/imaginative strategy in the 2AC/2NC
- Collapsing in the 2NR/2AR
- Funny = good
- Damning cross-x
Speaker point drops:
- Calling someone else lazy- I PROMISE that if you call another debate lazy (performance, K, policy, theory, whatever) I will drop your speaks. Just because the debater doesn’t do what you do and you lack the imaginative capacity to value the work they do doesn’t mean it’s A. not there and B. not valuable
- Bad Jokes that are reiterated in the debate community over and over again
- Fighting with your partner
I’m still adjusting the speaker points thing, but I’m going for: 28 = almost good enough to break, 28.5 = good enough to break.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

John Ross

John likes politics, clever PICS, economy DAs, and a good T debate.

He'll vote on theory, including conditionality bad, if well-executed.

He occasionally went for the K when a debater.

It's easy to convince him that the aff needs a plan.

The list of things that make him angry is too long to list here. Also, he's known to look angry even when he's happy, so don't waste time trying to figure out if he's angry in your debate.

mph

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Andrew Ryan

Andrew Ryan judging philosophy - I debated for four years at UR and ran pretty much every argument from politics to performance kritiks. When I graduated from school, I worked at the American Enterprise Institute think tank in DC (AEI) and am now at legal and finance public relations firm. Feel free to run any arguments as long as they are explained clearly and persuasively. I favor teams that prioritize arguments and engage with each other (in other words, don't just run down a list of pre-written arguments, but recognize the most important ones and engage them). I won't vote against a team that "dropped" minor arguments if they are winning on the major issues in the debate. I think the job of the 2NR and 2AR should be to make my life easy by coherently explaining why his or her team won the debate. Generally, I am open-minded and look forward to hearing some interesting debates!


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nick Ryan

Nick Ryan Judging Philosophy This is my second year judging. I debated for 4 years in High School, and an additional 4 years at the University of Mary Washington. If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

General things you should know:
Communication – as a debater I always appreciated judges that provided feedback during speeches, and as such I will try to do the same, if I am confused I will indicate it nonverbally, by looking up and looking confused, you should take this as a sign that you should go back to whatever you were trying to explain and explain it again. If I do not understand your arguments and you ignore my feedback indicating such, I am more than willing to discount said arguments.

Speaker points – whatever point scale the tournament is utilizing, whether it be the 30 or 100 point scale, these are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

In light of more tournaments going to the 100 point scale, I will be awarding speaker points on this 100 point scale
27-27.5: 70-74
27.5-28: 75-82
28-28.5: 83-89
28.5-+: 90-100


Flowing - I will flow every speech, including CX, it enables me to organize the debate better. I may not be the best flow in the world but if you are organized in your speeches, I will get a majority of your arguments down. If you are disorganized on the flow, I cannot be held accountable for cross applying arguments to other areas of the flow that you do not instruct me to apply them to. I prefer good line-by-line debates instead of top-heavy overview debates where you just tell me it is answered in the overview.

Dropped Arguments – I evaluate these as conceded truth claims which are true through the rest of the debate (this is somewhat different than the way others see these arguments, for instance if the AFF goes for terminal impact defense and link offense, I think that the conceded terminal impact defense means that there is no impact to the argument even if the neg doesn’t go to the sheet of paper).

Specifically –
Topicality and Plan Flaws– T is always a voter and never a reverse voter (I agree with Adrienne Brovero when she says “’Kritiks’ of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing. Anti-topical actions are neg ground.”). I strongly believe that all AFFs need to have a written plan text. If you are going to go for Topicality in front of me these things will help me buy into your violation more and will improve your speaker points – I would prefer to hear a case list or a description of what the topic would look like under your interpretation vs. their interpretation, a good explanation of the in round vs. potential abuse that has/could occur under their interpretation, and why I should care. If you are AFF in a Topicality debate I am willing to listen to the reasonability vs. competing interpretations arguments, but you need to have some warranted analysis on this point starting in the 1AR. In addition, I do not believe that AFFs can be reasonably topical without a counter interpretation. As far as plan flaws go, I always read the plan text before the debates to look for tiny flaws that I could point out, I am willing to vote on plan flaw means you don’t solve, however if it is merely a matter of grammar (which I am not very good at) then it’s probably not worth your time. (I have heard a lot of T substantial debates on this year’s topic, I think if the negative is ever going to win these in front of me it is their burden to prove a. what their percentage is. b. what the affs percentage is (why they don't meet, this is not the affs burden, in a T substantial debate I would probably be fine with the aff saying "make them read a piece of evidence saying we are X percent and then we will debate this")/
Theory – I loved theory debates as a debater, I went for ASPEC a lot, purely because theory debates interest me. However, two teams’ just reading blocks back at each other on the theory debate is a good way to kill my happiness with theory. You need to have well warranted and impacted theory arguments that directly refute the other team’s arguments if you are going to go for theory in front of me. I was a 2N for most of my college career and as such, I am a little more neg friendly on theory then some other people. I ran consultation Counterplans a lot, in addition to PICs. This is not to say that AFFs cannot win these arguments, it just means that is what I believe. I am generally fine with conditionality (however AFFs can win that it is bad), I also believe that dispo is really just conditionality, because it’s just some arbitrary burden that AFFs can never meet (I don’t care if you say your CP or K is dispo, however I am willing to buy the argument that it is really just conditionality in disguise). The only real theoretical issue I strongly favor the AFF on is object fiat is bad. That being said it is open for debate and am willing to vote for whoever wins the argument. I am also willing to buy the argument “reject the argument not the team” so if you want to go for theory in front of me (even if it is a dropped “cheap shot”) you need to explain to me why I should reject the other team. In addition (just for your reference) when I was AFF, theory was a big part of our 1AR strategy, not just the generic CP theory that you always hear, but non-intrinsic arguments, and politics theory such as “vote no” etc. Therefore, I am willing to listen to these arguments and vote for them, and just as willing to vote that they are cheating. (What you do with that info is entirely up to you).

Disads – I love disads. I believe that it is possible to win zero risk of a link, however, I do not think that happens very often (I went for these arguments a lot on the AFF, and believe that I can figure out when a DA really links or not). I think that AFFs would benefit from questioning the Internal Link story more then they usually do, tons of Disads are missing them in the 1NC shell, and AFFs never point it out. Uniqueness is interesting to me, since a lot of debates focus here; I think that it is nearly impossible to win a 100% non-unique to most disads, especially politics disads. Uniqueness cards also tend to be not very good, I think that it can mitigate a Disad; however, I do not think that AFFs can win the debate purely on the non-unique claim, except in very rare occasions. Counterplans: As I stated in the theory section, I generally lean negative on CP theory, whether the CP is topical, a PIC, PEC, conditional/dispositional, international fiat, agent etc. If AFFs are going to win these theory debates I think there best strategy would be to make a combination of arguments, specifically “conditional consultation CP’s are bad” something that negs are more than likely to just read their conditionality good and consultation good blocks to, which may or may not answer the specific reasons why running them both together is bad. I love good CP debates though, I think that negs probably should have a solvency advocate, but what that means is up for debate (I tend to think I am neg bias on this point, in that on this topic if the neg has a card saying a specific state needs X subsidy for Y reason, that a CP to exclude Z state would have a solvency advocate based on that card).

Permutations and CP texts must be written out, I am not going to be happy when I call for the CP and Perm Texts and have the AFF scribbling out Do Both (which I don’t think is an argument, I think AFFs must write the perm so that it can be done). The following perms do not mean anything to me and therefore will not be evaluated
1. “Perm – Do Both”
2. “Perm – Do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the alternative”
I won’t evaluate these perms because they don’t explain how the permutation will function which I believe is the affs burden to do, otherwise the permutation will just morph, in other words I will vote against these perms if the negative simply says “these aren’t real arguments, they don’t explain how they function which justifies them being a moving target”

In addition, I may be alone on this point, but absent any clarification in the debate I generally believe that the status quo remains a logical option for the negative at the end of the debate (this means that if I find that the CP doesn’t solve the AFF, I believe I can vote in favor of the Squo and the Disad). That being said questions I think need to be in the debate every time there is a CP:
1. What is the Status (if they say dispo, ask what that means, if they say straight turn, ask what that means).
2. If the 2NR goes for the CP, can the judge default to the Squo (if they say yes, that probably helps you on your conditionality bad args, if they say no that just means you do not have to worry about me defaulting to the Squo.)
3. Negs must ask if affs can advocate the perm, if it is not discussed prior to the 2nr /2ar I am likely to let the aff advocate the perm.

Kritiks – I did not run a whole lot of these in college, so do not expect me to be too familiar with the literature. That being said I am willing to listen to them, however you will need to give a lot more warrants and clear explanations to get me to understand your kritik. Here are a few other things that will help you win your kritik, make it specific, the more specific the better, I need lots of Link and impact explanations instead of generic extinction inevitable claims. I need a clear explanation of what the alternative does, how it functions, and how it solves the K. I have also noticed that some K debaters get too overview happy and forget the line by line, that will not make me happy, I want to hear the explanation on the line by line, overviews are fine however if it’s half of your speech you are wasting your time. Alt Texts and perms also need to be written out, and clearly articulated. I think that AFFs can and should be able to permute parts of the alternative card, if it says things other than the Alternative text. As far as K AFFs go, they are fine so long as they have a plan, engage the resolution and are topical. Just do not assume I know what you are talking about.
Non-Traditional/ Performance – If this is the primary way you debate, I am probably not the best judge for you. I will attempt to be open minded, however I tend to think that debate is generally good. I do think you need to engage the topic in some way. I also tend to believe that if the other team engages you in your style of debate you cannot blow off their arguments, if you do I think it grants them a lot more credibility on framework debate. If you are debating these types of teams, you need to pin them down on what their advocacy is, how it works, how it will solve, and what exactly they do and do not do. Then argue what they change is bad for whatever reason.

Things that will cause you to lose speaker points (These points will be doubled when we are at tournaments using the 100 point scale):
1 point for the phrase "Cold Conceded" - although you can keep the 1 point if you can tell me what the difference is between something that’s hot conceded, cold conceded, and just plain conceded.
.5 Points for saying the phrase "Gut Check"
.5 Points for saying something is conceded when it is not.
.5 Points for the phrase "Card one"
.5 Points for the "Pepsi Challenge"
.5 Points for “Jack Taco”



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Katie Santmyer

Basically I will listen to, and vote on anything, as long as its presented well and makes sense. I don't really have much of a preference for any types of args, but it's important that actual clash exists and anything performative or critical needs to be explained fully. Some type of impact analysis or framework analysis is a must depending on what type of arg is being run.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Flemming Schneider

Flemming Schneider - Judge Philosophy
“Experience” – Four years debating at Richmond First year judging college debate
Some general things: I like to think of myself as a reasonable person who can be persuaded that I should vote affirmative or negative for any reasons articulated in the debate with links and impacts. That being said, I am not a completely clean slate, so pointing out ludicrous assumptions made by bad evidence and holes in internal links will likely resonate with me. Defensive analytical arguments that are grounded in historical facts, common sense and logical reasoning tend to persuade me more than they do most people e.g. I am usually skeptical about arguments claiming “aff is bad for the economy” –> “economy on brink of collapse” -> “collapse causes depression and nuclear war”. That being said, I am not inherently opposed to economy impacts and will vote on them if good warrants are given and proper risk analysis made. If your instinct tells you an argument is preposterous and demonstrably false, you might be on to something. Figure out why you feel this way and make a case for it, there is a decent chance I sit with the same suspicion.
Do not think that sacrificing a little speed for a lot of clarity is a disadvantage. At the very least slow down when reading tags.
I am a person who is pretty hard to offend, so don’t feel scared to read arguments others might consider offensive. On the other hand, if your strategy relies on demanding a ballot on the grounds that the opposing team made an offensive argument (as opposed to pointing out why the argument is invalid and why I shouldn’t weigh it) you might be fighting an uphill battle.
Topicality/Theory: I’m usually a hard sell on these arguments absent any persuasive reasoning why a team has been significantly disadvantaged. Do not feel obligated to read a topicality violation in every round, but conversely do not be scared to make t/theory argument if you feel it is justified.
CP/DA/Kritiks: I have no real preference here, as long as they are arguments why the resolution should or should not be adopted. If your strategy rests on me understanding a complex philosophical concept or a nuanced political climate in Uzbekistan, I would recommend erring on the side of caution and assume I probably don’t understand this stuff before you define and explain it.
Performance arguments: I have very little experience with these arguments, but I am open-minded and will be excited to hear these arguments as long as it is clear what the argument is and where that leaves the opposing team.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jennifer Schraeder

Jennifer Schraeder
Assistant Debate Coach, Wayne State University

I am objective as possible when trying to evaluate debates. While I do have my predispositions, I do my best to check those at the door. As a debater I ran more traditional arguments (politics, counterplan, etc.) so I am more familiar with their jargon and function. I am intrigued by non-traditional approaches to debate, just be aware that I don’t have the background information that you might and hence your explanation becomes much more important. I am fine with topicality and theory debates, however if you intend to win the round on these arguments alone please slow down a bit and pay a bit more attention to how the actions of the violator hinder the activity of debate. I will never vote for the affirmative on a reverse voter on topicality. I believe that if the affirmative proves that the negative’s interpretation is bad (for whatever reason) that topicality is no longer a reason to vote. Counterplans and disadvantages are best evaluated by me when you do the work of interrelation. How do your arguments function in relation to the other team? If you don’t provide this analysis I am forced to revert to my predispositions or even worse the evidence and you may not be happy with the outcome. Generally I default to who saves more lives unless told to do otherwise. As for critical arguments I am open to everything. If you want to approach the topic from a non-policy focus just make sure you devote time to how I should evaluate competing arguments and what role my ballot serves in the competition. As I said above, I am more than open to listening to everything, just don’t assume I know what you’re talking about.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Nick Sciullo

Explanation and analysis over random card reading. I’m opening to hearing any arguments and not disinclined to vote on any argument. If your strategy is politics DAs and Counter Plan theory—read ‘em. If you love reading Spivak, Foucault, and Derrida—read ‘em. I thought about writing my philosophy for every conceivable argument, but that would probably lead folks to think I had a strong preference for or against arguments which really is not the case. All critics come into rounds with experience in different areas just as debaters come into rounds with different majors. It’s your job to convince me, not my job to tell you what I want to be convinced on.


Debate is subjective, but I try to come into each round with as open a mind as possible. That being said, I have a strong background in critical theory, critical race theory, feminism, and rhetorical theory, but that does not predispose me to vote for poorly constructed arguments that claim to engage those ideas. Because I’m more involved (reading and writing) in those areas, I probably am a better critic in those rounds. Again, not because I have a preference for those areas, but because that’s where a lot of my intellectual energy has gone over the years. BUT, I also work in DC Metro Area politics, so I’m no stranger to the inner workings of the political process. Great politics debates can be and often are enriching.


Your ultimate goal should be to convince me why you win the round. That can come about using not only many different arguments, but also many paradigms. I value you performative consistency and gender neutral language. Debate is an open canvas upon which debaters can construct communities of action. The ballot can be a tool, but before you assume I’ll vote on something, you need to explain why your paradigm makes sense in the round. If you believe my ballot sends a message, explain why I should feel the same way. If you feel like we are policymakers, then explain why my position as critic upholds sound policy decision-making. Inspire me to take action with you.


I prefer not to call for cards after the round, but if you feel I must, then provide some darn good reasons. Explain why your evidence is better. What are the qualifications of your author? The warrants behind her arguments? The inconsistencies of the other team’s authors? I have a good flow, but I’m not perfect. It’s very important to me to flow things in the appropriate place and make sure that I can follow arguments from start to finish. I value debaters who are organized. I usually don’t flow CX, but if I hear something that sounds particularly relevant to the resolution of the round, I’ll jot it down. Don’t read my non-verbals because debaters have told me they are not always consistent and I don’t want that to limit you.


Speed does not matter, but speed should not be a substitute for persuasion. Sometimes speed gets valued over persuasion, and that’s not helpful for anyone. It’s great that you read 7 internal links, but how do they matter to the rounds and why are they better than your opponent’s answers.


Have fun, be humorous, don’t take yourself too seriously.


Other debate information…


Coaching Experience: 6 years (Midlothian HS [VA], West Virginia University, T.C. Williams HS [VA])


Debate Experience: 9 years (Middle School, Tallwood High School [Virginia Beach, VA], University of Richmond)


I received my law degree from West Virginia University…


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Casey Sheldon

Casey Sheldon
Lame Duck Navy Team Captain
Hegemony Enthusiast
Marine Extraordinaire

Overview:
I debated for three years, including this one. I was born into stock
issues debate, raised on the milk of case-specific DA’s, and educated
by shameless policy hacks. I’m apathetic to the conditions of my
being and I doubt that all the world’s problems can be attributed to a
single flaw. Instead of wasting my free time reading the post-modern
literature of insincere academic swindlers, I waste time reading the
blogs of delightfully sarcastic economists (see:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/).

Having fun in the round is important. Humor and thoughtful cross
application of arguments are great ways to increase your credibility.
I think tactfully making your opponent’s args look as ridiculous as
they are should be highly encouraged. However, being a jerk in the
debate round and excessive vulgarity are destructive to debate and
will be punished.

Super-Efficient Commodification of Bias:
DA’s > Kritiks
Policy Actions > Singing + Dancing + Poetry + Reflecting
Topicality ≠ Genocide
Reverse Voting Issues ≠ ballot
Intelligent analytics > warrantless carded lies

Performance Etc.:
Non-unique and wrong forum. I’m too elitist and hegemonic to care
that you think your opponents or the debate community are elitist and
hegemonic. I consider most of what you do to be cheating. If the
other team completely blows it you might win, but I’ll make sure to
put an asterisk on the ballot.

Kritiks:
I probably won’t know what the hell you’re talking about, and I’m not
afraid to drop an argument I don’t understand. I’ll buy the vast
majority of the other team’s no solvency and no link arguments. If
your impacts are systemic you had better spin me a story about why
they link. I need an alternative text to evaluate your K and it
should say more than “reject the 1AC” and should not contain the term
“rethink”.

Counterplans:
I think delay (that includes phase out), international agent, consult,
and multiple conditional counterplans are cheating. I will drop an
abusive counterplan, but would be hard pressed to drop a team for an
abusive counterplan.

Disads:
Extra speaker points for reading a well-constructed DA that I haven’t
heard yet. Well-constructed means proven uniqueness, a coherent
internal link, and an impact that is related to your link story. See
last point on bias section.

Topicality:
It’s a stock issue and a voter. I tend to side Aff unless I see
something that’s clearly abusive. Yes that’s a standard of
reasonability, yes that means I have some say in how topicality is
evaluated. I think that’s a good thing because it strokes my ego.

Unless you’re Captain A-Spec, leave it to the teams who spend 40 hours
a week on that trash.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Matt Struth

Matt Struth
Last updated: 1-26-2010
Liberty University – Graduate Student Assistant
Debated for the University of Mary Washington
1st year judging, 9th year in debate

Important / recent thoughts:
1. Number one point people ignore at their own risk: I don’t mind if you speak from pretty close to me. In fact, as long as you’re not spitting on me, I encourage it. My most common advice to debaters is to orient where you sit and speak from in the room towards me.
2. Effective communication: clarity is perhaps more important of an issue for me than other judges. I think 90% of debaters over-estimate the amount of their ideas they believe they communicate to the judge. I also think most debaters do not do their evidence justice. You should not expect me to read your evidence after the round and realize it’s awesome. You should make sure I know it’s awesome while you read it. In short: arguments effectively communicated to the judge outweigh speed.
3. Tech vs. truth- tech matters, but arguments that don’t meet a minimum threshold of sense and reasonability will be disregarded. If what you say (even if dropped) doesn’t add up to a reason to vote for you, don’t expect me to. In theory debates, if something is a ‘voting issue’ saying more than just VI in the 2AC is necessary- you need to explain why more than rejecting the arg is necessary. Crazy arguments are fine if they are smart crazy arguments. Note: this is probably the most fluid/evolving part of my philosophy- I will update it as necessary.

Kritiks: As a debater I rarely ran kritiks. However, this was my own failure as a debater, and hopefully not as a judge. I am firmly in the Jarrod Atchison camp that debaters who have the flexibility to read both policy and critical arguments will learn more and have more strategic flexibility. I feel obligated to warn you of my inexperience and lack of familiarity with some (okay, most) of the literature. If you can make sure that your K debating has clear explanations and is not dependent on jargon / concepts used exclusively in esoteric philosophy literature, I don’t think I’d be a bad judge for you.

Performance/project: As a debater I consistently went for framework arguments against affs without plans. That said, I don’t view these affs as bad for debate or oppose planless affs, I just thought framework was a strategic option. I’m more than open to judge teams that don’t read a plan. My experience with framework runs both ways- I’m familiar with its strengths and weaknesses. I like what Seth has to say about this: “By default, I will determine based on arguments in the round whether or not one and only one topical policy presented by the affirmative is preferable to the status quo and competitive policies… Don’t be afraid to change this decision structure, but change it explicitly. Provide me a rubric with which to evaluate the debate. If the other team accedes to it or fails to prove it less desirable, I’ll use it.” Ultimately I probably think debate is a game, non-plan affs have plenty of room to win in this game. Make of that what you will.

Topicality: I have no problem voting for a team that is winning a T violation, whether that be at GSU or the NDT. Negatives should be better at impact calculus on T. So should the aff. I don’t think I lean one way or the other on reasonability or competing interpretations, but pretty much everyone needs to do a better job of debating this question.

Theory / counterplans: I’m probably with most judges here, I don’t think I have a neg leaning but I acknowledge its difficult for the aff to win theory debates- neg has the block, it’s scary to put all your eggs in the theory basket, etc etc. This just means if you want to win a theory debate you need to work hard in the round and before the round. Many judges have a sliding scale in their philosophy- PICS bad = hard to win, conditionality / multiple counterplans is a little easier, international fiat = questionable, the states counterplan seems pretty illogical for a policy-maker to consider, etc. This seems accurate enough to me, but really it’s up to you to demonstrate the utility / abusiveness of any particular type of debate. You could win that something is a voting issue in front of me, but usually I think the truth of the matter is that rejecting the argument remedies all of the harms it created- if not, you need to be pretty persuasive on why. I think defenses of limited intrinsicness with perms is cool. This requires forethought and usually evidence.

Prep misc: Paperless prep time ends approximately when you save the doc and remove the jump drive. Your general goal, paperless or not, should be to be completely ready to talk when you say ‘end prep.’ No off-case counting, no evidence/flow shuffling, etc.

Speaker points (earning them): Passion, ethos, and emphasis are things that matter to me. Cross-x is an important part of this (although also an important part of argumentation). If you read evidence unintelligibly, your speaker points will suffer (perhaps a good check is if you read evidence slower than tags to make the tags clearer, I may have a problem). If you’re unclear, or not loud enough, I probably won’t warn you. It’s your job to effectively communicate to me. Other things that will probably cost you points: being a jerk, being a jerk because you act like other types of debate personally offends you, stealing prep, gendered language (referring to women as men, vice versa). Things that earn points: clarity, reading quals, the sophistication of your strategy, making it clear through your arguments that you work hard at debate, and execution. Excessive profanity is almost always not helpful, and potentially dangerous.

Speaker points (scales): If a tournament publishes guidelines, I'll follow them. If not, in the interest of having some sort of meaningful and close to consensus scale (and not hurting debaters who pref me by bucking point inflation trends), I will use the scale proposed by JP:

Top Speaker = 96
Getting a top five speaker award = 94
Getting a top ten speaker award = 93
Getting a top twenty speaker award = 92
Clearing high in your not undefeated bracket = 90
Clearing (barely) = 87
Average = 85

Important notes that don’t fit anywhere else:
1. “New aff” better mean new aff. If another person on your team has run it, it’s not new. Reading an add-on you’ve already read as an advantage doesn’t make it a new advantage (even with new/different cards). Adding or changing a few cards doesn’t make it a new advantage. Replacing every card in an advantage with a new or different card that functionally amounts to the same story doesn’t make it a new advantage. Tweaking your plan makes the plan new, not the aff.
2. Clipping cards is cheating with a capital C. I’ll know.
3. Label your off-case arguments in the 1NC (just makes it easier for me to flow).
4. I’ll default that the status quo is always an option if nobody tells me anything else.
5. Quoting Jim Lyle on cross-x: “I flow CX. I also tend to not listen to discussion outside of CX. I hear it but don't continue to flow if new info comes to light.”
6. Pet-peeves: loud pre-round music (use headphones!) and leaving the room while the other team is prepping for a final rebuttal.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Noriaki Tajima

Name: Noriaki Tajima
Position: Assistant Debate Coach
School: Wayne State University
Years of Judging: 6 years (mostly in Japan)

I am a doctoral student at Wayne State University, studying rhetorical theory and criticism, critical/cultural studies and whatnots. I was a policy debater in Japan for 4 years, judged tons of rounds there and 10+ rounds in the US, and now I’m working as an assistant debate coach at Wayne.

General Philosophy: I am pretty open to any types of arguments. If I had to give you my preference between a policy, K, and performance debate I’d probably tell you I prefer policy, only because I do not have a firm grounding in all K literatures and because I may be culturally blind to some race/ethnicity/gender/etc. But, again, as far as you can make them clear in round, I can be quite easily open.

Flow: I’m okay with fast AND clear delivery, and I’ll make my best effort to note your arguments as far as they’re intelligible. But it’s better to keep in mind that my primary language is not English: Maybe you want to slow down on tags and plan text, and explain more about your arguments in overviews.

Evidence: In rebuttals, I don’t want to hear tag lines just reiterated but the contents of cards elaborated and some lines highlighted or even re-read with good warrants. Post-round inspection is just for confirmation of what I heard in round.

Theory: I ran a lot of theory arguments, but I scarcely voted on them. If you want to run, please make your arguments thorough and specific, spotting why their _particular_ argument/act/performance needs to be voted against.

Ks: I’m okay with any Ks, but I prefer the ones specific to this topic and the aff. case. If you want to run a language, K, please be careful--my native language is not English.

Ts: I’m probably an neg. hack. I was a big fan of Herbeck and Katsulas’ “reasonability standard” article, and I still think that, if the aff. case is not blatantly non-topical, topicality debates are very likely to end up unproductively. So, if you want to run Ts, please show me a clear, specific in-round ground loss, and probably give more efforts to explain that than you may do to other judges.

CPs: I’m okay with any types of CPs. Some of my minimal predispositions include: Topical CPs welcomed; perms must be clear; exception CPs can be easily absorbable in this topic (if you don’t want that, please make solid arguments on “nearly all”, theoretically shift my position, and/or make a good effort on plan and 1AC CX); international fiat can be (easily, I believe) justified and/or good solvency cards that prove workability and desirability.

CX: Obviously most exciting part of debate. I like questions trying to establish your own ground, discredit their arguments, and to show to me how you want to win. _Please please_ be nice, civil, and enjoy yourself.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Liz VanWingerden

Elizabeth VanWingerden

I default to policy making as my decision making paradigm. However, I will not limit debaters as to what they should and should not argue in round. Clarity and understanding are most important in your argumentation –if you don’t understand it, don’t run it. PROVIDE CLEAR EXPLANATIONS (especially in cross-ex and the rebuttals). Speed is not the concern, clarity is. I am judging you based on your arguments. Don’t expect me to vote on any claim that isn’t developed throughout the round. Be precise. I am a stickler on prep time. I will allow you some of my own time to give a road map, but if you’re still shuffling and running around looking for more paper, I’ll start your prep again. There’s a huge difference between being competitive and being rude. Don’t fall into the latter category.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Patrick Waldinger

Patrick Waldinger – Boston College

Updated 3.22.09

Background:
I am currently in my fourth year of coaching at Boston College. Before that, I received my Masters at Wake Forest where I was an assistant debate coach. I debated in college at The Catholic University of America and in high school at Cathedral Prep.

General Comments:
I prefer to hear fast, technical, policy debate. I have, however, voted for many different kinds of styles and arguments. I have also voted against many different styles and arguments.

I believe that it is non-negotiable that the affirmative has to defend a plan that is an example of the current CEDA debate resolution. I believe that the affirmative must defend the consequences of their plan as if the United States Federal Government were to actually enact your proposal.

I like to read a lot of cards at the end of debate so they better be good. If you don’t like judges who read a lot of evidence, then I am not the judge for you.

Plan:
You should read one and it should be relevant to the topic. In fact, it should be an example of the current CEDA resolution. Nothing more, nothing less.

Topicality:
Topicality is always a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. I’m a big fan of having to talk about the topic. There is a reason why we have one. I default to reasonability on T unless you give me a good reason not to.

Disads:
Yes. Good evidence is crucial.

Counterplans:
Sure. Although there are many types of counterplans that I find theoretically dubious – conditioning and consult CPs being high on my list. I don’t think the negative should be able to advocate more than one alternative policy proposal i.e., counterplan or alternative, in a debate.

Kritiks:
Okay. I don’t necessarily dislike the K, but I feel oftentimes it is unnecessarily confusing and fails the negative’s burden of rejoinder. The negative has to prove the plan is a bad idea, yet many times I judge the kritik and the negative makes no attempt to argue why the specific plan the affirmative is proposing is bad.

Theory:
I believe I hold almost opposite beliefs to the current debate community’s notion of what is theoretically legitimate, i.e., I am very conservative when it comes to debate. 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.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jonathan Ward

I am pretty much open to any argument, however my default will be that of a policy maker. I will look at the options presented to me and choose the one which would hypothetically create the best possible outcome. I am open to framework arguments or arguments that operate outside the policy framework but you will need to tell me how that functions and what my ballot serves as. I prefer specificity, the more generic an argument the less compelling I find it. This is especially true for the K. I like them but I need you to explain how voting for the alternative is a superior choice than plan (especially if the alternative is "reject global problem". How does my ballot do this?). Overviews are helpful, but try not to be redundant. I also try not to call for cards after the round unless there is ambiguity or a question about their content. I generally go with the spoken analysis of the card's meaning unless it is questioned by the opposing side. Therefore, it is really important that I am able to write down some way to reference the card, either the tag, the author, year something. Just make sure you slow down at a point where I can get that card reference.

Jonathan Ward
Syracuse University College of Law 2010
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs 2010
University of Richmond B.A. 2007



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Christy Webster

Christy Webster
USMA Debate Coach
Years Judging College: 7

Topicality: My default is that topicality is about competing interpretations of the resolution. Prove that yours is more net beneficial and provide an impact and you win the debate. I think of this as an evaluative tool for T debates and it applies to non-traditional aff's as well, unless the debaters provide me with an alternate framework. Spec args are fine also.

Theory: Love good technically proficient theory debates. Sentences like "Dispo solves the Neg's offense" are good but warranting them is even better. When I am judging a debate I always feel like it is more important to evaluate the arguments made as opposed to inserting my own personal opinion in the mix. However, when I say that to debaters they still seem to what to know what my general feeling is regarding things like Dispo and Agent CP's... So here you all go. I tend to think that Dispo is OK, Conditionality is rather shady and PICS can go either way depending on the nature of CP. Just to let you know... not a huge fan of the "Our K is a gateway arg". I think that it is often advantageous to have the groundwork for weighing the impacts to CP theory, perm theory, and alternative theory debates explicated and framed by the 1AR. This means reasons why this comes before T and warrants as to why it is a reason the reject the team and not just the arg should probably be made by that point in the debate.

Kritiks: For me, most times good critical debates that center around a position that has an alternative come down to offense (disads) to the permutation vs. in roads against the "solvability" of that alternative. I'd prefer not to feel as though I have to read a ton of your cards at the end of a round to synthesize your argument. My preference when I have to read evidence is to only read cards that is the focus of the finals rebuttals.

CP/DA: I heart a really involved DA/CP debate. I often think some of the best deployment of the DA involves interacting the disad impact with the case. Please take the time to kick them cleanly.

Framework- I really enjoy these debates. Framework debates necessitate that both teams do extremely effective impact work. My biggest suggestion when debating framework in front of me is to make sure to keep the rest of the debate in mind. How can your Aff be offensive even in a world that you are loosing a portion of the framework debate? Competitiveness- Are portions of the Neg’s framework not competitive with Aff's? How does that circumvent the Neg’s ability to garner offense off of the impacts to the framework debate?

Performance- I see a lot of it. I really enjoy these debates when they are done well and when, at the end of the round, there is an argument that is being made. I am not the best judge for you if your strategy is to say nothing in an effort to bait the other side into being the only one who actually makes an argument. I feel as though this leads to debate that are woefully underdeveloped, frustrating, and debate only actually occurs when the final rebutalists decide to finally illuminate why they think they should win. That being said if you are a performance team with a coherent arg you are good to go.

Run what you want and what you feel you are good at. Speed is fine. Speed and clarity are even better :) Please remember to be polite and considerate. I know many of us tend to turn into a cracked out version of Perry Mason when the timer starts but please forgo this urge and remain civil. Answer questions in CX. Being evasive/sketchy looks bad and makes you seem unsure/insecure about your args. Make me laugh. Don't steal prep. I hate it. No, I really hate it. I feel a certain burden to protect the 2NR from new and unpredictable 2AR extrapolations and cross applications. Finally, debate is for the debaters. Take what I have said above as a guide and not the end all. If you have any questions feel free to ask me! Good luck to all and have fun!

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Jake Weiner

Jake Weiner Years Coaching: 5ish
George Mason University Rounds: 70+
In general, I prefer specific argumentation to generic. This mostly applies to theory
debates. Basically, any number of generic arguments will not overcome a few specific
and well-linked arguments. This will actually save time in most cases for the debaters as
they can make fewer arguments that actually have some relevancy to the argument at
hand.
In general, I don’t read cards. When I read cards its only because there is a debate about
the evidence. This doesn’t mean that you repeat a name in the last rebuttal it means that
there is some debate about the relevancy of the evidence.
Theory: See above about specific argumentation. Also consider that I probably am
slightly affirmative leaning on “abusive” counterplans. I think that the negative in
general has the burden of defending the theoretical “goodness” of the counterplan. I
believe that, when questioned, the negative team has to justify the theoretical argument
they have presented, NOT the ability of the negative in general to make theoretical
arguments (e.g. negation theory isn’t even an argument, don’t even waste your breath).
Topicality: I believe an illustration of ground lost or preserved for either side’s
interpretation is the best way to evaluate topicality debates. This, I suppose, is pretty
obvious but I think it is important to remember and not lose focus on the importance of
the ultimate impact of topicality and how the standards and definitions relate to a good
division of ground. A side note, I, in general, look very unfavorably on things like Enact
is only legislation and other poor arguments like A-spec. There are times when these
should be used, but as a generic fall back strategies they will not go far with me.
Policy issues: I evaluate arguments to the best of my ability as they are presented in the
debate. I hope to evaluate the impacts as they are presented in the debate but when the
debaters do not provide this option I will fall back upon a risk/impact calculus. This does
not mean that the largest impact always wins. This means that likelihood of a risk along
with magnitude will determine the weight of the argument. In general, I don’t think that
saying the word “extinction” grants you the largest impact in a debate. I think a real
evaluation of the impact scenario and its effects will do much to overwhelm catch phase
impact assessment.
Critical arguments: I am no longer the policy Nazi that I was last year. There are
several good critical arguments that can be made on this topic and I will to the best of my
ability evaluate them. To make things easier on me, I would suggest that you phrase the
arguments in terms that I am better able to understand, i.e. link, impact, alternative. Also
I would not operate under the assumption that I understand what you are talking about
from the get go, if I were you.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Elizabeth Wiley

I was a “policy” debater in both high school and college. Since the end of my career, I have found that I am more receptive to critical arguments. This does not mean, however, that I am receptive to all “projects” (or really any at all). If you do not make arguments in a coherent manner, you like to kritik T, you think the resolution is a metaphor, or you don’t think you should be imprisoned by plan text in the 1AC, strike me. I think racism/sexism/homophobia/classism/elitism, etc in general are intolerable, but I will not endorse a team simply because of their relative disadvantage (or the opposition’s relative privilege) under the banner of “increasing meaningful minority participation” in the activity (primarily because I fundamentally believe such a strategy is counterproductive). I will entertain a wide range of “evidence” and presentation styles, but the bottom line is that you still have to engage the other team and talk about the topic.

It is important to note that the remainder of this judging philosophy is in a state of flux in any given debate. This is merely a presentation of some of my thoughts on the activity, but they are by no means static. I will always try to default to the way arguments actually develop in a given debate. I try not to be a truth-seeker. For this reason, the framing of the 2NR/2AR is pretty important in front of me.

Topicality: I generally default to viewing topicality in a “competing interpretations” framework. I, generally speaking, do not think that a negative team has to show “in round” abuse to win a T debate unless said argument is made/won. Specific, compelling examples and comparisons are always good.

Theory: I tend to see theoretical questions in much the same light as I see topicality. Just like about everyone else, I loathe the 2AC that speeds up as s/he reads the theory block. If you are going to go for theory (or are even thinking about it), you have to slow down. Generally speaking, I think plan and cp texts need to be static, specific entities (read: I will vote on aspec, but probably not ospec). I probably have a lower threshold for voting on well-developed theory than most judges.

Disads: They’re good. Run some. I’m a fan of a well-developed, updated politics story. Comparisons (of impacts, evidence, etc) are really important. On the aff, I think offense is indispensable. I will rarely assign a disad “no risk.”

Critical Arguments: See the introduction. I think that structure is pretty important to a kritik debate. Development of specific links, an implication, and perhaps an alternative are important.

Counterplans: I like them, especially innovative ones. CPs are best with specific solvency evidence. See the Theory section above.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Tansy Woan

Assistant Coach for Binghamton

Updated January 14, 2010

First, I think this topic is phenomenal. I have absolutely loved researching it the past few months and will reward people highly for topic specific arguments. I understand sometimes you may not have anything else to run but generic disads, generic kritiks, etc. in certain situations, which is fine, but specific links at least would be nice. The educational aspect of debate is highly important to me, and so the less educational I think you make the activity, the more frustrated I will become. This does not by any means indicate I will automatically vote against you. It's just something to keep in mind if you like high speaks.

Second, I don’t find myself being particularly invested in any specific style of debate. Do what you do best and win on it. Don’t try to adapt to what you think might be my personal preferences, because they change constantly. I’ve tried it all, and continue researching it all, and will do my best to be as open-minded as possible. Just defend what you are good at, and you will be fine. I have found this topic to be incredibly flexible and open to all types of arguments and I think more teams should take advantage of that. The only thing I ask is that you respect your opponents, regardless of any differences you may have.

Here are a few more specifics:

Topicality: I tend to defer to competing interpretations but can be persuaded that it might create a race to the bottom.

Framework: I like when debaters make more specific, nuanced arguments as opposed to reading Klinger’s old framework file verbatim. Feel free to critique framework, but you have to make actual arguments. “Framework is genocidal” for example, is not an argument. It’s an unwarranted claim that I may not even flow. Okay, that’s a lie. I flow everything. Sometimes more than I should. But you get the picture.

Kritiks: Be specific and apply it to the plan. Abstract mumbo jumbo that has nothing to do with the aff is unimpressive. Specific links are important, as are internal links which I think are missing from most K debates. Examples are great, so is impact calculus. Explain how the K would function in the world of plan passage and you'll be in a better position.

Disads/CPs: People see that I am from Binghamton and immediately decide not to read these in front of me. That is a poor decision and it drives me insane. I love a smart PIC with some sweet disads as net benefits. If this is your style of debate, BY ALL MEANS GO FOR IT. Honestly, this is the bulk of the research I've done for the year so you're doing yourself a disservice if you choose not to read these arguments based off any false assumptions you may make of my judging preferences.

Case: I love a good case debate! Don’t concede advantages. And if you do, be sure to at least explain why your disad impacts outweigh or your K renders them obsolete. If you’re aff and the neg doesn’t touch one of your advantages, capitalize on it in the 2AC. If it’s dropped after the 1AC and doesn’t reappear until the 2AR, I can’t expect the 2NR to have predicted that.

Theory: Conditionality can be good or bad, same for PICs. It’s up to you to tell me. (Personally, I’m convinced that PICs are fine, in fact I love them, but I have voted against them this year so going for theory is still a good option if that’s how you roll)

A few last do’s and don’ts:

DO ask me questions if you have any before the round starts.
DO be nice to your partner and your opponents. I can guarantee you lower speaker points if you start taking on douche-like behavior.
DO be funny. I love humor.

DON’T steal prep. I really, really hate people who steal prep.
DON’T make movie references. I live in a bubble. I won’t get them. I think I can count all the movies I’ve seen my entire life on my two hands.
DON’T think you automatically win if the other team concedes an argument. “They dropped it, we win” is unpersuasive. All judges love an easy way out to vote, but make sure you don’t skip out on an explanation or impact calculus.

Want high speaks?
Be nice, friendly, respectful, and strategic. That’s all I ask.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *